Principal,
Moti Lal Nehru Medical College& Ors Vs. Dr. Vandana Singh
& Ors Etc [1990] INSC 243 (21 August 1990)
Rangnathan,
S. Rangnathan, S.
Saikia, K.N.
(J)
CITATION:
1991 AIR 792 1990 SCR (3) 874 1990 SCC Supl. 343 JT 1990 (3) 679 1990 SCALE
(2)359
ACT:
Education---Admission
to Professional Colleges: Post- graduate course in Obsterics and
Gynecology--Particular Medical College-Filling up all seats with institutional
candidates--Not considering external candidates--Effect of--Directions issued.
HEAD NOTE:
For
the academic year 1989-90, the appellant College had 8 seats in the
post-graduate course in Obsterics and Gyne- cology. Of these, six were reserved
for institutional candi- dates, and two for external candidates. The Principal
filled up all the eight seats by admitting institutional candidates without
considering the case of any external candidate. One of the external candidates
approached the High Court by way of a Writ Petition. The High Court set aside
the admission of two .institutional candidates who were admitted against the
quota for external candidates, and directed the Princi- pal to consider the
case of the petitioner and other exter- nal candidates who were eligible for
admission to the 'open' 25% seats on merits, in accordance with law. Aggrieved,
the Principal and the two institutional candidates whose admis- sion was set
aside by the High Court, have preferred these appeals, by special leave.
Disposing
of the appeals,
HELD
1. The appellant College, took the view that since no All India candidates were
available on the basis postu- lated in the Residency Scheme it would be
appropriate to throw open the entire 100% to institutional candidates. It is
not suggested that this proposal was actuated by any mala fides. In that the
State claims that this course of action has been approved by the decision of
the High Court in a case before it. It may be that this is not the only view
possible and that it is also possible to take the view that the college should
have advertised these posts and filled them up by external candidates on the
basis of merit. If this be so, such advertisement cannot be confined to persons
who are residents of U.P. as was envisaged by the notifica- tion dated 26th April, 1986. That notification been issued at a
time when the 875 concept of All-India reservation for 25% of the seats had not
been adumbrated by this Court. Even if it is assumed that the High Court was
right in saying that external candi- dates were eligible for admission, that
eligibility cannot be restricted only to those who had already applied but
should be thrown open to all external candidates fulfilling the qualifications.
This process cannot be completed within two weeks, as directed by the High
Court. To call for appli- cations from all external candidates and select them,
either on the basis of an examination or otherwise, will be a very lengthy and
time-consuming process. The State Government and the college cannot be faulted
for having decided to fill up the vacancies by offering these seats also to
institutional candidates. This is a decision taken only for a transitional
period, because, from 1990 onwards, admissions will be regulated on the basis
of an All-India examination, and such an examination is conducted by the All
India Institute of Medical Sciences every year for all medical colleges in India. The decision taken by the State
Government and the college was a practical one to tide over a transitional
difficulty and there is no justification to upset the same on the basis of a
solitary application from an external candidate. [881A-F]
2. On
a proper interpretation of Para 5 of the Residency Scheme the eligibility for
admission of institutional candi- dates is not confirmed to those who were on
house jobs as on 22.8.89 but would also extend to these institutional candi-
dates who have been in house jobs since 1.8.87. The result of these two
judgments read together will be that the entire 100% of the institutional seats
should be filled up from out of all such applicants, subject to their fulfilling
any other qualifications and requirements that may be in force.
Earlier,
the admission of the six candidates to 75% of the seats as well as the
admission of the two candidates to 25% of the seats had been made by excluding
institutional candi- dates who had completed their house jobs between 1.8.87
and 22.8.89. This will need to be reviewed now. The entire process of admission
will now have to be redone in the light of these decisions. The selection of
the two institutional candidates in question will be valid only if they come
through successfully on merits on such reconsideration. The High Court was
right in holding that their admissions should be set aside. The admission be
redone in the light of the observations in these two judgments. [882B-E] Dr. Harihar
Prasad Singh & Ors. etc. v. Principal, Moti
Lal Nehru Medical College & Ors. etc., [1990] 3 SCR 895 referred to.
876
CIVIL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4339- 4341 of 1990.
From
the Judgment and Order dated 30.5.90 of the Allaha- bad High Court in W.P. No.
1841 of 1990.
Kapil Sibbal,
Satish Chandra, Ms. Shobha Dikshit, R.K. Virmani and N.D. Garg for the
appearing parties.
The
Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATHAN, J. These three petitions
can be disposed of by a common order. Since we have heard counsel at some
length we grant special leave in these petitions and proceed to dispose of the
appeals.
In the
Moti Lal Nehru Medical College (M.L.N. College) at Allahabad there are 8 seats for a post-graduate course in Obstetrics
and Gynecology. Of these, 6 seats are reserved for institutional candidates and
two are reserved for exter- nal candidates. The principal of the college has
filled up all the 8 seats by admitting institutional candidates and without
considering the cases of any external candidate.
Among
the institutional candidates Dr. Juhi Jain and Dr. Padma Panjwani, who had
obtained the highest percentage of marks, have been admitted and Dr. Vandana
Singh, who had applied for admission as an external candidate, was not
considered. Dr. Vandana Singh, therefore, approached the Allahabad High Court,
which upheld her contention and held that the two seats in question should have
been filled up in accordance with a notification published by the State Gov- ernment
on 26th April, 1986 (amending a previous notifica- tion dated 15.12. 1982)
which provided as follows:
"In
every speciality, seventy five percent seats in a par- ticular medical college
shall be reserved for the candidates who have passed the M.B.B.S examination from
that college and against the remaining twenty five percent seats, candi- dates
who have passed M.B.B.S. examination from other Medi- cal Colleges and are bona
.fide resident of Uttar Pradesh.
shall
be eligible for admission on the basis of merit along with the candidates who
have passed the M.B.B .S. examina- tion from that very college.
The
court, therefore, set aside the admission of Dr. Juhi Jain and 877 Dr. Padma Panjwani
and directed the principal of the Medical College to consider the cases of Dr. Vandana
Singh and other external candidates, who were eligible for admission to the
"open" twenty five per cent seats on merits and in accord- ance with
law.
The
Principal of the Medical College, Dr. Juhi Jain and Dr. Padma Panjwani have preferred these
appeals. It has been submitted that the High Court has overlooked that the admis-
sions in question were to the second year or the post-gradu- ate degree course
and were being considered under the terms of a residency scheme dated 22.8.89.
As per the terms of this scheme, 25% of the seats in the course (here, two
seats) were to be filled in by candidates on the basis of an examination
conducted by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. However, no such
examination had been conducted by All India Institute and the college instead
of leaving the seats vacant, decided to fill them up by internal candidates on
the basis of merit. In doing this, the principal of the college was only
complying with the terms of a decision rendered by the Allahabad High Court in
the case of Dr. R.P. Pandey, (Writ Petition No. 8181 of 1989) and a precedent
approved by the Directorate General of Health Services, Medical Examination
Cell, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi, which in a letter to the principal of an Agra
College, had, when unable to recommend candidates on the basis of an All-India
examination for a particular course released these seats in favour of internal
candidates. It has been submitted on behalf of Dr. Juhi Jain that, even
assuming that the appli- cation of Dr. Vandana Singh had to be considered, the
High Court should have restricted itself to quashing the admis- sion to one of
the two seats and upheld the admission of Dr. Juhi Jain, who had secured higher
marks than Dr. Padma Panjwani. It is submitted on behalf of Dr. Padma Panjwani
that even assuming that Dr. Vandana Singh's application merited consideration,
the interests of all the three candi- dates could have been safeguarded by
directing the State Government to create one additional seat and accommodate
all the three candidates. Reliance is placed in this respect on certain
observations made by this Court in the case of one Mridula Avasthi, [1988] 3
S.C.R. 762. Finally, it has also been submitted, on behalf of the appellants,
that Dr. Vanda- na Singh was not eligible for admission even on the terms of
the notification dated 26.4.86 since she was not a bona fide resident of Uttar
Pradesh. It is stated that she had passed her M.B.B.S. examination from the
State of Bihar and had also taken admission in a
post Graduate Diploma Course in Gynecology and Obstetrics at Darbhanga Medical College, Laneriasarai, Bihar, a fact which she had concealed from her writ
petition.
878 We
have today passed a detailed judgment in regard to certain admissions made
pending implementation of the resi- dency scheme introduced by the State of U.P. in our judgment in a batch of appeals preferred by
Dr. Harihar Prasad Singh & Ors. as well as the State of Uttar Pradesh,
[1990] 3 SCR 895 (Civil Appeal, Nos. and, for reasons that will be appar- ent
later, the judgment in the present appeals will have to be read along with the
judgment in the said appeals for a full and proper understanding of the issues
involved. That other decision 'turned on the interpretation of paragraph 5 of
the residency scheme and also pertained to admissions to the second year of the
post graduate degree course. The scheme contained a transitory provision in para
5 in respect of certain persons who were house officers between 1987 and 1989. the
related batch of appeals raised a controversy pertaining to 75% of the seats in
the second year of the post-graduate courses which were reserved for
institutional candidates. Here the question arises in respect of the remaining
25% of the seats reserved for "external" candi- dates. To understand
the point at issue, we shall briefly touch upon those aspects of the residency
scheme which we had no occasion to consider in the batches of appeals above
referred to but which are material for the purposes of these appeals.
By the
notification dated 22.8.89 a scheme called the residency scheme was introduced,
which dealt, inter alia, with the question of admission to post graduate specialities
in medicinal courses. These cases, like the other batches, have proceeded on
the assumption that, so far as institu- tional candidates are concerned,
admissions to the second- year of a degree course could be granted to persons
like Dr. Juhi Jain and Dr. Padma Panjwani who had completed the M.B.B.S. degree
examination, done one year of internship and had been working as house officers
in the State of U.P. on 22.8.89. There was a further controversy in those cases
as to whether even persons who had been working as house offi- cers since
1.8.1987 would be eligible for admission to this course and we have, by our
judgment in the connected ap- peals, answered this question in the affirmative.
That question would become relevant here only if we do not agree with the view
taken by the High Court here. We shall, there- fore, keep that issue aside for
the time being and shall deal with it later.
To
continue the narration regarding the scheme, it provided for admission, to the
three year post graduate course, of candidates who had passed the M.B.B.S. examina-
tion and completed one year's internship. Seventy five per cent of the
admission to these courses was 879 to be available to institutional candidates
on the basis of an entrance examination; the balance of twenty five per cent of
the seats was to be filled up on the basis of an all- India entrance examination. This
provision was in tune with certain directions given by this Court from time to
time for regulating admission to medical colleges in various parts of the
country. This Court had in particular directed that while 75% seats in each
medical college all over the country could be filled in by local or
institutional candidates, the balance of 25% should be filled up on an all India basis.
Elaborate
directions were also given by this Court to enable the All India Medical
Institute (A.I.I.M.S.) to conduct a competitive test for selecting the
candidates for these seats reserved on an all India basis. The scheme obviously referred to the all-India
competitive entrance examination to be conducted by the A.I.I.M.S. every year.
Indeed such an examination had been held by he A.I.I.M.S. in January-Febru- ary
1989 and the candidates recommended had been taken into the medical colleges in
U.P. as per the regulations then existing. However, since the new scheme came
into being in the middle of the year, there was no possibility of either a
local entrance examination nor an all-India examination being held to regulate
the admissions to the new course.
C1.3(f)
however provided that, for the 75 % institutional seats, competitive entrance
examination shall be enforced from the fresh batch and that before its
enforcement the admission to institutional seats in residency shall be done on
the basis of the merit of the M.B.B.S. examination. It was, however, silent in
regard to the balance 25% seats. The question arose, therefore, as to what was
to be done in respect of the remaining 25% seats. To meet the situation, the
Direction of Medical Education issued directions, on 3.10.89, to the following
effect:
"Since
there will be no admission of external students this year against 25 % open
seats, therefore, after merging these open seats with 75% additional seats, the
admission of students of 1982 supplementary batch and 1983 regular batch should
be done against the entire 100% seats by making their combined merit."
Accordingly, it seems admissions to 100% seats in the first year of the
three-year post-graduate scheme was thrown open fully to internal candidates,
the admissions being decided on the basis of their merit in the M.B.B.S.
examination. We are, however, not concerned with that issue here.
We are
here concerned with admissions to the second year of the 880 residency scheme.
The scheme made a provision in the second sub-para of para 5 for the adjustment
of 'persons serving in U.P. as house officers by absorbing them into the second-
year of the residency scheme. The provision has been set out and its
implications discussed elaborately in our judgment in the allied batches of
appeals and need not be repeated here. It is not quite clear whether the second
sub-para of para 5 of the scheme covers all the seats in the second year of the
course or only 75% thereof. However, it is apparently understood only as
pertaining to the 75% seats reserved for institutional candidates and, as there
was no other provi- sion in regard to the balance of 25% of the seats, it was
decided that those seats should also be filled in only by institutional
candidates. However, in the meanwhile, an advertisement had been issued by the
Principal of M.L.N. Medical College, Allahabad on 21.9.89. This advertisement pertained only to the filling up of the
seats comprising the 75% reserved for institutional candidates. There was no
advertisement regarding the rest Dr. Vandana Singh applied for admission to the
second year of the degree course. In this state of affairs it is perhaps
possible to dispose of the matter before us by holding that the application of
Dr. Vandana Singh can only be treated as one in response to the advertisement
of 21st September, 1989 and so could not have been entertained as she was not
an institutional candidate and that she has no locus standi, on the basis of
that application, to challenge the admission of other institu- tional
candidates. It is also possible to interpret the second sub-para of para 5 of
the scheme as covering the entirety of the seats for the second year of the
course and not merely 75% of them. In this view also, the application of Dr. Vandana
Singh would have to be rejected.
It
could, however, be argued that as the High Court has proceeded on the footing
that para 5 pertains only to 75% of the seats, quite irrespective of the basis
of her applica- tion, Dr. Vandana Singh has a right to insist that under the
scheme 25% of the seats should be thrown open for all India competition and
that the admissions based on a different basis were rightly quashed. If we
assume this postulate to be correct and go strictly by the terms of the
notification, admissions should be on the basis of an all-India examina- tion.
There was, however, no immediate possibility of any such examination being held
for admission to the course for 1989-90. In this state of affairs, one possible
view which the High Court has taken is that these seats must be kept reserved
for external candidates and the college must now take steps to invite external
candidates--in accordance with the terms contained in the notification dated
26.4.86 if that notification were applicable-and select them in the order of
merit. The college, however, 881 took the view that since no all India
candidates were avail- able on the basis postulated in the scheme, it would be
appropriate to throw open the entire 100% to institutional candidates. It is
not suggested that this proposal was actuated by any mala fides. In fact the
State claims that this course of action has been approved by the decision of
the High Court in the case of Dr. R.P. Pandey. It may be that this is not the
only view possible and that it is also possible to take the view that the
college should have advertised these posts and filled them up by external candi-
dates on the basis of merit. If this be so, such advertise- ment cannot be
continued to persons who are residents of U.P. as was envisaged by the
notification dated 26th April, 1986. That notification had been issued at a
time when the concept of all-India reservation for 25% Of the seats had not
been adumbrated by this Court. Even if we assume that the High Court was right
in saying that external candidates were eligible for admission, that
eligibility cannot be restricted only to those who had already applied--indeed,
Dr. Vandana Singh appears to have been the only one who had applied to the
course in the M.L.N. College--but should be thrown open to all external
candidates fulfilling the quali- fications. This process cannot be completed
within two weeks, as directed by the High Court. To call for applica- tion from
all external candidates and select them, either on the basis of an examination
or otherwise, will be a very lengthy and time-consuming process. In our
opinion, the State Government and the college cannot be faulted for having
decided to fill up the vacancies by offering these seats also to institutional
candidates. This is a decision taken only for a transitional period, because,
from 1990 onwards, admissions will be regulated on the basis of an all-India
examination, and such an examination is conducted by All India Institute of
Medical Sciences every year for all medical colleges in India. In our opinion,
the decision taken by the State Government and the college was a practi- cal
one to tide over a transitional difficulty and there is no justification to
upset the same on the basis of a soli- tary application from an external
candidate.
For
the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the High Court erred in
quashing the admissions made on the grounds given by it, We uphold the
rejection of Dr. Vandana Singh's application. In the view we have taken it is
not necessary to express any opinion as to whether, even on the basis of the
notification dated 26.4.86, Dr. Vandana Singh is eligible for consideration for
admission to the course or she disqualified from such consideration for the
reasons urged on behalf of the State, Dr. Juhi Jain and Dr. Padma Panjwani.
882
For the reasons mentioned above, we set aside the order of the High Court and
hold that the application of Dr. Vandana Singh was rightly rejected by the
college. We should, however, like to point out that, in the connected batch of
appeals, we have upheld that interpretation by the High Court of Para 5 of the
scheme and held that the eligi- bility for admission of institutional
candidates is not confined to those who were on house jobs as on 22.8.89 but
would also extend to those institutional candidates who have been in house jobs
since 1.8.87. The result of these two judgments read together will be that the
entire 100% of the institutional seats should be filled up from out of all such
applicants, subject to their fulfilling any other qualifica- tions and
requirements that may be in force. Earlier, the admission of the six candidates
to 75% of the seats as well as of Dr. Juhi Jain and Dr. Padma Panjwani to 25%
of the seats had been made by excluding institutional candidates who had
completed their house jobs between 1.8.87 and 22.8.89. This will need to be
reviewed now. The entire process of admission will now have to be redone in the
light of these decisions. The selections of Dr. Juhi Jain and Dr. Padma Panjwani
will be valid only if they come through successfully on merits on such
reconsideration. We have, therefore, to agree with the High Court that the
admissions of Dr. Juhi Jain and Dr. Padma Panjwani should also be set aside but
direct that the admissions be redone in the light of our observations in these
two judgments. These appeals are disposed of accordingly. We, however, make no order
as to costs.
Back