Holding

The creation of a supernumerary housepost for the appellant obliges the college to issue her an application form and admit her to the M.D. course, notwithstanding the general rule of reciprocity, provided she satisfies the fitness requirements.

Summary

The appellant, an MBBS graduate from Andhra Pradesh, married a Maharashtra government medical officer and obtained a supernumerary housepost in Obstetrics and Gynaecology under Rule X(2) of the Maharashtra regulations to become eligible for a postgraduate M.D. course at Dr. V.M. Medical College, Solapur. After completing the housepost, the college refused to issue her an application form for the M.D. program, citing lack of reciprocity with Andhra Pradesh. The High Court dismissed her writ petition, holding that completion of housemanship does not guarantee admission. On appeal, the Supreme Court observed that while Maharashtra may generally refuse admission to candidates from non‑reciprocal states, the specific creation of a supernumerary post for the appellant created a legitimate expectation of consideration for admission. Consequently, the Court directed the college to issue an application form and admit her to the 1989 session, subject to fitness, setting aside the High Court judgment.

Issues considered

Whether the refusal to issue an application form and admit the appellant to the M.D. course violates the provisions of Rule X(2) after a supernumerary housepost was created for her.
Whether the State of Maharashtra can lawfully deny admission to a candidate who passed MBBS in Andhra Pradesh on the ground of lack of reciprocity.
Whether the creation of a supernumerary housepost confers a right to admission to the postgraduate course.
Whether the Supreme Court may intervene in admission decisions of an educational institution in these circumstances.

Subjects

supernumerary postshousemanshippostgraduate medical admissionreciprocityMaharashtra regulationseducational institution admissionadministrative lawright to education

Judgment

DR. MRS. SHEELA ASHOK PATWARDHAN
' v.
A
DEAN, DR. V.M. MEDICAL COLLEGE, SOLAPUR, & ORS.

NOVEMBER 24, 1988

[MURARI MOHON DUTT AND S. NATARAJAN, JJ.] B

Professional Colleges-Ru/es regulating appointment of House-
men and House-Surgeons at the hospitals attached to the Govt. Medical
Colleges in State of Maharashtra-Rule X(2)-M.D. Course-Admis-
sion to-Eligibility of M.B.B.S. graduate from A.P. State.

Rule X(2) of the Rules regulating the appointments of Housemen C
and House-Surgeons at the hospitals attached to the Government Medi·
cal Colleges in the State of Maharashtra provides that the Government
may sanction supernumerary posts to allow spouses of Government
servants on transfer to undertake studies, if standing high in merit,
from another college. D

The appellant married to a Government Medical Officer working
in the State of Maharashtra after having passed M.B.B.S. examination
and completing one year internship from a college situated in the State
of Andhra Pradesh. On her application, the Government of
Maharashtra in exercise of its power under rule X(2) created a House- E
post in Obstetrics and Gynaecology w.e.f. July 15, 1986 specifically and
categorically stating that the supernumerary Housepost was created to
enable the appellant to complete her post-graduate studies at Dr. V.M.
Medical College, Solapur, respondent No. 2. The appellant joined the
Housepost and duly completed the same. However, she was refused
admission in the M.D. Course by respondent No. 2 inasmuch as she was F
not even issued an application form.

Being aggrieved, she filed a writ petition in the High Court chal·
lenging the legality of the action of the respondent refusing to admit her
in the said post-graduate M.D. Course. The High Court dismissed the
writ petition holding, inter a/ia, that no inference could be drawn that G
everybody who completed the house-job was entitled to get admission to
the post-graduate cousre ipso facto and that granting of registration for
~ house-job would not amount to admission to the post-graduate course in
a Medical College. Hence this appeal by special leave.

Allowing the appeal, H
959
960 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.

HELD: (1) All the seats in the post-graduate degree course for
A
Obstetrics and Gynaecology are not reserved for the candidates passing
the M.B.B.S. examination from the said Dr. V.M. Medical College. It iS
not disputed that certain percentage of seats are reserved for the
students of the College. But, no application form was issued to the
appellant and accordingly, the question of not admitting the appellant
B on the ground of institutional preference or institutional reservation of
seats does not arise. [964F-G]

(2) The State of Maharashtra is entitled to refuse to admit· any
student passing the M.B.B.S. examination from any Medical College in
the State of Andhra Pradesh as that State has not reciprocated in the
matter of admission to post-graduate degree courses in Medical
c Colleges.ofthat State. [964G-H] ·

(3) The State of Maharashtra after considering all facts and
circumstances including the high merit of the appellant specifically
created a supernumerary Housepost for the appellant. After creating
D the supernumerary Housepost specifically for the appellant so as to
enable her to .become eligible for the post graduate degree course, the
respondents are not at all justified in refusing her even an application
form and in not considering her case for admission in the post-graduate
degree course on the ground of failure of reciprocity by the Andhrs _
Pradesh State. It was, therefore, unreasonable and unjust for the re-
\ E spondents to refuse admiSsion to the appellant on a ground which is not
at all tenable in the facts and circumstances of the case~. [965C-F]

(4) Normally the Supreme Court does ot interfere in the matter of
admission of students in an educational institution. ·Even if it interferes,
it generally directs the authorities concerned to consider the question of
F admission in accordance with the rules of the institution. But, in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that
the appellant had to lose two years of her academic career for no fault of
hers, it is directed 'that the respondents shall issue to her an application
form for admission in the post-graduate M.D. Course in Obstetrics and
Gyo1Becology and that after the submission of the application form and
G compliance with other formalities by the appellant, she shall be admit-
ted in the post-graduate course in Obstetrics and Gynaecology in Dr.
V.M. Medical College, Solapur, in the 1989 session, provided she is not
otherwise unfit. [966B-D]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4128
tf_ of 1988.
MRS. SHEELACDR.) v. V.M. MEDICAL COLLEGE [DUTT, J.I 961

From the Judgment and Order dated 3.8.1988 of the Bombay
A
High Court in W.P. No. 28 of 1987.

V.N. Ganpule and Mukul Mudgal for the Appellant.

A.S. Bhasme, B.R. Agarwala and Mrs. Sushma Manchanda for
the Respondents. B

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DUTT, J. Special leave granted. Heard learned Counsel for
both the parties.

The appeal is directed against the judgment of the Bombay High c
Court whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition of the appel-
lant challenging, inter alia, the legality of the action of the respondents
refusing to ~rlmit the appellant in the post-r.raduate M.D. Course in
Obstetrics and Gynaecology for the 1987 session:
D
The appellant passed the MBBS examination from the Kakatiya
Medical College under the University of Kakatiya, Warangal, in the
State of Andhra Pradesh. She obtained 72%, 66.63% and 67.5%
marks in the first, second and third MBBS examinations. She was
awarded Governor's Gold Medal by the State of Andhra Pradesh for
her consistent high merit at the MBBSexaminations. In August, 1985, E
she completed her one year internship.

She married one Dr. Ashok Patwardhan, a Government Medical
Officer working in the State of Maharashtra. He was transferred to
Solapur in January, 1985. The appellant had to come to Solapur in
October, 1985 and since then she has been residing there with her F
husband.

After coming to Solapur, she intended to prosecute her studies in
the post-graduate M.D. Degree Course in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
in Dr. V.H. Medical College, Solapur, under the Shivaji University,
the respondent No. 2. Rules X(2) and (3) of the Rules .regulating the G
appointments of Housemen and House-Surgeons at the hospital
attached to the Government Medical Colleges in the State of
Maharashtra, hereinafter referred fo as 'the Rules', provide as follows: ·

''X. ················································
H
962 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.

Government have from time to time sanctioned supernu-
A
merary posts-

( 1)

B (2) to allow spouses of Government servants on transfer to
undertake studies, if standing high in merit (which means
not less than 55% at first attempt in the subject) from
another college;

(3) to allow students of other colleges in Maharashtra to
compete on merit for posts so as to conduct post-graduate
c course for which facilities are not existant or very meagre
in their own college. These supernumerary posts should be
awarded after fullest consideration of these principles in
the above order and on merit and it is not incumbent to fill
all of them or to reserve them. . . , .................. .
D
It is understood that granting of registration does not
absolve a candidate from competing on merit and if he
cannot earn post on merit, his registration would lapse for
failure to compete housemanship requirements ........ "

ff The appellant made an application to the Government of
Maharashtra praying for the creation of a Housepost in Obstetrics and
Gynaecology under rule X(2) so as to enable her to do post-graduate
studies in Dr. V.M. Medical College, Solapur. As she fulfilled and
requirements of rule X(2), namely, that she is the wife of a Govern-
ment servant on transfer and that she stood high in merit securing
F more than 55% marks in Obstetrics and Gynaecology in her MBBS
examination, the Dean of the College specifically recommended her
case for the creation of such a supernumerary Housepost. While the
application of the appellant was under consideration, the appellant
was selected for a Housepost in Surgery in the said College. She joined
the Housepost in Surgery in January, 1986 and completed the same in
G July, 1986. But, in order to be eligible for post-graduate studies in
Obstetrics and Gynaecology, ·she was to join another Housepost in
Obstetrics ancLGyn.aecology.

On July 2;" 1986, the Government of Maharashtra in exercise of
its power under rule X(2) created a Housepost in Obstetrics and
H Gynaecology with effect from July 15, 1986 specifically and categori-
•MRS. SHEELA(DR.) v. V.M. MEDICAL COLLEGE IDUTI, J.] 963 !,

cally stating that the supernumerary Housepost was created to enable
the appellant to complete.her post-graduate studies at Dr. V.M. Medi- A
cal College, Solapur.. The Government resolution dated July 2, 1986 is
extracted below:

"Government hereby grants permission for creation of one
supernumerary non-stipendary post of Houseman with B
effect from 15.7.1986 for a period of six months at
Dr. Vaishampayan Memorial Medical College, Solapur, to
enable Dr. Mrs. S.A. Patwardhan to complete her Post
Graduate Course in the subject of Gynaecology and
Obstetrics.

Mrs. Patwardhan should join the said post within 10 c
' days from 15.7.1986. In the event of her not joining the
said post will be tre~ted as abolished.

By order and in the name of the Governor of
Maharashtra. D

Sd/-
J.P. Budhwant
Deputy Secretary
Govt. of Maharashtra"
E
The Dean of the College called upon the appellant to join the
Housepost and not to quit the same before completing the term
inasmuch as the Housepost was specifically created to enable the
appellant to complete her post-graduate studies at Dr. V.M. Medical
College, Solapur. The appellant-. joined the Housepc,t and duly
completed the same. The Dean of the College issued an advertisement F
inviting applications for the post-graduate seats in various disciplines
for January, 1987 batch. The appellant made an application praying
for the issuance.of an application form for the M.D. Course in Obste-
trics and Gynaecology, but no such form was issued to her. In other
'.".i
words, the appellant was refused admission in the M.D. Course at
Dr. V.M. Medical College, Solapur. G

Being. aggrieved by the action of the Dean of the College, the
appellant filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court. The High
Court, as stated already, dismissed the writ petition holding, inter a/ia,
that no-inference couldrbe drawn that everybody who completed the
hous~-job was entitled to get admission to the post-graduate courfae H

'
964 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.

A ipso facto and that granting of registration for house-job would not
amount to admission to the post-graduate course in a Medical College.
Hence this appeal.

There can be no doubt that there is no question of automatic
admission in the post-graduate course, simply because one has
B completed the house-job or housemanship. It is not the case of the
appellant that as she completed the housemanship, she has acquired a
right of automatic admission to the post-graduate degree course in the
said College. Her complaint is that she was not even given an applica-
tion form for the post-graduate degree course. The College authorities
or the University did not at all consider her case for admission. The
High Court has not considered this aspect of the appellant's case.
c
It is contended by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondents that in view of the provision in the Rules giving in-
stitutional preference in the matter of admission, the appellant could
not be admitted. The other ground that has been urged on behalf of
D the respondents is that as the appellant passed the MBBS examination
from the Kakatiya University in the State of Andhra Pradesh and as
there is failure on the part of the State of Andhra Pradesh to recipro-
cate with regard to reservation of 25% of the total number of seats in
the matter of admission to post-graduate degree course in Medical
Science, the respondents were justified in refusing admission to the
E appellant.
'
So far as the first contention is concerned, we do not think that
there is any merit in the same. All the seats in the post-graduate
degree course in Obstetrics and Gynaecology are not reserved for the
candidates passing the MBBS examination from the said Dr. V.M.
F Medical College, Solapur. It is not disputed that certain percentage of
seats are reserved for the students of the College. But, no application
form was issued to the appellant and, accordingly, the question of not
admitting the appellant on the ground of institutional preference or
institutional reservation of seats does not arise. In our opinion, the
first ·ground founded on institutional preference seems to be a mere
G plea. The real ground for refusal to issue even an application form for
admission to the appellant is the failure of reciprocity on the part of ~'-'

the State of Andhra Pradesh. The State of Maharashtra, in our
opinion, is entitled to refuse to admit any student passing the MBBS
examination from any. Medical College in the State of Andhra
·Pradesh, as that State.has not-reciprocated in.the matter of admission
H to post-graduate degree courses in Medical Colleges of that State. But,
- ::.

MRS. SHEELA(DR.) v. '/.M. MEDICAL COLLEGE [DUTI, J.] 965

in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the respondents are A
not at all justified in refusing to admit the appellant in the post-
graduate degree course. The most glaring fact in this respect is that on
the prayer of the appellant a supernumerary Housepost was created so
as to enable the appellant to become eligible for the post-graduate
degree course. It is not the case of the respondents that they were not B
aware of the fact that the appellant had passed her MBBS examination
from a Medical College in the State of.Andhra Pradesh. Indeed, it has
been categorically averred by the appellant that in her application for
the creation of a supernumerary Housepost, she disclosed all facts
including the fact of her passing the MBBS examination from the said
Medical Colko,e in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The State of
Maharashtra after considering all facts and circumstances including the C
high merit of the appellant specifically created a supernumerary
Housepost for the appellant. Afier the appellant had completed her
house-job and applied for the issuance of an application form for the
post-graduate degree course, she was refused an application form,
presumably on the ground that she had passed her MBBS examination D
from a Medical College in the State of Andhra Pradesh. In our
>l· opinion, the appellant could be refused at the very outset, that is to
say, her application for creation of a supernumerary Housepost could
be turned down on the ground of failure to observe reciprocity by the
State of Andhra Pradesh. But, after creating the supernumerary
Housepost specifically for the appellant so as to enable her to become
eligible for the post-graduate degree course the respondents, in our E
opinion, are not at all justified in refu~ing her even an application form
and in not considering her case for admission in the post-graudate
degree course, on the ground of failure of reciprocity by the Andhra
Pradesh State. We fail to understand how the College authorities and
the Government could take this attitude so far as the appellant is F
concerned. In our opinion, it was unreasonable and unjust for the
respondents to refuse admission to the appellant on a ground which is
not at all tenable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

It is not disputed that the appellant has all the requisite qualifica-
tions for admission in the post-graduate degree course. She applied for G
admission in the session commencing from January, 1987, but she was
not admitted. The 1988 sessions has also passed, as the appellant had
to file a writ petition before the High Court of Bombay which, as
noticed already, was dismissed by the High Court. The appellant prays
that she may be admitted in the post-graduate course in Dr. V.M.
Medical College in the 1989 session. H ·
966 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.

A The facts stated above reveal that the appellant'has been haras-
sed to a great extent. She was misled by the fact of the creation of a
supernumerary Housepost for her by the State of Maharashtra. She
has alr.eady lost two years of her academic career. Normally, this
Court does not interfere in the maiter of admisson of students in an
educational institution. Even if it interferes, it generally directs the
B
authorities concerned to consider the question of admission in accor-
dance with the rules of the institution. But, in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the appellant had
to lose two years of her academic career for no fault of hers, we direct
the respondens to issue to her an application form for admission in the
post-graduate M.D, Course in Obstetrics and Gynaecology and we
c further direct that after the submission of the application form and
compliance with other formalities by the appellant, she shall be admit-
ted in the post-graduate course in Obstetrics and Gynaecology in Dr.
V.M. Medical College, Solapur, in the 1989 session, provided she is
not otherwise unfit. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
D Indian Medical Council also supports the case of the appellant for her
admission in the 1989 session.

The judgment of the High Court is set aside and the appeal is
allowed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

M.L.A. Appeal allowed.