Holding

College‑wise institutional preference in admission to M.D. courses is unconstitutional as it is an unreasonable classification violating Article 14.

Summary

The case concerned four medical colleges in Bombay, three run by the Municipal Corporation and one by the State, all affiliated to the University of Bombay. Rules 4A (Municipal) and 5 (State) gave preference to candidates who had completed their MBBS at the same college for admission to M.D. courses, even if they scored lower than candidates from other colleges. Several candidates challenged these rules as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that because the syllabus, examinations and examiners are uniform across the colleges, any preference other than merit is discriminatory and fails the test of reasonable classification. Consequently, the rules were struck down as unconstitutional, but the Court protected the admissions already made under them. The High Court’s directions to frame new rules were treated as suggestions, and the appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether college‑wise institutional preference for admission to post‑graduate medical courses violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether the classification created by Rules 4A and 5 satisfies the tests of intelligible differentia and rational nexus.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Art. 14

Subjects

Article 14educational institutionscollegewise institutional preferencemeritpost‑graduate medical admissionconstitutional lawequalitydiscriminationreservationreasonable classification

Judgment

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREA1ER A
BOMBAY & ORS.
v.
THUKRAL ANJALI DEOKUMAR & Ors.

MARCH 7, 1989
B
f [M.M. DUTT AND T.K. THOMMEN, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950-Art. I4-Educational Institutions-
-<'<. Medical Colleges-Admission to-Any preference other than the merit
discriminatory-Not reasonable classification.

Rules framed by Bombay Municipal Corporation-Admission to
c
Post Graduate and diploma courses in Medical Colleges.
!r
'
Rules 4A and 5-College-wise Institutional preferences for admis-
sion to M.D. Courses-Held bad-Any preference other than merit-
Discriminatory and unreasonable classification. D

There are four Medical Colleges in the City of Bombay, all
affiliated to the University of Bombay. Out of four, three colleges are
..,... run by the Municipal Corporation and one is run and conducted by the
State of Maharashtra. Rule 4A framed by the .Municipal Corporation
and Rule 5 framed by the State Govt. vide Govt. Resolution dated June E
.18, 1971 govern the admissions of students to post-graduate degree and
-. diploma course in the respective Medical Colleges.

\
Both the aforesaid Rules provide for collegeate institutional pre-
~· ference for admission in the M.D. Course. In other words, in each
college, candidates who passed their M.B.B.S. exam from that college F
were to be preferred for purposes of admission to the Post-Graduate
M.D. degree, no matter whether the candidates had secured less marks
than those who secured higher marks, having passed the M.B.B.S.
Exam. from other colleges. On this basis'some candidates who were not
able to secure admission to the M.D. Course in the respective colleges
from which they had passed their M.B.B.S. Examination were not also G
admitted in the other medical colleges in the City of Bombay, in view of
)< college wise institutional preferences as provided by Rule 4A and Rule 5
referred to above. Those students/candidates challenged the validity
of the afore-said Rule 4A and Rule 5 framed by the Municipal Corpn.
and the State Govt. in the High Court, as being violative of Art. 14 of
the Constitution. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition and struck H
919
920 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 1 S.C.R.

down the impugned Rule 4A in whole and Rule 5 in so far as it applies to
A
the Govt. Medical College, as discriminatory and violative of Art. 14 of
the Constitution and thus invalid. Hence these appeals by Special
Leave.

Dismissing the appeals with some directions, the Court,
B
HELD: When the University is the same for all these colleges, the
syllabus, the standard of examination and even the examiners are the
same, any preference to candidates to the post-graduate degree course
of the same University except in order of merit, will exclude merit to
, a great extent affecting the standard of educational institutions. In
such circumstances, college-wise institutional preference cannot
,c be supported and, this Court has not approved of such preference at
all. '[931F-G]

So far as educational institutions are concerned unless there are
strong reasons for exclusion of meritorious candidates, any preference
D other than in order of merit, will not stand the test of Art. 14 of the
Constitution. [932C-D I

The Rules are discriminatory and do not satisfy the test of reason-
able classification and as such, cannot be sustained. The Court
accordingly dismissed the appeals and directed that the students
E who have been admitted to post-graduate M.D. Course pursuant to
the impugned Rules, their admission shall not be interfered with or
disturbed. [933E]

The High Court has directed to the appellants to frame rules
adopting certain alternative methods for admission in the Post-graduate -.J
F M.D. Course for the next year. The said directions appear to be in the ~
nature of suggestions by the High Court and the appellants will be free
to frame the rules for admission in the Post-graduate M.D. Course in
the said four colleges in the City of Bombay in conformity with the
provision of Art. 14 of the Constitution and in the light of the Judgment
of this Court and in framing the Rules, the appellants may take into
G consideration the suggestions of the High Court. [934G-H; 93SA]

Dr Pradeep Jain v. Union of India & Ors., [1984] 3 S.C.R. 942, °"
distinguished.

Nidamarti Mahesh Kumar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., [1986]
H 2 S.C.C. 534, not applicable.
.•
MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF BOMBAY v. T:A. DEOKUMAR [Dl:JTf, J.) 921

Jagdish Saran & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1980] 2 S.C.R.
A
831, not applicable.

State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta & Ors.,
[1989] 1 S.C.C. 93, not applicable.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2792. B
of 1988 Etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 27. 7 .1988 of the Bombay
High Court in W.P. No. 3264 of 1988.

G. Ramaswamy, Additional Solicitor General, T.R. Andyaru- C
juna, V.V. Vaze, V.M. Tarkude, D.N. Misra, M. D. Siodia, Pinaki
Misra, P.H. Parekh, Ms. Sunita Sharma, A.M. Khanwilkar, A.S.
Bhasme, Dalveer Bhandari, Vijay Thora!, Raian Karanjawala,
Mrs. Manik Karan jawala, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, V .D. Khanna,
Rameshwar Nath, B.R. Agarwal, P.K. Pillai, P.N. Gupta, Shri
Narain, Madhuri Gokhale, Prangalia and N. Nettar for the appearing D
parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
.....
DUTT, J. The principal point involved in these appeals relates
to the constitutional validity of rule 4(A) of the Rules framed by the E
Bombay Municipal Corporation for admission to post-graduate degree
and diploma courses in its medical colleges framed on June 18, 1988
and rule 5 framed under the Government Resolution dated June 18,
1971 for admission to the Government Medical College, both the rules
providing for collegewise institutional preference for admission in the
M.D. Course. By the impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the F
writ petitions out of which these appeals arise, and struck down the
impugned rule 4(A) in whole and rule 5 (wrongly stated as rule 6 in the
High Court judgment), in so far as it applies to the Government Medi-
cal College in the city of Bombay, as discriminatory and violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution and, accordingly, invalid.
G
Rule 4(A) is as follows,__

"4. PREFERENCE:

(A) While selecting candidates for admission to the post-
graduate courses preference will be given in the following H
order:-
922 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 1 S.C.R.

(a) Candidates applying for admission at the parent insti- it
A
tution.

(Note: Parent institution means the medical college at
which the candidate has passed his qualifying examina-
tion).
B
(b) Candidates who have graduated from other Municipal
Medical Colleges in Brihan Mumbai."

Relevant portion of rule 5 framed under the Government Resol-
ution dated June 18, 1971 reads as follows:

c "5. . ............................... '. .............. .

While selecting from amongst eligible candidates pre-
ference will be given to the students of that college i.e. who
D passed their final M.B.B.S. Examination from that college
in Broad specialities and their ancillary discipline."

There are four medical colleges in the city of Bombay, and
affiliated to the University of Bombay. Of these four medical colleges,
three are run and conducted by the Bombay Municipal Corporation,
E namely, Lokmanya Tilak Memorial Medical Collegee (LTMMC),
Seth G.S. Medical College (GSMC) and Topiwalla National Medical
College (TNMC). The only college that is being run by the
Maharashtra Government in the city of Bombay is Grant Medical
College (GMC). It is not necessary to state in details the facts leading,
to the filing of the writ petitions before the High Court out of which
F these appeals arise. Suffice it to say that some candidates who were not
admitted in the M.D. Course in the respective colleges from which
they had passed their MBBS Examination, were not also admitted in
the other medical colleges in the city of Bombay, in view of college-
wise institutional preference as provided by rule 4(A) in respect of
three Municipal Colleges and by rule 5 relating to GMC, the
b Maharashtra Government College. The High Court, as stated already,
' struck down rule 4(A) and rule 5 in part and allowed the writ petitions.
Hence these appeals by special leave.

It is urged by Mr. G. Ramaswamy, the learned Additional
Solicitor General, that this Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India
H & Ors., [1984] 3 SCR 942 has given sufficient indication of its approval .
/

MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF BOMBAY v. T.A. DEOKUMAR [DUTT, J.J 923

of collegewise institutional preference. While the learned Additional
A
Solicitor General frankly concedes that be is not in a position to
support cent percent institutional preference or reservation of seats for
admission in the M.D. Course in the Municipal Colleges and the
Government College in the city of Bombay, such preference or reser-
vation in respect of certain percentage of seats is quite permissible and
will not be hit by the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution. B

In Pradeep Jain's case, the question that has been considered by
this Court as noted by Bhagwati, J. (as he then was) is whether, consis-
tently with the constitutional values, admissions to a medical college
or any other institution of higher learning situate in a State can be
confined to those who have their domicile within the State or who are
resident within the State for a specified number of years or can any c
reservation in admissions be made for them so as to give them prece-
dence over those who do not possess domicile or residential qualifica-
tion within the State, irrespective of merit. The question that has been
formulated and considered does not show, on the face of it, that
collegwise institutional preference was also involved as a part of the D
question. It has been ruled in Pradeep Jain's case that effort must
always be to select the best and most meritorious students for admis-
·Sion to technical institutions and medical colleges by providing equal
opportunity to all citizens in the country, and that it would be ai:jainst
national interest to admit in medical colleges or other institutions
giving instruction in specialities, less meritorious students when more E
me.ritorious students are available. So, wholesale reservation on the
basis of domicile or residential requirement within the State or on the
basis of institutional preference for students who have passed the
qualifying examination held by the University or the State excluding
all students not satisfying this·requirement, regardless of merit, bas
been condemned. The Court took the view that reservation of seats F
based on residential requirement within the State or on institutional
preference should, in no event, exceed the outer limit of 70 per cent of
the total number of open seats after taking into account other kinds of
reservation validly made, the 70 per cent reservations needs to be
reduced if the Indian Medical Council determines a shorter outer
limit. G

The institutional preference that has been referred to in the
observation of Bhagwati, J. does not at all relate to collegewise insti-
tutional preference, with which we are concerned. The learned
Additional Solicitor General has, however, placed strong reliance on
the following observation made by Bhagwati, J. in Pradeep Jain's case H
which is extracted below:-
,.

924 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 1 S.C.R.

"We are therefore of the view that so far as admissions to ")(
A
post-graduate courses, such as M.S., M.D. and the like are
concerned, it would be eminently desirable not to provide
for any reservation based on residence requirement within
the State or on institutional preference. But, having regard
to broader. considerations of equalit)' of opportunity and
B institutional continuity in education which has its own
importance and value, we would direct that though resi- f
dence requirement within the State shall not be a ground
for reservation in admissions to post-graduate courses, a
certain percentage of seats may in the present circumst- ~-
' ">-
ances, be reserved on the basis of institutional preference
in the sense that a student who has passed M.B.B.S. course
c from a medical college or university may be given prefer-
ence for admission to the post-graduate course in the same 'f
medical colleges or university but such reservation on the
basis of institutional preference should not in any event
exceed 50 per cent of the total number of open seats avail·
D able for admission to the post-graduate course. This outer
limit which we are fixing will also be subject to revision on
the lower side by the Indian Medical Council in the same
manner as directed by us in the case of admissions to the
M.B.B.S. course. But, even in regard to admissions to th"
j.-
post-graduate course, we would direct that so far as super
E specialities such as neuro-surgery and cardiology are con··
cerned, there should be no reservation at all even on the
basis of institutional preference and admissions should be ~

granted purely on merit on all India basis."

F
It is urged by the learned Additional Solicitor General that in
Pradeep Jain's case collegewise institutional preference has been
recognised and upheld, as is apparent from the above observation,
i
particularly from the observation "a certain percentage of seats may,
in the present circumstances, be reserved on the basis of institutional
preference in the sense that a student who has passed MBBS Course
from a medical college or University may be given preference for
G admission to the post-graduate course in the same medical colleges or
university, but such reservation on the basis of institutional preference
should not in any event exceed 50 per cent of the total number of open ~
seats available for admission to the post-graduate course." It is true
the expression "institutional preference" has been used in the said
observation in respect of a medical college or a university, but we do
H not think that in making that observation Bhagwati, J. had in his mind
:~

MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF BOMBAY v. TA DEOKUMAR [DUTT, J.] 925

~ collegewise institutional preference. Any observation in a judgment A
has to be read and understood in the context of facts of that particular
case in respect of which such observation has been made. As has been
pointed out, the question that has been considered in Pradeep Jain's
case relates to reservation of seats in medical colleges on the ground of
domicile or residential qualification within the State irrespective of
merit. It was not the case of anybody that reservation of seats. should B
be made on the ground of collegewise institutional preference. The
institutional preference that was considered in the case was university-

-<~
wise institutional preference and not collegewise institutional prefer-
ence. It is also apparent from the judgment of Amarendra Nath Sen,
' J,, who delivered a separate but. concurring judgment, that the Court
had no occasion to consider the question of collegwise institutional
preference in matters of admission to M.D. Course. In the circum-
c
y stances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned
Additional Solicitor General that this Court in Pradeep's Jain's case
has upheld or recognised collegewise institutional preference of seats
in medical colleges for admission in M.D. Course.
D
The position is clarified in a subsequent decision of this Court in
Nidamarti Mahesh Kumarv. State of Maharashtra and others, [1986] 2
sec 534 which related to the constitutional validity of regionwise
... reservation of seats in medical colleges. It has been observed by
Bhagwati', C.J, that where the region from which the students of a
university ·are largely drawn is backward either from the point of view E
of opportunities for medical education or availability of competent and
... adequate medical services, it will be constitutionally permissible, with-
out violating the mandate of, the equality clause to provide a high

r
percentage of reservation or preference for students coming from that
region because without reser;vation or preference students froms such
backward region will hardly be able to compete with those from F
.,
advanced regions, since they would not have adequate opportunity for
development so as to be in a position to compete with others. Further,
it has been observed that it would not be unconstitutional for the State
to provide for reservation or preference in respect of a certain
percentage of seats in the medical college or colleges in each region in
favour of those· ·who have studied in schools or colleges within that G
region and even if the percentage stipulated by the State.Government
y is on the higher side, it would not fall foul of the constitutional
mandate of equality.

In respect of such reservation of preference the reasons that have
been given are that it would cause considerable hardship and incon- H
.~

926 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 1 S.C.R.

venience if students residing in the region of a particular university are
A
compelled to move to the region of another university for medical
education which they might have to do if selection for admission to th•:
medical colleges in the entire State were to be based on merit without
any reservation or preference regionwise. There may be a large
number of students who, if they do not get admission in the medical
B college near their residence and are assigned admission in a college in
another region on the basis of relative merit, may not be able to go to
such other medical college on account of lack of resources and
facilities and in the result, they would be effectively deprived of real
opportunity for pursuing the medical course even though on paper
they would have got admission in the medical college. Further, it has
been pointed out that some difficulty would arise in case of girls
c because if they are not able to get admission in the medical college
near the place where they reside they might find it difficult to pursue
medical education in a medical college situated in another region
where hostel facilities may not be available and even if hostel facilities
are available, the parents may hesitate to send them to the hotels.
D
Even with regard to regionwise reservation of certain percentage
of seats in medical colleges, except for the reasons mentioned above,
this Court in Nidamarti's case has turned down the contention that th(:
provision of the impugned rule, that is, students from a school or
college situate within the jurisdiction of a particular university would
E not be eligible for admission to medical college or colleges situate in
the jurisdiction of another university, but would be confined only to
medical college or colleges within the jurisdiction of the same
university, was intended to give protection to students in certain rural
area~, the population of which is socially, economically and education··
ally backward, for otherwise they would have not been able to
-
F compete with students from advanced regions and, consequently, the
classification made by the provision was constitutionally permissible.
Thus, except in certain circumstances. even regionwise reservation of
seats in medical colleges has not been approved by this Court. In
Pradeep Jain's case, merely because the expression "institution"! pre ..
ference" has been used with reference to a student passing the MBBS
G Course from a medical college or a university, it does not necessarily
follow that the Court had in its contemplation or was laying down
collegewise institutional preference.

In support of the contention that collegewise institutional prefer·
ence or reservation of seats was in the contemplation of this Court,
H reliance has been placed on behalf of the appellants on an earlier
MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF BOMBAY v. T.A. DEOKUMAR [DUTT, J.J 927

decision of this court in Jagdish Saran & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.,
A
[1980] 2 SCR 831. In that case, of the three learned Judges, Krishna
Iyer, J. delivered the judgment for himself and for Chinnappa Reddy,
J. Pathak, J. (as he then was) agreed with the judgment of Krishna Iyer,
J. that the writ petition should be dismissed, but he gave his own
reasons. The reasons of Pathak, J. are, inter alia, contained in the
following observations: B

"It is not beyond reason that a student who enters a medical
college for his graduate studies and pursues them for the
requisite period of years should prefer on graduation to
continue in the same institution for his post-graduate
studies. There is the srong argument of convenience, of
stability and familiarity with an educational environment c
which in different parts of the country is subject to varying
economic and psychological pressures. But much more
than convenience is involved. There are all the advantages
of a continuing frame of educational experience in the
same educational institution. It must be remembered that it D
is not an entirely different course of studies which is con-
templated; it is a specialised and deeper experience in what
has gone before. The student has become familiar with the
teaching techniques and standards of scholarship, and has
adjusted his responses and reactions accordingly. The con-
tinuity of studies ensures a higher degree of competence in E
the assimilation of knowledge and experience. Not infre-
quently some of the same staff of Professors and Readers
( may lecture to the post-graduate classes also. Over the
under-graduate years the teacher has come to understand
the particular needs of the student, where he excels and
where he-needs an especial encouragement in the removal F
of deficiencies. In my judgment, there is good reason in an
educational institution extending a certain degree of pre-
ference to its graduate for admission to its post-graduate
classes. The preference· is based on a reasonable classi-
fication and bears a just relationship to the object of the
education provided in the post-graduate classes. The G
concept of equality codified in our constitutional system is
not violated. It has been said sometimes that classification
contradicts equality. To my mind, classification is a feature·
of the very core of equality. It is a vital concept in ensuring
equality, for those who are similarly situated alone from a
class between themselves, and the classification is not H
928 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989) 1 S.C.R.

vulnerable to challenge if its constituent basis is reasonably
A .I(
related to achieving the object of the concerned law. An
institutional preference of the kind considered here does
not offend the constitutional guarantee of equality."

The above observations or reasons should not be read or under-
B stood dehors the facts and the questions involved for the deterrnina-
ti on of this Court. The facts of that case will be stated presently. The 't
University of Delhi has many post-graduate and diploma courses in the
faculty of medicine providing in all 250 seats. The three medical
colleges in Delhi tum out annually 400 medical graduates who get ~'
. ,_
house-jobs in the local hospitals and qualify themselves for post-
graduate course. As the graduates from the Delhi University could not
c be accommodated fully or even in part for the post-graduate course in
Medicine and as these graduates were not considered for admission
into other universities, Delhi University had earmarked some seats at '-I
the post-graduate level in Medicine for the medical graduates of Delhi
University. By the impugened rule, 70 per cent of the seats at the
D post-graduate level was reserved for Delhi graduates and 30 per cent
of the seats was kept open to all including graduates of Delhi. It was,
therefore, not·a case of collegewise reservation, but 70 per cent reser-
vation of seats in the medical colleges under the Delhi University for
the medical graduates of that University. The question of collegewise
institutional preference or reservation of seats did not at all arise, nor }-

E was it argued or sought to be decided in la!!.dish Saran's case. It is true
that the observation of Pathak, J., without reference to the context of
the facts and the questioninvolved in that case, may support to some ;.
extent the contention of the appllants, but the contention has to be -
rejected on a reference to the facts and the question involved in that
case. ·-,i'
I
F t
It is, however, submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor
General that there are some special facts and circumstances which
justify collegewise reservation as provided by the impugned rules 4(A)
.and 5. It is stated by him that while the theoretical examinations in
MBBS Course are conducted by the University, the practical examina-
G Hons involving 50 per cent of the total marks are held by the individual
colleges. Counsel submits that in such circumstances the merits of the
C!lndidates passing the MBBS Examination from these four colleges 1
are difficult to be compared and evaluated for the purpose of admis-
sion in the M.D. Course. This submission has also been made by Mr.
Baze, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the University of
.,_
H Bombay.
·"'

MUNICIPAL CORPN.·OF BOMBAY v. T.A .. DEOKUMAR !DUTT, J.] 929

We regret, we are unable to accept such a contention. It is not
disputed that in each college the practical examinations are conducted · A
by a set of four examiners consisting of one internal examiner from the
same college, one external examiner from one of the other three
colleges and two external examiners from outside Bombay. Thus,
excepting one internal examiner, three other examiners are external
examiners and all those examiners are presumably appointed by the B
University. These examiners are of high academic qualifications and
we fail to understand why they would deviate from the standard pres-
cribed by the University for the assessment and evaluation of the
merits of the students in the practical examinations. There is, there-
fore, no substance in the contention that the standard of examination
and evaluation of the merits of students in such practical examinations
differ from college to college. Indeed, no material i1as been placed c
before us in support of the contention that different standards are •
adopted by the colleges in MBBS practical examinations. Equally un-
tenable is the contention that because of institutional preference, the
different marks given by different colleges do not affect the students,
as it is the relative merit of the student in the same college which D
matters in the selection of post-graduate students. We do not find any
justification for the apprehension that if the institutional preference is
removed and all the candidates from the University are pooled to-
gether, a process of dilution and undesirable racing are likely to start
making a mockery of the examinatiQn system and creating mad race of
overtaking the other colleges. This apprehension has been expressed E
by the Dean of Lokmanya Tilak Memorial Medical College in his.
affidavit filed before the High Court.
Another ground in justification of collegewise institutional pre-
ference which has been relied on by the Dean in his affidavit and urged
before us on behalf of the appellants is that the facilities differ from
college to college in respect of the pattern of patients coming to the F
hospital attached to each college. By way of illustration, it is stated
that in the hospital attached to Lokmanya Tilak Memorial Medical
College there is maximum load of trauma cases (accidents and
injuries), the number of such cases is much higher than that in the
hospital attached to the three other colleges. The under-graduate stu-
dents in Lokmanya Tilak Memorial Medical College will have a wider G
exposure to these cases and will be far more suitable for seat in the
post-graduate course in Surgery where he will have to actually deal
with these cases than a student of any other college. Even assuming
that the facts stated above are correct, we do not think that the same
constitute any ground in support of institutional preference. It is the H
university which is required to maintain a standard in respect of the
930 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 1 S.C.R.

A subjects in the colleges affiliated to it. It is not the case of the Uni-
versity that the standard prescribed by it is not maintained in different
colleges or that any particular college is higher in standard in a particu-
lar subject than that in another college. It may be that the number of
acc;ident and in jury casses in the hospital attached to Lokmanya Tilak
Memorial Medical College is higher than the number of such cases in
B the hospitals attached to other colleges, but that does not prove or lead
to the conclusion that the students of other colleges will be deficient in
surgery or less meritorious than the students of Lokmanya Tilak
Memorial Medical College. The contention in this regard is without
substance and is rejected.
Let us now examine the question of collegewise institutional pre-
c ference from the point of view of Article 14 of the Constitution. By the
impugned rules, a classification has been sought to be made with the
students of each particular college passing their MBBS Examination
from that college to the exclusion of all other students obtaining their
MBBS Degree from the other colleges. In order that a classification is
a permissible one within the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution,
D
two tests are to be satisfied, namely, (1) that there is an intelligible
differentia which distinguishes persons grouped together from those
who are left out of the group; and (2) that there is a rational nexus to the
object sought to be achieved by the impugned rules. The object sought
to be achieved by the impugned rules is obviously to prefer merit for
the post-graduate course and to exclude less meritorious candidates. It
E will be presently demonstrated that both the tests are not satisfied in
the instant case. In this connection, we give below following tabular
statement showing the number of seats available in each of the said
four colleges in some of the disciplines.

COLLEGE LTMMC TNMC GSMC GMS
F
Students Intake 100 100 100

DISCIPLINE

1. M.D. Obs. & Gyn. 2 1 5 3+ l(R)
G
2. M.S. Orthopaedics 2 1 2 1

3. M.S. General Surgery 4 2 3 3+ l(R)

4. M.D. General Medicine 4 3 3 3+ l(R)
H
MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF BOMBAY v. T.A. "DEOKUMAR (DUTT, J.] 931

,... In Seth G.S. Medical College (GSMC), there are five seats in
A
Obstetrics and Gynaecology and one seat in Topiwala Nation! Medical
College (TNMC). In view of the impugned rules providing collegewise
, institutional preference, five seats in Obstetrics and Gynaecology in
Seth G.S. Medical College were allotted to five of its students. Of
these five students, Dr. Ganpat Sawant secured 150 marks and the
four other candidates secured marks between 118 and 128 in the B
r MBBS Examination. The respondents Dr. Anjali Deokumar Thukral
and Dr. Sumeet Godambe, both students of TopiwalaNational Medi-
cal College obtained respectively 140. and 143 marks in the MBBS
. -j examination. They, however, were not admitted in their college, for
-: .
there was only one seat in Obstetrics and Gynaecology and that seat
was alotted to a student of that college who secured 156 marks in the
MBBS examination. Thus, although Dr. Anjali Deokumar Thukral c
y and Dr. Sumeet Godambe secured more marks than the students
admitted in the post-graduate course in Obstetrics and Gynaecolocy in
the said G .S. Medical College, except the said Dr. Ganpat Sawant,
they were refused admission in view of collegewise institutional prefer-
ence. Similarly, in respect of other disciplines many meritorious D
students could not get admission even though they secured higher
marks than those admitted in the post-graduate degree course by
virtue of the impugned rules. Thus, there is a patent discrimination
inasmuch as students obtaining lesser marks have been preferred to
~
those obtaining higher marks. There is no intelligible differentia for
the classification by way of collegewise institutional preference as pro- E

-r, vided by the impugned rules distinguishing the preferred candidates in
respect of each college from those excluded from such ~lassification.
By such classification or collegewise institutional preference, merit has
been sacrificed, far less it has been preferred. When the university is the
same for all these colleges, the syllabus, the standard of examination
and even the examiners are the same, any preference to candidates to F
the post-graduate degree course of the same university, except in
order of merit, will exclude merit to a great extent affecting the
standard of educational institutions. In such circumstances, college-
wise institutional preference cannot be supported and, it has already
been noticed that this Court has not approved of such preference at
all. G
;y State of Rajasthan and another v. Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta and
others, [1989 I 1 SCC 93 is a case of college-based institutional prefer-
ence in respect of five medical colleges in Rajasthan under the same
University. The impugned Ordinance of the University provided for
addition of 5 per cent of the aggregate of marks which work out to be H
932 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 1 S.C.R.

to 137.5 marks by way of institutional preference in the sense of
A .>.:
preference dependant on the particular medical college at which the
concerned candidate has passed his final MBBS Exan1ination. This
collegewise institutional preference has been disapproved by this
Court in that case and the impugned Ordinance has been struck down.
The learned Additional Solicitor General sought to distinguish Dr.
B Ashok Kumar Gupta's case from the instant case. We do not think that
the said case is distinguishable from the case with which we are con- 'I
cerned, inasmuch as in both the cases the question of collegewise or
college-based institutional preference is involved. It is stated that
mode or method adopted for giving collegewise institutional prefer"
ence in Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta's case is different from the instant
>---~
case put, in our opiqion, nothing turns out of that. So far as educa-
c tional institutions are concerned, unless there are strong reasons for
exclusion of meritorious candidates, any preference other than in y
order of merit, will not stand the test of Article 14 of the Constitution.
So, the impugned rules are discriminatory and do not satisfy the tests
of resonable classification and, as much, cannot be sustained.
D
It is next contended on behalf of the appellants that as the
Bombay Municipal Corporation has to spend a lot of money for the
running of the ·three colleges sponsored by it, seats for the post-
graduate course should be reserved in these three colleges for the
students passing the MBBS Examination from any of these colleges. If
E such reservation is allowed, the students of the Maharashtra Govern-
"
men! College, namely, the Grant Medical College, will not get any
admission in any of the three Municipal Colleges, even if the students ~
or some of them passing the MBBS Course from the Government
College are more meritorious than the students for whom the seats will
be kept reserved in the Municipal Colleges. It is urged that it will not 1-.JI
F be a case of collegewise institutional preference so far as the Municipal t
Colleges are concerned and there should be no objection for the
Bombay Municipal Corporation to give preference to the students of
the Municipal Colleges, of course, to the exclusion of the students of
the Government College. This contention, in our opinion, is without
any substance. It may be that the Bombay Municipal Corporation has
G to spend a lot of money for the colleges run by it, but that will be no
ground for making a discrimination between the students of the
Municipal Colleges and those of the Government College affiliated to
the same university, for the purpose of admission in the post-graduate
degree course. Such discrimination Will not serve any object which can
"
be justified on any rational basis. Such reservation or preference also
H cannot be allowed, for if allowed, rule 5 of the Rules framed under the
MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF BOMBAY v. T.A. DEOKUMAR (DUTI, J.) 933

Government Resolution dated June 18, 1971 will survive inasmuch as
A
the students of the Grant Medical College will only be admitted in the
M.D. Course. But, those students who could not be admitted in that
College, will not be eligible for admission in the Municipal Colleges.
We are unable to permit such discrimination in the matter of admission
in the M.D. Course. ·
B
Another ground on which collegewise institutional preference
has been sought to be justified by the learned Additional Solicitor
General is on the basis of institutional continuity. In support of this
ground of institutional continuity, the le_arned Additional Solicitor
General has placed much reliance on the observations of Pathak, J. in
Jagdish Saran's case, which has already been el(tracted above. It was
not a case of collegewise institutional preference or institutional con- c
tinuity, and the said observations should not be understood in that
sense, but in the sense of institutional continuity in the same
university.

After giving our thoughtful consideration to the question of D
collegewise institutional preference, we are of the view that such pre-
ference or reservation of seats is not permissible and the High Court
has rightly struck down both the impugned rule 4(A) framed by the
Bombay Municipal Corporation and part of rule 5 framed under the
Government Resolution, that is to say, only in respect of its applica-
tion to the Grant Medical College in the city of Bombay relating to E
admission to post-graduate M.D. Course. We, however, make it clear
that the students who have been admitted to post-graduate M.D.
Course pursuant to the impugned rules, their admission shall not be
interfered with or disturbed.

At this state, we may consider the submission of Mr. Lalit, F
learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants in C.M.P.
No. 20748 of 1988 praying for their impleadment as party-respondents
to Civil Appeal No. 2792 of 1988. We do not think that any useful
purpose will be served by impleading them as party-respondents to the
appeal. The only prayer that has been made by Mr. Lalit is that the
applicants who have passed the diploma course ·from the Municipal G
Colleges should be held to be eligible for admission iri the .M.D.
Course with credit for the diploma course in any of the Municipal
Colleges. We are told by the learned Counsel appearing for the State
Government and the Bombay Municipal Corporation that if the
impugned rules are struck down, they will have to frame fresh rules
consistent with the judgment of this Court and, as we have directed not H
934 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1989] 1 S.C.R.

to disturb admission of the candidates in the post-graduate M.D.
A
Course pursuant to the impugned rules, we consider the prayer made
by the applicants as quite reasonable and, accordingly, direct that the
applicants who have passed the diploma course in the Municipal
Colleges after passing the MBBS Examination, will be eligible for
admission in the post-graduate M.D. Course in any one of the Munici-
B pal Colleges with credit for the diploma course.

Mr. Tarkunde, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents-writ petitioners, submits that the cases of admission of
some of the respondents, who have not been admitted to the post- \-·
i ')Ill
..

graduate degree course in certain specialities of their choice in view of
the impugned rules, may be considered by the State of Maharashtra
c and the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, in case sea(s are
available, either in the Municipal Colleges or in the Grant Medical
College, which is a Government College. In our opinion, the prayer is
quite reasonable and the State of Maharashtra and the Bombay
Municipal Corporation are directed to consider the question of their
D admission, provided seats are available. The names of the said respon-
dents and the respective disciplines of their choice are given below:

1. Dr. Anjali Deokumar Thukral M.D. Gynaecology
and Obstetrics
I.

E 2. Dr. Atul Jaywant Gaitonde M.S. Orthopaedics

3. Dr. Naresh Kanayalal Navani M.S. General Surgery

4. Dr. Anna Koshy Joseph M.D. General Medicine
'...-I
F 5. Dr. Vaishali Ramnik Doshi M.D. General Medicine t

Before we part with these cases, we may dispose of one submis-
sion made on behalf of the appellants. Our attention has been drawn
to the fact that while striking down the impugned rule 4(A) and
impugned rule 5 in part, the High Court has directed the appellants to
G frame rules adopting certain alternative methods for dismission in the
post-graduate M.D. Course for the next year, as stated in the judg-
ment. The said directions appear to be in the nature of suggestions by -.
the High Court, and the appellants will be free to frame rules for
admission in the post-graduate M.D. Course in the said four colleges
in the city of Bombay in conformity with the provision of Article 14 of
H the Constitution and in the light of the judgment of this Court and in
MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF BOMBAY v. T.A. DEOKUMAR {DUTI, J.] 935

framing the rules, the appellants may take into consideration the A
suggestions of the High Court.

l In the result, subject to the directions given above, the appeals
are dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
B
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 8883 OF 1988
AND
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1253OF1988

For the reasons aforesaid, Special Leave Petition and Writ Peti-
tion fail and are dismissed without any order as to costs.
c
Y.L. Appeals dismissed.