State of
Punjab Vs. Renuka Singla [1993] INSC 510
(26 November 1993)
SINGH
N.P. (J) SINGH N.P. (J) AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) CITATION: 1994 AIR 595 1994 SCC (1) 175 JT 1993 (6) 524
1993 SCALE (4)564
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
The
Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.P. SINGH, J.- These appeals have been
filed on behalf of the State of Punjab for setting aside an order dated
December 18, 1992 passed by the High Court on writ applications, filed on
behalf of respondent 1, Renuka Singla, and respondent 2, Savita Gera directing
to admit respondent 1 against the seat reserved for candidates belonging to
backward areas which had fallen vacant as a result of withdrawal of one Sanjiv Goyal
from the BDS course and to admit respondent 2, after creating an additional
seat on compassionate ground.
2.The
respondents aforesaid appeared at the Premedical Test conducted in May 1992. In
the merit list of candidates belonging to backward areas, the position of
respondent 1 was at serial No. 9 whereas that of respondent 2 was at serial No.
10. There is no dispute that in the application form which had been filed on
behalf of respondent 1 for the aforesaid test, no claim was 177 made on her
behalf for admission against a seat reserved for backward area. So far
respondent 2 is concerned, in her application form she claimed admission
against a seat reserved for backward areas and in support of her said claim she
also enclosed a certificate as required by the prospectus issued for the year
1992-93. On basis of the merit list, respondent 1 was granted admission to BAMS
course against general category seats. In the meantime, the aforesaid Sanjiv Goyal,
who had been admitted in the BDS course, withdrew his admission and because of
that a seat became available. Respondent 1 filed the writ application aforesaid
claiming that seat, saying that she belonged to a backward area and as such she
was entitled to be admitted against that seat in BDS course. As already
mentioned, in her application for admission, neither she had claimed admission,
as a candidate belonging to backward area, nor she had produced any certificate
in support thereof. Later she forwarded a certificate that she belonged to a
backward area and made the claim even on that basis, apart from her original
claim against the general category seat.
3.The
High Court by the impugned order, having taken note of the fact that respondent
1 had not submitted any certificate along with the admission form and claimed
to have forwarded the same later, which did not reach the competent authority
before the prescribed date, still directed that respondent 1 be admitted
against the said seat, which had become vacant, on "compassionate
ground", treating her to be belonging to the backward area. In respect of
respondent 2, as already mentioned above, the High Court directed that a seat
be created for her admission. Having issued the direction aforesaid, the
learned Judges observed that the admission of the respondents should not be
treated as precedent, because direction had been issued for the admission, in view
of the peculiar facts of the case.
4.The
stand of the appellant-State is that the application for admission of
respondent 1 cannot be considered, against a seat reserved for candidates
coming from backward area, in view of the fact that no such claim was made on
behalf of respondent 1 and it was only at a later stage, after the prescribed
date, a certificate was forwarded on behalf of the said respondent, claiming
admission even as a candidate belonging to the backward area.
5.The
Dental Council of India has appeared and filed an
affidavit, saying that the number of seats are fixed and the High Court should
not have directed to create an additional seat for the admission of respondent
2. On behalf of Dental Council of India, it was pointed out that it has to
function under the Dentists Act, 1948 and to act according to the regulations
framed thereunder, which prescribe the requirement regarding medical staff,
other staff, equipment and the infrastructure of a Dental College. The number of seats are fixed taking into consideration
the staff position and infrastructure of a particular college. For the Government Dental College, Amritsar, in BDS course, the number of admissions have been fixed at
40.
6.Section
10-A of the Dentists Act provided that except with previous permission of the
Central Government obtained in accordance with the provisions of the said
section, no authority or institution shall increase its 178 admission capacity
in any course of study or training (including a post graduate course of study
or training).
The
relevant part of Section 10-B says:
"10-B.
(3) Where any authority or institution granting recognised dental qualification
increases its admission capacity in any course of study or training (including
a postgraduate course of study or training) except with the previous permission
of the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of Section 10-A no
dental qualification granted to any student of such authority or institution on
the basis of the increase in its admission capacity shall be a recognised
dental qualification for the purpose of this Act."
7. On
behalf of the State, a firm stand was taken that there is no other seat vacant
than the one due to withdrawal of the admission of aforesaid Sanjiv Goyal.
8.The
admission in medical course throughout India is governed by different statutory provisions, including regulations
framed under different Acts. During last several years efforts have been made
to regulate the admissions to the different medical institutions, in order to
achieve academic excellence. But, at the same time, a counter-attempt is also
apparent and discernible, by which the candidates, who are not able to get
admissions against the seats fixed by different statutory authorities, file
writ applications and interim or final directions are given to admit such
petitioners. We fail to appreciate as to how the High Court or this Court can
be generous or liberal in issuing such directions which in substance amount to
directing the authorities concerned to violate their own statutory rules and
regulations, in respect of admissions of students. It cannot be disputed that
technical education, including medical education, requires infrastructure to
cope with the requirement of giving proper education to the students, who are
admitted. Taking into consideration the infrastructure, equipment, staff, the
limit of the number of admissions is fixed either by the Medical Council- of
India or Dental Council of India. The High Court cannot disturb that balance
between the capacity of the institution and number of admissions, on
"compassionate ground". The High Court should be conscious of the
fact that in this process they are affecting the education of the students who
have already been admitted, against the fixed seats, after a very tough
competitive examination. According to us, there does not appear to be any
justification on the part of the High Court, in the present case, to direct
admission of respondent 1 on " compassionate ground" and to issue a
fiat to create an additional seat which amounts to a direction to violate
Section 10-A and Section 10-B(3) of the Dentists Act referred to above.
9.
Accordingly, the direction given to admit respondent 1, Renuka Singla, against
the one vacant seat, is set aside, since we are of the opinion that against
that seat respondent 2, Savita Gera, has a better claim, because her
application was in proper form along with proper certificate that she belonged
to a backward area. No such claim had been made on behalf of respondent 1, Renuka
Singla, and no certificate in support of said claim had been filed on her
behalf. Respondent 2, Savita Gera, should be admitted 179 against the seat
which had fallen vacant due to withdrawal of the admission by Sanjiv Goyal.
10.On
behalf of Renuka Singla, it was pointed out that pursuant to the order passed
by the High Court, she has been admitted and because of her admission in the
BDS course she has left BAMS course. It is not possible to issue a direction
that she be again admitted to BAMS course. But, if any seat in BAMS course is
available, then she should be considered for admission against that seat.
11.The
appeals are accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. In the
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Back
