Mreeti Mittal Vs. Gaganjotkaur Saira
& Ors [2000] INSC 195 (5 April 2000)
K. Venkataswam., S.S.M.Quadei
K. VENKATASWAjMI,J.
Judgment
L.I.T.J All these eight appeals arise out of
a common order dated 26.11.98 of the Punjab and Karyana High Court made in CWP
Nos. 12304, 12350, 13775, 13296, 12350 of 1998. The Chandigarh Administration
& Another (hereinafter called the "appellants') have preferred four
appeals and 'the individuals affected by the order under appeal have filed
separately four appeals. The common issue relates to the admission of the
candidates to the MBBS course for the year 1998-99 in the Government Medical
College, Chandigarh (hereinafter called the 'College'). Brief facts leading to
the filing of the Writ -Petitions are as under.
The. Government Medical College, Chandigarh,
was started in the year 1991 with an annual intake of 50 MBBS seats. 15% of the
seats (7 seats) were being filled by the College from the All India Quota seats
in accordance with the decision of this Court from the year 19SI upto 1994 by
admitting students selected through the Combined Entrance Test conducted by the
CBSE, New- Delhi. It appears that from the year' 1994-1995 onwards the
Directorate of Health Services, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,
Government of India, did not send any students against the 7 seats on account
of an order of the Punjab & Haryana High Court holding that the College was
not a recognised one.
Consequently, all the 50 seats were filled
exclusively from the Chandigarh Pool. While so, on 27.3.1998 the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in CWP No.2731 of 1998 held that 100% reservations for the
students of Chandigarh Pool was against the settled principles of law .on the
point. In view of the 'said judgment dated 27.3.98 of the Punjab & Haryana
High Court, it was decided by the Administration to fill _ up, 15% seats from
All India Pool and the remaining 85% from Chandigarh Pool. Accordingly, a
Notification was issued on 19.9.98. In the said Notification, clause (d) reads
as follows:- "If candidate clears in All India Pool, even though belonging
to Chandigarh, he/she would have the right to be considered and admitted in
that pool subject to his/her merit. Other conditions would remain the -same."
Similar clause identically worded bearing No. 4 finds a place under the heading
'Clarifications' in the Prospectus issued for the year 1998 by the College.
After the select list was published, the
contesting respondents in these appeals challenged the same by filing the
separate Writ Petitions.
The question that fell for consideration of
the Punjab & Haryana High Court was whether the Administration was right in
first filling up 85% of Chandigarh Pool out of merit list and then filling up
the remaining 15% of All India Pool. According to the Writ Petitioners before
the High Court (hereinafter referred to as "Writ Petitioners'), the
Administration was not right and it has acted against ths spirit of clause (d)
of the Notification corresponding to clause 4 of the 'Clarifications' given in
the Prospectus. The contention of the Writ Petitioners was that 15% of 'the All
India Pool must have been filled in first and the remaining S5%'of Chandigarh
Pool must have been filled up subsequently. The reason for taking such a stand
by the Writ Petitioners was that by filling up Chandigarh Pool first, the
meritorious students hailing from Chandigarh lost their seats/claims, which had
been given to candidates from All India Pool. ^actually speaking, according to
the Writ Petitioners the first seven numbers from the merit list were all
candidates from the Chandigarh Pool. But for the impugned procedure followed by
the Administration by filling up Chandigarh Pool in the first instance, no
single seat could have gone to candidates from All India Pool. In that way,
according to the Writ Petitioners, the Chandigarh Pool candidates are affected.
On the other hand, the reason for filling up the Chandigarh Pool first followed
by All India Pool, according to the Administration, was to safeguard the
interests of All India Pool candidates and to make the order of the High Court
meaningful and purposeful.
It was the claim of the Administration that
neither the Notification nor the Prospectus gives any specific direction
regarding the -filing up of candidates in .the first instance from either Pool.
Therefore, the Administration by invoking clause-I of the 'Overriding
Conditions' given in the Prospectus, devised the method as noticed above.
The High Court, after considering the rival
submissions and interpreting clause (d) of the Notification equivalent to
clause 4 of the 'Clarifications', was of the view that the procedure followed
by the Administration was not in accordance with the said
instructions/prospectus.
The High Court also was of the view that
there was no occasion for the Administration to invoke clause-I of the
overriding conditions as there was no ambiguity. It is seen from the judgment
that the High Court proceeded on the basis that the Notification dated 19.5.98
explicitly made a provision that the All India Pool candidates would be filled
in first and the Chandigarh Pool thereafter according to the merit. This
assumption appears to be not correct. In view of what is stated above, the High
Court allowed the Writ Petiitons and directed the appellants to reframe the
merit list of the eligible candidates for the admission to MBBS course by
filling up All India Fool in the first instance and then the candidates from
the Chandigarh Fool. The High Court also set aside the seat given to a Scheduled
Caste candidate from Chandigarh Pool on the ground that no Scheduled Caste
candidate from All India Pool was available and directed that the seat should
be given to the general candidate from All India Pool.
Aggrieved by the above decision of the High
Court, these appeals are preferred by special leave.
The leading argument was advanced by Ms.indu
Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the Administation. According to the
learned counsel, the comroon issue raised in these cases is a one time issue in
the sense that the seats, belonging to the All India Pool were being filled up,
upto the year 1994, by accepting the students whose names were given by the
Central Board of Secondary Education.
Thereafter, between the year 1995-1998 no
students were accepted from the All India Quota due to lack of recognition of
Government Medical College, Chandigarh, by the Medical Council of India. It is
only for the year 1998-1999 the students were sought to be accepted from the
All India Pool in compliance with the directions given by the High Court of
Punjab & Haryana. With effect from the academic year commencing 1999, the
Central Board of Secondary Education would recommend names of candidates to be
given admission to the seats set apart for the All India Pool and, therefore,
the present arrangement was only for the academic .year 1993-33 and will not
recur hereafter.
Apart from the above submission, it is the
contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that this Court in [(1989)
2 SCC 626] has categorically held that filling up of seats by the
Administration is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Administration and the
Courts shall not interfere with that unless the course adopted by the
Administration was arbitrary. According the learned counsel, the Administration
has to resort to the method adopted in these cases to safeguard the interests
of the candidates from Ail India Pool and if the direction given by the High
Court is to be followed, it will be not only detrimental to the interests of
students applying under All India Pool, but also will be contrary to the law
laid down by this Court in Minoo Noazer Kavarana's case ( supra ).
On the other hand, counsel appearing for the
contesting respondents (writ petitioners before the High Court) contended that
the High Court was right in interpreting the scope of cl-ause (d) of.the
Noificaion corresponding to clause 4 of the 'Clarifications*. It was also the
contention of the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents that
it is not open to the Administration to go against a judgment of the Pujnab
& Haryana High Court rendered in CWP No. 11653/93 fNeetika release of the
list, dismissing a writ petition moved by a candidate from All India Fool
praying for a direction to the Adiainistrationto fill up first the candidates
from Chandigarh Pool and then the candidates from All India Pool.
Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
Shishir Gupta (Writ Petitioner in W.P. No. 13775/98) submitted that his name
{Shishir Gupta} was found in the merit list at Serial No.50 and in spite of
that/he was not selected whereas Serial Numbers below him were found in the
Select List. To this, the answer of learned counsel for the
appellant-Administration is that Shishir Gupta did not apply for a seat in the
Government Medical College, Chandigarh, and therefore he cannot find faul.t
with the Select List.
We have considered the rival submissions. We
have already seen that from 1994-1995 to 1997- 1998 no students were selected
from the All India quota on the ground that the Government Medical College,
Chandigarh had no recognition from Medical Council of India.
It is only by reason of the judgment of the
High Court in C.W.P. No. 2731/98 the Chandigarh Administration decided to fill
up 7 seats by candidates from All India Pool. It is important to bear in mind
that neither the Notification nor the Prospectus issued for admission to MBBS
Course for the Session 1998-99 did contain any indication that the seats for
All India Pool would be filled up first and thereafter the seats reserved for
Chandigarh/U.T. Pool would be filled up. The High Court at one place wrongly
stated as follows ;- "Administration in its Notification dated 19.05.1998
explicitly made a provision that the All India Pool candidates would be filled
in the first and the .
Chandigarh Pool thereafter according to merit
. " Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents also could
not sustain the above assumption of the High Court as there was no such
direction in the Notification/Prospectus.
While rejecting the contention of the learned
counsel appearing for the Administration about the invoking Clause lof
the-Overriding conditions, the High Court observed thus "Clause I of the
"Overriding Conditions" given at page 6 of the Brochure is reproduced
below;-
1. admissions are made according to the les
and regulations as mentioned in this .Dspecus. However, in all maers which
either need inerpreaion or for which no provision esiss in he prospecus, the
decision of he Admission Commiee shall be final. Nocorrespondence will be
entertained regarding rejection or disqualification of any candidate." It
will be seen that this clause authorised the Admission Committee to operate in
two fields in case of doubt: firstly, in matters which needed interpretation
and secondly, in such matters where no provision existed in the prospectus. To
our mind, the conditions for exercise of this power did not exist in the
present case as there was no ambiguity, flaw or any gap in the provisions of
the prospectus or the brochure with regard to the manner or method to be
followed in the making of admissions as it had repeatedly been set out by
implication in both these documents that admissions were to be made first
against the All India Pool and thereafter against the Chandigarh Pool seats."
The above observations also do not appear to be correct because as noticed
earlier neither the Notification nor the Prospectus give any guideline as to
the manner of filling up of the seats which necessitated the Admission
Committee to invoke Clause JL of the "Overriding Conditions* in the
Prospectus. The High Court was, therefore, not right in holding that there was
no room for the AdiTilssion Committee to invoke Clause I of the 'Overriding
Conditions'.
It is seen from the papers that on 3.8.1998,
a day before the publication of the results, the Admission Comittee decided to
fill up Chandigarh Pool first and thereafter to fill up the All India Fool. The
.reasons for doing so, according to Chandigarh Administration, were that such a
course will benefit the All India Pool candidates and the Chandigarh Pool
candidates were eligible to be considered for both Pools and they were in a
large number.
It was also considered that the meritorious
candidates of Chandigarh Pool were accommodated in the 43 seats set apart for
Union Territory and the Chandigarh students did not encroach upon the seats set
apart from the All India Pool for which also they (Chandigarh Pool) were
eligible to be considered. The reasons for filling up Chandigarh Pool first do
appear to us as fair and reasonable for it made the selection of candidates
from All India Pooi meaningful. The observations of the High Court that the
decision of the Admission Committee to fill up the Chandigarh Pool seats first
had the effect of denying admission to some of the Chandigarh Pool candidates
who would have otherwise secured adroission in the All India Pool is also not
sustainabie as the meritorious students from the Chandigarh Pool were permitted
to compete with the All .India Pool candidates' As a matter of fact in the All
.India Pool list published, candidate from Chandigarh Pool was selected.
It is in these circumstances that the
judgment of this Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Minoo Moazer Kavarana &
Ors.etc [(1983) 2 SCC 626) was pressed into service by the Chandigarh
Administration before the High Court. The learned .Judges however were of the
view that that judgment was rendered on the peculiar facts of that case and,
therefore, reliance cannot be placed. On the other hand, we find that the
judgment of this Court in the said case squarely covers the issue. This Court
in the said judgment, while dealing with more or less similar situation,
observed as follows :- "It may be stated at this stage that by virtue of
the judgment in the case of Nidamari Maheshkumar vs. State of Maharashtra
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 is of the view that the 30 per 'cent
of seats should have been filed 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 markes 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 seats first and, thereafter, 70 per cent of seats and such direction
has created some complications in the matter." The above passage clearly
indicates that the manner in which the seats were filled up by the Chandigarh
Administration is quite in accordance with the view expressed by this Court.
As observed in the said judgment of this
Court, there was no good reason for the High Court to interfere with the
decision of the Chandigarh Administration in the matter of filling up of seats
for the MBBS Course.
13 The contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the contesting respondents that in view of the decision of the
Punjab &Haryana High Court in Neetika Bansal case f supra) the procedure
followed by the Chandigarh Administration was not correct, is not acceptable.
It is seen that in the Neetika Bansal case (supra) the challenge related to the
correctness of the provision {clause (d) of the Notification) which enabled the
Chandigarh/U.T. Pool candidates to compete both for the All India Pool and
Chandigarh Pool. While dismissing the writ petition, the High Court no doubt
made certain observations which are in favour of the contesting respondents.
However, having regard to the scope of the writ petition and in view of the
discussion above, we do not think that the decision in Neetika Bansal case
(supra) stood in the way of Admission Committee taking the decision, as noted
above, on 3.8.1998.
The contention advanced by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of Shishir Gupta to the effect that though his name
did find a place in the merit list at Sr.No. 50, his name did not find a place
in the select list, is also unsustainable inasmuch as that he did not apply to
the Government Medical College, Chandigarh.
Incidentally, we have also noticed that the
issue on hand, as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Chandigarh
Administration, is one ime issue as from the year 1999-2000 the candidates for
Ail India Pool will be given by the Central Board of Secondary Education and,
therefore, the selection by the Chandigarh Administration for this category
will not arise in future. We also notice that the candidates selected as per
the list published by the Administration had undergone the course nearly for a
year and in the absence of strong reasons for setting aside the selection, the
Court will not interfere with the selection.
Regarding the seat given to the general
candidate in All India Pool by the High Court on the ground that no Scheduled
Caste candidate in that Pool was available, we are of the view that the High
Court was not right in giving that direction. We have already seen that as per
Clause fd) of the Notification, the candidates from Chandigarh Pool are
entitled to compete both for Chandigarh Pool as well as All India Pool. That
being the position, when a Scheduled Caste candidate was not available in the All
India Pool and.suah. candidate is.available in Chandigarh Pool that must go to
a Scheduled Caste candidate in Chandigarh Pool. The reason given by the High
Court that on a reading of clause 3 of the Clarifications the seat should go to
general candidate in All India Pool, is based on wrong appreciation of that
clause 3. Clause 3 reads as follows :" "3. If the requisite number of
students belonging to Scheduled Caste category are not available, seats thus
remaining vacant will be open to students of the general category." There
is no indication that the seat belonging to Scheduled Caste category in a
particular Pool should go to general category of that Pool. Clause 3 generally
says that if a Scheduled Caste candidate is not available the seat must go to
general category. This clause read with clause 4 of the Clarifications
corresponding to clause (d) of the Notification, will clearly show that if a
Scheduled Caste candidate is not available in All India Pool that must go to
Scheduled Caste candidate in Chandigarh Pool, if available.
Therefore, the High Court was not right in
directing that the seat belonging to Scheduled caste category in All India Pool
to be given to general category in the same Fool. For all these reasons, the
.appeals are allowed and the Writ Petitions filed before the Punjab and Karynna
High Court challenging the selection of candidates for the first year H53S
course for the year 1998-99 shall stand dismissed. However, there will be no or
as to costs.
Back
