Gujarat University Vs. Rajiv Gopinath Bhatt & Ors  INSC 639 (1 May 1996)
N.P. (J) Singh N.P. (J) Ahmadi A.M. (Cj) Kirpal B.N. (J) N.P.Singh, J.
1996 AIR 2066 1996 SCC (4) 60 JT 1996 (5) 333 1996 SCALE (4)305
appeal has been filed on behalf of the Gujarat University (hereinafter referred
to as the university) for setting aside an order dated 30.9.1991, passed by the
High Court directing the appellant-university to grant admission to the
respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) in the super speciality
course of M.Ch. (Master of Chirurgee) in Onco surgery, in the session which
commenced from 1.7.1991.
appears that the appellant-university invited applications for admission to two
years' super speciality courses of D.M. and M.Ch. commencing from 1.7.1991, An
entrance examination was also conducted to select the students for admission in
the aforesaid courses. The number of seats in the super speciality courses are
very limited, because of which in the rule framed by the appellant university
it has been provided that the first preference shall be given to the students
of the appellant-university.
students from other universities are not denied admission but they have to rank
next to the students of the appellant-university. As the respondent aforesaid
was denied admission on the ground that he was not a student of the
appellant-University, a writ petition was filed on his behalf, before the High
Court, which as already stated above was allowed by the impugned order.
the appeal was taken up for hearing, counsel appearing for the parties,
informed the Court that this appeal has become infructuous, because on basis of
the order passed by the High Court, the respondent was allowed to join the
course and he has already completed the course. In this background, this Court
is not actually required to examine the grievance made on behalf of the
appellant-university in respect of the directions given by the High Court.
However, the learned counsel, appearing for the university drew the attention
of the Court to the relevant rule for selection of the candidate for admission
in the super speciality courses:
- 16: Selection for super-specialities courses (i.e.M.Ch and D.M.).
First preference will be given to candidates from Gujarat University. Second preference will be given to candidates from other
Universities of Gujarat State. Any vacancy remaining after this shall remain
Post-graduate degree qualification i.e. M.D. or M.S. is essential.
Vice-Chancellor will arrange thereby examination the candidates, preferably
will be held. The result of this examination will be sole criterion for
admission and decision of the Vice-Chancellor will be final .
stand of the university in the affidavit in reply filed before the High Court,
was that the basis of the admission is merit; only preference is to be given to
the students of the appellant-university. The High Court has pointed out that
students who have passed M.D./M.S. examination either from the
appellant-university or from any other university recognized by the
appellant-university are eligible for being admitted to the super speciality
courses in question, and the clause saying that preference will be given to the
students of the appellant-university was violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. In this connection reference was made by the High Court
to the judgments of this Court in the cases of Jagdish Saran vs. Union of India,
(1980) 2 SCC 768 and Pradeep Jain vs. Union of India,(1984) 3 SCC 654, where it
has been observed that the Court cannot allow excellence to be compromised for
any other consideration.
examining that question in detail it may be pointed out that the aforesaid
judgments were not in connection with the admission in super speciality course.
At the same time, we reiterate that object. of any institution while selecting
applicants for admission is to select the best amongst the applicants, regional
and other considerations which do not satisfy the test of Article 14 of the
Constitution should not affect the merit criteria.
from time to time, this Court taking into consideration the local and regional
compulsions have been making efforts to strike a balance so that the students
who have pursued the studies in a particular State and have been admitted in
the medical colleges of that State are not suddenly thrown on the street when
question of their admission in super speciality courses arises, in which the
seats are limited in number. In the case of Pradeep Jain vs. Union of India,
(supra) this Court has observed:
are, therefore, of the view that a certain percentage of reservation on the
basis of residence requirement may legitimately be made in order to equalise
opportunities for medical admission on a broader basis and to bring about real
and not formal, actual and not merely legal, equality. The percentage of
reservation made on this count may also include institutional reservation for
students passing the PUC or pre-medical examination of the same university or
clearing the qualifying examination from the school system of the educational
hinterland of the medical colleges in the State...." The same question was
again examined in the case of Dinesh Kumar vs. Motilal Nehru Medical College,
(1986) 3 SCC 727.
in the case of Anant Madan vs. State of Haryana, (1995) 2 SCC 135, it was said
eligibility condition, therefore, which requires that the candidate should have
studied 10th, 10+1 and 10+2 classes from a recognized institution in the State
of Haryana is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable and the Punjab and Haryana
High Court has rightly upheld the same." Therefore, if a rule has been
framed that out of the merit list prepared, preference is to be given for
admission in the super speciality courses to the students of the university in
question perse it cannot be held to be arbitrary, unreasonable or violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution.
learned counsel, appearing for the appellant university, could not explain the
object and purpose of part of the impugned rule which provides "any
vacancy remaining after this shall remain unfilled". This part of the rule
cannot be held to rational. It is only just and proper that the. university
should examine and give a fresh look to the said rule making provision for
filling up even such vacancies which are not filled for one reason or the
other; of course within the time schedule prescribed for the super speciality
appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders as to cost.
Pages: 1 2