The impugned decision raising the “cut-off” mark from 110 to 120 being not taken by the BMDC was coram non-judice and as such illegal.
The Appellate Division held that the impugned decision raising the minimum “cut-off” mark from 110 to 120 was taken by a committee headed by the respondent No. 1 and not by the Council, namely, Bangladesh Medical and Dental Council (BMDC) which has been formed as per law, namely, Bangladesh Medical and Dental Council Act, 2010. Section 5 of this Act shows that this Council (BMDC) is empowered to deal with almost all the matters relating to Medical and Dental Institutions including framing of guidelines etc. for admission to M.B.B.S and B.D.S. courses. The setting of “cut-off” mark for being eligible for admission to M.B.B.S. and B.D.S. courses falls within these powers of BMDC and as such the BMDC only is empowered to fix or set the minimum “cut-off” mark for being eligible for admission to these courses. Admittedly, the impugned decision raising the “cut-off” mark from 110 to 120 was not taken by this BMDC, rather it was taken by the respondent No. 1 and some other per-sons. It might be that some of the members of the committee which took this decision of raising the “cut-off” mark were members of this BMDC also, but that did not authorize that committee to assume the power of BMDC.
Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare -Vs.- Bangladesh Private Medical Colleges Association (BPMCA) (Civil) 12 ALR (AD) 139-143

It is generally said no one shall be permitted to profit by his fraud, or to take advantage of his own wrong–– The settled principle of law that one who comes to equity must come in clean hands. The respondent having resorted to fraudulent means cannot take shelter either under law or equity and, as such, the respondent should not be allowed to attend sit for examination and continue his medical studies. ––The BMDC has taken the decision after conducting necessary inquiry and cross matching the results with the records of the DG Health. As such, neither the BMDC nor the Gonoshasthaya Samaj Vittik Medical College did commit any illegality in issuing the impugned letters in refusing to grant registration to the Respondent No.1. .....Bangladesh Medical and Dental Council =VS= Shah Md. Arman, (Civil), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 548] ....View Full Judgment

Council (BMDC) is empowered to deal with almost all the matters relating to Medical and Dental Institutions including framing of guidelines etc. for admission to M.B.B.S and B.D.S. courses– The impugned decision raising the minimum “cut-off” mark from 110 to 120 was taken by a committee headed by the respondent No.1 and not by the Council, namely, Bangladesh Medical and Dental Council (BMDC) which has been formed as per law, namely, Bangladesh Medical and Dental Council Act, 2010. Section 5 of this Act shows that this Council (BMDC) is empowered to deal with almost all the matters relating to Medical and Dental Institutions including framing of guidelines etc. for admission to M.B.B.S and B.D.S. courses. The setting of “cut-off” mark for being eligible for admission to M.B.B.S. and B.D.S. courses falls within these powers of BMDC and as such the BMDC only is empowered to fix or set the minimum “cut-off” mark for being eligible for admission to these courses. Admittedly, the impugned decision raising the “cut-off” mark from 110 to 120 was not taken by this BMDC, rather it was taken by the respondent No.1 and some other persons. It might be that some of the members of the committee which took this decision of raising the “cut-off” mark were members of this BMDC also, but that did not authorize that committee to assume the power of BMDC. So, it is apparent that the impugned decision raising the “cut-off” mark from 110 to 120 being not taken by the BMDC was coram non-judice and as such illegal.
The materials on record it appears that some of the private medical colleges have already admitted some students to M.B.B.S course who could not score the minimum “cut-off” mark set by the impugned decision. As we have found this impugned decision raising the “cut-off” mark from 110 to 120 illegal the students who have already been admitted to different private medical colleges should be allowed to continue their study. Civil appeal thus be dismissed with the above observations. …Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, BD =VS= BPMCA, (Civil), 2020 (1) [8 LM (AD) 123] ....View Full Judgment

The Appellate Division observed that if law authorized the competent authority to initiate a criminal proceedings against them for violation of law, a court of law cannot debar the authority to initiate proceedings for violation of such law. Therefore, the High Court Division has acted illegally in making the impugned direction.
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare -Vs.- Asit Baran Nath 6 ALR (AD) 2015 (2)114 ....View Full Judgment

The Appellate Division observed that if law authorized the competent authority to initiate a criminal proceedings against them for violation of law, a court of law cannot debar the authority to initiate proceedings for violation of such law. Therefore, the High Court Division has acted illegally in making the impugned direction.
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare -Vs.- Asit Baran Nath 6 ALR (AD) 2015 (2)114

The Dhaka University Order, 1973
Article 4 & 25 r/w
The Medical and Dental Council Ain, 2010
Section 43
Admission of Student decision involving policy– It is now settled that the court will not interfere with policy decision merely because it feels that another policy decision could have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or logical (Balco Employees Union V. India, 2002 (2) SCC 3330). This court accepted the views taken in that case and we find no cogent reason to differ from the same. Same principle is applicable in case of admission of students, inasmuch as, it is the policy decision of the University authority. Every organ of the State should be allowed to perform its onerous responsibility in accordance with their respective laws. If the court interferes with their internal administration and the eligibility of admission of students in any University, this will tantamount to exercise of a power not vested in law. The court should refrain itself from interfering with the internal administration of an authority if such authority does not contravene the law. .....VC, University of Dhaka =VS= A.K.M. Muid, (Civil), 2017(2)- [3 LM (AD) 470] ....View Full Judgment