The Patna High Court, in an oral judgment dated 04 March 2021, dismissed a writ petition filed by postgraduate medical diploma students who sought upgradation of their ongoing diploma programmes to MD/MS degree courses in Patna Medical College. The petitioners had been admitted to diploma courses in Child Health, Orthopedics, and Obstetrics & Gynecology for the 2019–21 academic session and argued that subsequent policy changes enabling conversion of diploma seats into degree seats should allow them to switch mid-course. The Court declined relief, holding that the conversion was prospective (from 2020–21) and that permitting mid-course upgradation would offend equality principles governing competitive admissions.
The petitioners’ core case was that notifications issued by the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the Board of Governors (in supersession of the Medical Council of India) had set in motion a framework whereby recognized diploma seats could be surrendered in exchange for an equal number of MD/MS seats in corresponding subjects. They relied on public notices from January and March 2019 and asserted that institutions were invited to apply for increased PG degree seats under an earlier amendment dated 12 July 2018. The record recounted how the amendment allowed colleges to obtain degree seats by surrendering recognized diploma seats, which led to applications to increase PG capacity. The March 2019 public notice re-notified certain diploma courses—specifically including Child Health, Orthopedics, and Obstetrics & Gynecology at Patna Medical College—for inclusion in 2019–20 counselling because some diploma denotifications had not yet been matched by degree conversions, which would otherwise have reduced available PG seats.
However, the crucial factual point—emphasised by the Court—was that any recommendation to convert diploma seats into degree seats at Patna Medical College was only for the academic session 2020–21. The Court found a specific assertion in the writ petition claiming conversion from 2019–20 to be “palpably false” and “misleading,” noting that the recommendation (Annexure-7) spoke of prospective conversion from 2020–21, not 2019–20. This misstatement itself was treated as a ground to dismiss the petition.
Beyond the factual misstatement, the Court addressed the admission process. It reiterated that admissions to PG degree/diploma courses are made through a common entrance test, merit ranking, and counselling by the competent authority. The petitioners had secured seats in diploma courses based on their rank and the counselling outcome for 2019–21. Allowing them to migrate into newly notified degree seats meant for a later academic session would violate Article 14 by discriminating against more meritorious candidates who might have sought those degree seats when they were formally introduced. The petitioners were not applicants for the 2020–21 degree seats; hence, they had no right to occupy those seats outside the established admission framework.
On precedent, the petitioners cited Chairman, Central Council of Homoeopathy v. Varinder Singh (2001) 10 SCC 161. The Court explained why that decision did not assist them: the Supreme Court’s directions there were issued in the peculiar facts of that case and expressly stated not to be treated as a precedent. The Patna High Court thus held the reliance entirely misconceived.
In sum, the writ was dismissed as meritless. The High Court underscored two central principles: (1) seat conversion from diploma to degree at Patna Medical College was prospective from 2020–21; and (2) mid-course upgradation without following the entrance-cum-counselling regime would impermissibly disrupt merit-based admissions and violate equality.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment (For general public or government)
This judgment holds important guidance for medical education administrators, candidates, and policymakers in Bihar and across India:
• Prospective policy changes stay prospective: Where a regulator or the government approves conversion of diploma seats to degree seats, such change is not retroactive unless clearly stated. Students already admitted to diploma programmes cannot claim automatic migration to degree seats created for later sessions.
• Integrity of merit-based admissions: The Court prioritised fairness in competitive PG medical admissions. Allowing ad hoc upgradation for a specific batch would create inequality vis-à-vis others who competed for those degree seats. This decision reassures aspirants that counselling outcomes will not be disturbed by midstream policy adjustments.
• Administrative diligence matters—but within the law: Even if a college does not promptly apply for conversion when a policy window opens, that lapse does not entitle currently enrolled students to leapfrog into degree seats without satisfying the processes meant for those seats. Redress, if any, lies in policy design and timely institutional action, not in judicially created exceptions that undermine a uniform process.
• Guidance for future transitions: Where diploma courses are phased out in favour of degree courses, institutions and the government should give clear timelines, ensure that denotification does not inadvertently reduce seat availability, and—if feasible—create separate, transparent bridges or lateral schemes expressly authorised by regulation. Absent such rules, courts will not read in a right to migrate.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision with reasoning
• Whether postgraduate diploma students admitted in 2019–21 could be upgraded to MD/MS degree seats later created under a conversion policy
— Decision: No. The conversion at Patna Medical College was prospective for the 2020–21 session, not 2019–20, and petitioners could not claim seats for an academic session to which they never applied. The petitioners’ contrary assertion was found “palpably false.”
• Whether courts can direct mid-course migration from diploma to degree outside the counselling framework
— Decision: No. Admissions are governed by a common test and counselling. Upgrading only these candidates would disadvantage more meritorious aspirants and offend Article 14.
• Applicability of Varinder Singh (2001) 10 SCC 161 to seek conversion relief
— Decision: Not applicable. The Supreme Court’s order in that matter was confined to its peculiar facts and expressly not a precedent.
Judgments Referred by Parties (with citations)
• Chairman, Central Council of Homoeopathy v. Varinder Singh & Ors., (2001) 10 SCC 161 (relied upon by the petitioners).
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court (with citations)
• The Court discussed and distinguished Chairman, Central Council of Homoeopathy v. Varinder Singh & Ors., (2001) 10 SCC 161, noting its non-precedential character in the facts of this case.
Case Title
CWJC No. 7548 of 2020 (Patna High Court) — petition by postgraduate diploma students versus Union of India & Ors. (parties anonymised as per this blog’s policy).
Case Number
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7548 of 2020.
Citation(s)
2021(2) PLJR 63
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh.
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
• For the petitioners: Mr. Binodanand Mishra, Advocate.
• For the respondents: Mr. (Dr.) K. N. Singh, Assistant Solicitor General; Mr. Abhay Shankar Jha, Advocate.
Link to Judgment
https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjNzU0OCMyMDIwIzEjTg==-xKJP–am1–5Su0Ak=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
