Krishna Priya Ganguly Vs. University of
Lucknow & Ors [1983] INSC 151 (7 October 1983)
FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA 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 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.
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:
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 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 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 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 at least 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.
"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 house man ship prior to admission to the post-graduate degree or diploma
course. House man ship 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/Anesthesiology/Physical
Medicine & Rehabilitation where suitable candidates who have done house man
ship in the respective subject for the respective specialty are not available
then the house man ship 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 house man ship prior to admission to the post-graduate degree
or diploma course preferably in the same subject, which has been technically
called as 'discipline', or at least 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 house man ship 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.
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.
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 house man ship 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 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 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
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.
Back
