State of
Maharashtra Vs. Minoo Noazer Kavarana & Ors
[1989] INSC 137 (24
April 1989)
Dutt,
M.M. (J) Dutt, M.M. (J) Thommen, T.K. (J)
CITATION:
1989 AIR 1513 1989 SCR (2) 710 1989 SCC (2) 626 JT 1989 Supl. 135 1989 SCALE
(1)1055
ACT:
Professional
Colleges--Admission to. Medical Colleges run by Municipal Corporation/State
Government in Bombay--Reservation of seats for local and
outside students--Validity of--No unreasonableness or impropriety in State
Government filling up the local seats first-Creation of additional
seats--Concurrence of Indian Medical Council--Necessity for.
HEAD NOTE:
The
appellant-State by virtue of the judgment in Nidamarti Maheshkumar v. State of Maharashtra
& Ors., [1986] 2 SCC 534, after providing 15 per cent of seats under the All
India Quota and under Article 15 of the Constitution for admission to MBBS
course, laid down the policy of reservation of the remaining seats for local
students in the city of Bombay and for students from outside Bombay but within
the State of Maharashtra, in the ratio of 70:30.
In the
writ petitions preferred by the respondents a Single Judge of the High Court
took the view that 30 per cent of seats meant for students from outside Bombay should have been filled in before
70 per cent of seats were filled in by local students. The Division Bench
dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal by the State. In the Letters Patent Appeals
by the respondents it directed creation of five additional seats in each of the
three Municipal Medical Colleges and four additional seats in the Government Medical College.
Allowing
the appeals,
HELD:
1. There was no unreasonableness or impropriety in the State Government's
decision to fill up 70 per cent of seats first. The question whether the seats
reserved for local students or for those residing outside Bombay should be filled up first was not
within the purview or the jurisdiction of the Court. The High Court was,
therefore, not justified in directing admission on the basis of filling up 30
per cent of seats first. [713C-D]
2. The
Additional seats can be created only if the Indian Medical 711 Council approves
of it. There is also the question of bearing the cost of creation of such
seats. In the instant case, neither the Government nor the Indian Medical
Council had consented to such creation. In exceptional circumstances and for
ends of justice, the court may direct the creation of one or two seats after
giving the Indian Medical Council an opportunity of being heard. The High
Court, therefore, should not have directed the creation of so many additional
seats. [713E-G] [Appropriate directions issued for admission to four seats in
the Grant Medical College in Bombay and thirty four seats in the other Bombay
available under the All India Quota.]
CIVIL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2488 of 1989 etc. etc.
From
the Judgment and Order dated 24.1. 1989 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 67 of 1989.
G. Ramaswamy,
Additional Solicitor General, A.M. Khanwilkar and A.S. Bhasme for the
Appellant.
T.R. Andhrujina,
R.F. Nariman, Mrs. K.K. Pradhan, R. Karanjawala, Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, H.S. Anand,
P.B. Agarwal, P.G. Gokhale, R.B. Hathikhanawala, K.R. Nagaraja, R.S. Hegde, S. Menon,
M.C. Shah, Madan Lokur, Adur Sanjay Vasant, and Mrs. Urmila Sirur for the
Respondents.
Mrs.
Kitty Kumaramangalam, Kailash Vasdev, Ms. Vijaylaxmi and S.P. Pandey for the
Intervener.
The
Judgment of the Court was delivered by DUTT, J. Special leave is granted in all
these matters.
Heard
learned Counsel for the parties.
These
appeals preferred by the State of Maharashtra involve the question as to the admission in the MBBS Course
in the Medical Colleges in the State of Maharashtra. In the city of Bombay, there are three Medical Colleges run by the Municipal Corporation of
Greater Bombay. Besides the said three Municipal Colleges, there is another
College in Bombay, namely, Grant Medical College, which is a Government College run by the Government of Maharashtra.
712
Shorn of all details, it may be stated that after providing for 15 per cent of
seats under the All India Quota and the seats which are to be reserved under
Article 15 of the Constitution of India, the Government of Maharashtra laid
down a policy of reservation of 70 per cent of the remaining seats for the
local students in the city of Bombay and 30 per cent of seats for the students
outside Bombay within the State of Maharashtra.
Certain
students feeling aggrieved by the said method of filling up of the seats in the
MBBS Course in the said Medical Colleges in the city of Bombay moved writ petitions before the
Bombay High Court. A learned Single Judge of the High Court took the view that
it was not proper on the part of the State Government to first of all fill up
the 70 per cent of the seats out of the local Bombay students and thereafter the remaining 30 per cent of seats
from amongst the students residing outside Bombay. The learned Single Judge, however, gave no specific direction as to
the admission of the writ petitioners, but left it to the State Government for
the purpose. The State of Maharashtra
preferred a Letters Patent Appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court. The
said appeal was summarily dismissed by the Bench holding that the two points
urged by the Assistant Government Pleader appear to be quite frivolous. The
writ petitioners also preferred Letters Patent Appeals before the Division
Bench. From time to time, the Bench passed some orders. The only order which is
relevant for the purpose of these appeals is dated February 8, 1989. By that order, the Division Bench of the High Court
directed creation of 5 additional seats in each of the three Municipal Colleges
and 4 additional seats in the Government Medical College, that is, in all, 19 additional seats. Certain directions
were also given by the said order for admission of students in those additional
seats and also the seats under the All India Quota.
It has
been strenuously urged by Mr. G. Ramaswamy, learned Additional Solicitor
General appearing on behalf of the State of Maharashtra, that the High Court was not justified in directing that
the 30 per cent of seats meant for the candidates outside Bombay to be filled in before the 70 per
cent of seats are filled in by local candidates. It may be stated at this stage
that by virtue of the judgment in the case of Nidamarti Maheshkumar v. State of
Maharashtra and others, [1986] 2 SCC 534 relating to admission in Medical
Colleges in Maharashtra, the State of Maharashtra laid down the policy of
regional reservation of 70 per cent of seats for the region of Bombay and the
remaining 30 per cent of seats for the candidates outside Bombay but within the
State of Maharashtra. It has already been noticed that the High Court 713 iS Of
the view that the 30 per cent of seats should have been filled up first and,
thereafter, 70 per cent of regional seats should have been filled up. We have
not been able to understand the reason for this view of the High Court. If 30
per cent of seats are filled up first, the candidates who are residing outside Bombay will have to compete with the local
Bombay students who are also eligible for
admission in the said seats. It may so happen that most of the seats meant for
candidates outside Bombay may be filled up by the local Bombay candidates. If, however, 70 per
cent of seats are filled up first, the more meritorious Bombay students would be admitted and
those, who would not be admitted, would obviously be candidates obtaining
lesser marks and it will not be difficult for the outside candidates to compete
with them for the said 30 per cent of seats. The question whether 70 per cent
of seats or 30 per cent of seats should be filled up first is a question which
should be left to the discretion of the Government. In our opinion, this aspect
is not within the purview or the jurisdiction of the Court. We do not find any
unreasonableness or impropriety in the State Government's decision to fill up
70 per cent of seats first.
The
High Court was not, therefore, justified in directing admission on the basis of
filling up 30 per cent of the seats first and, thereafter 70 per cent of seats
and such direction has created some complications in the matter.
There
is considerable force in the contention of Mr. Ramaswamy that the High Court
was also not justified in directing creation of additional seats. The
additional seats can be created only if the Indian Medical Council approves of
such creation. In the instant case, the Indian Medical Council has vehemently
opposed before us the creation of the additional seats. There is also the
question of bearing the cost of creation of additional seats. The High Court,
in our opinion, should not have directed the creation of additional seats. In
exceptional circumstances and for ends of justice, the Court may direct the
creation of one or two seats after giving the Indian Medical Council an
-opportunity of being heard, but surely the Court should not direct the
creation of so many additional seats when neither the Government nor the Indian
Medical Council consents to such creation. In the circumstances, it is
difficult to sustain the impugned judgment of the High Court.
We are
told by the learned Additional Solicitor General that 4 seats in the Grant Medical College in Bombay and 34 seats in the other Medical Colleges outside Bombay under the All India Quota are
available for admission. We are also told that there are about 30 candidates
who are to be admitted in these seats. Of these 30 candidates, we find 714 that
one Sandeep Chaudhary and Miss Chaudhary Seena, the applicants in Civil
Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 9049 of 1989 and 9050 of 1989 respectively, were
already admitted in the 2 out of the 4 seats in the Grant Medical College, Bombay. They were initially admitted in the Gwalior Medical
College, but on their representation they were transferred to the Grant Medical
College, Bombay, by the Director General of Health Services in compliance with
the guidelines laid down by this Court in its judgment in the case of Amanjit
Singh Gill v. Directorate General of Health Services, [1989] 1 SCC 231, but in
view of the impugned judgment of the High Court they have been thrown out for
no fault of theirs. The admission of these two candidates in the Grant Medical College, Bombay, is restored and will not be disturbed. So far as the
remaining 36 seats are concerned (2 seats in the Grant Medical College. Bombay, and 34 seats in the Medical
Colleges Outside Bombay), the admission to these seats shall be made strictly
in order of merit. The appellants shall complete the admissions in the said 36
seats within a week from today.
The
impugned judgments of the High Court are set aside and the appeals are allowed
to the extent indicated above.
There
will be no order as to costs.
The
writ petitions and all other applications for intervention are also disposed of
as above without any order as to costs.
P.S.S.
Appeals allowed.
Back