KUMARI SUNEETA RAMCHANDRAversusSTATE OP MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

                                                                   697


                           KIJMARI SUNEETA RAMCllANDRA                   A
                                       v.
                          STATE OP MAHARASHTRA & ANR,

                                MARCH 13, l986           •

                         [D.P. MADON AND G.L. OZA, JJ,]                  B


    -·         Professional colleges - Admission to - Reservation of
         seats for children of Central Government Servants transferred
         to State of Maharashtra from outside the State - "Shall not
         exceed two in all the Government medical colleges" in Rule C6
         (ii) of Medical Colleges of the Government of Maharashtra
         Rules for Admissions 1985-86 - Interpretation of,               c

•              Interpretation of Statutes :


               Rules - Intention of the Government - To be judged from
         wordings of the provision and not from the manner of            D
         implementation.

           The appellant's father, a Central Government servant,
     was transferred rrom Hyderabad in the State of Andhra Pradesh
     to Nagpur in the State of Maharashtra. The appellant had
     passed SSC Examination from Andhra Pradesh. At Nagpur, she          E
     passed the RSC (XII Standard) -Examination, this being one of
     the qualifyinng ex.amtnationa for admission to the Medical
     Colleges in the State of Maharashtra. She applied for
     admission to the MBBS course to the Nagpur Medical College
•    under Rule C6 (ii) of the Medical Colleges of the Government
     of Maharashtra Rules for Admissions, 1985-86, wich inter alia,
     provides that the total number of the children of Central
     Government Servants transferred to Maharashtra State from
     outside the State, to be admitted with certain concessions
     shall not exceed two 'in all Government Medical Colleges.
     Though the appellant was third in the CODlbined merit list, she
     was denied admission alleging that as only two seats were           G.
  --·provided for candidat;es falling in the category under Rule
     C6(ii), she wassnot eligible for admission.

               The appellant filed a writ petition under Art.226 and
         the same was dismissed.
                                                                         H
    -698                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS    (19861 1 s.c.R.

A
          In the appeal to thi~ Court, on behalf of the appellant.-
    it was contended that each Government Medical Colfoge will
    have a total number of .two seats for admission of the
    candidates falling in the category under Rule C-Q (ii).

          On behalf of the respondents it was contended t:hat the
B
    total number of seaj:s in all the Government Medical Colleges
    in the State taken together would be only two and that
    selection for admission of candidates falling in this c:ategory-
    is made not by the Dean but by the Joint Director, Education
    and Reserch, Bombay, from the COllllll>n merit list.

c          Allowing the appeal,

          HELD : 1. When the Rule C6 (ii) of the Medical Colleges
    of the Government of Maharashtra Rules for Admissions,         •
    1985-86, states that "the total number of such children of
    Central Government servants to be admitted with this.
    concession shall not exceed two in all Government Medical r "
D
    Colleges", it does not mean that the total number of such
    children of Central Government servants to be admitted with
    this concession shall not exceed two in all Government Medical
    Colleges taken together. It means that all Government Medical
    Colleges, that is to say, each and every Government Medical
    College, will admit children of Central Government se:rvants
E
    falling in the category specified in Rule C6 (ii) not
    exceeding two in number provided that they satisfy the
    qualifications prescribed by Rule ,C(3). This is made          .
    abundantly clear by the sentence which imediately follows.
    "Only such candidates who are in the merit list of Highe.
    Secondary Certificate,     that is (lo+2)       12th standard
F
    examination at the respective medical colleges will be
    considered for admissiOn against the two seats". The use of
    the phrase "at the respective medical colleges" would be
    meaningless if the two seats for this, category were to be for
    all the Government medical colleges taken together in the
    State of Maharashtra. (702 G-H; 703 A-C)
G
           2. Under Rule E(3), it is the Dean who is entrusted with''
     the work of admission to his college. This rule cannot
     possibly be applied if only two candidates falling in the
     category specified in Rule C (6)(ii) are t be admitted in all
     the Government Medical Colleges of the State taken together.
H
                          KUMAR! SUNEETA v, STATE                    699


                                                                            A
  "I The Rules do not provide for any method of selection by the
    Joint Director, Education and Research. [ 703 C-E I

                 3. The 1982-83 Rules and the 1983-84 Rules contained an
          identical provision. A change was made in the 1984-85 Rules
          and this provision occurred \n Rule 3(b) of those Rules. The
                                                                            B
          High Court adopted an unusual and novel method of
          interpretation. It held that of the three sets of rules the
    - 1985-86 Rules were clear, the 1984-85 Rules were clearer and
          the 1981-82 Rules were the clearest but if there was any
, doubt, the interpretation placed by the authorities should be
          accepted because their interpretation was entitled to
          preference as they knew their intention best. Whatever may
          have been the intention of the Government, when such intention
                                                                            c
          is translated into a statute or rule, whether the
          interpretation has been implemented or not can only be judged
          by the wordings of the particular provision of such statute
 ----,,·  or  rule. In the 1981-82 Rules, the words used were "in all the
          Government Medical Colleges taken together". The qualifying
                                                                            D
          words "taken together" were dropped from the 1984-85 Rules.
          They also do not feature in Rule C6(ii) of the 1985-86 Rules.
          Thus, the 1984-85 Rules and 1985-86 Rules made a departure
          from what was provided in 1981-82 Rules. This shows that the
        : intention was to provide two seats in each Government Medical
          College for the children of Central Government Servants
                                                                            E
          transferred to the State of Maharashtra from outside the
          State. Such an intention is based on logical considerations.
           [704 A-F)

           4. As the appellant was the only candidate who had
    applied for admission to the Nagpur Medical College and
                                                                            F
    fulfilled all the other requirements of Rule C6(ii), on the
    'interpretation which this Court ha8 placed on that Rule, she
    would be entitled for admission to that college. [705 C-D)

              During the pendency of the special leave petition, the
        Government reconsidered the matter and gave admission to the
                                                                            G
        Appellant. Therefore, it is unnecessary to consider the
  ..... validity of Rule C(S), except to state that this Court does
        not agree with· the High Court when it has said that there is
        nothing abhorrant about the requirement contained in that
        Rule, [705 E-F)
                                                                            H
           Dr. Pradeep Jain etc. v. Union of India & Ors. etc.
     [1984) 3 s.C.R, 942, referred to.
     700                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS        [19861 i s.c.R.

 A
             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION    Civil Appeal No. 628 of\-'
     1986.

           From the Judgment and Order dated l 0th September, 1985
     of the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 1683 of 1985.

 B           V.A. Bobde and A.G. Ratnaparkhi for the AppellaJ1t.

             A.M. Khanwilkar and A.S, Bhasma for the Respondtmt.

             The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

 c         MADON, J, Th.is Appeal by Special Leave grMted by this
     Court is directed against the judgment and order of the Nagpu:r
     Bench of the Bombay High Court whereby the High Court
     dismissed with no order as to ·the costs the writ petition
     under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (being Writ
     Petition No. 1683 of 1985) filed by the Appell8llt seeking. y---
D    admission in the Medical College, Nagpur.                       '(
                                                                          !
           The facts giving rise to this Appeal require to be
     briefly stated. The Appellant's father, who is in the service
     of the Central Government and was working in tlte Geological.
     Survey of India, was transferred on March 3, 1983, from
E    Hyderabad in the State of Andhra Pradesh to Nagpur in the
     State of Maharashtra. In 1983 the Appellant passed thtl S.S.C,
     examination of the Board of Secondary Education, Andhra
     Pradesh, in First Division. After coming to Nagpur al<>ng with
     her father she joined Hislop College, Nagpur, from where she
     passed in 1985 the H.s.c. (XII StMdard) Examination of the
F    Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Education,
     Nagpur Divisional Board, Nagpur, in First Division, this being
     one of the qualifying examinations for admission to the
     medical colleges in the Sta.te of Maharashtra. Accordingly, she
     applied for admission to the M.B. B. S. course at the two
     Government colleges which are at Nagpur, namely, the Nagpur
G    Medical College and the Indira Gandhi Medical College. Under
     the rules, the application form<1 for admission tc1 these
     colleges are to be sent to the Dean, Medical College, Nagpur, ,-
     who is the Second Respondent before us. She based her claim
     for admission upon Rule C(6)(ii) of the Medical College~ of
     the Government of Maharashtra Rules for Admission, 1985-86
II
                  KUMARI SUNEETA v. STATE [MADON, J.]           701

                                                                        A
 ~ (hereinafter referred to as "the 1985-86 Rules"). Not having
    secured admission to either of the said two medical colleges
    at Nagpur, she filed a writ petition before the Nagpur Bench
    of the Bombay High Court which was dismissed by the lligh Court
    negativing the construction sought to be placed upon the said
    Rule C(6)(H) by the Appellant. It is against this judgment          B
    and order that the present Appeal by Special Leave is filed.

         Though a number of contentions have been raised in the
   Petition for Special Leave, in view of the interpretation we
   are placing upon Rule C(6)(ii) of the 1985-86 Rules, it is
   unnecessary to go into any other question. The 1985-86 Rules
   are an annexure to the Government of Maharashtra Resolution in
   the Medical Education and Drugs Department No. MPD-1084/7575/-
                                                                        c
   MED-4 dated December 21, 1984. This Resolution shows that the
   rules for admission into the medical colleges were revised and
   substituted by the 1985-86 Rules in view of certain judgments


r
   of the Bombay High Court, namely, the judgments in Writ
   Petitions Nos. 1753 of 1982, 2360 of 1983 and 3238 of 1984 and
                                                                        D
   the judgment of this Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain Etc. v. Union
   of India & Ors. etc., [1984] 3 S.C.R. 942 relating to reser-
   vation of seats in Government medical colleges in the State.
   Leaving aside unnecessary details, it will be sufficient to
   state that Rule C(S) provides that in addition to the quali-
   fications set. out earlier only those candidates would be
                                                                        E
   eligible for admission to the medical colleges who have passed
   the s.s.c. or Senior Cambridge or Indian School Certificate or
   equivalent examination from any of the recognized schools in
I. the Maharashtra State. Rule C(6) contains certain exceptions
,, to Rule C(S). We are concerned in th.is Appeal with the second
   exception contained in Rule C(6) (ii). The said Rule C(6)(ii).
                                                                        F
   provides as follows :

               "(ii) The sons/daughters of Central Government
               servants transferred to Maharashtra State from
               outside the State · shall have the· concession of
               exemption from passing the s.s.c, or equivalent
                                                                        G
               examination from Maharashtra State, subject to the
               condition that the child has passed at least the
               qualifying examination as defined in Rule C(3)
               above. The total llUllber of such children of Central.
               Government servants to be admitted with this
               concession shall DDt exceed two in all Government
                                                                        H
    702                SUPREME COURT REPORTS          [19861 1 s.c.R.

A
               Medical Colleges. Only such candidates who are :In       r
               the merit list of Higher Secondary Certificate,
               i.e. (lo+2) 12th standard examination at the
               respective Ed1cal colleges will be considered for
               adllission against the two seats. This rule does nbt
               confer the right of reservation for the children of
B              Central Government servants."

                                               (Emphasis supplied.)

         There is no dispute that the Appellant fulfilled all the
    conditions of the 1985-86 Rules. She had passed the qualifying
c   examination and was in the merit list as also in the combined
    list for the two medical colleges, Nagpur. She was also the
    only candidate falling within the scope of the exception
    contained in Rule C(6)(ii) so far as the two medical colleges
    in Nagpur were concerned. The only dispute is whether, in view
    of the provisions of the said Rule C(6)(ii), there was a seat
D   available for her in either of the said two colleges.

          It was the submission of the Appellant that on a true
     construction of Rule C(6)(ii) all Government medical colleges
     in the State of Maharashtra are to have two seats for the sons
     and daughters of Central Government servants transferred to
E    the State of Maharashtra from outside the State, that is to
     say, that each Government medical college will have a total
     number of two seats for candidates for admission falling in
     this category. The construction sought to be placed by the
     Respondents upon the said Rule C(6)(ii), on the other hand,
     was that the ' total number of seats in all the Government
F    medical colleges in the State taken together would be only
    ·two. It is the Respondents' interpretation which found favour
     with the High Court.

          We are unable to accept the interpretation placed by the
     High Court upon Rule C(6)(ii). When Rule C(6)(ii) states that
G    ".the total number of such children of Central Government
     servants to be admitted with this concession shall not exceed          ..,
     two in all Government Medical Colleges", it does not mean that          .-
     the total number of such children of Central Government
     servants to be admitted with this concession shall not exceed
     two in all Government Medical Colleges taken together. It
H    means that all Government Medical Colleges taken that is to
                 KllMARI SUNEETA v. STATE [MADON, J. ]        703

                                                                        A
If say, each and every Goverrnnent Medical College, will admit
   children of Central Government servants falling in the
   category specified in Rule C(6)(ii) not exceeding two in
   number, provided that they satisfy the qualifications
   prescribed by Rule C(3). This is made a1'undantly clear by the
   sentence which immediately follows the one which we have             B
   quoted earlier, namely, "Only such candidates who are in the
   merit list of Higher Secondary Certificate, i.e. (lo+2) 12th
I standard examination at the respective medical colleges will
   be considered for admission against the two seats." The use of
                I                       I             It
   the phrase 'at the respective medical colleges would be
   meaningless if the two seats for this category were to be for
   all the Government medical colleges taken together in the            C
   State of Maharashtra. It is pertinent to note that under Rule    I
   E(3), it is the Dean who is entrusted with the work of
   admission to his college. This Rule cannot possibly be applied
   if only two candidates falling in the category specified in
   Rule C(6)(ii) are to be admitted in all the Government medical
;( colleges of the State taken together. It was submitted on            D
   behalf of the Respondeats that so far as admission of
   candidates falling in this category is concerned, the
   selection is made not by the Dean but by the Joint Director,
   Education and Research, Bombay, from the common merit list.
   The Rules do not provide for any such method of selection.
   Rule E(3) is categorical on the point that the selection is to       E
   be made by the Dean of each college.

        The interpretation which we have placed upon Rule
   C(6)(ii) is reinforced by comparing this Rule as it features
   in the 1985-86 Rules with a similar rule in the 1981-82 Rules
   which for the first time created the exception in case of            F
   Central Government servants. That Rule provided as follows :

              "The Central Government servants · transferred to
              Maharashtra from outside the State shall have a
              similar facility in respect of their children
              subject to the condition that the child has passed        G
              at least the qualifying examination as defined in
              rule 2(a). The total number of such children of
              Central Government servants so admitted with this
              concession shall not exceed two ~n all the Govern-
              ment Medical College taken together."
                                              (Emphasis supplied)   H
    704                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS        [19861 i s.c.R.

A        It appears that the 1982-83 Rules and the 1983-84 Rules ~
    contained an identical provision. A change was made in this
    provision in the 1984-85 Rules and this provision as occurring
    in Rule 3(b) of those rules was as follows :

               "The total number of such children of Central
               Government servants to be admitted with thl.s
B
               concession shall not exceed two in all the
               GoverDEDt Medical Colleges."                            I
                                                 (Emphasis supplied)

         When dealing with this position, the High Court adopted
c   an unusual and novel method of interpretation. It held that of
    the above three sets of rules the 1985-86 Rules were clear,-
    the 1984-85 Rules were clearer and the 1981-82 Rules were the
    clearest but if there was any doubt, the interpretation placed
    by the authorities should be accepted because their interpre···
D
    tation was entitled to preference as they knew their intention .._
    best. Whatever may have been the intention of the Government,
    when such intention is translated into a statute or rule,
    whether the interpretation has been implemented or not can
    only be judged by the wordings of the particular provision of
    such statute or rule, In the 1981-82 Rules the words used were
E
    "in all the Government Medical Colleges taken together". .The
    qualifying words "taken together" were dropped from the
    1984-85 Rules. They also do not feature in Rule C(6)(ii) of
    the 1985-86 Rules. Thus, the 1984-85 Rules and 1985-86 Rules
    made a departure from what was provided in the 1981-82 Rules. JI
    This, on the contrary, shows that the intention was to provide 'Ill
    two seats in each Government Medical College for the children
F
    of Central Government servants transferred to the State .of
    Maharashtra from outside the State. Such an intention is based
    on logical considerations. A large number of Central Govern-
    ment servants are transferred from one State to another, They
    are sent on deputation or appointed to various posts in publl.c
    sector undertakings and Government companies. The.ir children,
G
    therefore, nust of necessity often be educated in different
    States. It cannot be that those who serve the Cet;1tral Govern- 1 · •
    ment should be rewarded by placing obstacles in the way of the
    educational careers of their children.

H
          It was also submitted on behalf of the Appellant that
    Rule C(S) which provides that only those candidates would be
                     KIJMARI SUNEETA v. STATE [MADON, J. ]             705

  .,,' !!ligible for admission to the met!ical colleges who have passed       A
             the S.S.C, or Senior Cambridge or Indian School Certificate or
             equivalent examination from any of the recognised schools in
             the State of Maharashtra was violative of Article 14 of the
             Constitution. In support of· this contention reliance was
             placed upon the case of Dr. Pradeep Jain etc. v. Union of
             India & Ors. etc. E•ents subsequent to the fili~ df the          B
            Petition for Special Leave to Appeal filed by the Appellant
      ...-. make it unnecessary to decide this point. The Appellant was
            third in the combined merit list. She was not given· ·admission
            on the ground that as only two seats were provided for
            children of Central Government servants transferred to the
            State of Maharashtra from outside the State, she was not
            eligible for admission under Rule C(6)(ii). As she was the        c
            only candidate who had applied for admission to the Nagpur
            Medical College and fulfilled all the other requirements of
            Rule C(6)(ii) on the interpretation which we have placed on
·- --..:··  that Rule, she would be entitled for admission to that
            college. By an interim order passed by this Court on October
            17, 1985, one seat in the Government Medical College, Nagpur,     D
            in the 1st year of the M.B.B.S. course had been kept unfilled
            and the Appellant would be entitled to be admitted against
            that seat. During the pendency of the Petition for Special
            Leave to Appeal an affidavit of the Under-Secretary to the
            Government of Maharashtra, Medical, Education and Drugs
            Department, affirmed on November 5, 1985, was filed before us     E
            in which it was stated that the Government had reconsidered
            the matter and the Dean of the Nagpur Medical College had·been
            directed to grant admission to the Appellant. The Appellant
            had thus secured the admission she wanted. In view of this, it
            is 1.mnecessary for us to consider the validity of Rule C(5)
            except to state that we do not agree with the High Court when     F
            it has said that there is nothf.ng abhorrent about the require-
            ment contained in the said Rule. The question of validity of
            Rule C(5) requires careful consideration and it cannot be
            brµshed aside in the manner in which the High Court has done.
            As s~ated earlier, we, however, leave this question open.
                                                                              G
          In the result, this Appeal llllSt succeed and is allowed.
     The judgment of the High Court appealed against is reversed
     and the order passed by it dismissing. Writ Petition No.1683
     of 1985 'filed by the Appellant is set aside but as the
                                                                              H
    706               SUPREME COURT REPORTS       [19861 1 s.c.R.
                                                                        /
                                                                    '-.,'.\ -~
    Appellant has already been admitted into the Nagpur Medical          ~.~
A   College, we do not pass any further order or give any
    direction in the matter.

         The First Respondent will pay to the Appellant the costE
    of this Appeal.
B




    A.P.J.                                        Appeal allowed




                                                                            ,