Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11
PETITIONER:
KRISHNA PRIYA GANGULY ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNIVERSITY OF LUCKNOW & ORS. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT07/10/1983
BENCH:
FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA
BENCH:
FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA
VARADARAJAN, A. (J)
THAKKAR, M.P. (J)
CITATION:
1984 AIR 186 1984 SCR (1) 302
1984 SCC (1) 307 1983 SCALE (2)877
ACT:
Admissions to post-graduate courses in medicine-
Directions granting provisional admissions pending disposal
of petitions-approach by Courts.
State Government orders laying down criteria for
admissions-Whether of statutory effect, when they are
consistent with rules framed by Medical Council of India?
HEADNOTE:
This batch of appeals arose out of admissions sought by
several candidates to post-graduate courses in the Medical
Colleges of Uttar Pradesh. While in some of them the
candidates were the appellants and the State the respondent,
in others it was vice versa. By an order dated 3-12-1980 the
State Government had laid down that admissions were to be
made purely on the basis of merit, the criterion being the
total percentage of marks obtained by the candidate in the
M.B.B.S. examination. In as many as 9 out of the 20 appeals,
the candidates who had been given provisional admissions
pursuant to interim orders made by the Court had completed
their courses and only their results were to be declared. In
all those cases, the State, realising the futility of
forcing the candidates to complete the course all over
again, conceded that the results of such candidates may be
declared and on passing the same they would be admitted to
the courses concerned though the candidates in question were
lacking in merit and their original rejection was justified.
In one of the appeals filed by the State, the candidate in
question had obtained only 43 percent marks at the M.B.B.S.
examination and happened to be the last candidate in the
list of persons who had applied for admission to the post-
graduate course. Although the candidate had merely prayed
for a writ directing the State or the college to consider
his case for admission, the High Court, relying mainly on
the fact that the candidate had a diploma to his credit,
straightway issued a writ of mandamus directing the college
to admit him to the course applied for, thereby granting a
relief which the candidate himself had not prayed for.
HELD: The practice of forcing the authorities to grant
provisional admissions has been evolved keeping in view the
fact that on account of huge accumulation of arrears in
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11
courts it takes a long time for petitions to be disposed of.
By the time the cases come up for hearing, the rejected
candidates might have completed their course and become
eligible for admission to the higher course although the
court may ultimately find that their initial rejection was
justified and they did not deserve to be admitted to the
course. Such a situation becomes a sort of fait accompli for
those in charge of the institutions
303
as a result of which the candidates are admitted in due
deference to the desire of the court by increasing or
creating vacancies even in the absence of proper facilities
to train the extra candidates. Unless the institutions can
provide complete facilities for the training of each
candidate admitted in the various disciplines, the medical
education will be incomplete and the universities would be
turning out doctors not fully qualified which would
adversely affect the health of the people in general.
Therefore, the practice of lightly granting provisional
admissions should be discontinued in future. Whenever a writ
petition is filed, provisional admission should not be given
as a matter of course on the petition being admitted unless
the court is fully satisfied that the petitioner has a cast-
iron case which is bound to succeed or the error is so gross
or apparent that no other conclusion is possible. In order
to test this fact, even a short notice may be given to
explore as to what the other side has to say and thereafter
if the court is satisfied that there is a strong prima facie
case and the matter needs thorough examination, provisional
admission may be given.
The State Government order dated 3-12-1980 prescribing
the criteria for admission to post-graduate courses in
Medical Colleges made under s.28(5) of the U. P. State
Universities Act, 1973, is fully consistent with the tenor
and spirit of the rules framed by the Medical Council of
India. The rules framed by the Medical Council of India have
a statutory effect under s.33 of the Indian Medical Council
Act, 1956 and are binding on all the colleges and
universities providing for medical education in the country.
The High Court had made a very arbitrary, casual and
laconic approach to the case of the candidate who had
obtained 43 per cent marks and based its judgment purely on
speculation and conjectures swept away by the consideration
that the candidate possessed a diploma to his credit when,
in fact, other candidates also had obtained diploma and that
could not be taken into consideration under the prescribed
rules.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 133-
134, 137-140, 142-146, 595, 3045-3046 of 1982.
(Appeals by Special leave Petitions from the Judgment
and Order dated the Ist October, 1981 & 14th August, 1981 of
the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) in Writ Petition
Nos. 1834, 3946, 3825,2953, 4177, 4163,4234, 4319,4320,
3591, 3775, 2952 and 1662 of 1981).
With
Civil Appeal No. 3047 of 1982
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order
dated the 19th March, 1982 of the Allahabad High Court
(Lucknow Bench) in WP. No. 4245 of 1981.
304
ADVOCATES FOR THE APPEARING PARTIES:
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11
S. N. Kacker, Ms. S. Bhandare, T. Sridharan & Ms. C. K.
Sudhariata.
K. K. Jain, M. D. Sagar, P. Dayal, Pankaj Kalra, R. P.
Singh, v. A. Bobde, K. J. John, Altaf Ahmed, Kailash Vasdev,
Ms. Vrinda, Anil Kumar Gupta, Brij Bhushan, Kapil Sibil, Ms.
S. Dikshit, Sudhi Kulshreshtha, B.R. Agarwala, R.H.
Pancholi, Vijayalakshmi Menon & B.P. Singh.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Fazal Ali. J.: Soon after our hard won freedom there
was a gradual rise in the urban population in view of the
process of industrialisation and setting up of heavy
projects and industries in order to make our country more
and more self-sufficient. This led to a certain spurt and
rise in the urban population as people from the rural areas
started pouring into the urban cities which provided far
better opportunities for education and employment than the
rural areas. This sudden increase in urban population led to
the spread of epidemics and diseases resulting in a rapid
growth of educational institutions both in the public and
private sectors.
In these appeals, we are concerned only with the
medical education; the Government had to face a serious
problem with the coming up of medical colleges which started
growing like mushrooms and were charging huge capitation
fees to make substantial profits without providing proper
medical education and caring precious little for achieving
excellence of standards in medical education which, if
denuded of such standards, would pose a serious health
hazard to the people. Surely, we would not wish that people
who could ill-afford to go in for well equipped expensive
medical practitioners should be thrown at the mercy of
quacks. Similar situation arose in technical, engineering
and other kinds of institutions but we would concentrate on
the feature and facets of medical education which alone
forms the subject-matter of these appeals. We have seen from
our experience that each year there is a huge rush for
admission to seats in medical colleges for various courses,
which being rather few and insufficient to control or absorb
all sorts and kinds of candidates as the well-known Persian
proverb "JAYE TANG AST WA MARDUMA BISYAR" (i.e. little space
and people many) seems aptly to apply in such a situation.
However, in order to meet the
305
contingency resulting from a heavy rush for admissions the
institutions set up certain standards or tests which had to
be complied with before candidates could be admitted. Here
also, as in other spheres, favouritism and nepotism have
their own role to play as a result of which merits suffer.
In order to meet these contingencies and ward off such
evils, the Government through its circulars and the Medical
Council of India being alive to this delicate and difficult
problem sought to solve the problem by making rules and
regulations for admission of candidates to various courses
in different disciplines (subjects) to achieve excellence in
medical standards keeping in view statutory and
constitutional reservations. Unfortunately, however, these
rules were often flouted and observed more in breach than in
compliance by those who were in charge of the medical
education: the result was again a huge spurt of writ
petitions in the High Court to weed out the inefficient and
ineligible and absorb the efficient and eligible,
With this short prelude, now to the facts of the case
which disclose a sad story indeed-not because those in
charge of the institutions commit errors but because the
courts start directing the authorities to grant provisional
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11
admissions to students even if they did not deserve the same
in some cases. Experience has shown that in view of the huge
accumulation of arrears in courts, it takes a long time for
the petitions to be disposed of, hence we have evolved the
practice of forcing the authorities to grant provisional
admissions which has resulted in a piquant and pungent
situation because by the time the case comes up for hearing,
the rejected candidates having completed their course and
having appeared at the examination with every hope of
success become eligible for admission to the higher course
in case of success though the Court may ultimately find that
their initial rejection was justified. Such a situation
becomes a sort of a fait accompli for those in charge of the
institutions as a result of which the candidates are
admitted in due deference to the desire of the court by
increasing or creating vacancies even in the absence of
suitable and proper facilities to train the extra
candidates. This results in an anathema and a dilemma for
which there is hardly any remedy. The present cases are a
clear illustration of this problem Our suggestions,
therefore, is that whenever a writ petition is filed
provisional admission should not be given as a matter of
course on the petition being admitted unless the court is
fully satisfied that the petitioner has a cast-iron case
which is bound to succeed or the error is so gross or
apparent that no other conclusion is possible. In order,
however, to test this fact even a short notice may be given
to
306
explore as to what the other side has to say and thereafter
if the court is satisfied that there is strong prima facie
case and the matter needs thorough examination, provisional
admission may be given. We hope and trust that the High
Courts would in future discontinue the practice of lightly
granting provisional admission to the candidates at the time
of regular admissions, as observed above. It is needless to
state that this Court on its part would also be extremely
reluctant to grant provisional admission and would do so
only in a very special case. The fundamental reason for this
is that otherwise the institutions are likely to become
overcrowded by candidates, eligible or ineligible, efficient
or inefficient. Unless the Institutions can provide complete
and full facilities for the training of each candidate who
is admitted in the various disciplines, the medical
education will be incomplete and the universities would be
turning out Doctors not fully qualified which would
adversely affect the health of the people in general.
Out of these appeals, some of them have been dismissed
as not pressed, others were heard on merits. By the time the
case was taken up by this Court, in as many as 9 out of the
20 appeals the candidates had completed their courses and as
only the result had to be declared, the counsel for the
State with his usual fairness, realising the futility of
forcing the candidates to complete the course all over again
conceded that the results of such candidates may be declared
and on passing the same they would be admitted to the
courses concerned though the petitioners were lacking in
merits and their original rejection was justified. We made
this direction by a formal order, the reasons for which we
would give hereafter.
This now brings us to the consideration of the appeals
which survive. Before dealing with the individual cases of
the appellants/respondents, it may be necessary for us to
adjudicate on the validity of the circulars passed by the
Government and the rules and regulations framed by the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11
Medical Council of India, to put the matter beyond
controversy so that a consistent test may be applied to all
candidates desiring admission and unless rules are adhered
to, admissions would be denied in which case this Court will
not interfere in the absence of a plea of prejudice or bias
which would be naturally for the candidates to establish.
In some cases the candidates are appellants and in a
few the State is the appellant and therefore for facility,
the candidates who have filed appeals against refusal for
admission to the M.D.M.S.
307
Course of the king Georges Medical College, affiliated to
the Lucknow University, will hereinafter be referred to as
the candidates’ and the State of Uttar Pradesh will be
referred to as the ’State’. We might also mention that
before the appeals were heard on merit, C.A. Nos. 132 and
136/82 were dismissed as not pressed, owing to lack of
instructions, by our order dated 17-8-83 and C.A. Nos. 135,
141 and 163/82 were also dismissed by this Court as not
pressed. Thus, the appeals filed by the candidates or the
State which survive, alone need be adjudicated by this
Court. The facts of the case, the grounds taken by the
candidates or the State and other details have been very
clearly set out in the judgment of the High Court and it is
not necessary for us to repeat the same all over again.
The appeals arise out of the admissions sought by
several candidates to the M.D.M.S. courses for the year
1981-82, the session starting from 1.4.1981. In order to
regulate the admission of the candidates to the M.D.M.S.
course the Government by an order dated 3.12.80 laid down
the tests and criteria for admitting the candidates to the
courses in various disciplines. The High Court has rightly
pointed out that there are diverse modes of determining
one’s merit which, in our opinion, is of prime importance
because while admitting candidates to M.D. course every
precaution should be taken to rule out inefficiency or
incompetency lest the candidate admitted and passed, turns
out to be a serious health hazard to the people who are to
be treated by him. The High Court further pointed out that
merit should be determined with reference to good academic
career or to the performance at the last M.B.B.S.
examination or at the last qualifying examination. It is
common ground that in these cases of the candidates, they
had passed their MBBS examination securing aggregate marks
ranging from 63% to 43% in various disciplines. The main
disciplines in which the admissions were sought by the
candidates were-M.D. (obstetrician & Gynaecology), M.D.
(Anaesthesia), M.S. (Orthopaedic Surgery), M.D.
(Paediatrics), M.D. (Medicine) and M.D. (Tuberculosis)
differing from candidate to candidate. The Government by its
order dated 3.12.80, as mentioned above, chose the safest
method to determine the merit and suitability for the
candidates to be admitted to the M.D./M.S. courses on the
basis that the admission should be made purely on merit as
gleaned from the marks obtained by them in the total
percentage of the MBBS examination. The Government order
dated 3.12.80 may be extracted below because on this depends
the entire fate of the admissions to be granted to the
competing candidates:
308
"The Governor, considering it so necessary and keeping
in view the recommendations of the Medical Council of India,
is pleased to order that with effect from December 14, 1979
the following policy and procedure shall be followed with
regard to the admission of candidate in the Post graduate
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11
course (Degree and Diploma) in the State Medical Colleges
and the King Georges Medical Colleges, Lucknow.
(1) Admission shall be made only on the basis of
merit.
(2) The basis of determining the merit shall be
percentage of marks worked out after deducting one
percent marks for each failure in every subject
from the total percentage of marks obtained in the
M.B.B.S. Examination. In case of a candidate who
fails in a subject and is declared successful in
second or subsequent attempt in that subject, the
marks obtained by him for day-to-day performance
in the first examination in that subject shall be
added to his total marks while preparing the said
index."
The Order seems to us to be fully consistent with the
tenor and spirit of the Rules framed by the Medical Council
of India, which is a statutory body, whose Rules are binding
on all the colleges and universities in the country
providing for medical education. On an interpretation of the
Government order the High Court was of the opinion that a
Candidate passing MBBS examination in four subjects with a
3rd Division cannot be preferred to the one possessing the
said degree in one subject only with a first division
because that would decide the index of merit. The Government
order was made under s. 28(5) of the U.P. State Universities
Act, 1973 (U.P. Act No. X of 1973) (for short, hereinafter
to be referred to as the ’Act’). The High Court also
correctly found that merely because a candidate happens to
obtain a Diploma after passing MBBS Examination in any
subject he would not be entitled to weightage for otherwise
the entire complexion of pure merit and suitability as
intended by the Government order, which does not provide for
any such weightage, would be set at naught.
This now brings us to the relevant provisions of the
Rules framed by the Medical Council of India on the
recommendations
309
of Post-graduate Medical Education which were adopted in
February 1971, i.e. long before the present writ petitions
were filed in the High Court. The relevant portions of the
Rules may be extracted thus:
(1) For M.D./M.S. Degree in clinical subjects, there
shall be proper training in basic medical sciences
related to the disciplines concerned as well as
paper in these subjects at the examination. In the
case of M.D. & M.S. in basic medical sciences
there should be training in applied aspects of the
subject and a paper on the Subject.
(2) Thesis should be a part of the examination in the
degree courses as this gives training in research
methodology.
(3) The student teacher ratio should be such that the
number of post-graduate teachers to the number of
post-graduate students admitted per year be
maintained at 1:1.
For the proper training of the post-graduate students,
there should be a limit to the number of student admitted
per year. For this purpose every unit should consist of
atleast 3 full time post-graduate teachers and can admit not
more than 3 students for post-graduate training per year. If
the number of post-graduate teachers in the unit is more
than three then the number of students can be increased
proportionately. For this purpose one student should
associate with one post-graduate teacher.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11
"Where the number of post-graduate teachers is less
than 3 per unit then the number of students should be
reduced so as to keep the ratio to one student teacher per
year."
It would be seen that it was clearly mandated by the
Medical Council that normally the ratio of student: teacher
should be one teacher to 1 student per unit and in
exceptional cases in a unit with one post-graduate
qualification, a maximum of two students should be admitted
per year. The Rules further lay down that in addition to the
students admitted to M.D./M.S. courses, a maximum number of
six students per year can be admitted to diploma courses in
such departments where diploma courses are conducted. In
case the number of recognised post-graduate teachers was
more than three,
310
the number of students for admission to the diploma course
may be increased on a ratio of two students per additional
recognised post-graduate teacher per year subject to a
maximum of 12 students admitted in the department. Then come
the most important rules which determine the selection of
post-graduates for degree and diploma courses. Rules 5 and 7
may be extracted thus:
"(5) The selection of post-graduates both for degree
and diploma courses should be strictly on the
basis of academic merit.
... ... ... ...
(7) Candidates pursuing degree or diploma courses
should work in the concerned department of the
Institution for the full period."
Coming now to the criteria laid down by the Rules for
selection of candidates, Paragraph (1) of rule (c) may be
quoted below:
"They must subsequently have done one year’s
housemanship prior to admission to the post-graduate
degree or diploma course. Housemanship should
preferably be for one year in the same subject, or at
least six months in the same department and the
remaining six months in an allied department. Provided
that in departments like
Radiology/Aneesthesiology/Physical Medicine &
Rehabilitation where suitable candidates who have done
housemanship in the respective subject for the
respective speciality are not available then the
housemanship in Medicine and/ or in Surgery may be
considered as sufficient."
The above rule clearly provides that the candidates
must have done one year’s housemanship prior to admission to
the post-graduate degree or diploma course preferably in the
same subject, which has been technically called as
’discipline’, or atleast six months in the same department
and the remaining six months in an allied department. It
further lays down, that in order to determine the merit of a
candidate for admission to post-graduate medical courses the
following three factors must be taken into consideration:
(1) his performance at the MBBS examination,
311
(2) his performance during the course of internship
and housemanship for which a daily assessment
chart should be maintained, and
(3) the report of the teacher which is submitted from
time to time.
Alternatively, the authorities concerned may conduct
competitive entrance examination to determine the merit of a
candidate for admission to post-graduate medical courses.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11
The other methods covered by the Rules are not germane
for the purpose of deciding these cases. As these Rules were
adopted by the Medical Council of India they became rules
made under s.33 of the Indian Medical Council Act of 1956
passed by the Government of India and, there-fore, had
doubtless a statutory effect.
The candidates consist of students who had not been
admitted to the medical courses and they have assailed the
refusal of their admission as being violative of Art. 14 of
the Constitution and to the statutory orders passed and
rules framed by the Government from time to time. In some
cases, the Government order referred to above has also been
challenged as being arbitrary and outside the scope of Art.
14.
Before dealing with the contentions of the parties on
merit we might dispose of a few matters as a result of which
some of the appeals do not survive at all. As observed
above, the admission sought by the candidates were in the
session of 1981-82 and by the time these cases came up for
hearing by the High Court or this Court, the session has
completely run out but as provisional admissions had been
allowed either by the High Court or by this Court the
candidates had completed their M.D./M.S. courses and in some
cases only the results were to be declared. Realising the
piquant situation that arose in view of the provisional
admissions, the learned counsel for the State very fairly
agreed to the declaration of the results of the following
candidates:
1. Dr. Krishna Priya Ganguly (C.A. 133/82)
2. Dr. Gopal Krishan Goyal (C.A. 134/82)
3. Dr. Pramod Kumar Kohli (C.A. 137/82)
312
4. Dr. Pratap Singh (C.A. 138/82)
5. Dr. Kamal Mehra (C.A. No. 139/82)
6. Dr. R.S. Topwal (C.A. No. 140/82)
7. Dr. Hari Om Gupta (C.A. No. 3045/82)
8. Dr. R.C. Aggarwal (C.A. No. 3046/82)
9. Dr. Ved Prakash Gupta (C.A. No. 3047/82)
The counsel for the State further agreed to passing an
order that those candidates who were refused admission but
granted provisional admissions under the orders of the Court
may be deemed to be admitted to complete the course
according to the provisions of the Rules. We might mention
that this concession was made because the candidates
concerned had secured pretty high percentage and since they
had completed the course in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case. As far as C.A. No. 3045/82 filed
by the State against the decision of the High Court is
concerned, the view taken by the High Court is
unsustainable. The High Court could not have given a goby to
the rules framed by Admission committee. It was a matter for
decision of the academic body and since the academic body
had applied the rules in a bona fide manner to all the
students equally, there was no jurisdiction whatsoever on
the part of the High Court to interfere with the internal
working of an academic institution concerned with imparting
higher education in the field of post-graduate course in
medicine. The Rule prescribing that housemanship must be in
the same subject is not inconsistent with the ordinance. It
is supplementary to the ordinance and amplifies the same.
Hence there is no inconsistency and the High Court was
therefore clearly wrong. However, as the counsel for the
State has agreed to declare his result we do not pass any
order for reversing the directive issued by the High Court
as far as Dr. Hari Om Gupta is concerned though the High
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11
Court was wrong.
As regards C.A. No. 3047/82 which has been filed by the
State, the view taken by the High Court is altogether
untenable. The condition regarding putting in two years work
in the department concerned could not have been dispensed
with. The High Court should not have interfered with the
decision of the academic body. The High Court cannot relax
the rules or rewrite them. After the
313
declaration of his result, as agreed to by the counsel for
the State, if he fails at this examination he will have to
put in two years work in the department concerned before he
is permitted to appear for the final examination next time.
So far as the above-mentioned appeals are concerned, it
is not necessary for us to go to the merits or to give the
reasons thereof in view of the fact that the candidates got
what they wanted, on the basis of the concession made by the
counsel for the State and accepted by this Court, as a
result of which we passed orders for declaring the results
of the candidates or directing them to complete the course.
We would however like to make it clear that after
declaration of the results in case the candidates concerned
in appeals do not pass or their thesis are not approved,
they would have to do the full course all over again. This
position was accepted by the candidates who conceded that in
case they failed in the examination the logical consequences
will follow. The candidates who were directed by this Court
to be given admission may be listed below:
1. Dr. Aditya Kumar (C. A. No. 142/82)
2. Dr. Manoj Kumar (C. A. No. 143/82)
The appeals that remain for consideration may now be
taken up, viz., C.A.Nos. 144,145 and 595/82. We might
mention here that out of the appeals filed by the State the
appeal which has been seriously pressed before is that of
Dr. V.N. Sinha (C. A. No. 595/82) and the State has invited
us to give a final decision in the matter which involves a
serious question of principle.
Coming-first to C.A. No. 144/82 filed by Dr. Rachna
Saxena it appears that she had obtained an aggregate of
53.7% but the main obstacle in her way was that two
candidates with a higher aggregate had been admitted and
therefore her case did not merit any consideration. Even
from amongst those who did not secure admission there ware
four others who had secured higher marks than her viz., Dr.
Ganguly (59.23)%, Dr. Agarwal (57.40%), Dr. Jain (56.9%) and
Dr. Upadhyaya (55.33%). She could not therefore have secured
admission in any event. She cannot therefore complain of
discrimination. For these reasons, therefore, we affirm the
decision of the High Court and dismiss C.A. 144/82 without
any order as to costs.
314
C.A. No. 145/82 has been filed by Dr. V.K. Kohli. After
going through the judgment of the High Court and hearing
counsel for the parties we entirely agree with the view
taken by the High Court which seems to us to be
unexceptionable on merits and must be confirmed. The appeal
is therefore dismissed without any order as to costs.
Coming now to C.A. No. 595/82 which has been filed by
the State it seems to us after hearing counsel for the
parties that the stand taken by the State is absolutely
correct and for the reasons that we will give hereafter we
find it impossible to support the judgment of the High
Court.
To begin with, Dr. Vijay Narain Sinha who was being
considered for admission to the M.S. course in Orthopaedic
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11
surgery had obtained only 43% marks in the aggregate and
happened to be the last candidate in the list of persons who
had applied for admission to the M.D./M.S. course. This
important handicap relating to Dr. Sinha seems to have been
completely glossed over by the High Court by saying that
though he has not secured very high marks but he could be
almost equal in all respects to the candidates who had been
granted admission. This, however, was not so. The main
argument of the High Court was that in determining the six
admissions which were made in consonance with the prescribed
instructions indicated that the ratio of admission should be
with respect to the strength of the staff in the concerned
department. The main complaint of the respondent (Dr.Sinha)
was that while there were six teachers in the Department of
Orthopaedic surgery, nine admissions were made in that
particular session. The State had clearly explained that the
usual number of candidates to be admitted was six and as a
special case due to fortuitous circumstances an exception
was made only in one session for good reasons which had been
given by the State. Thereafter no such departure had been
made in any other session. What the High Court completely
over-looked was that even if nine students were admitted Dr.
Sinha could not have secured admission as he was on the very
bottom of the list in view of the very low percentage
secured by him. The stand taken by the State has not been
refuted by the counsel for the respondent who submitted that
since the State had agreed to declare the results of all the
candidates the respondent may also be given the same
facility. We are, however, unable to agree with this
argument because to grant admission to a person who is
appreciably below the required merit would be to play
315
with the lives of the people whom the candidate would have
to treat after getting the M S. degree. The High Court seems
to have relied mainly on the fact that in view of the
increase in population and orthopaedic cases the college
must have persons with special qualifications and as the
respondent had a diploma that should be treated to be a
special qualification. A mere diploma however cannot
override the consideration regarding the merit as disclosed
in the low aggregate obtained by him in the last MBBS
examination. If the college authorities went by the pure
test of merit, the diploma could not be a good substitute
for admitting the lowest and the last candidate in the list.
The High Court could not devise its own criterion for
admission. Since the academic body has made the marks
obtained in MBBS examination the criterion, admission had to
be made by such a criterion. The High Court could not have
introduced its own notions in such an academic matter. The
High Court was not competent to do so and had no
jurisdiction to import its own ideology.
The High Court further observed that the respondent
appears to be a very dedicated worker having acquired a
diploma and would have proved an invaluable asset to the
Institution. We do not see any proper material for this
conclusion to which the High Court has suddenly jumped apart
from the fact that admissions were not to be given by the
High Court according to its own notions. Finally, in his own
petition in the High Court, the respondent had merely prayed
for a writ directing the State or the college to consider
his case for admission yet the High Court went a step
further and straightaway issued a writ of mandamus directing
the college to admit him to the M.S. course and thus granted
a relief to the respondent which he himself never prayed for
and could not have prayed for. Such a gross discrimination
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11
made in the case of a person who had obtained lowest
aggregate and lowest position seems to us to be extremely
shocking. Although much could be said against the view taken
by the High Court yet we would not like to say more than
this that the High Court had made a very arbitrary, casual
and laconic approach to the case and based its judgment
purely on speculation and conjectures swept away by the
consideration that Dr. Sinha possessed a diploma when in
fact other candidates also had obtained diploma but that
could not be taken into consideration, because the rules did
not so provide.
316
For these reasons, therefore, we allow this appeal and
set aside the judgment of the High Court issuing mandamus to
the State to admit the respondent to the M.S. course. His
writ petition in the High Court thus stands dismissed.
H.L.C.
317