KRISHNA PRIYA GANGULY ETC.
UNIVERSITY OF LUCKNOW & ORS. ETC.
October'7, 1983 ' “a {S. Murtaza FazaL AuI, A. VARADARAJAN, AND M. P. THAKKAR,, JJ.) Admissions to post-graduate courses in medicine—Directions granting provisional admissions pending disposal of petitions—approach by Courts.
State Government orders laying down criteria for admissions—Whether of _ Statutory effect, when they are consistent with rules framed by Medical Council of India?
This batch of appeals arose out of admissions sought by several candidates to post-graduate courses in the Medical Colleges of Uttar Pradesh. While in some of them the candidates were the ‘appellants and the State the
‘ respondent, in others it was vice versa, By an order dated 3-12-1980 the State Government:had laid down that admissions were to be made purely on the ‘basis of merit, the criterion being the total percentage of marks obtained by the candidate in¢he M.B.B.S. examination. In as many as 9 out of the 20 appeals,’
the candidates who had been given provisional admissions pursuant to ‘interim orders made by the Court had completed their courses and only their results were to be declared. In all those cases, the State, realising the futility of forcing the candidates to complete the course all over again, conceded that the results of such candidates may be declared and on passing the same they would be admitted to the courses concerned though the candidates in question were lacking in merit and their original rejection: was justified. In one of the appeals .
filed by the State, the candidate in question had obtained only 43 | per cent ‘marks at the M.B.B.S. examination and happened to be the last candidate in the list of persons who had applied for admission to the Post-graduate ,course, Although the candidate had merely prayed for a writ directing ‘the State or the college to consider his case ‘for admission, the High Court, relying mainly ‘on * the fact that the candidate had a diploma to his credit, . straightaway issued a writ of mandamus directing the college to admit him to the course applied for, thereby granting a relief which the candidate himself had not prayed for.
HELD ; The practice of forcing the authorities to grant provisional admissions has been evolved keeping in view the fact that on accouht of huge
. accumulation of arrears in courts it takes a long time for petitions to be disposed of. By the time the cases come up for hearing, the rejected candidates might have completed their course and become eligible for admission to the higher course although the court may ultimately find that their initial rejection was justified and they did not deserve to be admitted to the course. Sucha situation becomes a sort of fait accompli for those in charge of the institutions
. v
Ke GANGULY v, LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY (Fazal Ali, 7.) 303 - at a result of which the candidates are admitted in due deference to the désire of the court by increasing or creating vacancies even in the absence of proper facilities to. train the extra candidates, Unless the institutions can proyide . complete facilities for the training ‘ofeach candidate admitted in the various disciplines, the medical education will be incomplete and.the universities would be turning out doctors not fully qualified which would adversely affect the
‘health of the people in general. Therefore, the practice of lightly granting provisional admissions should be discontinued in future. Whenever a writ petition is filed, provisional admission should not be given as a matter of course on the petition being admitted unless the court is fully satisfied that the petitioner has a cast-iron case which. is bound to succeed or the error is so ¢ross or apparent that no other conclusion is possible. In order to test this fact, even a short notice may be given to explore as to what the other side has to say and thereafter if the court is satisfied that there is a strong prima facie
* case and the matter needs thorough examination, provisional admission may - be given.
' . Ld
_. The State Government order dated 3-12-1980 prescribing the criteria for admission to post-graduate courses in Medical Colleges made under s.28(5) of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973; is fully consistent with the tenor and - spirit of the rules framed by the Medical Council of India. The rules framed by the Medical Council of India have a statutory effect under s.33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and are binding on all the colleges and universities providing for medical education in the country: .
The High Court had made a very arbitrary, casual and laconic approach to the case of the candidate who had obtained 43 per cent niatks and based its judgment purely on speculation and conjectures swept: away by. the consideration that the candidate possessed a diploma to his credit when, in fact, other candidates also had obtained diploma and that could not be taken into gonsideration under the prescribed rules. .
Civit APPELLATE JURISDICTON : Civil Appeal Nos. 133. 134, 137+140, 142-146, 595, 3045-3046 of 1982.
(Appeals by Special leave Petitions from the Judgment and Order dated the Ist October, 1981 & 14th August, 1981 of the Allaha« bad High Court (Lucknow Bench) in Writ Petition Nos. 1834,3946, 3825, 2953, 4163, 4177, 4234, 4319.4320, 3591, 3775, 2952 and 1662 of 1981).
With” Civil Appeal No. 3047 of 1982
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and -Order dated the 19th March, 1982 of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) - in WP. No. 4245 of 1981.
“$04 " SUPREME COURT REPORTS: (1584) t s.c.k.
ADVOCATES FOR THE APPEARING PARTIES :
S. N. Kacker, Ms. S. Bhandare;. T. Sridharan & Ms,.G. K.
Sudhariata.
UK. K, Jain, M.D. Sagar, P. Dayal, Pankaj Kalra, R. P. Singh, V. A, Bobde, K. J. John, Altaf Ahmed, Kailash Vasdey, Ms. Vrinda, Anil Kumar Gupta, Brij Bhushan, Kapil Sibil, Ms. S. Dikshit, Sudhi Kulshreshtha, B.R. Agarwala, R.H. Pancholi, Vijayalakshmi Menon &
BP. Singh.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Fazal Ali. J. : Soon after our hard’ won freedom there was a gradual rise in the urban population in view of the process of indusrialisation and setting up of heavy projects and industries in order
.to make our country more and more self-sufficient. This led to a certain spurt and rise in the urban population as people from the rural areas started pouring into the urban cities which provided far
~ better opportunities for education and employment than the Tural areas. This sudden increase in urban population led to the spread of epidemics and diseases resulting in a rapid growth of educational institutions both in the public and private sectors.
In these appeals, we are concerned only with the medical edu-- cation; the Government had to face a serious problem with the com-
-ing up of medical colleges which started growing like mushrooms and were charging huge capitation fees to make substantial profits without providing proper medical education and caring precious little for achieving excellence of standards in medical education which, if denuded of such standards, would pose a serious health hazard to the people. Surely, we would not wish that people who could ill-afford to go in for well equipped expensive medica! practitioners should be thrown at the mercy of quacks. Similar situation arose in technical, engineering and other kids of institutions but we would concentrate on the feature ‘and facets of medical education which alone forms the subject-matter of these appeals. We have seen .from our experience that each year there is a:huge rush for admission to seats in medical colleges for various courses, which being rather few and insufficient to contro! or absorb all sorts and kinds of candidates as the well-known Persian proverb “JAYE TANG AST
‘WA MARDUMA BISYAR” (ite. little space and people many) seems aptly to apply in such a situation. However, in order to meet the
K.p. GANGULY v. LucKNOW UNIVERSITY (Fazal Ali, J.) 305 contingency resulting from a heavy rush for admissions the institue tions set up certain standards or tests which had to be complied with before candidates could be admitted. Here also, as in other spheres, favouritism and nepotism have their own role to play asa result of which merits suffer. In order to meet these contingencies and: ward off such evils, the Government through its circulars and the Medical Council of India being alive to this delicate and diffi- ‘cult problem sought to solve the problem by making rules and regulations for admission of candidates to various courses in different
- disciplines (subjects) to achieve excellence in medical standards kee- ping in view statutory and constitutional reservations. Unfortunately, however, these rules were often fiduted and observed more in breach than in compliance by those who were in charge of the medi- cal education : the result was again a huge spurt of writ petitions in - the High Court to weed out the inefficient and ineligible and absorb
, the efficient and eligible,
With this short prelude, now to the facts of the case which disclose a sad story indeed-not because those in charge of the institutions commit errors but because the courts start, directing the autho- Tities to grant provisional. admissions to students even if they did not deserve the same in some cases. Experience has shown that in view of the huge accumulation of arrears in courts, it takes a long time for the petitions to be disposed of, hence we have evolved the _ practice of forcing the authorities to grant provisional admissions which has resulted in a piquant and pungent situation because by the time the case comes up for hearing, ‘the rejected candidates having completed their course and having appeared at the examination with every hope of success become eligible for admission to the higher course in case of success though the Court may ultimately find that of a fait accompli for those in charge of the institutions as a result of which the candidates are admitted in due deference to the desire of the court by increasing or creating vacancies even in the absence their initial rejection was justified. Such a situation becomes a sort’
of suitable and proper facilities to train the extra candidates: This results in an anathema and a dilemma for which there is hardly any remedy. The present cases are a clear illustration of this problem Our suggestions, therefore, is that whenever a’ writ petition is filed provisional admission should not be given as a matter of course on the petition being admitted unless the court is fully satisfied that the | petitioner has a cast-iron case which is bound to succeed or the error is so gross or apparent that no other conclusion is possible. In order, however, to test this fact even a short notice maybe given to
. education will be incomplete and the universities would be turning out Doctors not fully qualified which would adversely affect the ~
306 | ; SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 1 s.¢.8.
explore as. to whiat the other side has to say and thereafter if the court is satisfied that there is strong prima facie case and the matter needs thorough examination, provisional admission may be given. We hope and trust that the High Courts would in future discontinue the practice of lightly granting provisional admission to the candidates at the time of regular admissions, as observed above. It is needless to state that this Court on its part would also be extremely
. reluctant to grant provisional admission and would do so only ina very special case. The fundamental reason for this is that otherwise the institutions are likely to become overcrowded by candidates, eligible or ineligible, efficient or inefficient. Unless the Institutions gan provide complete and full facilities for the training of each candidate who is admitted in the various disciplines, the medical health of the people in general. ,
Out of these appeals, some of them have been dismissed as not pressed, others were heard on merits. By the time the case was taken up by this Court, in as many as 9 out of the 20 appeals the candidates had completed their courses and as only the result had to be declared, the counsel for the State with his usual fairness, realising the futility of forcing the candidates to complete the course all over again conceded that the results of such candidates may. be declared and on passing the same they would be admitted to the courses concerned though the petitioners were lacking in merits and their original rejection was justified. We made this direction by a formal order, the reasons for which we would give hereafter.
This now brings us to the consideration of the appeals which.
survive. “Before dealing with the individual cases of the appellants/
‘respondents, it may be necessary for usto adjudicate on the. validity of the circulars passed by the Government and the ru'es and regulations framed by the Medical Council of India, to put the matter beyond controversy so that a consistent test.may be applied to all -candidates desiring admission and unless rules are adhered to, admissions would be denied in which case this Court will not interfere in
_’ the absence of a plea of prejudice. or bias which would be naturally . "for the candidates to establish.
In some cases the candidates are appellants and in a few the State is the appellant and therefore for facility, the candidates who
_ have filed appeals against refusal for: admission to the M.D.M.S.
iL r a
K.P. GANGULY ¥. LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY (Fazal 4li, J.) — 307
' Course of the king Georges Medical College, affiliated to the Luc¢k-
“now University, will hereinafter be referred to as the candidates’ and the State of Uttar Pradesh will be referred to as the ‘State’. We might
‘also mention that before the appeals were heard‘on merit, C.A. Nos. —
132 and 136/82 were dismissed as not pressed, owing to lack of instructions, by our Order dated 17-8-83 and C.A. Nos. 135, 141 and 163/82 were also dismissed by this Court as not pressed. Thus, the appeals filed by the candidates or the State which survive, alone need be adjudicated by this Court. The facts of the case, the grounds taken by the candidates or the State and other detalls have been very Clearly set out in the judgment of the High Court and it is not necessary for us to repeat the same all over again.
The appeals ‘arise ont of the admissions sought by several LO candidates to the M.D.M.S. courses for the year 1981-82, the session
- starting from 1.4,1981. In order to regulate the admission of the candidates to the M.D.M.S, course the Government by-an Order dated. 3.12.80 laid down the tests and criteria for admitting the candidates to the courses in various disciplines. The High Court has rightly pointed out that there are diverse modes of determining one’s merit which, in our opinion, is of prime importance because while admitting candidates to M.D. course every precaution should be taken to rule out inefficiency or incompetency lest the candidate admitted and passed, turns out to be a serious health hazard to the. people who are to be treated by him. The High Court further pointed gut that merit should be determined with reference to good academic careér or to the performance at the last M.B.B.S. exami- “nation or at the last qualifying examination. It is common ground that in these cases of the candidates, they had passed their MBBS examination securing aggregate marks ranging from 63% to 43% in various discplines. The main disciplines in which the admissions were sought by the candidates weres-M.D. (Obste-trician & Gynae-
~ cology),: M.D. (Anaesthesia), M.S, (Orthopaedic Surgery), M.D.
(Paediatrics), M.D. (Medicine) and MD. (Tuberculosis) differing from candidate to candidate. The Government by its Order dated 3,12.80, as mentioned above, chose the safest method to determine . the-merit and suitability for the candidates to be admitted to the M.D./M.S. courses on the basis that the admission should be made purely on merit as gleaned from the marks obtained by them in the total percentage of the MBBS examination. The Government Order dated 3.12.80 may be extracted below because on this depends the entire fate of the admissions to be granted to the competing candidates :
308 a ‘SUPREME COURT REPORTS i984) i sca.
“The Governor, considering it so necessary and keeping in view the recommendations of the Medical Council of India, is pleased to order that with effect from December 14, 1979 the following policy and procedure shall be followed with regard to the admission of candidate in the Post graduate course (Degree and Diploma) in the State Medical Colleges and the King Georges Medical Colleges, Lucknow. - ; _
(1) Admission shall be made only on the basis of merit.
(2) The basis of determining the merit shall be percen-: tage of marks worked out after deducting one percent ‘marks for each failure in every subject from the © total percentage of marks obtained in the M.B.B.S. Examination. In case of a candidate who fails in a subject and is declared succéssful in second or subsequent attempt in that subject, the marks obtained by _ him for day-to-day performance in the first exami- -nation in that subject shall be added to his total marks while preparing the said index.” ‘
- The Order seems to us ‘to be fully consistent with the tenor and spirit of the Rules framed by the Medical Council of India, which is a statutory body, whose Rules are binding on all the colleges and universities in the country providing for medical education. On an interpretation of the Government Order the High Court was of the opinion that a Candidate passing MBBS examination in four subjects witha 3rd Division cannot be preferred to the one possessing the said degree it one subject only with a first division because that would decide the index of meMt. The Government Order, was made under s. 28(5) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (U.P. Act No, X of 1973) (for short, hereinafter to be referred to as the ‘Act’). ‘The High Court also correctly found that merely because a candidate happens to obtain a Diploma after passing MBBS Exami-
_ nation in any subject he would not bs entitled to weightage for other- wise the eatire complexion of pure merit and suitability as intended by the Government Order, which does not provide for any such weightage, would be set at naught.
This now brings us to the. relevant provisions of the Rules framed by the Medical Council of India on the recommendations
.b. GANGULY y. LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY (Fazal Aly, J) = 408 of Post-graduate Medical Education which were adopted i in February
1971, i.e. long before the present writ petitions were filded in the High Court. The relevant portions of the Rules may be extracted thus :
(1) For M.D./M.S. Degree in clinical subjects, there ghall be proper training in basic medical sciences related to the disciplines concerned as well as paper in these subjects at the examination. Inthe case of M.D. &. M.S. in basic medical sciences there should be training in applied aspects of the subject and a paper on the Subject.
(2) Thesis should be a part of the examination in the degree courses as this gives training in research methodology. .
(3) The. student teacher ratio, should be such that the number of post-graduate teacherg to the number of post-graduate students admitted per year be maintained at 1:1.
For the proper training ofthe postgraduate students, there should be a limit to the number of student admitted per year. For this purpose every unit should consist of atleast 3 full time postgraduate teachers and can admit not more than 3 students for post-
. graduate training per.year. If the number of post-graduate teachers in the: unit is more than three then the number of students can be increased proportionately. For this purpose one, ‘Student should associate with one post-graduate teacher.
“Where the number of post-graduate teachers is less than 3 per unit then the number of students* should be reduced so. as to keep the ratio to one student teacher per year.”
It would be seen that it was clearly mandated by the Medical Council that normally the ratio of student: teacher should be one teacher to 1 student per unit and in exceptional cases in a unit with One post-graduate qualification, a maximum of two students should be admitted per year. The Rules further lay down that in addition to the students admitted to M.D./M.S. courses, a maximum number of six students per year can be admitted to diploma courses in such departments where diploma courses are conducted.* In case the number of recognised post-graduate teachers was’ more than three, aha
310 StPReME cotter REPORTS (1984} 1 s.c.k.
the number of students for admission to the diploma course may be increased on a ratio of two students per additional recognised post-graduate teacher per year subject to a’ maximum of 12. students ’ admitted in the department. Then come the most important rules which determine the selection of post-graduates for degree and _ diploma courses. Rules 5 and 7 may be extracted thus :.
“*(5) The selection of ‘post-graduates both for degree. ‘and and diploma courses should be strictly on the basis of academic merit.
(7) Candidates pursuing degree or diploma courses should work in the concerned department of the Institution for the full period.”
Coming now to the criteria laid down by the Rules for selection of candidates, Paragraph (1) of rule (c) may be quoted below :
“They must subsequently have done one year’s housemanship prior to admission to the post-graduate degree. or diploma course. Housemanship -should preferably be for one year in the same subject, or at least six months in the same department ‘and the remaining six months in an allied department. Provided that in departments like Radiology/Aneesthesiology/ Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation where suitable candidates -who have done housemanship in the respective subject for tho respective speciality are not available then the housemanship in Medicine and/ or in Surgery may be considered as sufficient.”
‘The above rule clearly provides that the candidates must have done one year’s housemanship prior to admission to the post-graduate degree or diploma course preferably in the same subject, which has been technically: called as ‘discipline’, or atleast six months in the
‘same department and the remaining six months in an allied depart- ment. It further lays down that in order to determine the merit of a candidate for admission to post-graduate medical courses the following three factors must be taken into consideration :
(1) his performance at the MBBS examination, = Fy
> at.
K.P, GANGULY ¥. LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY (Fazal All, J.) 311 -
(2) his performance during the course of internship and — housemanship for which a daily assessment chart should be maintained, and t
'(3) the report of the teacher which i is submitted from = 5 time to time.
Alternatively, the authorities concerned may conduct competiative entrance examination to determine the merit of: a candidate for “admission to post-graduate medical courses.
The other methods covered by the Rules are not germane for the purpose of deciding these cases. As these Rules were adopted by the Medical Council of India they became rules made under s.33 of the Indian Medical Council Act of 1956 passed by the Govern- ment of India and, there-fore, had doubtless a statutory effect.’
The candidates consist of students who had not been admitted
_ to the medical courses and: they have: assailed the refusal of their admission as being violative of Art. 14 ofthe Constitution. and to
" the statutory orders passed and rules.framed by the Government from time to time. In some cases, the Government order referred to above has also been challenged as being arbitrary ‘and outside the scope of Art. 14.
Before dealing with the contentions of the parties on merit we might dispose of a few matters asa result of which some. of the appeals do not survive at all. As observed above, the admission sought _ by the candidates were in the session of 1981-82 and by the time these cases came up for hearing bythe High Court or this Court, the session has completely run out but as provisional admissions had been allowed
" either by the High Court or by this Court the candidates had com- — pleted.their M.D./M.S. courses and in some cases only the results _ were to be declared. Realising the piquant situation that arose in~ view of the provisional admissions, the learned counsel for the State
"very fairly agreed to the declaration of the results of the following candidates :
1, Dr. Krishna Priya Ganguly (C.A. 133/82) :
a
2. Dr. Gopal Krishan Goyal (C.A. 134/82)
3. Dr. Pramod Kumar Kohli (C.A. 137/82),
312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS — {1984} 1 s.cr.
4. Dr. Pratap Singh (C.A. 138/82) _
5. Dr..Kamal Mehra (C/A. No. 139/82)
6. Dr. R.S. Topwal (C.A. No. 140/82)
7. Dr. HariOm Gupta. | ~ (C.A. No. 3045/82)
8. Dr. R.C. Aggarwal -—- (C,A. No, 3046/82) ‘ p
9. Dr. Ved Prakash Gupta (C.A. No. 3047/82)
La
The counsel for the State further agreed to passing an order that those candidates who were refused admission’ but granted provisional admissions under the orders of the Court may be deemed to be admitted to complete the course according to the provisions of the Rules. We might mention that this concession was made because the candidates concerned had secured pretty high percentage and since’ they had completed the course in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,’ As far as C.A. No. 3045/82 filed by the
State against the decision of the High Court is concerned, the view taken by the High Court is unsustainable. The High Court could
‘not have given a goby to the rules framed by Admission committee,
It was a matter for decision of the academic body and since the academic body had applied the rules in a bona fide manner to all the students equally, there was no jurisdiction whatsoever on the part of the High Court to interfere with the internal working of an academic institution concerned with imparting higher education in the field of post-graduaté course in medicine. The Rule prescribing that housemanship must be ‘in the same subject is not inconsistent with the Ordinance. It is supplementary to the Ordinance and amplifies the same. Hence there is no inconsistency and the High -
Court was therefore clearly wrong. However, as the counsel for the State has agreed to declare his result we do not pass any order for reversing the directive issued by the High Court as far as Dr.
~ Hari Om Gupta is concerned though the High Court was wrong.
As regards C.A. No. 3047/82 which has been filed by the State, the view taken by the. High Court is altogether untenable, The condition regarding putting in two years work in the department
‘concerned could not have been dispensed with. The High Court.
should not have interfered with the decision of the academic body.
The High Court cannot relax the rules. or rewrite them. After the s
¥
K.P. GANGULY y, LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY (Fazal Ali, J.) . 313 declaration of his result, as s agreed to by the counsel for the State, if he fails at this examination he will have to put in two years work
_ in the department concerned before he is permitted to appear for the final examination next time.
So far as the above-mentioned appeals are concerned, it is not necessary for us to goto the merits or to give the reasons thereof in view of the fact that the candidates got what they wanted, on the basis of the concession made by the counsel for the State and accepted by this Court, asa result of which we passed orders for declaring the results of the candidates or directing them. to complete the course. We would however like to make it clear that after declaration of the results in case the candidates concerned in appeals do not pass or their thesis are not approved, they would have to do the full course all over again. This position was accepted by the candidates who conceded that in case they failed in the examination the logical consequences will follow. The candidates who were directed by this Court to be given admission may be listed below :
1, Dr. Aditya Kumar (C. A. No. 142/82)
2. Dr. Manoj Kumar _(C. A. No. 143/82)
* The appeals that remain for consideration may now be taken up, viz., C.A. Nos. 144,145 and 595/82. We might mention here that out of the appeals filed by the State the appeal which has been seriously pressed before is that of Dr. V.N. Sinha (C. A. No. 595/82) .
‘and the State has invited us to: give a final decision in the matter which involves a serious question of principle.
Coming first to C.A. No. 144/82 filed by Dr. Rachna Saxena it appears that she had obtained an aggregate of 53.7% but the main obstacle in her way was that two candidates with a higher aggregate had been admitted and therefore her case did not merit any consideration. Even from amongst those who did not secure admission there ware four others who had secured higher marks than her viz., Dr. Ganguly (59.23)%, Dr. Agarwal (57.40%), Dr. Jain (56.9%) and Dr. Upadhyaya (55.33%). She-could not therefore have secured admission in any event. She cannot therefore complain - of discrimination. For these reasons, therefore, we affirm the decision of the High Court and dismiss C.A. 144/82 without any order ag to costs, .
3140 _ SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1984) 1 s.cr.
C.A. No. 145/82 has been filed by Dr. V.K. Kohli. After going through the judgment of the High Court and hearing counsel for the parties we entirely agree with the view taken by the High Court ' which seeins to us to be unexceptionable on merits and must be confirmed. The appeal is therefore dismissed: without any order as to costs,
Coming now to C.A. No. 595/82 which has been filed by the State it seems to us after hearing counsel for the parties that the stand taken by the State is absolutely , correct and for the reasons that we will.give hereafter we find iit impossible to support the judgment of the High Court.
To begin with, Dr. Vijay Narain Sinha who was being considered for admission to the M.S, course in Orthopaedic surgery had obtained only 43% marks in the aggregate and happened to be the last candidate in the list of persons who had applied for admission to the M.D./M.S. course. This important handicap relating to Dr. Sinha seems to have been completely glossed over by ihe High Court by saying that though he has not secured very high marks but he
" could be almost equal in all respects to the candidates who had been
. granted admission. This, however, was not so. The main argument of the High Court was that in determining the six admissions which ' were made in consonance with the prescribed. instructions indicated _that the ratio of admission should be with respect to the strength of the staff in the concerned department. The main complaint of-the respondent (Dr. Sinha) was that while there were six teachers in, the Department of Orthopaedic surgery, nine admissions were made in that particular session. The State had clearly explained that the . usual number of candidates to be admitted was six and as a Special case due to fortuitous circumstances an exception was made only in one session for good reasons .which had been given by the State. Thereafter no such departure had been made in any other session. What the High Court completely over-looked was that even if nine students were admitted Dr. Sinha could not have secured admission as "he was on the very bottom of the list in view of the very low percentage secured by him. The stand taken by the State has not been ' refuted by the counsel for the respondent who submitted that since the State had ‘agreed to declare the results of all the candidates the respondent may also be given the same facility. We are, however, - unable to agree with this argument because to grant admission toa person who is appreciably below the required merit would be to play
’
K.P, GANGULY v. LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY (Fazal Ali, J.) 315 with the lives of the people whom the candidate would have to treat after getting the M S. degree. The High Court seems to’ havé relied mainly on the fact that in view of the increase in population and orthopaedic cases the college must have persons with special qualifications and as the respondent had a diploma that should be treated. to be a special qualification. A mere diploma however canfiot override the consideration regarding the merit as disclosed in the low aggregate obtained by him in the last MBBS examination. If the college authorities went by the pure test of merit, the diploma could . not be a good substitute for admitting the lowest and the last candidate in the list. ,
The High Court could not devise its own criterion for admission. Since the academic body has made the marks obtained in MBBS examination the criterion, admission had to be made by such a critetion. The High Court could not have introduced its own. notions in such an academic matter. The High Court was not competent to do so and had no jurisdiction to import its own ideology,
The High Court further observed that the respondent appears
-to be a very dedicated worker having acquired a diploma and would have proved an invaluable asset to the Institution. We do not see any proper material for this conclusion to which the High Court hassuddenly jumpéd apart from the fact that admissions were not to be given by the High Court according to its own notions, Finally, in his own petition in the High Court, the respondent had merely prayed for a writ directing the State or the college to consider his case for admission yet the High Court went a step further and strai- ghtaway issued a writ of mandamus directing the college to admit him to the M.S, course and thus granted a relief to the respondent _ which he himself never prayed for and could not have prayed for, Such a gross discrimination made in the case of a person who had obtained lowest aggregate and lowest position seems to us to be extremely shocking. Although much could be said against the view taken by the High Court yet we would not like to say moré than this that the High Court had made a very arbitrary, casual and laconic approach to the case and based its judgment purely on speculation and conjectures swept away by the consideration that Dr. Sinha possessed a diploma when ‘in fact other candidates also had obtained diploma, but that could not. be taken into consideration, because the rules ‘did not so provide, ;
‘
316 ¢«¢°—~C—‘“‘ Ce SUPREME COURT REPORTS {1984} 18.cR.
For these reasons, therefore, we allow this ‘appeal and set aside:
. the judgment of the High Court issuing mandamus to the State to admit the respondent to the. M.S. course. His writ petition in the High Court thus stands dismissed.
H.B.¢.