Holding

Rule 10 must be given its plain meaning: a vacancy must be filled in the same academic year, cannot be carried forward, and no right of admission arises; the State Government also lacks power to transfer such seats.

Summary

The Supreme Court considered two appeals by Dr. Ajay Pradhan and Dr. Sanjay Kumar Shrivastava who sought admission to postgraduate medical seats that became vacant towards the end of the 1986-87 academic year. Both relied on Rule 10 of the Madhya Pradesh Selection for Post‑Graduation Courses Rules, 1984, which states that seats available in any particular year must be filled in that year and no candidates may be admitted against vacancies from a previous year. The Court held that the rule must be given its plain meaning; a vacancy must be filled in the same academic year and cannot be carried forward, and therefore no right of admission arises for seats vacant mid‑year. It also ruled that the State Government lacks authority to transfer a postgraduate seat from one medical college to another. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed and no relief was granted. The judgment emphasized the need for prompt action by authorities to fill vacancies within the stipulated period.

Issues considered

Whether Rule 10 of the Madhya Pradesh Selection for Post‑Graduation Courses Rules, 1984 creates a right to admission for a seat that becomes vacant in the midst or towards the end of an academic year.
Whether the State Government is empowered to transfer a postgraduate medical seat from one college to another.
Whether the High Court can issue writs directing the filling of backlog seats contrary to the plain terms of Rule 10.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 162, s. Article 226
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956s. 33

Subjects

Post‑graduate medical admissionVacancy fillingStatutory constructionRule 10 interpretationSeat transferMadhya Pradesh medical rulesRight to admissionWrit jurisdiction

Judgment

DR. AJAY PRADHAN & ANR. A
';) ' -· - v. ' ' ; .". '.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS:
:. 1'
AUGUST 9, 1988
/

. [A.P. SEN AND L.M. SHARMA, JJ.] B

Madhya Pradesh Selection for Post Graduation Courses (Clini-,
cal, Para Clinical and Non-Clinical Courses) in Medical Colleges of
Madhya Pradesh Rules, 1964-Rule_JO-Seat in P.G. Course-Falling
vacant 'in the midst of 'towards the. end of an academic year-Right to
admission.
c
A seat in the P.G. course in M.D. in the G.N. Medical College,.
Gwalior, fell vacant due to the death of a student. The appellant, Dr.
Sanjay Pradhan, staked a claim io this seat under rule 10 or the Madhya
Pradesh Selection for Post-Graduation Courses (Clinical, Para-clinical
and Non-clinical Coutses) in Medical Colleges of Madhya Pradesh· D
Rules, 1984. Inasmuch as the vacancy arose towards the end or the .
academic year' the authorities took no steps to fill it up. The appellant's.
writ petition was dismissed by the M.P. High Court. The High Court
construed the words 'filled up In that year' In r. 10 as meaning that a
vacancy in any particular academic year must be filed up in that year;
E
One seat in the P .G. Course i~ M.s., which was occuJ,ied by Dr,
Smt. Dhurupkar, was transferred from Medical College, Jabalpur, to
Medical College, Bhopal, with a view to accommodate her. The appeJ ..
· Iant, Dr. Sanjay Kumar, moved the authorities seeking admission
against that seat contending that the seat had become available in terms
of r. 10. The authorities disallowed his claim. His writ petition was F
dismissed by the High Court in limine holding that the seat occupied by
Dr. Smt. Dhurupkar had been transferred with her and hence the seat,
in fact, was not available. (

It was submitted before this Court that the High Court has consis-
tently been taking a view that it has the power as well as the duty to G
issue an appropriate writ, direction or order for the 'backlog' or seats
to be filled up whenever it rmds that the authorities have acted in
violation of the norms prescribed by the relevant rules and a deserving
candidate has been wrongly denied .admission to such a professional .
course ofstudies.
H
281
282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

Dismissing the appeals, it was,

HELD: (1) Rule 10 must he interpreted by the written text. If the
precise words used are plain and un-ambiguous, the Court is bound to
construe them in their ordinary sense and give them full effect. The
B argument of inconvenience and hardship is a dangerous one and is only
admissible in construction where the meaning of the statute is obscure
and there are alternative methods of consctruction. Where the language
is explicit its consequences are for parliament, and not for the Courts,
to consider. [287C-D]

(2) On a plain constructilin, rule 10 stipulates that if a seat falls
c vacant for any reason, and due to inaction on the part of the authorities
the seat is not filled up in the academic year to which it pertains, there is
no question of the vacancy being carried forward to the next academic
.year. [288A-BJ

(3) 1'ormally, the question of a seat being filled up must arise at
0
the commencement of the academic year or soon thereafter. When a
seat falls vacant in any particular academic year lhere is a correspond-
ing duty cast on the authorities to. take immediate steps to fill up the
same. There is uo question of a right of admission to a seat falling
vacal)t in the midst of or towards the end of, the academic year. l288C]
E
(4) It is conceded by learned counsel appearing for the State
Government that there is no provision which empowered the State
Government to transfer a seat in the M.S. course in MD/MS reserved
for a medical college to another medical college. It must therefore
follow that the High Court ·was obviously wrong in holding that the seat
F occupied by Dr. Smt. Dhurupkar had been transferred with her when
the seat was, in fact, available. [28SC-D]

(5) On the construction placed on r. 10 of the Rules, the appel-
lants are not entitled to any relief. Obviously, the seat that became
vacant in the academic year 1986-87 cannot now be fded in terms of
G s. 10. [29SB]

(6) It is impressed upon the State Government the desirability of
taking immediate steps under rule 10 of the Rules to fill up the vacancy
in the P.G. Course in MD/MS or the Diploma course of studies -in a
particular discipline, the moment the seat in that discipline is available
H in any particular academic year. [29SC-D]
AJAY.PRADHAN v..STATE OF M.P. [SEN, J.J 283

(7) The State Government should ensure that the authorities
A
charged with the duty of granting admission to students under rule 10
of the Rules act with due promptitude, and should not by their lethargy
or inaction deprive or otherwise meritorious candidate admission
to such a higher course of studies to which he. was otherwise entitled.
Perhaps, the solution lies in making a suitable provision in the Rules
providing for a reasonable period, say fifteen days, within which B
the authorities ought to exercise their power under rule IO of the Rules,
failing which the seat available would be deemed to have been filled
by the candidate placed ru-st in the waiting ·list strictly according to
merit. [295D-E]

King Emperor v. Bensari Lal Sarma, LR (1945) 72 IA 57; Dr.
Mrs. Urmilla Shukla v. State of M.P., Misc. Petition No. 297 j83
c
decided -~y M.P. J!igli Court on 17.4.84; Rek~ Saxena v. State of
M.P., [1985] MPLJ 142; Dr. Sunil Gajendragadkar v. State of M.P.
(Misc. Petition No. 57 /85 decided by M.P. High Court on 11.3.85.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.·2560 D
of 1988.

From the •Judgment and Order dated 12.1.1988 of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petn. No. 685 of 1987.

·AND E

Civil Appeal No. 1639 of 1988.

From the Judgment. and Order .dated/8.6.1987
' of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petitiol\,No. 1488of 1987.
F
G.L. Sanghi, M.N. Krishmani, Diwan Balak Ram and R.K.
Singh for the Appellant in C.A. No. 2§60 of 1988.

Rajender Sachar, Sanjay Sareen, Vivek Gambhir, S.K. Gambhir
for the Appellant in C.A. No. 1639 of 1988.
G
Ashwani Kumar, T. C. Sharma and S.N. Khare for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SEN, J. These two appeals by special leave brought from the
judgments and o.rders of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated June H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19881 Supp. 2 S.C.R.

8, 1987 and·January 12, 1988 dismissing the writ petitions filed by each
A
of the appellants, substantially involve a question as to the interpreta-
tion of Rule 10 of the Madhya Pradesh Selection for Post-Graduation
Course (Clinical, Para-clinical and Non-clinical Courses) in Medical
Colleges of Madhra Pradesh Rules, 1984 ('Rules' for short). The ques-
tion raised is one of moment as it involves the right to admission to a
B seat in the Post-Graduate course in Medicine & Surgery in a Medicaf
college (hereinafter referred to as the PG course in MD/MS) falling
vacant 'in the midst of', or 'towards the end of', an academic year
which, we believe, is a problem facing all the States.

First the facts. In these cases, the facts are not in dispute. In Dr.
C Ajay Pradhan's case, for the academic year 1986-87 commencing from
September 1986, there were nine seats reserved for the post-graduate
course in the clinical subject of General Medicine for the G.R. Medi-
cal College, Gwalior. All the nine seats were filled by the Dean, Medi-
cal College from amongst candidates strictly on the basis of merit i.e.
by candidates placed at serial Nos. 1 to 9 on the recommendation of
D the College and Hospital Council. The appellant Dr. Ajay Pradhan
who was placed at serial No. 15 obviously could not be given admission
to the P.G. course in M.D. in General Medicine and was instead
placed at serial No. 6 in the waiting list. Later on, he was given admis-
sion to the Diploma course in Radiology on 4.10.86 and he duly joined
that course on 6.10.96 but failed to appear at the examination. On
E 11.7.87 Dr. Arun Yadav, one of the selected candidates, who stood
first in the merit list and was admitted to the P.G. course in M.D. in
General Medicine met with a tragic death in a road accident. Inasmuch
as his death occurred towards the end of the academic year, the
authorities took no steps to fill up the seat. However, on the death of
Dr. A run Y adav, the appellant staked a claim to fill up the vacant seat
F under r. 10 of the Rules on the ground that the candidates placed
above him in the merit list had been rendered ineligible having either
opted for the Diploma course in Radiology or had left their house job.
That claim of his having been turned down he moved the Gwalior
Bench of the High Court under Ari. 226 of the Constitution. A Divi-
sion Bench of the High Court by its order dated January 12, 1988
G dismissed the writ petition holding that the claim of the appellant in
terms of r. 10 was misconceived.

The facts in Dr. Sanjay Kumar Shrivastava's case are these. For
the academic year 1986-87 commencing from August 1986, there were
five seats reserved for the P.G. course in M.S. in Obstetrics and
H Gynaecology for the Medical College, Jabalpur. On March 2, 1987,
AJAY PRADHAN v. STATE OF M.P. !SEN, J.] 285

the State Government passed an order transferring the seat occupied A
by Dr. Smt. Dhurupkar in Obstetrics and Gynaecology from the Medi-
cal College, Jabalpur to Medical College, Bhopal with a view to
accommodate her and presumably because such transfer involved
•financial implications. On her transfer to Medical College, Bhopal,
Dr. Smt. Dhurupkar continued to draw her stipend of Rs.800 per
month reserved against one of the five seats in that .discipline for B
Medical College, Jabalpur. The appellant Dr. Sanjay Kumar Shrivas-
tava, who was placed at Serial No. 7 in the waiting list moved the
authorities seeking admission to the P.G. course in Obstetrics and
Gynaecology in Medical College, Jabalpur contending that the seat
had fallen vacant because of the transfer of Dr. Smt. Dhurupkar and
had therefore beccim!' available in terms of r. 10 of the Rufos. The
authorities having, disallowed his claim, the appellant moved the High
c
Court by a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The High
Court by its 01der dated June 8, 1987 dismissed the writ petitionin
limine holding tliat 'the seat occupied by Dr. Smt. Dhurupkar had,been
transferred with her and hence the same, in fact, was not available.
D
The.main question that falls for determination in these appeals is
whether in terms of r. 10 of the Rules there is a right to admission to a
seat in the PG course in MD/MS falling vacant in a medical college 'in
the midst of' or 'towards the end of' an academic year to wliich it
pertains. A further question arises in one. of these appeals as to
whether the State Government has the power to transfer a seat in any E
of the disciplines in the PG course in MD/MS reserved for a medical
college to another medical college in the State in order to accommo-
date a particular post-graduate student.

The Medical Council of India constituted under the Indian Medi-
cal Council Act. 1956 and one of whose duties is to prescribe the F
minimum standards of medical education, made recommendations on
February.12113, 1971 prescribing uniform standards for post-graduate
medical education throughout India which having been approved by
· the Government of India and as revised from time to time, have the
status of Regulations under s. 33 of the Act. The Regulations framed by
the Medical Council of India provide inter alia for the different G
specialities for which PG courses in MD/MS as also Diploma courses
in certain disciplines may be conducted, and the norms for admission
of students to the PG courses in MD/MS as also to the Diploma
courses. According to the Regulations framed by the Medical Council
of India, the student-teacher ratio for the PG course in MD/MS is to
be maintained at I: I. The relevant regulation prescribing a student- H
286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

A teacher ratio at 1: 1 for the PG course in MD/MS made with a view to
maintain the minimum standards of medical education for the PG
course in MD/MS insorfar as relevant, is arlollows:

"General
B' (1) For M.D./M.S. degree in clinical subjects, there shall
be proper training in basic medical sciences related to the
disciplines concerned as well as paper in these subjects at
the examination. In the case of M.D. & M.S. in basic medi-
ca!'sciences there should be training in applied aspect of the
subject and a paper on the subject.- ·
c (2) In all post-graduate courses, whether clinical or. basic
medical sciences, preventive and social aspects should be
emphasised.

(3) This should be a part of the examination in the degree
D courses as this gives training in research methodology.

(4) The student teacher ratio should be such that the
number of post-graduate teachers to the number of post-
graduate students admitted per year be maintained at 1: 1.

E For the proper training of the· post-graduate 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 post-graduate teachers and can admit not
inore than 3 students for post-graduate teachers in the unit
is more than three then the number of students can be
F ·increased proportionately. For this purpose one student
should associate with one post-grad].lllte teacher.

xx xx xx xx

(5) The selection of post-graduates both for degree and
G diploma courses should be strictly on the basis of academic
merit."

In most of the States ruleshave been framed by the various State
Governments under Art. 162 of the Constitution regulating the man-
ner of admission of students to the PG course of studies in MD/MS in
H the medical college in the State. The number of seats available for the
AJAY PRADHAN v. STATE OF M.P. [SEN, J.] 287

PG courses in MD/MS and tor the Diploma courses in vaiious disci-
' plines is therefore limited. There cannot be increase in the number of A
" seats without the sanction of the Medical Council of India and without
corresponding increase in the strength of the teaching staff, which
necessarily involves financial implications.

The whole controversy turns on the purport and effect of r. 10 of
the Rules prescribing the manner in which seats available in any
particular year are to be filed, and is in these terms:

"10. The seats available in any particular year will be filled
up in that year. No candidates will be-admitted against the
seats remaining vacant from previous year."
c
We must interpret r. 10 by the written text. If the precise words used
are plain and unambiguous, we are bound ·lo construe than in their
ordinary sense and give them full. effect. The argument of incon-
venience and hardship is a dangerous one and is only admissible in
construction where the meaning of the statute is obscure and there are D
alternative methods of construction. Where the language is explicit its
consequences are for Parliament, and not for the Courts, to consider.
"Where the language of an Act is clear and explicit", said Viscount
Simon in King Emperorv. Bensari Lal Sarma, LR (1945) 72 IA 57 at p.
70, "we must give effect to it whatever may be the consequences for in
·that case the words of the statute speak the intention of the legisla- E
ture". We do not see why the same rule of construction should not
apply to the Rules framed by the State Governments under Art. 162 of
the Constitution.

On a plain construction, r. 10 is in two parts. The power to admit.
a student under the first part arises when a seat falls vacant· in a F
particular year. The words 'filled up in that year' necessarily qualify
the preceding words 'the seats available in any particular year'. It must
logically follow that a neces~ary concomitant of the power under the
first part of r. 10 is the 'availabilitf of the seat being filled up in the
academic year to which it pertains. The words 'filled up in that year'
which follow clearly imply that the vacancy cannot be carried over to G
the next academic year or years. That construction of ours is rein-
forced by the second part of r. 10 which, by the use of negative
language, clearly creates a bar .against the seat being filled up in the·
next or-succeeding academic year. What is implicit in the first part of r.
•• 10 is made explicit in the second part. The use of the negative words in
the second part 'No candidates will be admitted .... etc.' are clearly B
288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

prohibitory in nature and exclude the applicability of the carry-for-
A
ward rule. It follows that if a seat falls vacant for any reason, namely,
that the candidte selected in order of merit does not join the PG course
in MD/MS in a medical college or by reason of his death or otherwise,
and due to inaction on the part of the authorities the seat is not filled
up in the academic year to which it pertains, there is no question of the
B vacancy being carried forward to the next academic year.
'
Rule 10 is a specific provision made for the benefit of the merit
candidates who are placed in the waiting list. Normally, the question
of a seat being filled up must arise at the commencement of the
academic year or soon thereafter. In our considered opinion on the
ter!hs of r. 10 as it exists, no other view is possible. When a seat falls
c vacant in any particular academic year there is a corresponding duty
cast on the authorities to take immediate steps to fill up the same.
There is no question of a right of admissio.n to a seat falling vacant in
the midst of, or towards the end of, the acadeIJ1iC year.

Ii> As per the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India,
the PG course in MD/MS is a three-years' course including one year's
house job. This is followed by a two-years' degree course. The two
years' degree course in a medical college as prescribed by the Medical
Council of India is a period of intensive training. A post-graduate
student has not only to write a dissertation or thesis under the supervi-
Jt sion of the Professor or Associate Professor who is his guide, but has
also to take part in seminars, group discussions, clinical meetings
besides attending classes. There is also emphasis on in-service training
and not on didactic lectures. The in-service training requires the
student to be a resident in the campus and he has the graded responsi-
bility in the management and treatment of patients entrusted to his
11 care. For this purpose, adequate number of posts of clinical residents
or tutors are created. The period also includes adequate training in the
basic sciences of Anatomy, Physiology, Bio-Chemistry, Bio-Physics,
Pharmacology and Pathology in all aspects relevant to the speciality
concerned. He is also required to participate in the teaching and train-
ing programmes of under-graduate studehts ·or interns in their sub-
G jects. The examination for the PG course in MD/MS consists of (i)
thesis or dissertation, (ii) written papers, (iii) clinical, oral and practi-
cal examination. There are four theory papers for the post-graduate
degree examination, of which one has to be on Applied Basic Sciences.
The clinical examination is aimed at eliciting the knowledge of the
student to undertake independent wotk as a Specialist. The oral and ·"-
Ji! practical examinations are_ meant to test his knowledge on investiga-
AJAY PRADHAN v. STATE OF M.P. [SEN, J.] 289

tive procedures, techniques and other aspects of the speciality. The A
syllabus prescribed by the Medical Council of India for the PG course
in MD/MS as also the student-teacher ratio of 1: 1 virtually negate the
right to admission to a seat falling valiant in the midst of or towards the
end of the academic year to which it pertains.

In Ajay Pradhan's case, the High Court dismissed the writ peti- B
tion principally on the ground that in terms of r. 10 of the Rules he was
not entitled to any relief. Dr. T.N. Singh, J. speaking.for himself and
Ram Murti Rastogi, J. construed the words 'filled up in that year' in r.
10 as meaning that a vacancy in any particular academic yea~ must be
filled up in that year. According to him; the power to admit a student
under r. 10 musi be availed of either before the academic year com-
mences or very soon thereafter, so that a candidate placed in the
c
r.
waiting list admitted under 10 does not suffer serious loss of study
due to belated admission. Further he rightly observes, the second part
of r. 10 mandates that if any seat has not been filled up in the academic
year to which it pertains, the exercise cannot be undertaken in the
·''I'·
succeeding year and it furnishes the rationale behind the provision, · D
and said:

"An academic course cannot be compressed to accommo-
date any particular candidate who comes late. Because, no
separate or 'speciill' arrangement can be made for a late-
comer for imparting instructions to him. Any other view E,
would not make a reasonable reading or.construction of the
Rule in its context and setting for each candidate has to be
not only examined periodically with respect to instructions
imparted, the pre-requisite therefore has also to be fulfilled·
by rendering instructions to him during the whole .period of ·
the course. We have no doubt that when a seat is allotted a F
..' date has to be specified by which it has to be availed:
Therefore, it shall not be deemed 'fllled" up' if it is not
availed. Indeed, it would then become the duty of the con-
cerned authority to fill up the same by offering it to any
other eligible candidate according to merit. In such a case,
a decision has obviously to be taken to do so either befor'e G
the session commences or very soon thereafter so that the
new-comer does not suffer serious loss of studies due to
belated admission."

We are in complete agreement with tlie view expressed by the learned
Judge. · . · -' _ ·- H
290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

We shall now deal with a couple of decisions to which we were
~ referred to by learned counsel for the appellants during the course of
their arguments. It was submitted that the High Court h.as consistently
been taking a view that it has the.power as well as the duty to issue an
appropriate writ, direction or order for the 'backlog' of seats to .be
filled up whenever it finds that the authorities have acted in violation
B of the norms prescribed by the relevant rules and a deserving candi-
.-
t
date has been wrongly denied admission to such a professional course
of studies. It seemingly appears to be so, but on closer scrutiny the
decisions relied upon are clearly distinguishable on facts.

There are three decisions we must mention: Dr. Mrs. Urmilla
(j: Shukla v. State of M.P. & Ors., (Misc. Petition No. 297/83 decided on
17.4.84); Rekha Saxena v. State of M.P. & Ors:, [1985] MPLJ 142 and
Dr. Sunil Gajendragadkar v. State of M.P., (Misc. Petition No. 57/85
decided on 11.3.85). In Dr. Urmi/la Shuk/a's case, the facts were
these. Dr. Mrs. l)rmilla Shukla had applied for admission to the PG
course in MS in Gynaecology and Obstetrics as well as to the Diploma
II> course in that discipline in G.R. Mediciif College, Gwalior for the
academic year 1983-84. It was not in dispute that there were 7 Lec-
turers in Obstetrics & Gynaecology in that College and as such 7
students had to be admitted for the PG course in MS in Gynaecology
and Obstetrics. As per r. 2.2 of the Rules the State Government had
fixed the ratio of 2/3rd for the merit candidates and l/3rd for the
l candidates in Government Service as Assistant Surgeons or equivalent
posts, for admission to Post-Graduate course in Gynaecology. No
rules had been framed for worldng out the ratio of2/3rd and 1/3rd. Dr.
Mrs. Urmilla Shukla stood fifth in the merit list. However, the
authorities did not select her, for the studies in MS course in Obstetrics
& Gynaecology for the academic session starting from August 1983 but
p gave her admission to the Diploma course. She made a representation ,.
that she should have been given admission to the PG course in MS in :
Obstetrics & Gynaecology and not to the Diploma course, contending
that there was no justification now th,e ratio of 4:3 had been worked
out. The Government however rejected the representation and there-
upon she moved the High Court, The High Court allowed the writ .,'
G petition apd struck down the decision of the Stats. Government dated
August 30, 1983 fixing the ratio at 4:3 as being whQ!ly arbitrary and
without any rational basis, and held that the ratio should have been
5:2.

C.P. Sen, J. speaking for himself and R.C. Shrivastav~, J.1
H ~xplained that 2/3rd of 7 came to 4.666 while 1/3,rd was 2.333, and th_e
AJAY PRADHAN v. STATE OF M.P. ISEN,.J.) 291

· question was now the figure had to be rounded off for filling up the 7 A
seats. The learned Judge explained that the proper method would be
that if the figure is more than half the same has to be rounded off as 1
while if the figure is less than half it is not to be reckoned. The High ·
Court accordingly issued a writ in the nature <if mandamus directing
the Government to give admission to Dr. Mrs .. Urmilla Shukla to the
Post-Graduate course in Obstetrics & Gynaecology and permit her to B
appear at the MS examination in that discipline. It is however neces-
sary to observe that the learned Judge mentioned that out of 7 seats for
the PG course of studies in Obstetrics & Gynaecology, one seat had
been kept vacant probably because .of the filing of the writ petition by
Dr. Mrs. Urmilla Shukla and therefore there could be no impediment
.to the grant of admission to her and cited a precedent under similar
circumstances during the earlier year. Dr. Miss Sushma Dixit had been
c
admitted to the MS course in Obstetrics & Gynaecology because one
of the candidates selected had gone abroad without permission and her
admission had been cancelled. He further pointed out that Dr. Mrs.
Urmilla Shukla was pursuing her studies in the Diploma course in
Obstetrics & Gynaecology and.the syllabus in the MS in that discipline D
for the first year was the same and therefore there could be no diffi-
culty in her way in determining the percentage of attendance to make
her eligible to appear at the examination. The decision in Dr. Mrs.
Urmil/a Shukla's case therefore turned on its own facts.

The decision in Rekha Saxena's case was an aftermath of the .E
decision in Dr. Mrs. Urmilla Shukla's case Dr. Rekha Sexena had
applied for adinission only to the Diploma course. in Gynaecology & ·
Obstetrics and she rightly contended that the ratio for the P.G./course
in MG between merit candidates and Assistant Surgeons should have
been 5:2 and she being placed at serial No. 4 in the merit list, should
have 'been admitted to the Diploma course: She'compfained that after F
Dr. Urmilla Shukla was given admissiori to the MS ·course, she made
an application that she be.given provisional admission to the Diploma
course on the assurance that if ·ultimately Dr. Urmilla Shukla had to
come back to the Diploma course she would walk out and further that
she could not claim any stipend for the period of her studies, and that
though the High Court allowed the. writ petjtion of Dr. Urmilla Shukla G
and the College Council recommended h~t case for admission to the
Diploma course,. the authorities turned down her claim on the-ground
that she could not be given admission in 1984 against the quota for the
academic year 1983-84. The petitioner in her rejoinder pointed out the
instance of Dr. Miss Sushma Dixit who was given admission to the MS
1
course · in Gynaecology & Obstetrics in the month of March 1983 H
292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

A though she was doing her Diploma course for the academic year 1982-
83, and made a grievance that she was being discriminated against as
the authorities were adopting different yardsticks in her case. In the
return filed by the State Government, the facts were not disputed. All
that was said was that against the aforesaid judgment of the High
Court in Dr. Mrs. Urmilla Shukla's case, the State Government had
B taken an appeal to the Supreme Court and therefore her seat in the
Diploma course was kept vacant and had not been declared to be
available for any other candidate. Upon this basis, it was asserted that
as there was no seat vacant, no admission could be granted to Dr.
Rekha Saxena .. At the hearing of the writ petition the Government's
appeal in Dr. Mrs. Urmilla Shukla's case was still pending-.

G.L Oza, Actg. CJ. speaking for himself and Rampa! Singh, J.
allowed the writ petition and directed that the petitioner Dr. Rekha
Saxena be given proyisional admission to the Diploma course in the
vacancy caused on admission being granted to Dr. Mrs. Urmilla
Shukla to the MS course. The High Court repelled the contention that
:D the petitioner was a candidate for admission to a course for the
academic year 1983-84 and could not be admitted in the year 1984, and
observed: ,

"It is strange that this request of the petitioner dated
26.'8.1983 was ultimately turned down by the respondents
by an order dated 25.4.1984, practically eight months after
this prayer was made by the petitioner. This delay in taking
a decision on such matters when every day that passes in
the life of a professional candidate is materially speaks
volumes about the efficiency of this department and the
rejection is on this basis that the petitioner was selected for
F the year .1983 and could not be admitted in the year 1984.
This logic of this order, it appears, is not defended in the
return and a new defence has been raised in the return that
as the case of Dr. Smt. Urmilla Shukla is not yet finally
decided and is pending in the Supreme Court, the seat.has
not been declared vacant altho11gh it is not disputed that
the seat is and was vacant in fact. It is peculiar that if Dr.
Smt. Urmilla Shukla could be given a provisional admi.s-
sion, why.the petitioner .could not have been given provi-
sional admission immediately when she had herself offered
in terms which would throw no liability on the respondents
if ultimately she had to go back, but it ap~ars that her
H application was not considered and ultimately practically
A.JAY PRADHAN v. STATE OF M.P. [SEN, J.] 293

major part of the session was wasted and then the refiisal A
was on the ground of delay for which the authorities
themselves were responsible. It is, therefore, plain that this
kind of attitude could not be justified."

It was then observed:
B
"It is also interesting that in fact the selection of a candi,
· date for admission to a course is for the academic session
which is August 1983 to August 1984 and, therefore, when
this order in April 1984 was passed, the session was still in
the offing and if the petitioner was granted admission,
there was no question of consideration of merit for the year C
1984. It is also plain that the seat remained vacant as Dr.
Smt. Urmilla Shukla had been admitted in the M.S.
Course."

Incidentally, the High Court was not impressed with the submission
made on behalf of the Government that there was no declaration that D
the seat in the Diploma course had fallen vacant and therefore there
was no question of giving admission to the petitioner, ~bserving that
formal declaration of vacancy was too abstract a concept to deprive a
candidate admission to the P.G. Course or Diploma course to which
he is entitled, merely on the ground that the vacancy pertained to the
academic year which had gone by or that no additional seat in the new E
year could be created without sanction of the Medical Council of
India. In coming to the conclusion that it did, the High Court mainly
relied on certain observation made by this Court in Puniab Engineer-
' ing College v. Sanfa)I Gulati & Ors., (1983] 2 SCR 801, and in particu-
lar to ,the following observations:
F
"Those who infringe the rules must pay for their lapse and
the wrong done to the deserving students who ought to
have been admitted has to be rectified. The best solution
'
under the circumstances is to ensure that the strength of
seats is increased in proportion to the wrong admissions
made." G

We need not enter into this controversy. What is of significance is that
in Rekha Saxena-'s case the seat occupied by Dr. Urmilla Shulda id. the
Diploma course in Obstetrics & Gynaecology was. kept vacant and
therefore there was no legal impediment for the High Court 'to have
issued a direction forthe admission of Dr. Rekha Saxena. H
294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

A In Sunil Gajendragadkar's case, the facts were more or less
these. One Dr. Laxmi Jain did not join the P.G. course in MD in
General Medicine for the .academic year 1983-84 and the College
Council on December 22, 1984 decided to cancel her admission w.e.f.
August 1, 1984. But the vacancy caused thereby was not notified or
advertised. The High Court relying on Rekha Saxena's case repelled
B the contention of the Government based on r. 10 that a seat falling
vacant in a particular year can only be filled up in that year and the
Sunil Gajendragadkar could not be admitted in the academic session
1983-84 which commenced from August 2, 1983. ··

Oza, CJ. speaking for himself and Ram Pal Singh, J. repelled the
C contentiqn of the Government that the petitioner being a candidate for
admission to the P.G. course in MD in General Medicine for the
academic year 1983-84, could not be considered for admission in the
year 1984-85 relying on the earlier decision in Rekha Sexena's case
based on the observation of this Court in Punjab Engineering College
that "those who infringe. the rules must pay for their lapse and the
D wrong done to the deserving students·who ought to have been admit-
ted has to be rectified. The best solution under the circumstances is to
ensure that the strength of seats is increased in proportion to the
wrong.admissions made", and q·uoted from Rekha Saxena's case:

"In the present case, as it is clear that in the vacancy of Dr.
E Urmilla Shukla the petitioner was entitled to admission
immediately in August 1983 itself, an\! if the respondents
had chosen to keep her away by not considering her prayer,
it could not be contended that now it is too late for her to
be admitted."

F The learned Chief Justice largely relied on the concept of justice and
fairness. He adverted to the fact that the College Council took a deci-
/ sion on December 22, 1984 creating a vacancy w.e.f. August 1, 1984
i.e. commencement of ihe next academic ,session. Although Dr, Laxmi
Jain did not join the P.G. course in MD in General Medicine in
August 1983, her ·seat was in fact vacant, but due to apathy and
lethargy of the authoritjes no steps were taken to fill up the seat in that
G year in terms of r. 10. On the language of r. 10, we find it difficult to
sustain the action of the authorities in making the seat available from
August 1, 1984 i.e. commencement of the next academic year, or the
view expressed by the High Court.

In
the appeal preferred by Dr. Sanjay Kumar Shrivastava, it is
H conceded by learned counsel appearing for the State Government that
'AJAY PRADHAN v. STATE OF M.P. [SEN, J.) 295

. there is no provision which empowered the State Government to trans- A
fer a seat inthe P.G. course in MD/MS reserved for a medical college'.
to another medical college. It must therefore follow that the High
Court was, obviously wrong in holding that the seat occupied by Smt.
Dhurupkar had been transferred with her when the same was, in fact,
available. On the cclnstruction that we place on r. 10 of the Rules, the
appellants are not entitled to any relief. Obviously, the seat that B
became vacant in the academic year 1986-87 cannot now filed in terms
ofr; 10.

We wish, to impress upon .the State Government of Madhya
Pradesh the deSirabiliti of taking immediate steps under r. 10 of the
Rules to fill up the vacancy in the P.G. course in MD/MS or the
Diploma course of studies in a particular discipline, the moment the
c
seat in a in~dical college in that discipline is available in a medical
college in any particular academic year. The State Government should
ensure that 'the authorities charged with the duty of granting admission
to studenis· under r. 10 of the Rules must act with due promptitude,
and should not by their lethargy or inaction deprive an oth~rwise D
meritorious candidate· admission tb such a higher course of studies to
which he was otherwise entitled. Perhaps, the solution Hes in making a
suitable provision 'in the Rules providingJor a reasonable period, say
fifteen days, within which the authorities ought to exercise their pow-
ers under r. 10 of the Rules, failing which the seat available would be
deemed to have been filled by the candidate placed first in the waiting E
list strictlv according to merit.

In the result, the appeals must fail and are dismissed. There shall
be no order as to costs:

R.S.S. Appeals dismissed. F

'