Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7
PETITIONER:
KUMARI SUNEETA RAMCHANDRA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT13/03/1986
BENCH:
MADON, D.P.
BENCH:
MADON, D.P.
OZA, G.L. (J)
CITATION:
1986 AIR 1552 1986 SCR (1) 697
1986 SCC (2) 348 1986 SCALE (1)511
CITATOR INFO :
RF 1988 SC 782 (28)
ACT:
Professional colleges - Admission to - Reservation of
seats for children of Central Government Servants
transferred to State of Maharashtra from outside the State -
"Shall not exceed two in all the Government medical
colleges" in Rule C6 (ii) of Medical Colleges of the
Government of Maharashtra Rules for Admissions 1985-86 -
Interpretation of.
Interpretation of Statutes:
Rules - Intention of the Government - To be judged from
wordings of the provision and not from the manner of
implementation.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant’s father, a Central Government servant,
was transferred from Hyderabad in the State of Andhra
Pradesh to Nagpur in the State of Maharashtra. The appellant
had passed SSC Examination from Andhra Pradesh. At Nagpur,
she passed the HSC (XII Standard) Examination, this being
one of the qualifyinng examinations for admission to the
Medical Colleges in the State of Maharashtra. She applied
for admission to the MBBS course to the Nagpur Medical
College under Rule C6 (ii) of the Medical Colleges of the
Government of Maharashtra Rules for Admissions, 1985-86,
wich inter alia, provides that the total number of the
children of Central Government Servants transferred to
Maharashtra State from outside the State, to be admitted
with certain concessions shall not exceed two in all
Government Medical Colleges. Though the appellant was third
in the combined merit list, she was denied admission
alleging that as only two seats were provided for candidates
falling in the category under Rule C6(ii), she was not
eligible for admission.
The appellant filed a writ petition under Art.226 and
the same was dismissed.
698
In the appeal to this Court, on behalf of the appellant
it was contended that each Government Medical College will
have a total number of two seats for admission of the
candidates falling in the category under Rule C-6 (ii).
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that the
total number of seats in all the Government Medical Colleges
in the State taken together would be only two and that
selection for admission of candidates falling in this
category is made not by the Dean but by the Joint Director,
Education and Reserch, Bombay, from the common merit list.
Allowing the appeal,
^
HELD : 1. When the Rule C6 (ii) of the Medical Colleges
of the Government of Maharashtra Rules for Admissions, 1985-
86, states that "the total number of such children of
Central Government servants to be admitted with this
concession shall not exceed two in all Government Medical
Colleges", it does not mean that the total number of such
children of Central Government servants to be admitted with
this concession shall not exceed two in all Government
Medical Colleges taken together. It means that all
Government Medical Colleges, that is to say, each and every
Government Medical College, will admit children of Central
Government servants falling in the category specified in
Rule C6 (ii) not exceeding two in number provided that they
satisfy the qualifications prescribed by Rule C(3). This is
made abundantly clear by the sentence which immediately
follows "Only such candidates who are in the merit list of
Higher Secondary Certificate, that is (10+2) 12th standard
examination at the respective medical colleges will be
considered for admission against the two seats". The use of
the phrase "at the respective medical colleges" would be
meaningless if the two seats for this category were to be
for all the Government medical colleges taken together in
the State of Maharashtra. [702 G-H; 703 A-C]
2. Under Rule E(3), it is the Dean who is entrusted
with the work of admission to his college. This rule cannot
possibly be applied if only two candidates falling in the
category specified in Rule C (6)(ii) are to be admitted in
all the Government Medical Colleges of the State taken
together.
699
The Rules do not provide for any method of selection by the
Joint Director, Education and Research. [703 C-E]
3. The 1982-83 Rules and the 1983-84 Rules contained an
identical provision. A change was made in the 1984-85 Rules
and this provision occurred in Rule 3(b) of those Rules. The
High Court adopted an unusual and novel method of
interpretation. It held that of the three sets of rules the
1985-86 Rules were clear, the 1984-85 Rules were clearer and
the 1981-82 Rules were the clearest but if there was any
doubt, the interpretation placed by the authorities should
be accepted because their interpretation was entitled to
preference as they knew their intention best. Whatever may
have been the intention of the Government, when such
intention is translated into a statute or rule, whether the
interpretation has been implemented or not can only be
judged by the wordings of the particular provision of such
statute or rule. In the 1981-82 Rules, the words used were
"in all the Government Medical Colleges taken together". The
qualifying words "taken together" were dropped from the
1984-85 Rules. They also do not feature in Rule C6(ii) of
the 1985-86 Rules. Thus, the 1984-85 Rules and 1985-86 Rules
made a departure from what was provided in 1981-82 Rules.
This shows that the intention was to provide two seats in
each Government Medical College for the children of Central
Government Servants transferred to the State of Maharashtra
from outside the State. Such an intention is based on
logical considerations. [704 A-F]
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7
4. As the appellant was the only candidate who had
applied for admission to the Nagpur Medical College and
fulfilled all the other requirements of Rule C6(ii), on the
interpretation which this Court has placed on that Rule, she
would be entitled for admission to that college. [705 C-D]
During the pendency of the special leave petition, the
Government reconsidered the matter and gave admission to the
Appellant. Therefore, it is unnecessary to consider the
validity of Rule C(5), except to state that this Court does
not agree with the High Court when it has said that there is
nothing abhorrant about the requirement contained in that
Rule. [705 E-F]
Dr. Pradeep Jain etc. v. Union of India & Ors. etc.
[1984] 3 S.C.R. 942, referred to.
700
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 628 of
1986.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10th September, 1985
of the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 1683 of 1985.
V.A. Bobde and A.G. Ratnaparkhi for the Appellant.
A.M. Khanwilkar and A.S. Bhasma for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MADON, J. This Appeal by Special Leave granted by this
Court is directed against the judgment and order of the
Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court whereby the High Court
dismissed with no order as to the costs the writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (being Writ
Petition No. 1683 of 1985) filed by the Appellant seeking
admission in the Medical College, Nagpur.
The facts giving rise to this Appeal require to be
briefly stated. The Appellant’s father, who is in the
service of the Central Government and was working in the
Geological Survey of India, was transferred on March 3,
1983, from Hyderabad in the State of Andhra Pradesh to
Nagpur in the State of Maharashtra. In 1983 the Appellant
passed the S.S.C. examination of the Board of Secondary
Education, Andhra Pradesh, in First Division. After coming
to Nagpur along with her father she joined Hislop College,
Nagpur, from where she passed in 1985 the H.S.C. (XII
Standard) Examination of the Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary and Higher Education, Nagpur Divisional Board,
Nagpur, in First Division, this being one of the qualifying
examinations for admission to the medical colleges in the
State of Maharashtra. Accordingly, she applied for admission
to the M.B.B.S. course at the two Government colleges which
are at Nagpur, namely, the Nagpur Medical College and the
Indira Gandhi Medical College. Under the rules, the
application forms for admission to these colleges are to be
sent to the Dean, Medical College, Nagpur, who is the Second
Respondent before us. She based her claim for admission upon
Rule C(6)(ii) of the Medical Colleges of the Government of
Maharashtra Rules for Admission, 1985-86
701
(hereinafter referred to as "the 1985-86 Rules"). Not having
secured admission to either of the said two medical colleges
at Nagpur, she filed a writ petition before the Nagpur Bench
of the Bombay High Court which was dismissed by the High
Court negativing the construction sought to be placed upon
the said Rule C(6)(ii) by the Appellant. It is against this
judgment and order that the present Appeal by Special Leave
is filed.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7
Though a number of contentions have been raised in the
Petition for Special Leave, in view of the interpretation we
are placing upon Rule C(6)(ii) of the 1985-86 Rules, it is
unnecessary to go into any other question. The 1985-86 Rules
are an annexure to the Government of Maharashtra Resolution
in the Medical Education and Drugs Department No. MPD-
1084/7575/-MED-4 dated December 21, 1984. This Resolution
shows that the rules for admission into the medical colleges
were revised and substituted by the 1985-86 Rules in view of
certain judgments of the Bombay High Court, namely, the
judgments in Writ Petitions Nos. 1753 of 1982, 2360 of 1983
and 3238 of 1984 and the judgment of this Court in Dr.
Pradeep Jain Etc. v. Union of India & Ors. etc., [1984] 3
S.C.R. 942 relating to reservation of seats in Government
medical colleges in the State. Leaving aside unnecessary
details, it will be sufficient to state that Rule C(5)
provides that in addition to the qualifications set out
earlier only those candidates would be eligible for
admission to the medical colleges who have passed the S.S.C.
or Senior Cambridge or Indian School Certificate or
equivalent examination from any of the recognized schools in
the Maharashtra State. Rule C(6) contains certain exceptions
to Rule C(5). We are concerned in this Appeal with the
second exception contained in Rule C(6) (ii). The said Rule
C(6)(ii) provides as follows :
"(ii) The sons/daughters of Central Government
servants transferred to Maharashtra State from
outside the State shall have the concession of
exemption from passing the S.S.C. or equivalent
examination from Maharashtra State, subject to the
condition that the child has passed at least the
qualifying examination as defined in Rule C(3)
above. The total number of such children of
Central Government servants to be admitted with
this concession shall not exceed two in all
Government
702
Medical Colleges. Only such candidates who are in
the merit list of Higher Secondary Certificate,
i.e. (10+2) 12th standard examination at the
respective medical colleges will be considered for
admission against the two seats. This rule does
not confer the right of reservation for the
children of Central Government servants."
(Emphasis supplied.)
There is no dispute that the Appellant fulfilled all
the conditions of the 1985-86 Rules. She had passed the
qualifying examination and was in the merit list as also in
the combined list for the two medical colleges, Nagpur. She
was also the only candidate falling within the scope of the
exception contained in Rule C(6)(ii) so far as the two
medical colleges in Nagpur were concerned. The only dispute
is whether, in view of the provisions of the said Rule
C(6)(ii), there was a seat available for her in either of
the said two colleges.
It was the submission of the Appellant that on a true
construction of Rule C(6)(ii) all Government medical
colleges in the State of Maharashtra are to have two seats
for the sons and daughters of Central Government servants
transferred to the State of Maharashtra from outside the
State, that is to say, that each Government medical college
will have a total number of two seats for candidates for
admission falling in this category. The construction sought
to be placed by the Respondents upon the said Rule C(6)(ii),
on the other hand, was that the total number of seats in all
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7
the Government medical colleges in the State taken together
would be only two. It is the Respondents’ interpretation
which found favour with the High Court.
We are unable to accept the interpretation placed by
the High Court upon Rule C(6)(ii). When Rule C(6)(ii) states
that "the total number of such children of Central
Government servants to be admitted with this concession
shall not exceed two in all Government Medical Colleges", it
does not mean that the total number of such children of
Central Government servants to be admitted with this
concession shall not exceed two in all Government Medical
Colleges taken together. It means that all Government
Medical Colleges taken that is to
703
say, each and every Government Medical College, will admit
children of Central Government servants falling in the
category specified in Rule C(6)(ii) not exceeding two in
number, provided that they satisfy the qualifications
prescribed by Rule C(3). This is made abundantly clear by
the sentence which immediately follows the one which we have
quoted earlier, namely, "Only such candidates who are in the
merit list of Higher Secondary Certificate, i.e. (10+2) 12th
standard examination at the respective medical colleges will
be considered for admission against the two seats." The use
of the phrase "at the respective medical colleges" would be
meaningless if the two seats for this category were to be
for all the Government medical colleges taken together in
the State of Maharashtra. It is pertinent to note that under
Rule E(3), it is the Dean who is entrusted with the work of
admission to his college. This Rule cannot possibly be
applied if only two candidates falling in the category
specified in Rule C(6)(ii) are to be admitted in all the
Government medical colleges of the State taken together. It
was submitted on behalf of the Respondents that so far as
admission of candidates falling in this category is
concerned, the selection is made not by the Dean but by the
Joint Director, Education and Research, Bombay, from the
common merit list. The Rules do not provide for any such
method of selection. Rule E(3) is categorical on the point
that the selection is to be made by the Dean of each
college.
The interpretation which we have placed upon Rule
C(6)(ii) is reinforced by comparing this Rule as it features
in the 1985-86 Rules with a similar rule in the 1981-82
Rules which for the first time created the exception in case
of Central Government servants. That Rule provided as
follows :
"The Central Government servants transferred to
Maharashtra from outside the State shall have a
similar facility in respect of their children
subject to the condition that the child has passed
at least the qualifying examination as defined in
rule 2(a). The total number of such children of
Central Government servants so admitted with this
concession shall not exceed two in all the
Government Medical College taken together."
(Emphasis supplied)
704
It appears that the 1982-83 Rules and the 1983-84 Rules
contained an identical provision. A change was made in this
provision in the 1984-85 Rules and this provision as
occurring in Rule 3(b) of those rules was as follows :
"The total number of such children of Central
Government servants to be admitted with this
concession shall not exceed two in all the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7
Government Medical Colleges."
(Emphasis supplied)
When dealing with this position, the High Court adopted
an unusual and novel method of interpretation. It held that
of the above three sets of rules the 1985-86 Rules were
clear, the 1984-85 Rules were clearer and the 1981-82 Rules
were the clearest but if there was any doubt, the
interpretation placed by the authorities should be accepted
because their interpretation was entitled to preference as
they knew their intention best. Whatever may have been the
intention of the Government, when such intention is
translated into a statute or rule, whether the
interpretation has been implemented or not can only be
judged by the wordings of the particular provision of such
statute or rule. In the 1981-82 Rules the words used were
"in all the Government Medical Colleges taken together". The
qualifying words "taken together" were dropped from the
1984-85 Rules. They also do not feature in Rule C(6)(ii) of
the 1985-86 Rules. Thus, the 1984-85 Rules and 1985-86 Rules
made a departure from what was provided in the 1981-82
Rules. This, on the contrary, shows that the intention was
to provide two seats in each Government Medical College for
the children of Central Government servants transferred to
the State of Maharashtra from outside the State. Such an
intention is based on logical considerations. A large number
of Central Government servants are transferred from one
State to another. They are sent on deputation or appointed
to various posts in public sector undertakings and
Government companies. Their children, therefore, must of
necessity often be educated in different States. It cannot
be that those who serve the Central Government should be
rewarded by placing obstacles in the way of the educational
careers of their children.
It was also submitted on behalf of the Appellant that
Rule C(5) which provides that only those candidates would be
705
eligible for admission to the medical colleges who have
passed the S.S.C. or Senior Cambridge or Indian School
Certificate or equivalent examination from any of the
recognised schools in the State of Maharashtra was violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution. In support of this
contention reliance was placed upon the case of Dr. Pradeep
Jain etc. v. Union of India & Ors. etc. Events subsequent to
the filing of the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal filed
by the Appellant make it unnecessary to decide this point.
The Appellant was third in the combined merit list. She was
not given admission on the ground that as only two seats
were provided for children of Central Government servants
transferred to the State of Maharashtra from outside the
State, she was not eligible for admission under Rule
C(6)(ii). As she was the only candidate who had applied for
admission to the Nagpur Medical College and fulfilled all
the other requirements of Rule C(6)(ii) on the
interpretation which we have placed on that Rule, she would
be entitled for admission to that college. By an interim
order passed by this Court on October 17, 1985, one seat in
the Government Medical College, Nagpur, in the 1st year of
the M.B.B.S. course had been kept unfilled and the Appellant
would be entitled to be admitted against that seat. During
the pendency of the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal an
affidavit of the Under-Secretary to the Government of
Maharashtra, Medical, Education and Drugs Department,
affirmed on November 5, 1985, was filed before us in which
it was stated that the Government had reconsidered the
matter and the Dean of the Nagpur Medical College had been
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7
directed to grant admission to the Appellant. The Appellant
had thus secured the admission she wanted. In view of this,
it is unnecessary for us to consider the validity of Rule
C(5) except to state that we do not agree with the High
Court when it has said that there is nothing abhorrent about
the requirement contained in the said Rule. The question of
validity of Rule C(5) requires careful consideration and it
cannot be brushed aside in the manner in which the High
Court has done. As stated earlier, we, however, leave this
question open.
In the result, this Appeal must succeed and is allowed.
The judgment of the High Court appealed against is reversed
and the order passed by it dismissing. Writ Petition No.1683
of 1985 filed by the Appellant is set aside but as the
706
Appellant has already been admitted into the Nagpur Medical
College, we do not pass any further order or give any
direction in the matter.
The First Respondent will pay to the Appellant the
costs of this Appeal.
A.P.J. Appeal allowed.
707