Holding

The State order prescribing merit‑based admission is statutory and consistent with MCI rules, and provisional admissions should be granted only in exceptional cases; the High Court's mandamus was erroneous and is set aside.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined a series of petitions challenging the denial of admission to postgraduate medical courses in Uttar Pradesh. The State Government had issued an order under s.28(5) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 prescribing that merit for admission be determined solely by the percentage of marks obtained in the MBBS examination, consistent with the Medical Council of India's rules made statutory by s.33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The Court held that provisional admissions should not be granted automatically and only where a "cast‑iron" case exists, to avoid overcrowding and compromising medical training. It found that the High Court erred in issuing a mandamus directing admission of a candidate with only 43% marks, giving weight to a diploma despite the statutory merit criteria. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court order and dismissed the writ petition, affirming that admissions must follow the prescribed merit rules.

Issues considered

Whether the State Government order under s.28(5) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 is of statutory effect and consistent with the Medical Council of India's rules under s.33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.
Whether courts may grant provisional admissions to postgraduate medical courses pending disposal of petitions.
Whether a diploma can be given weightage over the merit criteria prescribed by the statutory order.
Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to issue a mandamus directing admission of a low‑merit candidate.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956s. 33
U.P. State Universities Act, 1973s. 28(5)

Subjects

postgraduate medical admissionmerit criteriaprovisional admissionMedical Council of Indiastatutory rulesArticle 14writ of mandamushealth education

Judgment

•
302

:t.RISHNA PRIYA OANGULY•ETC.

'·
UNIVBRSI'TY OF LUCKNOW & ORS. ETC.

Octobe;· 'l, 1983
B ..
[S. MURTAZA fAZAL ALI, A. VARADARAIAN,
AND M. P. THAKKAR,,JJ.J

AdmisSions to POfl-graduate cour'ses in medicine-Directions grantinf
prOvisional admissions pending disposal of petitions-approach by Courts.
c Stille Government orders laying down criteria for admissions-Whether of
statutory effect, when they are consistent with rules framed by Medical Council
of India?

This batch of ftppeal_s. arose out of admissions aoughf by several candi-
•.
dates to post-graduate courses in the Medical Colleges of Uttar Pradesh.
D While in some of them the-candidates were the ·appellants and the State the
respondent, in othera it was vice Versa. By an order dated 3-12-i980 the State
Governmcnt·had laid d.own that admissions were to be mad'e purely Dn the
basis of merit, the criterion being the total percentage of marks obtained by the
candidate ·in-4he M:B.B.S. examination. Jn as many as· 9 out of the 20 appeals,·
the candidate$ Who had been given provision~l admissions pursuant to "interim
E orders made by the Court had completed tQeir courSes and only their results
were to be declared. IJ;J. all those cases, the State, realising the futility of
forcing the candidates to complete the course all ove_r again, conceded that the
resu1ts of such c11ndidates may be. declared and on passing the· same they would
be admitted to the courses concerned t_hough the candidates in qµestion were
lacking in merit and tl,leir original rcjectiori· was justified. I~ one of the appeals .
-filed by the State, the can~idate in question had obtained only 43.,per cCnt
F' marks at the M.B.B.S. examination and happened to be the last candidate in
the list .of persons wh~ had applied for admissiGn to the post-graduate ,course.
Although the candidate had merely prayed for _a writ directing ·the State or the
college to ,consider his case ·for admission, the High Court, relying mainly ·on
· the fact that the.candidate had a diploma to his credit,. straightaway issued a
writ of manda~us directing the colle8e to admit him to the course a·pplied for,
G therCby granting a relief which the candidate himself had not pra~cid for.

HELD : The practice of forcing the authorities to grant provisional
admissions has been evolved keeping in view the fact that on accouht of huge
accumulati~n --0f arrears in courts it takes a long time for petitions to be dis~
posed Or. By the time the. cases come up for hearing, the rejected candidates
H mieht have completed their course and become Ctigible for admission to the
higher course although the court may ultimately find th'at their initial rCjeCtion
was justified and they did not deserve to be admitted to the course. Such a
,ituation becol!les a sort of fall qccompll for those in charae of the institutions
. it.fl. G~NGULY v. LUCKNOW uNJ\iERSITY (Fazal Ali, /.) so~
. or
at a r1srilt which the candidates are admitted in due deference to the desire
of the court by increaSina: or creatini vacancies ~ven in the absence Or proper A
facilities to_ train the extra candidates. Unless the institutions can provide
complete facilities for the training Or each candidate admitted 'in the various
disciplines, the medical. education will be incomplete and.the universities would
be turning out doctors not fully qualified which would adversely affect the
' health' of the people in general. Therefore, the" practice of lightly granting
Provisional admisSions should be discontinued in future. Whenever a writ
petition is filed, provisional admission should not be given as a matter of B
course on the petition being admitted unleSs the coqrt is fully satisfied that the
petitioner has a cast-iron case which, is bound to succeed or the error is so
tross or apparent that no other conclusion iS: possible. In order .to test this ' ,
fact, even a short notice may bo givCn to explore as to what the other side has
to say and thereafter if the court is satisfied that there is a strong prima facie
case and the matter needs thorough examination, provisional admissio-9 may
be aivcn.
c
The State Government order dated 3-12-1980 preSctibing the- criteria
for admission to post-grad~atc couises in Medical Co:lleges made under s.28(5)
of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973; is'fully consistent with the tenor and
5pirit of the rules framed by the Medical Council Of India. The rules framed
by the Medical Council of India have a .stattitory effect under s.33 of the D
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and are binding on all the colleges arid
universities providing for medical education in tfie country!

The High Court had made a very arbitrary, casual and _lac.onic approach
to the case of the candidate who had obtained 43 per cent nia,ks and based
its judgment purely on speculation and conjectures swept- away by. the consi-
deratiO~ that the ~andidri.tC po!sessed a 4i_ploma to his credit when, in fact, E
other candidates also had obtained diploma and that could not be taken into
s:onsideration under the prescribed rules. •

C1v1L APPELLATE JuRrso1cToN : Civil Appeal Nos. 133-134,
137•140, 142-146, 595, 3045-3046of1982.

(Appeals by Special .leave Petitions from the Judgment and
Order dated the Ist October, 1981 & 14th August, 198 i of the Allaha•
bad High Court (Lucknow Bench) in ·Writ Petition Nos. 1834;3946,
3825, 2953, 4163, 4177, 4234, 4319.4320, 3591, 3775, 2952 and 1662
of 1981). · G
·With. .•
Civil Appeal No. 3047 of 1982

Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and -Order dated
H
the 19th March, 1982 of the Allahabad High Court (Luckiiow Bench) .
in WP. No. 4245 of 1981. ·
SUPREMll COURT REPORTs · (1984) i s.C.A.
•
ADVOCATES FOR THE APPEARING PARTIES:
A.
S. N. Kacker, Ms. S. Bhandare; . T. Sridharan & Ms. C. K.
· Sudhariata.

•K. K. Jain, M.·D. Sagar, P. Dayal, Pankaj Katra, R. P. Singh,
B V. A. Bobde, K. J. John, Altaf Ahmed, Kai/ash Vasdev, Ms. Vrinda,
Anil Kumar Gupta, Brij Bhushan, Kapil Sibil, Ms. S. Dikshit, Sudhi
Kulshreshtha, B.R. Agarwala, R.H. Pancholi, Vijayalakshmi Menon &
· B.P. Sin1h. . .

The Judgment of the Court was delivered bY
c Fazal Ali. J. : Soon after our hard · won freedom there was a
gradual rise in the urban population in view of the process 0f indus·
rialisation and setting up of heavy projects and industries in order
.to make ou'r country more and more self-sufficient. This led to a
certain spurt and rise in the. urban population as people from the
D rural areas started pouring into the urban cities which provided far
better opportunitieJl for educatiqu and employment than the rural
areas. · This sudden increase in urban population led to the spread
of epidemics and dise~ses resulting in a rapid growth of educational
institutions both in the public and private sectors.
E In these appeals, we are concerned only with the medical edu· ·
cation; the Government had to face a serious problem with the com-
. ing up of medical colleges which started growing like mushrooms
and were charging huge capitation fees to make substantial profits
without providing proper medical education and caring precious
F little for achieving excellence of standards in medical education
which, if denuded of such standards, would pose a serious health
hazard to the people. Surely, we would not wish that people ivho
could ill-afford to go in for well equipped expensive medical practi·
tioners should be thrown at the mercy of quacks. Similar situation
arose in technical, engineering and other kinds of institutions but we
G would concentrate on the feature ·and facets of medical education
which alone forms the subject-matter' of these appeals. We have
seen . from our experience that ·each year there is a:huge' rush for
admission to seats in medical colleges for various course.s, which being
rather few and insufficient to control or absorb all sorts and kinds
H of candidates as the well-known Persian proverb "JAYE TANG AST
WA MARDUMA BISYAR" (i.e. little space and people many) seems
aptly to apply in such a situation. However, in order to meet the
Ii. t>. GANGULY v. i\JckNo\v uN1vERs11'1' (FazalAli, J.) 3o5
contingency resulting from a heavy rush for admissions the institu•
tions set up certain standards or tests which had to be complied A
with before candidates could be admitted. Here also, as in other
spheres, favouritism and nepotism have their own role to play as a
result of which merits suffer. In order to me~t these contingencies
and· ward off such evils, the Government through its circulars and
the Medical Council of India being alive to this delicate and diffi-
cult problem sought to solve the problem by making rules and regu-
B
lations for admission of candidates to various courses in different
disciplines (subjects) to achieve excellence in medical standards kee•
pini: in view statutory and constitutional reservations. Unfortuna-
tely, however, these rules were often ftcfuted and observed mon; in
breach than in compliance by those who were in charge of the medi- c
cal education : the result was again a huge spurt of .writ petitions in
the High Court to weed out the inefficient and ineligible and absorb
the efficient and eligible,

With this sport prdude, now to the facts of the case which
disclose a sad story indeed-not because those in charge of the institu- .. D
tions commit errors .but because the courts start, .directing the autho-
.t rities to grant provisional admissions to students .even if they did
not deserve the same in some cases, Experience has shown that in
-r view of the huge accumulation of arrears in courts, it takes a Jong
tim.e for the petitions to be disposed of, hence we have evolved the
I E
practice of forcing the authorities to grant. provisional admissions
wllich has .resulted in a piquant and pungent situation because by the
time the case comes up for hearing, 'the rejected candidates having
completed their course and having appeared at the examination with
every hope of success become eligible for admission to the higher
course in case of success though the Court may ultimately find that F
their initial rejection was justified. Such a situation becomes a sort ·
of a fait accompli for those in charge of the institutions as a result
of which the candidates are admitted in due deference to the desire
of the court by increasing or creating vacancies even in the absence
of suitable and proper facilities to train the extra candidates: This
results in an anathema and a dilemma for which there is hardly any G
remedy. The present cases are a clear illustration of this problem
Our suggestions, therefore, is that whenever a· writ petition is filed
provisional admission should not be given as a matter of course on
the petition being admitted unless the court is fully. satisfied that the
petitioner has a cast-iron case which is bound to succeed or the
H
error is so gross or apparent that no other conclusion is possible. In
order, however, to test this fact even a short notice may·be given fo
'

StlPREMil COtiRt iu!PORtS · t1984] 1 s.c.t.;
explore as. to what the other side has to say and thereafter if the
court is satisfied that there is strong prima facie case and the matter
needs thorough examination, provisional admission may be given.
We hope and trustthat the High Courts would in future discontinue
the practice of lightly granting provisional admission to the candi·
~ dates at the time of regular admissions, as observed above. It is
needless to state that this Court on its part would also be extremely
B reluctant to- grant provisional admission and would do so only in a·
•
very special case. The . fundamental reason for this is that other·
wise the institutions are likely to become overcrowded by candidates,
eligible or ineligible, efficient or inefficient. Unless tho Institutions
can provide complete and full facilities for the training of each
c canoidate who is admitted in the various disciplines, the medical
education will be incomplete and the universities would be turning
out Doctors not fully qualified which wol!ld adversely affect the
health of the people in general.

Out of these appeals, some of them have beeli dismissed as not
D pressed, others were heard on merits. By the time the case was taken
up by this Court, in as many as 9 out of the 20 appeals the .candi·
dates had completed their courses and as ouly the result had tci be
declared, the counsel for the State with his usual fairness, realising
the futility of forcing the candidaies to complete .the course all over
E .again conceded that the results of such candidates may be declared ·
and on passing the same they would be admitted to the courses
concerned though the petitioners were lacking in merits and their
original rejection was justified. We made this direction by a formal t
order, the reasons for which we would give hereafter.

This now brings us to the consideration of the appeals which.
survive. ·Before dealing with the individual cases of the appellants/
•respondents, it may be necessary for us to adjudicate on the. validity
of the circulars passed by the Go.,ernment and the· ru'es and regula·. .J
tions framed by the Medical Council of India, to put the matter
beyond controversy so that a consistent test may be applied to all
G
candidates desiring admission and unless rules are adhered to, admi•
ssions would be denied in which case this· Court will not interfere in
· the absence of a plea of prejudice. or bias which would be naturally
for the candidates to establish.
H In some cases the candidates are appellants and in a few the
State is the appellant and therefore for facility,. the candidates who
have filed appeals against refusal for. admission to the M.D.M.S.
••
i{,p, <iANOULY v. LuckNOW UNIVERSITY (Pazo/ Aii, /.) 307

· Course of the king Georges Medical College, affiliated to the Luck-
'now University, will hereinafter be referred to as the candidates' and
the State of Uttar Pradesh will be referred to as the 'State'. We might
· also mention that before the appeals were heard ·on merit, C.A. Nos..
132 and 136/82 were dismissed as not pressed, owing to lack.of
instrnctions, by our Order dated 17-8-83 and C.A. Nos. 135, 141 and
163/82 were also dismissed by this Court as not pressed. Thus, the
B
appeals filed by the candidates or the State which survive, alone need
be adjudicated by this Court. The facts of the cas~, the grounds taken
by the candidates or the State and other details have been very clear"
ly · set out in the judgment of the High Court and it is not necessary
for us to repeat the same all over again·.
The appeals arise out of the admissions sought by several
c
candidates to the M.D.M.S. courses for the year 1981-82, the session
starting from 1.4.1981. In order to regulate the admission of the
candidates to the M.D.M.S. course the Government by: an Order
dated. 3.12.80 laid down the tests and criteria for admitting the can-
didates to the courses in various <!isciplines. The High Court has D
rightly pointed out thitt there are diverse modes of determining one's
t merit which, in our opinion, is of prime importance because while
admittjng candidates to M.D. course every precaution should be
taken to rule out inel!idency or incompetency lest the candidate
admitted and passed, turns out to be a serious health hazard to the .
people who arc to be treated by him. The High Court further poin-
ted but that merit · should ·be determined with reference to good
academic career or to the performance at the last M.B.B.S. cxami-
-nation· or at the last qualifying examination. It is common ground
that in these cases of the candidates, they bad passed their MBBS
examination securing aggregate marks ranging from 63% to 43% in F
various discpliiies. The main disciplines in which the admissions
were sought by the candidates weref-M.D. (Obste-tricial)· & Gynae-
cology), M.D. (Anaesthesia), M.S. (Orthopaedic Surgery), M.D.
0

(Paediatrics), M.D. (Medicine) and M'.D. (Tuberculosis) differing
from candidate to candidate. The Government by its Order dai~<!
3.12.80, as mentioned above, chose the safest method to determine . G
tbe·merit and suitability for the candidates to be admitted to tlie
M.D./M.S. courses on the basis that the admission should be made
purely on merit as gleaned from the marks obtained· by them in the
i._ totaf percentage of the MBBS examination. The Government
Order dated 3.12.80 may be extracted below because ou this depends H
the entire fate Qf the admissions to be granted tc> the competin1;1
candidates :
•
'suPkE!.m toiJit'r REPORTS !198411 s.c.I\..
"The Governor, considering it so necessary and keeping in
A view the recommendations of the Medical Council of
India, is pleased to order that with effect from December
14, 1979 the following policy and procedure shall be follo-
wed with regard to the admission of candidate in the
Post graduate course (Degree and Diploma) in the State
B Medical Colleges and the Kjng Georges Medical Colleges,
Lucknow. "'

(1) Admission shall be made only on the basis of
merit.

c (2) The basis of determining the merit shall be percen-
tage of marks worked out after deducting One percent
· marks for each failure in every subject from the
total percentage of marks obtained in the M.B.B.S,
Examination. In case of a candidate who fails in a
subject and is declared successful in second or subse-·
D quent attempt in that subjei:t, the marks obiained by
him for day-to-day performance in the first exami-
nation in that subject shall be added to his iota!
marks while preparing the said index."

E · .The Order seems to us to be fully consistent with the
ltenor and spirit of the Rules framed by the Medical Council of lnd•a,
which is a statutory body, whose Rules are binding on all the colle-
ges and universities in the country providing for medical education.
On an interpretation of the Government Order the High Court was
of the opinion that a Candidate passing MBBS examination in four
F subjects with·a 3rd Division cannot be preferred to the one possess-
ihg the said degree iii one subject only with a first division because
that would decide the index of mel'i.t. The Government Order. was
made under s. 28(5) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (U.P.
Act No. X of 1973) (for short, hereinafter to be referred to as the
'Act'). The High Court also correctly found that merely because a
G
candidate happens to obtain a Diploma after passing MBBS Examb
nalion in any subject he would not be entitled to weightage for other- ·
wise tb.e entire complexion of pure' merit and sui~ability as iniended
by the Government Order, wb.ich does no! provide for any such
II. weightage, would be set at naught.

This now brings us to the relevant provisions of the Rules
framed by the Medical Council of India on the .recommendations
•

.
K.P. GANGULY v. LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY (Pazal Ali, J.)

of Post;graduate Medical Education which were adopted in February
1971, i.e. IQng before the present writ petitions were filded in the
High Court. The relevant portions of the Rules may. be extracted
thus
(I) For M.D./M.S. Degree in clinical subjects, there jhall
be proper training in basic medical sciences related
to the disciplines concerned as well as paper in these B

-
subjects at the examination. In the case of :t.;i.D. &
M.S. in basic medical sciences there should be train-
ing in applied aspects of the subject and a paper on
the Subject.

(2) Thesis should be a part of the examination in the
c
degree courses as this gives training in research
methodology.

(3) The student teacher ratio, should be such that the
number of post-graduate teachert to the number of D
posi-graduate students admitted per year be mainta-
ined at 1:1.

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- E
graduate teachers and can admit not more than 3 students for post-
graduate training per.year. If the number of post-graduate teachers in
the unit is more than three then the number of students can be
increased proportionately. For this purpose one student shout<!
associate with one post-graduate teacher.
ll
"Where the number of post-graduate teachers is ,less than 3 per
unit then the number of students' should be reduced so. as to keep
I- the ratio to one student teacher per year."

It would be seen that it was clearly mandated by the Medical
Counctl that normally the ratio of student : teacher should be one G
teacher to 1 student per unit and in exceptional c~ses in a uni! with
one post-graduate qualification, a maximum of two students should
be admitted per year. The Rules further Jay down that in· addition
to the studen,ts admitted to M.D./M.S. courses, a maximum number
of. six students per year can be admitted to diploma courses in such
H
departments where diploma courses are conducted.• In case the
Ii.umber of recognised post-graduate .teachers was. more than three,
(1~841 i _s.c.k.

the number of students for admission to the diploma course may
A be increased on a ratio of two students ·per additional recognised
_post-araduate teacher per year subject fo a· maximum of 12. students
admitted in the departme.nt. Then come the most important rules
which determine the selection of post-graduates for degree and
diploma co.urses. Rules 5 and 7 may be extracted thus : .
n "(5) The selection of ·post-graduates both ·for degree. and
and diploma courses should be strictly on the basis of
academic merit. ·' '

....
c
(7) Candidates pursuini: degree or diploma courses
should work in the concerned department of the Insti-
tution for the full period."

· Coming· now to the criteria laid down by the Rules for selection
D of candidates, Paragraph\!) of rule (c) may be quoted below :

"They must subsequently have done one year's house-
manship prior to admission to the post-graduate
degree or diploma course. Housemanship should
preferably be for one year in the •same subject, ·or at
least six months in the same department ·and the rem-
aining six months in an allied. department. Provided
that in departments like Radi<ilogy/Aneesthesiology/
Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation where suitable
candidates ·who have done housemanship in the res•
F pective subject for tho respeotivc speciality are not
.. available then ·the housemanship in Medicine and/
or. in Surgery may be co11sidered as sufficient."

The above· rule clearly provides that the candidates must have
done one year's housemanship prior to admission to the post-graduate
G degree or diploma course preferably in the same subject, which has
' been technically called as 'discipline', or atleast six months in the
.same department and the remaining six months in an allied .depart·
ment. It further lays down that in order to determine the merit of ..
a candidate for admission' to post-graduate medical courses the folio·
H wing three factors must be taken into consideration :
~

. (1) his performance at the MBBS lixaniination,
it.P. OANGULY v. LUCi:NOW UNIVERSITY (Fazal All; J.) 311 .

(2) his performance during the course of internship and
housemanship for which a daily assessment chart A
should be maintained, and
•
· (3) · the report of the teacher which is submitted from
time to time.

Alternatively, the authorities concemt;d.may conduct competi~
B
,,tive entrance examination to determine the merit of a candidate fj>r

/. ~admission to post-graduate medical courses.

The other niethods covered by the Rules are not germane for
the purpose of deciding these cases. As these Rules were adopted c
by the Medical Council of India they became rules m'lde under s.33
of the Indian Medical Council Act of 1956 passed ·by the Govern•
ment oflndia and, there-fore, had doubtless a statutory effect.'

The candidates consist of students who had not been admitted
to the medical courses and· they have assailed the refusal of their D
admission as being violative of Art. 14 ·of the Constitution. and to
the statutory orders passed and . rules.framed by the ·Government
from time to time. In some cases, the Government order referred
to above has also been chailenged as being arbitrary · ~nd outside the
scope of Art. 14. E

-. Before dealing with the contentions of the parties on merit we
might dispose of a few matters as a result of which some of the
appeals do not survive at all. As observed above, the admission sought
. by the candidates were in the session.of 19Sl-82 anci by the time these
cases came Up for hearing by.the High Court or tliis Court, the session F,
lias completely run out but as provisional admissions had been allowed
· either by the High Coµrt or by this Court the candidates had com· ·' ·
pleted thefr M.D./M.S. courses and in some cases only the results
were to be declared. Realising the piquant situation that arose in»
view of the provisional admissions, the learned counsel for the State G·
. very fairly agreed to .the declaration of the results of the followini:
Cllndidates :

1. Dr. Krishna Priya Ganguly (C.A. 133/82)

2. Dr. Gopal Krishan Goyal
H
(C.A. 134/82)

3. Dr. Pramod ·Kumar Kohli (C.A. 137/82)
The counsel for th~ State further agreed to passing an order
I •
c that those candidates who were refused admission · but granted
provisional admissions under the orders of the Court may be deemed
to be admitted to complete the course according to the provisions
of the Rules. We might mention that this concession was made
because the candidates concerned had secured pretty high percentage
D and sincethey had completed the course in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the cas.e. ' As far as C.A. No. 3045/82 filed by the
State against the decision of the High Court is concerned, the view
taken by the High Court is U(\sustainaple. The High Court could
not have given a goby to the rules framed by Admission committee.
It was a matter for decision of the academic body and since the
E academic body had applied the rules in a bona fide manner to all the
students equally, there was no jurisdiction whats.oever . on die part
of the High Court to interfere with the internal working of an
academic institution concerned with imparting higher education in
the field of post-gradual~ course in medicine. The Rule prescribing
.F that housemanship must be 'in the same subject is not inconsistent
with the Ordinance. ·It is supplementary to the Ordinance and
amplifies the same. Hence· there is no inconsistency and the High
Court was therefore clearly wrong. However, as the counsel for
the State has agreed to declare his result we do not pass any order
for reversing the directive issued by the High Court as far as Dr.
G ·· Hari Om Gupta is concerned though the High Court was wrong.
. ""'
As regards C.A. No. 3047/82 which has been filed by the State,
the view taken by the. High Court is altogether untenable, The
condition re!larding putting in two years work in the department
H · concerned could not have been dispensed with. The High Court .
1hould not have Interfered with the decision. of the academic body.
The Hip Court cannot relax the rules. or rewrite them. After the
K.P. GANGULY v. LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY (Fazal Ali, J.) 313

declaration of his result, as agreed to by the counsel for the State,
if he fails at this examination he will have to ptit in two 'years work A
in the department concerned before he is permilted to appear for the
final examination next time.

So far as the above-mentioned appeals are concerned,
f it is not necessary for us to go to the merits or to giv~ the reasons B
thereof in view of the fact that the candidates got what they wanted,
on the basis !Jf the concession made by the counsel for the State and
accepted by this Court, as a result of which we passed orders for
declaring the results of the candidates or directing them. to complete
the course. We would however like to make it clear that after
declaration of the results in ca~e the candidates concerned in appeals c
do not pass ot their thesis are not approved, they would have to do
·~·
the full course all over again. This position was accepted by the
candidates who conceded that in case they failed in the examination
the Iogical consequences will follow. The candidates who were
directed by this Court to be given admission may be listed below : n·
I. Dr. Aditya Kumar (C. A. No. 142/82)

2. Dr. Manoj Kumar (C. A. No. 143/82)

• The appeals that remain for consideration may now· be taken
up, viz., C.A. Nos. li4',145 and 595/82. We might mention here E
that out of the appeals filed by the State the appeal which has been .
seriously pressed before is that of Dr. V;N. Sinha (C. A. No. 595/82)
·and the State· has invited us. to· give a final decision in the matter
which involves a serious question of principle.

Coming first to C.A. No. 144/82 filed by Dr. Rachna Saxena F
it appears that she had obtained an aggregate of 53. 7% but the
main obstacle in her way was that two candidates with a higher agg-
regate had been admitted and therefore her case did not merit any
consideration. Even from a_mongst those who did not secure admi-
y· ssion there ware four others who bad secured higher marks than G
her viz., Dr. Ganguly (59.23)%, Dr. Agarwal (57.40%), Dr. Jain
(56.9%) and Dr. Upadhyaya (55.33%). She could not therefore have
secured admission in any event. She· cannot therefore complain . of
discrimination. For .these reasons, therefore, we affir~ the decision
of the High Court and dismiss C.A. 144/82 without any ord.er as · H
to costs,
Sl4 (1984) l s.c.a.

C.A. No. 145i82 has been filed by Dr. V.K. Kohli. After going
through the judgment of the High Court and hearfog counsel for the
parties we entirely agree with the view taken by the High Court
which seems to us to be unexceptionable on merits and must be
confirmed. The appeal is therefore dismissed· without any order as
to costs. . '

B Coming now to C.A. No. 595/82 which has been filed by the
State it seems to us after hearing counsel for the parties that the
stand taken by the State is absolutely correct and ·for' the reasons
. '
t~t we will giv~ hereafter we find it impossible to support the
judgment of the High Court.
c To begin with, Dr. Vijay Narain Sinha who was being consi-
dered for admission to the M.s: course in Orthopaedic surgery had
obtained only 43% marks' in the aggregate and happened to be the
last candidate in the list of persons who had applied for admission
to the M.D./M.S. course. This important handicap relatin'g to Dr.
D Sinha seems to have been completely glo.ssed over by the High Court
by saying that though he has not secured very high marks but he
could be almost equai in all respects to the candidates who'had been
. granted admission. This, however, was not so. The main argume,nt
of the High Court was that in determining'the six admissions whifh
were ·made in consonance with the prescribed, instructions indicated
that the ratio of admission should be with respect to the strength of
the staff in the concerned department. The main complaint of.the ··
respondent (Dr. Sinha) was that while there were six teachers in.
the Department of Orthopaedic surgery, nine admissions were made
in that ·particular session. The Staie had clearly explained. that the .
F usuJll number of candidates to be admitted was six and as a . special
case due to fortuitous circumstances an exception was made only in
one session for good reasons . which had been given by the State.
Thereafter no S\!ch departure had been .made in any other session.
What the High Court completely over-looked was that even if nine
.students were admitted Dr. Sinha could not have secured admission as
G he was on the very bottom of the list in view of the very low percen-
tage secured by him. . The stand take11 by the State has not been
refuted by the counsel for the respondent who submitted that since
the State had 'agreed to declare the results of all the candidates the
respondent may also be given the same facility. We arc, however,
H · unable 'to agree with this argument because to grant admission to a
person who is appreciably below the required merit would be to play
'tq.P'. GANGULY v. LUCKNOW UNIVERSITY (Faza/ Ali, J.) 315

with the lives of the people whom Jhe candidate would have to treat
after getting the MS. degree. The High Couri seems to have reUed A
mainly on the fact that in view of the increase in population and
orthopaedic cases the college must have pe~sons with special quali-
fications and as the respondent had a diploma that should be treated
to be a special qualification. A mere diploma however c~nnot
override the ,consideration .regarding the merit as disclosed in the low ll
aggregate obtained by him in the last MBBS examination. If the
college authorities went by the pure test of merit, the diploma could
not be a good substitute for admitting the lowest and the last candi-
date in the list. ·

The High Court could not devise its own criterion for admission. c
Since the academic body has mad°(, the marks obtained· in MBBS
examination the criterion, admission had to be made by such a crite-
rion. The High Court could not have introduced its own notions
in such an academic matter. The High Court was not competent to
do so and had no jurisdiction to import its own ideology, D

The High Court further observed that . the respondent appears
. to be a Very dedlc'ated worker having acquired a diploma and would
have proved an invaluable asset to the Institution. We do not see
+ any proper material for this conclusion to which the High Court has ·
suddenly jumped apart from the fact that admissions were not to be E
given by the High Court a~~ording to its own notions. Finally, in
his own petition in the High Court, the respondent had merely
• prayed for a writ directing the State or the college to consider his
case for admission yet the High Court went a step further and strai-
• ghtaway issued a writ of mandamus directing the college to admit
him to the M.S. course and thus granted a relief to the respondent
which he himself never prayed for and could not have prayed for.
'•
Such a gross discrimination made in the case of a person
wh.o had obtainod .lowest aggregate and· lowest position seems
to us to be extremely shocking. Although much could be
said against the view taken by the High Court yet we would not like G
to say more than this that the High Court had made a very arbitrary,
casual and laconic apQroach to the case and based its judgment
purely on speculation and conjectures swept away by the consideration
that Dr. Sinha possessed a diploma when °in fact other candidates
also had obtained diploma but that could not. be taken into consi- H
deration, because the rules 'did not so J?rovide 1 ·
\
31~ SUP1IJ!MB COURT REPORTS (1984) 1 s.c.a.

For these reasons, therefore, we allow this ·appeal and set aside
~c judgment of the High Court issuing mandamus to the State to
admit the respondent to the M.S. coune'. His writ petition in the
High.Gourt
,, '
thus
' . stands dismissed.
~

H .•. e.
B ..

.. '
..
•

•