A.
Sudha
Vs. University of Mysore & ANR [1987] INSC 273 (6 October 1987)
DUTT,
M.M. (J) DUTT, M.M. (J) MISRA RANGNATH
CITATION:
1987 AIR 2305 1988 SCR (1) 368 1987 SCC (4) 537 JT 1987 (4) 29 1987 SCALE
(2)699
ACT:
Admission
to Medical College-Where a student has obtained admission relying upon
information supplied by the head of the institution and later on it turns out
that the admission was not in conformity with the University Regulations, the
student being innocent, cannot be penalised by not allowing to continue
studies.
HEADNOTE:
The
appellant, who had passed B.Sc. Examination with Botany. Chemistry and zoology
securing 54.7% marks in the aggregate, and, who had passed earlier the P.U.C.
examination
with Physics, Chemistry and Biology securing 43.1% marks in the aggregate,
joined a private medical college after its principal had confirmed in writing
that she was eligible for admission to the M.B.B.S. Course. After six months in
the college, she was informed by the principal that her admission had not been
approved by the University as she had secured only 43% marks in the P.U.C.
examination while the required minimum was 50% according to the Regulations
framed by the University. The appellant's writ petition challenging the
validity of the cancellation of her admission to the medical college having
been dismissed by a Single Judge and her appeal against the same having been
rejected by the Division Bench of the High Court, she approached the Court by
special leave.
Counsel
for the appellant contended inter alia that she was eligible for admission in
terms of the Karnataka Medical Colleges (Selection of Candidates for Admission
to M.B.B.S.) Rules, 1985, and that in any case, since the appellant had
completed the first year M.B.B.S. Course by virtue of interim orders passed by
the High Court and this Court, she should be allowed to continue her studies in
the M.B.B.S. Course.
Allowing
the appeal, ^
HELD:
Under Regulation l(a) of the Regulations of the University regarding admission
to M.B.B.S. Course for the Academic year 198586, a candidate after passing
B.Sc.
Examination
and seeking admission in the seats reserved for B.Sc. candidates should have
secured 50% of the total marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology in the P.U.C.
Exami- 369 nation. It is true that the appellant has obtained 54% marks in the
B.Sc. Examination, but she had failed to obtain 50% marks in the aggregate in
the PUC Examination in Physics, Chemistry and Biology. In the circumstances,
she was not eligible for admission in the First Year MBBS Course. [372H;
373A-B]
There is no substance in the contention made on behalf of the appellant that
the Karnataka Medical Colleges (Selection of Candidates for admission to I
MBBS) Rules, 1985 would also be applicable to the appellant. Even assuming that
the said Rules are applicable to the case of the appellant, still the appellant
will not be eligible for admission in the First Year M.B.B.S. Course in view of
sub- r. (5) of r. 3 of the said Rules, which provides, inter alia, that a
person who does not belong to any of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes,
has to obtain 50% of marks in P.U.C. Or equivalent examination in Physics,
Chemistry and Biology as optional subjects. Thus, the appellant was not eligible
for admission. [373H; 374A-B] On the appellant's query, the Principal of the
Institute by his letter dated February 26, 1986 informed her that she was
eligible for admission in the First Year M.B.B.S. Course. lt was, inter alia,
stated in the letter that the candidate should have obtained 50% marks in the
optional subjects in the B.Sc. Examination. There is no dispute that the
appellant had obtained 54% marks in those subjects in the B.Sc. Examination.
The appellant was, therefore, quite innocent and she was quite justified in
relying upon the information supplied to her by none else than the Principal of
the Institute. In the circumstances, we do not think that we shall be justified
in penalising the appellant by not allowing her to continue her studies in the
M.B.B.S. Course. Prima facie it was the fault of the Principal of the Institute
but, in our view, the statement that was made by him in his said letter to the
appellant as to the eligibility of the appellant for admission in the M.B.B.S.
Course, was on a bona fide interpretation of the Regulations framed by the
University, which to some extent suffer from ambiguity. The Regulations should
have been more clear and specific. [377C-F] A.P. Christians Medical Education
Society v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, [19861 2 S.C.C. 667, distinguished. G
Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1448, relied
on.
Civil
Appellate Jurisdiction: Civil Appeal No. 2598 of 1987.
370
From the Judgment and order dated 26.5.1987 of the Karnataka A High Court in
W.A. No. 615 of 1987.
Dr.
Y.S. Chitale and K.J. John for the Appellant. S.S. Javali, Ranjit Kumar and Dev
Dass for the Respondents.
The
Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dutt, J. Special leave is granted. As
elaborate submissions have been made at the preliminary hearing of the special
leave petition on the merits of the case by both the parties, we proceed to
dispose of the appeal on merits.
This
appeal involves the question as to the eligibility of the appellant for
admission in the First Year MBBS Course of the Mysore University.
The
appellant passed the B.Sc. Examination of the Mysore University with Botany,
Chemistry and Zoology securing 54.7% marks in the aggregate. She also passed
the PUC in the year 1979 with Physics, Chemistry and Biology as optional
subjects and obtained 43.1% marks in the aggregate.
She
sought for admission in a private Medical College or Institute. On her query,
the second respondent, who is the Principal of the Institute, by his latter
dated February 26, 1986 con firmed that the appellant was eligible for
admission to MBBS Course. The relevant portion of the letter, as quoted in the
special leave petition, is extracted below:- "With reference to your
telegram, I wish to write that candidates passing B.Sc. degree examination with
Physics, Chemistry and Biology or Chemistry, Biology and Zoology as optional
subjects, are eligible, provided such of these candidates who have passed with
Chemistry, Biology and Zoology should have passed Physics as optional subject
in II year PUC or equivalent examination (Pre-degree or Intermediate) or the
additional Physics examination of any University or Institution recognised by
the State Government. The candidate should have obtained 50% marks in the
optional subjects in the B.Sc. degree examination." It is the case of the
appellant that on the basis of the said letter, she joined the Institute in
February, 1986.
However,
by Memo dated 371 September 19, 1986 the second respondent intimated the
appellant that her admission had not been approved by the University of Mysore.
The relevant portion of the letter of the Registrar of the University of
Mysore, as quoted in the said Memo, is given below:- "She has secured 54%
in B.Sc., but secured 43% in PUC. Hence she is not eligible. Her admission may
be cancelled. " The appellant moved the Karnataka High Court by filing a
writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the
validity of the cancellation of her admission in the First Year MBBS Course and
praying for an order directing the respondents to allow her to continue as a
student of the First Year MBBS Course.
A
learned Single Judge of the High Court by his judgment dated April 8, 1987
rejected the writ petition on the ground that the appellant not having obtained
50% marks in the aggregate in Physics, Chemistry and Biology in the PUC
examination, was not eligible for admission to the MBBS Course. On appeal by
the appellant, the Division Bench of the High Court also took the same view and
dismissed the appeal. Hence the present appeal by special leave.
The
Mysore University to which the Institute or College is affiliated has framed
regulations regarding admission to MBBS Course for the academic year 1985-86.
The relevant provisions of the said regulations are extracted below:- " 1.
ADMlSSlONS-ELIGIBIL1TY:
(a)
The candidate shall have passed the Two Year PUC Examination conducted by the
PUC Board, Karnataka State with Physics, Chemistry and Biology as optional
subjects or any other examinations recognised as equivalent by the Mysore
University and/or shall have passed the competitive examination conducted by
the Karnataka Government for this purpose.
or
B.Sc. Examination of an Indian University provided that 372 he has passed the
B.Sc. Examination with not less than two of the following subjects:
Physics,
Chemistry, Biology (Botany, Zoology) and further that he has passed the earlier
qualifying examinations with the following subjects:
Physics,
Chemistry, Biology and English. Provided that the candidate should have secured
not less than 50% of the total marks in Physics, Chemistry, Biology subjects
taken together at the qualifying and/or competitive examination.
Provided
further that in respect of candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled
Tribe the minimum marks required for admission shall be 40% in lieu of 50% for
general candidats.
(b)
The candidate should have completed 17 years on the 31st December of the year
of admission. " Under Regulation l(a), a candidate having passed the
Two-Year PUC or equivalent examination with Physics, Chemistry and Biology as
optional subjects or B.Sc.
Examination
of an Indian University with Physics, Chemistry, Biology will be eligible for
admission in the First Year MBBS Course subject to this that the candidate
should have secured not less than 50% of the total marks in Physics, Chemistry
and Biology taken together at the qualifying and/or competitive examination. It
follows, therefore, that a candidate has to secure 50% of the total marks in
Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together in the PUC or an equivalent
examination, which is a condition precedent to her eligibility for admission in
the First Year MBBS Course.
The
High Court has rightly observed that as the appellant did not secure 50% of the
total marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology in the PUC Examination, she was
not eligible for admission in the First Year MBBS Course also rightly
overruling the contention of the appellant that the marks obtained by her in
Physics in the PUC Course should be added to the marks obtained by her in the
B.Sc. Examination so that it would work out to 50% of the total marks in
Physics, Chemistry and Biology.
Under
Regulation 1(a), a candidate after passing B.Sc. Exami- 373 nation and seeking
admission in the seats reserved for B.Sc.
candidates
has to secure 50% of the total marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology in the
PUC Examination. It is true that the appellant has obtained 54% marks in the
B.Sc.
Examination,
but she had failed to obtain 50% marks in the aggregate in the PUC Examination
in Physics, Chemistry and Biology. In the circumstances, she was not eligible
for admission ill the First Year MBBS Course. We are afraid, the Karnataka
Medical Colleges (Selection of Candidates for Admission to 1 MBBS) Rules, 1985,
hereinafter referred to as 'the said Rules', are not applicable to seats in
Private Colleges other than Government seats, which is apparent from Sub-rule
(2) of rule 1. Sub-rule (2) of rule 1 provides as follows:- "R.1(2)-These
rules shall be applicable to the selection of candidates made on or after the
date of commencement of these rules, for admission to the I year MBBS Course in
the State of Karnataka in respect of all the seats in Government Colleges and
the Government seats in the Private Colleges, as indicated in the Schedule to
these Rules." Dr. Chitale, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant, has placed much reliance upon the Government Order dated August 1,
1984 annexing a copy of the said Rules. The relevant portion of the Government
Order is as follows:- "O R D E R Accordingly, after considering the
matter, Government of Karnataka hereby direct that Rules for selection of
candidates for admission on to I M.B.B.S. Course in the Government and Private
Medical Colleges for the academic year 1985-86 and onwards shall be as in
Annexure to this order." In the Government order, no doubt, Private
Medical Colleges have been mentioned, but it does not follow that the said
Rules would apply to all candidates in the Private Medical Colleges. Sub-rule
(2) of rule 1 of the said Rules, which has been extracted above, clearly shows
that the said Rules would apply to only Government seats in the Private
Colleges and, as such, in the Government order Private Colleges have been
mentioned. There is, therefore, no substance in the contention made on behalf
of the appellant that the said Rules would also be applicable to the appellant.
374
Even assuming that the said Rules are applicable to the case of A the
appellant, still the appellant will not be eligible for admission in the First
Year MBBS Course in view of sub-rule (5) of rule 3 of the said Rules, which
provides, inter alia, that a person who does not belong to any of the Scheduled
Castes or Scheduled Tribes, he has to obtain 50% of marks in PUC or equivalent
examination in Physics, Chemistry and Biology as optional subjects. Thus, the
appellant was not eligible for admission in the First Year MBBS Course of
Mysore University. The High Court was, therefore, right in overruling the
contention of the appellant that she was eligible for admission in the First
Year MBBS Course.
Now
the question is whether the appellant should be allowed to continue her studies
in the MBBS Course. By virtue of the interim order of the High Court, the
appellant completed the First Year MBBS Course and by virtue of the interim
order passed by this Court, the appellant appeared in the First Year MBBS
Examination. It has been strenuously urged by the learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of the University that as the appellant was not eligible for admission
and was illegally admitted by the Institute in violation of the eligibility
rules of the University, the appellant should not be allowed to continue her
studies in the MBBS Course under the University. In support of that contention,
much reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel on a decision of this
Court in A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society v. Government of Andhra
Pradesh, [1986] 2 SCC 667. What happened in that case was that the
appellant-Society without being affiliated to the University and despite strong
protests and warnings of the University admitted students to the Medical
College in the First Year MBBS Course in total disregard of the provisions of
the A.P. Education Act, the Osmania University Act and the regulations of the
Osmania University. Some students, who were admitted to the Medical College,
filed a writ petition before this Court. While dismissing the writ petition of
the students, this Court observed as follows:- "Shri Venugopal suggested
that we might issue appropriate directions to the University to protect the
interest of the students. We do not think that we can possibly accede to the
request made by Shri Venugopal on behalf of the student.
Any
direction of the nature sought by Shri Venu gopal would be in clear
transgression of the provisions of the University Act and the regulations of
the University. We cannot by our fiat direct the University to disobey the
statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations 375 made by the
University itself. We cannot imagine anything more destructive of the rule of
law than a direction by the court to disobey the laws." It was further
observed by this Court as follows:- "We regret that the students who have
been admitted into the college have not only lost the money which they must
have spent to gain admission into the college, but have also lost one or two
years of precious time virtually jeopardising their future careers. But that is
a situation which they have brought upon themselves as they sought and obtained
admission in the college despite the warnings issued by the University from
time to time." It appears from the observations extracted above that the
students were themselves to blame, for they had clear knowledge that the
College was not affiliated to the University and in spite of the warning of the
University they sought for the admission in the College in the First Year MBBS
Course and were admitted. In that context this Court made the above
observations.
We
may refer to a later decision of this Court in Rajendra Prasad Mathur v.
Karnataka University, AIR 1986 SC 1448. In that case, the condition for
eligibility for admission to B.E. Degree Course of the Karnataka University was
that the students seeking admission should have passed the two-year
pre-University Examination of the pre- University Education Board, Bangalore,
or an examination held by any other Board or University recognised as
equivalent to it. The appellants, in that case, were admitted to certain
private Engineering Colleges for the B.E. Degree Course upon payment of
capitation fees, although they were not eligible for admission as the Higher
Secondary Examination held by the Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan, passed
by some of the appellants and the first B.Sc. Examination of Rajasthan and
Udaipur University passed by the remaining appellants, were not recognised as
equivalent to the two-year pre-University Education Board, Bangalore. While
dismissing the appeals of the students on the ground that they were not
eligible for admission in the engineering colleges, Bhagwati, C.J. who
delivered the judgment of the Court, observed as follows:- "We accordingly
endorse the view taken by the learned Judge and affirmed by the Division Bench
of the High 376 Court. But the question still remains whether we should allow
the appellants to continue their studies in the respective Engineering Colleges
in which they were admitted. It was strenuously pressed upon us on behalf of
the appellants that under the orders initially of the learned Judge and
thereafter of this Court they have been pursuing their course of study in the
respective Engineering Colleges and their admissions should not now be
disturbed because if they are now thrown out after a period of almost four
years since their admission their whole future will be blighted. Now it is true
that the appellants were not eligible for admission to the Engineering Degree
Course and they had no legitimate claim to such admission. But it must be noted
that the blame for their wrongful admission must lie more upon the Engineering
Colleges which granted admission than upon the appellants. It is quite possible
that the appellants did not know that neither the Higher Secondary Examination
of the Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan nor the first year B.Sc.
examination of the Rajasthan and Udaipur Universities was recognised as
equivalent to the Pre-University Examination of the Pre- University Education
Board, Bangalore. The appellants being young students from Rajasthan might have
presumed that since they had passed the first year B.Sc. examination of the
Rajasthan or Udaipur University or in any event the Higher Secondary
Examination of the Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan they were eligible for
admission.
The
fault lies with the Engineering Colleges which admitted the appellants because
the Principal of these Engineering Colleges must have known that the appellants
were not eligible for admission and yet for the sake of capitation fee in some
of the cases they granted admission to the appellants. We do not see why the
appellants should suffer for the sins of the managements of these Engineering
Colleges. We would, therefore, notwithstanding the view taken by us in this
judgment allow the appellants to continue their studies in the respective
Engineering Colleges in which they were granted admission. But we do feel that
against the erring Engineering Colleges the Karnataka University should take
appropriate action because the managements of these Engineering Colleges have
not only admitted students ineligible for admission but thereby deprived an
equal number of eligible students from getting admission to the 377 Engineering
Degree Course. We also endorse the directions given by the learned Judge in the
penultimate paragraph of his judgment with a view to preventing admission of
ineligible students." This Court was, therefore, of the view that as the
students were innocent and were admitted to the Colleges for the sake of
capitation fee in some cases, they should not be penalised and should be
allowed to continue their studies in the respective Engineering Colleges in
which they were granted admission.
The
facts of the instant case are, more or less, similar to the Rajendra Prasad
Mathur's case (supra). It has been already noticed that on the appellant s
query' the Principal of the Institute by his letter dated February 26, 1986 informed her that she was eligible for admission in the First Year MBBS Course. It
was, inter alia, stated in the letter that the candidate should have obtained
5()% marks in the optional subjects in the B.Sc. Examination. There is no
dispute that the appellant had obtained 50% marks in those subjects in the
B.Sc. Examination. The appellant was, therefore. quite innocent and she was
quite justified in relying upon the information supplied to her by none else
than the Principal of the Institute in the said letter in regard to the
eligibility of the admission in the First Year MBBS Course. In the
circumstances, we do not think that we shall be justified in penalising the
appellant by not allowing her to continue her studies in the MBBS Course.
Prima
facie it was the fault of the Principal of the Institute but, in our view, the
statement that was made by him in his said letter to the appellant as to the
eligibility of the appellant for admission in the MBBS Course, was on a bona
fide interpretation of the regulations framed by the Mysore University for
admission to MBBS Course for the academic year 1985-86, which to some extent
suffer from ambiguity. The regulations should have been more clear and
specific. Be that as it may, following the decision of this Court in Rajendra
Prasad Mathur's case (supra) while we dismiss the appeal. we direct that the
appellant shall be allowed to prosecute her studies in the MBBS Course, and
that her result for the First Year MBBS Examination be declared within two
weeks from date.
There
will, however, be no order as to costs.
H.L.C.
Appeal allowed.
Back