Holding

An innocent student who relied on a bona‑fide, albeit erroneous, interpretation of university regulations must be allowed to continue her MBBS studies despite not meeting the statutory eligibility criteria.

Summary

A. Sudha, who had secured 54.7% in her B.Sc. but only 43.1% in the PUC (Physics, Chemistry, Biology), was admitted to a private medical college based on a letter from the college principal stating she was eligible for MBBS admission. The university later cancelled her admission, citing the requirement of at least 50% marks in the PUC as per Mysore University Regulation 1(a). Sudha challenged the cancellation; the High Court dismissed her petition. The Supreme Court examined whether the university regulations and the Karnataka Medical Colleges Rules, 1985 applied, and whether a student who innocently relied on the principal’s representation could be penalised. The Court held that although Sudha did not meet the statutory eligibility, she was innocent and had relied on a bona‑fide interpretation of ambiguous regulations; therefore she should be allowed to continue her MBBS studies and have her first‑year result declared.

Issues considered

Whether Regulation 1(a) of Mysore University regulations requires a candidate to secure at least 50% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology in the PUC for MBBS admission.
Whether the Karnataka Medical Colleges (Selection of Candidates for Admission to MBBS) Rules, 1985 are applicable to seats in private medical colleges.
Whether a student who innocently relied on the college principal’s representation of eligibility can be denied continuation of studies despite non‑eligibility under the regulations.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 226
Karnataka Medical Colleges (Selection of Candidates for Admission to MBBS) Rules, 1985s. Rule 1(2), s. Rule 3(5)

Subjects

medical college admissioneligibility criteriauniversity regulationsprivate collegestudent innocencecontinuation of studiescapitation feemisrepresentation

Judgment

A. SUDHA
A
v.
UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE & ANR.

OCTOBER 6, 1987

B [RANGANATH MISRA AND MURARI MOHON DUTT, JJ.]

Admission to Medical College-Where a student has obtained
T'
admission relying upon information supplied by the head of the institu-
tion and later on it turns out that the admission was not in conformity
with the University Regulations, the student being innocent, cannot be
penalised by not allowing to continue studies.
c
The appellant, who bad passed B.Sc. Examination with Botany.
Chemistry and zoology securing 54. 7% marks in the aggregate, and,
~
who had passed earlier the P.U.C. examination with Physics, Chemis-
try and Biology securing 43.1% marks in the aggregate, joined a private
D medical college after its principal had confirmed in writing that she was
eligible for admission to the M.B.B.S. Course. After six months in the
college, she was informed by the principal that her admission had not
been approved by the University as she had secured only 43% marks in
the P.U.C. examination while the required minimum was 50% accord·
ing to the Regulations framed by the University. The appellant's writ
E petition challenging the validity of the cancellation of her admission to
the medical college having been dismissed by a Single Judge and her
appeal against the same having been rejected by the Division Bench of
the High Court, she approached the Court by special leave.

Counsel for the appellant contended inter alia that she was eligible
-
F for admission in terms of the Karnataka Medical Colleges (Selection of
Candidates for Admission to M.B.B.S.) Rules, 1985, and that iu any
case, since the appellant had completed the first year M.B.B.S. Course
by virtue of interim orders passed by the High Court and this Court,
>-
she should be allowed to continue her studies in the M.B.B.S. Course.

G Allowing the appeal,

HELD: Under Regulation l(a) of the Regulations of the University
regarding admission to M.B.B.S. Course for the Academic year 1985-
>..-.
86, a candidate after passing B.Sc. Examination and seeking admission
in the seats reserved for B.Sc. candidates should have secured 50% of
H the total marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology in the P. U. C. Exami-
368
A. SUDHA v. UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE 369

~ nation. It is true that the appellant has obtained 54% marks in the B.Sc.
A
Examination, but she had failed to obtain 50% marks in the aggregate
in the PUC Examination in Physics, Chemistry and Biology. In the
circumstances, she was not eligible for admission in the First Year
MBBS Course. !J72H; 373A-B]

There is no substance in the contention made on behalf of the B

-,..· appellant that the Karnataka Medical Colleges (Selection of Candidates
tor admission to I MBBS) Rules, 1985 would also he applicable to the
appellant. Even assuming that the said Rules are applicable to the case
of the appellant, still the appellant will not be eligible for admission in
the First Year M.B.B.S. Course in view of sub-r. (5) of r. 3 of the said
Rules, .which provides, inter alia, that a person who does not belong to
any of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, has to obtain 50% of
c
-~ marks In P.U.C. or equivalent examination in Physics, Chemistry and
Biology as optional subjects. Thus, the appellant was not eligible for
admission. 13738; 374A-BI
On the appellant's query, the Principal of the Institute by his
D
letter dated February 26, 1986 informed her that she was eligible for
admission in the First Year M.B.B.S. Course. It was, inter alia, stated
in the letter that the candidate should have obtained 50% marks in the
optional subjects in the B.Sc. Examination. There is no dispute that
the appellant had obtained 54% marks in those subjects in the B.Sc.
. -1 Examination. The appellant was, therefore, quite innocent and she
was quite justified in relying upon the information supplied to her by E

-
none else than the Principal of the Institute. In the circumstances, we
do not think that we shall be justified in penalising the appellant by not
allowing her to continue her studies in the M.B.B.S. Course. Prima
facie it was the fault of the Principal of the Institute but, in our view, the
statement that was made by him in his said letter to the appellant as to
F
the eligibility of the appellant for admission In the M. B.B.S. Course,
...i: was on a bona fide interpretation of the Regulations framed by the
University, which to some extent suffer from ambiguity. The Regula·
lions should have been more clear and specific. [J77C-FI
A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society v. Government of
Andhra Pradesh, [1986] 2 S.C.C. 667, distinauished. G

Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University, A.I.R. 1986
ri S.C. 1448, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE ruRISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2598
H
of 1987.
370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1988] 1 S.C.R.

A From the Judgment and Order dated 26.5.1987 of the Karnataka 'f-•
High Court in W.A. No. 615of1987.

Dr. Y.S. Chitale and K.J. John for the Appellant.

S.S. Javali, Ranjit Kumar and Dev Dass for the Respondents.
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
y-
Dutt, J. Special leave is granted. As elaborate submissions have
been made at the preliminary hearing of the special leave petition on
the merits of the case by both the parties, we proceed to dispose of the
C appeal on merits.

This appeal involves the question as to the eligibility of the
appellant for admission in the First Year MBBS Course of the Mysore
i- \

University.

D The appellant passed the B.Sc. Examination of the Mysore Uni-
versity with Botany, Chemistry and Zoology securing 54.7% marks in
the aggregate. She also passed the PUC in the year 1979 with Physics,
Chemistry and Biology as optional subjects and obtained 43.1% marks
in the aggregate. She sought for admission in a private Medical Col-
lege or Institute. On her query, the second respondent, who is the
E Principal of the Institute, by his latter dated February 26, 1986 con-
firmed that the appellant was eligible for admission to MBBS Course.
The relevant portion of the letter, as quoted in the special leave peti-
tion, is extracted below:-

"With reference to your telegram, I wish to write that
-
F candidates passing B.Sc. degree examination with Physics,
Chemistry and Biology or Chemistry, Biology and Zoology '1..._
as optional subjects, are eligible, provided such of these / -
candidates who have passed with Chemistry, Biology and
Zoology should have passed Physics as optional subject in
II year PUC or equivalent examination (Pre-degree or
G Intermediate) or the additional Physics examination of any
University or Institution recognised by the State Govern-
ment. The candidate should have obtained 50% marks in
the optional subjects in the B.Sc. degree examination." ~
It is the case of the appellant that on the basis of the said letter,
H she joined the Institute in February, 1986. However, by Memo dated
A. SUDHA v. UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE [DUTI, J.] 371

September 19, 1986 the second respondent intimated the appellant A
that her admission had not been approved by the University of
Mysore. The relevant portion of the letter of the Registrar of the
University of Mysore, as quoted in the said Memo, is given below:-

"She has secured 54% in B.Sc., but secured 43% in PUC.
Hence she is not eligible. Her admission may be can- B
celled."

The appellant moved the Karnataka High Court by filing a writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the
validity of the cancellation of her admission in the First Year MBBS
Course and praying for an order directing the respondents to allow her
to continue as a student of the First Year MBBS Course. C
A learned Single Judge of the High Court by his judgment dated
April 8, 1987 rejected the writ petition on the ground that the appel-
lant not having obtained 50% marks in the aggregate in Physics,
Chemistry and Biology in the PUC examination, was not eligible for
admission to the MBBS Course. On appeal by the appellant, the Divi- D
sion Bench of the High Court also took the same view and dismissed
the appeal. Hence the present appeal by special leave.
The Mysore University to which the Institute or College is
affiliated has framed regulations regarding admission to MBBS Course
for the academic year 1985-86. The relevant provisions of the said E
regulations are extracted below:-

- "1. ADMISSIONS-ELIGIBILITY:

(a) The candidate shall have passed the Two Year PUC
Examination conducted by the PUC Board, Karnataka F
State with Physics, Chemistry and Biology as optional sub-
jects or any other examinations recognised as equivalent by
the Mysore University

and/or
G
shall have passed the competitive examination conducted
by the Karnataka Government for this purpose.

or

B.Sc. Examination of an Indian University provided that H
372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 1 S.C.R.

he has passed the B.Sc. Examination with not less than two
A
of the following subjects:

Physics, Chemistry, Biology (Botany, Zoology)

and further that he has passed the earlier qualifying exami-
B nations with the following subjects:

Physics, Chemistry, Biology and English.

Provided that the candidate should have secured not less
than 50% of the total marks in Physics, Chemistry, Biology
subjects taken together at the qualifying and/or competi-
c tive examination.

Provided further that in respect of candidates belonging to
Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe the minimum marks
required for admission shall be 40% in lieu of 50% for
D general candidats.

(b) The candidate should have completed 17 years on the
31st December of the year of admission."

Under Regulation l(a), a candidate having passed the Two-Year
E PUC or equivalent examination with Physics, Chemistry and Biology
as optional subjects or B.Sc. Examination of an Indian University with
Physics, Chemistry, Biology will be eligible for admission in the First
Year MBBS Course subject to this that the candidate should have
secured not less than 50% of the total marks in Physics, Chemistry and
..
Biology taken together at the qualifying and/or competitive examina-
F tion. It follows, therefore, that a candidate has to secure 50% of the
total marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology taken together in the
PUC or an equivalent examination, which is a condition precedenf to
her eligibility for admission in the First Year MBBS Course. The High
Court has rightly observed that as the appellant did not secure 50% of
the total marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology in the PUC Exami-
G nation, she was not eligible for admission in the First Year MBBS
Course also rightly overruling the contention of the appellant that the
marks obtained by her in Physics in the PUC Course should be added
to the marks obtained by her in the B.Sc. Examination so that it would
work out to 50% of the total marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology.

H Under Regulation l(a), a candidate after passing B.Sc. Exami-
A. SUDHA v. UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE [DUTT, J.J 373

...~ nation and seeking admission in the seats reserved for B.Sc. candi-
dates has to secure 50% of the total marks in Physics, Chemistry and A
Biology in the PUC Examination. It is true that the appellant has
obtained 54% marks in the B.Sc. Examination, but she had failed to
obtain 50% marks in the aggregate in the PUC Examination in Phy-
sics, Chemistry and Biology. In the circumstances, she was not eligible
for admission in the First Year MBBS Course. We are afraid, the B
.....,.,. Karnataka Medical Colleges (Selection of Candidates for Admission
to 1 MBBS) Rules, 1985, hereinafier referred to as 'the said Rules',
are not applicable to seats in Private Colleges other than Government
seats, which is apparent from Sub-rule (2) of rule 1. Sub-rule (2) of
rule 1 provides as follows:-

"R.1(2)-These rules shall be applicable to the selection of c
-f candidates made on or after the date of commencement of
these rules, for admission to the I year MBBS Course in the
State of Karnataka in respect of all the seats in Govern-
ment Colleges and the Government seats in the Jtivate
Colleges, as indicated in the Schedule to these Rules." D

Dr. Chitale, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appel-
!ant, has placed much reliance upon the Government Order dated
August 1, 1984 annexing a copy of the said Rules. The relevant portion
of the Government Order is as follows:-
-+ E
"ORDER

- Accordingly, after considering the matter, Govern-
ment of Karnataka hereby direct that Rules for selection of
candidates for admission on to I M.B.B.S. Course in the
i
Government and Private Medical Colleges for the aca- F
...( demic year 1985-86 and onwards shall be as in Annexure to
this Order."

In the Government Order, no doubt, Private Medical Colleges
have been mentioned, but it does not follow that the said Rules would
apply to all candidates in the Private Medical Colleges. Sub-rule (2) of G
rule 1 of the said Rules, which has been extracted above, clearly shows
that the said Rules would apply to only Government seats in the Pri-
rl vate Colleges and, as such, in the Government Order Private Colleges
have been mentioned. There is, therefore, no substance in the conten-
tion made on behalf of the appellant that the said Rules would also be
applicable to the appellant. H
374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1988] l S.C.R.

A Even assuming that the said Rules are applicable to the case of 'f-.•
the appellant, still the appellant will not be eligible for admission in the
First Year MBBS Course in view of sub-rule (5) of rule 3 of the said
Rules, which provides, inter alia, that a person who does not belong to
any of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, he has to obtain 50%
of marks in PUC or equivalent examination in Physics, Chemistry and
B Biology as optional subjects. Thus, the appellant was not eligible for
admission in the First Year MBBS Course of Mysore University. The
High Court was-, therefore, right in overruling the contention of the
appellant that she was eligible for admission in the First Year MBBS
Course.

Now the question is whether the appellant should be allowed to
C continue her studies in the MBBS Course. By virtue of the interim
order of the High Court, the appellant completed the First Year ·
MBBS Course and by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court,
i,-
the appellant appeared in the First Year MBBS Examination. It has
been strenuously urged by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
D the University that as the appellant was not eligible for admission and
was illegally admitted by the Institute in violation of the eligibility
rules of the University, the appellant should not be allowed to con-
tinue her studies in the MBBS Course under the University. In support
of that contention, much reliance has been placed by the learned
Counsel on a decision of this Court in A. P. Christians Medical Educa- ~
E tional Society v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, [ 1986] 2 SCC 667.
What happened in that case was that the appellant-Society without
being affiliated to the University and despite strong protests and warn-
ings of the University admitted students to the Medical College in the
First Year MBBS Course in total disregard of the provisions of the
A.P. Education Act, the Osmania University Act and the regulations
F of the Osmania University. Some students, who were admitted to the
Medical College, filed a writ petition before this Court. While dismis- \ .
sing the writ petition of the students, this Court observed as follows:- ./-'

"Shri Venugopal suggested that we might issue appropriate
directions to the University to protect the interest of the
G students. We do not think that we can possibly accede to
the request made by Shri Venugopal on behalf of the stu-
dent;. Any direction of the nature sought by Shri Venu-
gopal would be in clear transgression of the provisions of h
the University Act and the regulations of the University.
We cannot by our fiat direct the University to disobey the
H statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations
A. SUDHA v. UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE [DUTT, J.) 375

made by the University itself. We cannot imagine anything A
more destructive of the rule of law than a direction by the
court to disobey the laws."

It was further observed by this Court as follows:-

"We regret that the students who have been admitted into B
the college have not only lost the money which they must
have spent to gain admission into the college, but have also
lost one or two years of precious time virtually jeopardising
their future careers. But that is a situation which they have
brought upon themselves as they sought and obtained
admission in the college despite the warnings issued by the
University from time to time." C

It appears from the observations extracted above that the stu-
dents were themselves to blame, for they had clear knowledge that the
College was not affiliated to the University and in spite of the warning
of the University they sought for the admission in the College in the D
First Year MBBS Course and were admitted. In that context this
Court made the above observations.

We may refer to a later decision of this Court in Rajendra Prasad
Mathur v. Karnataka University, AIR 1986 SC 1448. In that case, the
condition for eligibility for admission to B.E. Degree Course of the E
Karnataka University was that the students seeking admission should

- have passed the two-year pre-University Examination of the pre-
University Education Board, Bangalore, or an examination held by
any other Board or University recognised as equivalent to it. The
appellants, in that case, were admitted to certain private Engineering
Colleges for the B .E. Degree Course upon payment of capitation fees, F
.·~ although they were not eligible for admission as the Higher Secondary
Examination held by the Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan,
passed by some of the appellants and the first B.Sc. Examination of
Rajasthan and Udaipur University passed by the remaining appel-
lants, were not recognised as equivalent to the two-year pre-University
Education Board, Bangalore. While dismissing the appeals of the stu- G
dents on the ground that they were not eligible for admission in the
engineering colleges, Bhagwati, C.J. who delivered the judgment of
the Court, observed as follows:-
"We accordingly endorse the view taken by the learned
Judge and affirmed by the Division Bench of the High H
376 SUPREME COURT REPOfl.TS [1988] I S.C.R.

Court. But the question still remains whether we should
A allow the appellants to continue their studies in the respec-
tive Engineering Colleges in which they were admitted. It
was strenuously pressed upon us on behalf of the appellants
that under the orders initially of the learned Judge and
thereafter of this Court they have been pursuing their
B course of study in the respective Engineering Colleges and
their admissions should not now be disturbed because if
they are now thrown out after a period of almost four years
since their admission their whole future will be blighted.
Now it is true that the appellants were not eligible for
admission to the Engineering Degree Course and they had
no legitimate claim to such admission. But it must be noted
c that the blame for their wrongful admission must lie more
upon the Engineering Colleges which granted admission
than upon the appellants. It is quite possible that the appel-
lants did not know that neither the Higher Secondary
Examination of the Secondary Education Board, Rajas-
D than nor the first year B.Sc. examination of tbe Rajasthan
and Udaipur Universities was recognised as equivalent to
the Pre-University Examination of the Pre-University Edu-
cation Board, Bangalore. The appellants being young stu-
dents from Rajasthan might have presumed that since they
had passed the first year B.Sc. examination of the Rajas-
E than or Udaipur University or in any event the Higher
Secondary . Examination of the Secondary Education
Board, Rajasthan they were eligible for admission. The
fault lies with the Engineering Colleges which admitted the
appellants because the Principal of these Engineering Col-
leges must have known that the appellants were not eligible
-
F f01; admission and yet for the sake of capitation fee in some
of tbe cases they granted admission to the appellants. We
do not see why the appellants should suffer for the sins of
the managements of these Engineering Colleges. We
would, therefore, notwithstanding the view taken by us in
this judgment allow the appellants to continue their studies
G in the respective Engineering Colleges in which they were
granted admission. But we do feel that against the erring
Engineering Colleges the Karnataka University should
take appropriate action because the managements of these
Engineering Colleges have not 0nly admitted students in-
eligible for admission but thereby deprived an equal
H number of eligible students from getting admission to the
A. SUDHA v. UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE [DUTT, J.] 377

Engineering Degree Course. We also endorse the direc- A
tions given by the learned Judge in the penultimate
paragraph of his judgment with a view to preventing admis-
sion of ineligible students."

This Court was, therefore, of the view that as the students were
innocent and were admitted to the Colleges for the sake of capitation B
fee in some cases, they should not be penalised and should be allowed
to continue their studies in the respective Engineering Colleges in
which they were granted admission.

The facts of the instant case are, more or less, similar to the
Rajendra Prasad Mathur's case (supra). It has been already noticed c
that on the appellant's query, the Principal of the Institute by his letter
dated February 26, 1986 informed her that she was eligible for admis-
sion in the First Year MBBS Course. It was, inter a/ia, stated in the
letter that the candidate should have obtained 50% marks in the op-
tional subjects in the B.Sc. Examination. There is no dispute that the
appellant had obtained 54% marks in those subjects in the B.Sc. D
Examination. The appellant was, therefore, quite innocent and she
was quite justified in relying upon the information supplied to her by
none else than the Principal of the Institute in the said letter in regard
to the eligibility of the admission in the First Year MBBS Course. In
the circumstances, we do not think that we shall be justified in penalis-
ing the appellant by not allowing her to continue her studies in the E
MBBS Course. Prima fade it was the fault of the Principal of the
Institute but, in our view, the statement that was made by him in his
said letter to the appellant as to the eligibility of the appellant for
admission in the MBBS Course, was on a bona fide interpretation of
the regulations framed by the Mysore University for admission to
MBBS Course for the academic year 1985-86, which to some extent F
suffer from ambiguity. The regulations should have been more clear
and specific. Be that as it may, following the decision of this Court in
Rajendra Prasad Mathur's case (supra) while we dismiss the appeal,
we direct that the appellant shall be allowed to prosecute her studies in
the MBBS Course, and that her result for the First Year MBBS
Examination be declared within two weeks from date. G

There will, however, be no order as to costs.

H.L.C. Appeal allowed.