Holding

A rule that gives first preference to a university’s own students in admission to super‑speciality courses, when based on a merit list, is not arbitrary, unreasonable, nor violative of Article 14.

Summary

Gujarat University prescribed a rule for admission to its limited super‑speciality (M.Ch./D.M.) courses giving first preference to its own graduates, second preference to other Gujarat‑state university graduates, and leaving any remaining vacancies unfilled. Rajiv G. Bhatt, not a Gujarat University graduate, was denied admission and obtained a writ directing the university to admit him; the High Court held the preference clause violative of Article 14. The university appealed. The Supreme Court held that giving preference to its own students, when applied to a merit list, is not arbitrary, unreasonable or violative of Article 14, but the provision that unfilled vacancies shall remain vacant is irrational and must be reconsidered. Consequently the appeal was allowed in part and no costs were awarded.

Issues considered

Whether a rule giving first preference to a university’s own graduates for admission to super‑speciality courses violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Whether the provision that any vacancy remaining after applying the preference rule shall remain unfilled is a rational rule.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14

Subjects

Article 14EqualityMeritReservationMedical educationSuper‑speciality admissionUniversity admission rulesPreference

Judgment

A GUJARAT UNIVERSITY
v.
RAJIV GOPINATH BHATT AND ORS.

MAY 1, 1996

B [AM. AHMADI, CJ, N.P. SINGH AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.]

Constillltio!l of llldia 195()--Artic/e l~Admissim,,~Super speciality
courses-Rule framed by Ullive1:iity that out of merit list prepared, preference
to be give11 for admission to the students of that Unive1:iityWhether can be
C held to be arbillw); llllreasonable or violative of Alticle 14 of the Co!lstitu- j
tio11-H eld No-Educatio11-Higher Educatioll-Admissioll to super I
speciality cow:1·es. I
For admission in the super speciality course oC M..Ch. (Master of
D Chirurjee) in Onco surgery, considering the limited number of seats, the
appellant University in its rules for selection of the candidates for admis-
sion provided that first preference would be given to the students of the
appellant-university and though the students from other Universities were
not denied admission they would rank next to the students of the appellant-
university.
E
The appellant invited applications for admission to two years' super
speciality courses of D.M. and M.Ch. TI1e respondent was denied admission
on the ground that he was not a student of the appellant-university. In the writ
petition filed on his behalf, the High Court directed the appellant university to
grant admission to the respondent in the super speciality courses of M.Ch. in
F Onco surgery. It was held that students who passed M.DJM.S. examination
either from appellant university or from any other university recognised by the
appellant university were eligibile for being admitted to the super speciality
courses in question and the clause saying that preference mll be given to the
students of the appellant university was violative of Article 14 of the Constitu-
G lion of India. TI1e High Court observed Uiat the court cannot allow excellence
to be compromised for any o!her considera!ion. This appeal had been filed
against the order passed by the High Court.

Allowing the appeal, this Court

H HELD : .1.1. Object of any institution while selecting applicants for
l84
GUJARAT UNIVERSITY v. R.G. BHATT 185

admission is to select the best amongst the applicants, regional and other A
consideration which do not satisfy the test of Article 14 of the Constitution
should not affect the merit criteria. But from time to time, this Court taking
into consideration the local regional compulsion has been making efforts to
strike a balance so that the students who have pursued the studies in a
particular State and have been admitted in the medical colleges of that State
are not suddenly thrown on the street when question of their admission in B
super speciality courses arises, in which the seats are limited in number.
Therefore if a rule has been· framed that out of the merit list prepared,
preference is to be given for admission in the super speciality courses to the
students of the university in question per se it cannot be held to be arbitrary,
unreasonable or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. [187-E-F; 188-D] C

1.2. As the object and purpose of the part of the impugned rule which
provides •any vacancy remaining after this shall remain unfilled" has not
been explained, this part of the rule cannot be held rational. It is only just
and proper that the university should examine and give a fresh look to the
said rule making provision for filling up even such vacancies which are D·
uot filled for one reason or the other : of course within the time schedule
prescribed for the super speciality courses. [188-E-F]

lagdish Saran v. Union of India, [1980) 2 SCC 768, distinguished..
E
Pradeep lain v. Union of India, [1984] 3 SCC 654; Dinesh Kumar v.
Motila/ Nehrn Medical College, [1986] 3 SCC 727 and Anant Madaan v.
State of Haryana, [1995] 2 SCC 135, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7565 of
1996. F

From the Judgment and Order dated 30.9.91 of the Gujarat High
Court in S.CA. No. 4215 of 1991.

R.R. Kumar aud P.H. Parekh for the Appellant.
G
Ms. Kiran for Vineet Kumar for the Respondent No. 1.

Yashank Adhyaru for R. Sasiprabhu, for the Respondent No. 2.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by H
186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A N.P. SINGH, J. Leave granted.

This appeal has been filed on behalf of the Gujarat University
(hereinafter referred to as the university) for setting aside an order dated
30.9.1991, passed by the Court directing the appellant-university to grant
admission to the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the respon-
B dent) in the super speciality course of M.Ch. (Master of Chirurgee) in
Onco surgery, in the session which commenced from 1.7.1991.

It appears that the appellant-university invited applications for
admission to two years' super speciality courses of D.M. and M.Ch. com-
C mencing from 1.7.1991. An entrance examination was also conducted to
select the students for admission in the aforesaid courses. The number of
seats in the super speciality courses are very limited, because of in which
the rule framed by the appellant-university it has been provided that the
first preference shall be given to the students of the appellant-university.
The students from other universities are not denied admission but they
D have to rank next to the students of the appellant-university. As the
respondent aioresaid was denied admission on the ground that he was not
a student of the appellant-university, a writ petition was filed on his behalf,
before the High Court, which as already stated above was allowed by the
impugned order.
E
When the appeal was taken up for hearing, counsel appearing for the
parties, informed the Court that this appeal has become infructuous,
because on basis of the order passed by the High Court, the respondent
was allowed to join the course and he has already completed the course.
In this background, this Court is not actually required to examine the
F grievance made on behalf of the appellant-university in respect of the
directions given by the High Court. However, the learned counsel, appear-
ing for the university drew the attention of the Court to the relevant rule
for selection of the candidates for admission in the super speciality courses:

"0.M.S. - 16: Selection for super-specialities courses (i.e. M.Ch
G and D.M.).

1. First preference will be given to candidates from Gujarat
University. Second preference will be given to candidates from
other Universities of Gujarat Slate. Any vacancy remaining after
H this shall remain unfilled.
GUJARAT UNIVERSITY v. R.G.13HATr[N.P.SINGH,.I.] 187

2. Post-graduale degree qualification i.e. M.D. or M.S. is es- A
sential.

3. The Vice-Chancellor will arrange thereby examination for
the candidates, preferably objective. No practicals will be held. The
result of this examination will be sole criterion for admission and
decision of the Vice-Chancellor will be final". B

The stand of the university in the affidavit in reply filed before the High
Court, was that the basis of the admission is merit; only preference is to
be given to the students of the appellant-university. The High Court has
pointed out that students who have passed M.D./M.S. examination either C
from the appellant- university or from any other university recognised by
the appellant-university are eligible for being admitted to the super
speciality courses in question, and the clause saying that preference will be
given to the student of the appellant-university was violative of Article 14
of the Constitution of India. In this connection reference was made by the
High Court to the judgments of this Court in the cases of Jagdish Saran v. D
Union of India, (1980] 2 SCC 768 and Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, (1984]
3 sec 654, where it has been observed that the court cannot allow
excellence to be compromised for any other consideration.

Without examining that question in detail it may be pointed out that
E
the aforesaid judgments were not in connection with the admission in super
speciality course. At the same time, we reiterate that object of any institu-
tion while selecting applicants for admission is to select the best amongst
the applicants, regional and other considerations which do not satisfy the
test of Article 14 of the Constitution should not affect the merit criteria.
But from time to time, this Court taking into consideration the local and F
regional compulsions have been making efforts to strike a balance so that
the stndents who have pursued the studies in a particular State and have
been admitted in the medical colleges of that State are not suddenly thrown
on the street when question of their admission in super speciality courses
arises, in which the seats are limited in number. In the case of Pradeep Jain G
v. Union of India, (supra) this Court has observed :

"We are, therefore, of the view that a certain percentage of reser-
vation on the basis of residence requirement may legitimately be
made in order to equalise opportunities for medical admission on
a broader basis and to bring about real and not formal, actual and H
188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996} SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A not 1ncrely legal, equality. The percentage of reservation made on
this count may also include institutional reservation for studenU:
passing the PUC or prc-1nc<lical examination of the same university
or clearing the qualifying examination from the school system of
the educational hinterland of the medical colleges in the
State ........... "
B
The same question \Vas again examined in the case of Dincsh Kranar v.
Motila/ Neluu Medical College, [1986] 3 SCC 727. Recently, in the case of
Anant Madaan v. State of Haryana, [1995] 2 SCC 135, it was said :

c The eligibility condition, therefore, which requires that the
candidate should have studied 10th, 10 + l and JO+ 2 classes from
a recognised institution in the State of Haryana is neither arbitrary
nor unreasonable and the Punjab and Haryana High Court has
rightly upheld the same."

D Therefore, if a rule has been framed that out of the merit list prepared,
preference is to be given for admission in the super speciality courses to
the students of the university in question perse it cannot be held to be
arbitrary, unreasonable or violative of article 14 of the Constitution.

The learned counsel, appearing for the appellant-university, could
E
not explain the object and purpose of part of the impugned rule which
provides "any vacancy remaining after this shall remain unfilled". This part
of the rule cannot be held to rational. It is only just and proper that the
university should examine and give a fresh look to the said rule making
provision for filling up even such vacancies which are not filled for one
F reason or the other; of course within the time schedule prescribed for the
super speciality courses.

The appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. In
the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders as to cost.

G R.A. Appeal allowed.