Holding

Clause G(ii) requiring college‑wise merit lists is struck down as violative of Article 14; admissions must be made on the basis of a combined merit list for all seven medical colleges.

Summary

A combined entrance examination was conducted by Lucknow University for admission to postgraduate medical courses in seven medical colleges in Uttar Pradesh. The university's guidelines (clause G(ii)) required a separate merit list for each college based on institutional candidates, which the petitioners challenged as discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Relying on earlier Supreme Court decisions striking down college‑wise institutional preference, the Court held that the rule was arbitrary, lacked a rational classification, and infringed the right to equality. Consequently, the Court struck down clause G(ii) and directed the State Government to admit candidates on the basis of a single, combined merit list for the entire state, with appropriate notification and a ten‑day window for candidates to state their specialty choices. The petition was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the rule requiring a college‑wise merit list for institutional candidates violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether a combined merit list for the whole state is mandatory when a single entrance examination is held.

Subjects

EducationAdmissionPost‑Graduate Medical CoursesCombined Entrance ExaminationArticle 14DiscriminationMerit ListUttar PradeshUniversity Guidelines

Judgment

P.K. GOEL AND ORS. A
v.
U.P. MEDICAL COUNCIL AND ORS.

MAY 15, 1992

[LALIT MOHAN SHARMA AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.] B

Education-Admission to Professional Colleges-Post-Graduate Medi~
cal Courses-Combined Entrance Examination conducted-Clause G(ii) of
guidelines issued by Lucknow University-Merit list prepared college-wise out
of institutional candidates-Combined merit list not prepared-Whether dis- C
- criminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Consitution.

Constitution of India, 1950:

Article 14-Post-Graduate Medical Courses-Combined entrance a-
amination conducted-Merit list prepared college-wise-Combined merit list D
not prepared-Whether discriminatory and violative of.

A combined Entrance Examination was held for admission to all the
seven Medical Colleges in the State of Uttar Pradesh. However, the seats
were filled as per admission rules on the basis of a merit list prepared for , E
each Medical College out of the institutional candidates from that College.
This has been done as per clause G(ii) of the guidelines issued by the
Lucknow University.

The petitioners, who appeared in the combined Entrace Examination
have challenged in the present Writ Petition the validity of the rule as being F
discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
According to the petitioners, in view of the directions of this Court in Dr.
Dinesh Kumar & Ors. v. Motilal Nehru Medical Collage, Allahabad & Ors.,
AIR 1986 SC 1877, in almost all the States in India, 75% seats for Post·
Graduate Medical Courses were being filled up by holding one common G
examination and a combined merit list prepared for all the Medical
Colleges in the State and that in the State of Uttar Pradesh alone such a
combined merit list has not been prepared despite conducting a c~mmon
ex&mination.

Allowing the Writ Petition, this Court, H
363
364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992) 3 S.C.R.

A HELD: 1. Rule (G)(ii) laying down the provision for preparing a
merit list for each college out of the institutional candidates of that college, --1-
is struck down. The State Government is directed to make admissions for
Post-Graduate Medical Courses in all the seven Medical Colleges on the·
basis of a combined merit list. The State Government shall issue a
B Notification in this regard and publish the same immediately in one Hindi
and one English newspaper having wide circulation in the State as well as
by putting the same on the notice board of all the seven Medical Colleges.
It would state that the admissions shall be made in Post-Graduate Medical
Courses on the basis of a combined merit list for the entire State and allow
all the eligible condidates to mention their fresh choice of specialities in
C the Post-Graduate Courses within 10 days of such publication in the
newspaper and thereafter make selection on the basis of combined merit
list for the whole State. In case any candidate does not submit his choice
of, speciality within the aforesaid time, the choice already given by him shall
-
D
be taken into consideration in his case. [370 E-G]
).- -
2. This Court had already struck down the rule of college-wise
instittJtional preference as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
and all the States in India are following the rule of one combined merit
list for the whole State except the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Medical
Council of India also took the stand that one combined merit list should
E be prepared when the entrace examination is conducted by one University
for all the Medical Colleges in the State. There in no question of claiming
any right by the candidates on the ground of having appeared in the
examination on the basis of the impugned guidelines mentioned in the
information brochure issued by the University, as no admissions in the
F present case have been made so far in any of the colleges. No admission
could be allowed on the basis of a rule which is clearly arbitrary and
discriminatory and has already been declared as violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution. [367 H; 368 A-DJ

G Dr. Dinesh Kumar & Ors. v. Motilal Nehm Medical Co!lege, Allahabad
& Ors., AIR 1986 SC 1877; State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Dr. Ashok Kumar
Gupta & Ors., [1989] 1 SCC 93; Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay
& Ors. v. Thukral Anjali Deokumar & Ors., [1989] 2 SCC 249, relied on.

3. There cannot be any right vested in the candidates in seeking
H admission in a particular college. Merit as the basis for selection in the
{

P.K. GOEL v. MEDICAL COUNCIL [KASLIWAL, J.] 365

speciality in a Post-Graduate course cannot be sacrificed against con- A
venience. (368 HJ

4. In the case of a combined merit list for the whole State of Uttar
Pradesh, the candidates having secured a high position in merit would also
be entitled to get specialities of their choice in Medical Colleges of Luck•
now and Kanpur even though they might have passed their MBBS Coors~ B
from Medical Colleges other than Lucknow and Kanpur. (370 C-D]

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No.964 of 1991.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
c
Gobind Mukhoty, D.K. Garg and R.C. Kaushik (NP), for the
Petitioners.
- '
A.S. Nambiar, R.B. Misra, L.R. Singh, S.K. Agnihotri, J.R. Das, D.K.
-~
Sinha, G. Prabhakar, Smt. Shanta Vasudevan, P.K. Manohar G.K. Bansal,'
B.B. Singh and T.T. Kunikannan for the Respondents. D
Ms. Kamini Jaiswal and Pramod Swarup for the Interve~ers.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KASLIWAL, J. By this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution E
challenge has been made to the guidelines issued by the University of
Lucknow for the Post-Graduate Medical Entrance Examination held on'
12.1.1992 providing for a merit list for each college out of the institutional ·
candidates of that college. There are seven medical colleges in the State of ,
Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow, Kanpur, Agra, Allahabad, Meerut, Jhansi and
Gorakhpur. A combined entrace examination for admission in Post-' F
Graduate Medical Courses for all the seven medical colleges has been held
by the University of Lucknow. Though, a combined entrance examination .
was conducted for all the seven medical colleges, the seats are filled
according to the admission rules on the basis of a merit list prepared for '
each college out of the institutional candidates of that college. The .clause ' G
(G)(ii) under challenge reads as under:-

"Based on the marks obtained at the competitive entrance
examination and the candidates choice of the course a merit '
list shall be prepared for each college out of the ins_titutional ,
candidates of that college." ,H
366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 3 S.C.R.

A The information brochure issued by the University defines 'Institu- ~
tional candidate' and 'Institutional seats' as under:-

'"Institutional candidate' shall mean a student who has obtained
M.B.B.S./M.D.S. degree of that University/Institution.

B 'Institutional seats' shall mean 75% of total seats available for
post graduate degree diploma courses in an Institution after
excluding 25% seats to be filled by the All India Competition
called the "All India MD/MS/Diploma/MDS Entrance Ex-
amination."
c The petitioners who had appeared in the above Entrance Examina-
tion have challenged the above rule on the ground of discrimination and
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The case of the petitioners is
that in pursuance to the directions of this Hon'ble Court in Dr. Dinesh
Kumar & Ors. v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad & Ors. AIR 1986
D SC 1877, 25% of the total number of seats for Post-Graduate Courses are
filled up on the basis of All India Entrace Examination and the remaining
75% by holding a State level Entrance Examination. In almost all the States
in India the 75% seats for Post-Graduate Medical Courses are filled up by
holding one common State level examination and a combined merit list is
E prepared for all the medical colleges in the State. According to the
petitioners the above rule is follmued in almost all the States including the
States of Orissa, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Karnatake and Punjab and
Haryana. It is only the State of Uttar Pradesh which is admitting students
for Post-Graduate Medical Courses on the basis of a merit list prepared
for each college out of the institutional candidates of that college. Thus,
F the State of Utt'!r Pradesh is not preparing a combined merit list for the
whole State inspite of the examination being conducted by the same
Lucknow University.

It is not necessary for us to labour on the point in issue inasmuch as
G the point stands concluded by the following decisions of this Court in State
of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta & Ors., [1989] 1 SCC 93
and in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors. v.. Thukral Anjali
Deokumar & Ors., [1989] 2 SCC 249. In Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta's case, a
benefit to the extent of 5% in total marks was given by way of collegewise
institutional preference in Rajasthan and the same was struck down by this
H Court on the ground of being unreasonable and arbitrary and violative of
P.K. GOEL v. MEDICAL COUNCIL (KASLIWAL, J.] '367

Article 14 of the Constitution. In Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay A
& Ors. v. Thukral Anjali Deokumar & Ors. (supra) the question was
regarding admission to Post-Graduate Degree/Diploma Courses in medjcal
colleges run by Municipal Corporation and state Government. Collegewise
institutional preference was given under Rule 4(A) of Rules for admissiqns
framed by Bombay Municipal Corporation and Rule 5 framed under
resolution for admission of Maharashtra Government.
B

This Court held as under:

"There is not intelligible differentia for the Classification by way
of collegewise institutional preference as provided by the im- C
pugned rules distinguishing the preferred candidates in respect
of each college from those excluded from such classification.
But such classification or collegewise institutional preference,
merit has been sacrificed, far less it h;is been preferred. When
the university is the same for all these colleges, the syllabus, D
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 educa~
tional institutions. In such circumstances, collegewise institu~
tional preference cannot be supported and, it has laready been E
noticed that this Court has not approved of such preference at.
all."

We have heard learned Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh as
well as Counsel appearing for the interveners. None of the Counsel were F
able to put forth any argument on merits to distinguish the above-men-
tioned decisions of this Court. The only argument made is that the can-
didates who have appeared in the examination for this year under the
scheme of the rules under challenge have acquired a right and it would be
inequitable to strike the aforesaid rule and to make the selection on the
basis of a combined merit list for the whole State. We find no force in the G
above contention. As already mentioned above this Court in State of
Rajasthan & Anr. v. Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta & Ors. decided on October
11, 1988 and in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors. v. Thukral
Anjali Deokumar& Ors. decided on March 7, 1989 had already struck down
the rule of collegewise institutional preference as being violative of Article .H
368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) 3 S.C.R.

A 14 of the Constitution and all the States in India are following the rule of ·
one combined merit list for the whole State except the State of Uttar
Pradesh. We had also issued notice to the Medical Council of India and
Learned Counsel appearing for the Medical Counc!J of India also took the
stand that one combined merit list should be prepared when the entrance
B examination is conducted by one University for all the medical colleges in
the State. There is no question of claiming any right by the candidates on
the ground of having appeared in the examination on the basis of the
impugned guidelines mentioned in the information brochure issued by the
University, as no admissions in the present case have been made so far in
any of the colleges. This writ petition had beeri filed prior to the declaration
C of the results and after hearing Counsel for the parties we had granted stay
of admissions in the entire State of Uttar Pradesh for Post-Gruduate
Courses. If we allow classification on collegewise institutional preference,
it would be in violation of the law already declared by this Court. It would
-
also result into great injustice to large number of candidates who are not
D before us but are bound to be affected if combined merit list is not
prepared for the entire State as a whole. We find no valid ground or
justification to allow any admissions on the basis of a rule which is clearly
arbitrary and discriminatory and has already been declared as violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution.

E An application has been submitted on behalf of Dr. Rajat Shekhar,
Dr. Rakesh Yadav and Dr. Reena Aggarwal for impleading them as parties
in this case. Looking to the urgency of the matter and the nature of the
issues involved, we do not find any ground or justification to allow the
applicants to be impleaded as parties in the case. However, we have
F already permitted the interveners to file their submissions in writing and
as such we are examining the written submissions of the applicants also.

The objections raised by the interveners are totally baseless and
without any foundation. It may be noted that in the reply submitted by the
G State of Uttar Pradesh it has been stated that a total of 316 candidates have
qualified against 540 seats. Thus, it is clear that all the candidates including
the interveners will get admission for Post-Graduate Courses in one college
or the other. There cannot be any vested right in seeking admission in a
particular college. Merit as the basis for selection in ,the speciality in a
Post-Graduate course cannot be sacrificed against convenience. The ap-
H plicant/interveners have submitted that the brochure clearly mentioned that
..I
P.K. GOEL v. MEDICAL COUNCIL [KASLIWAL, J.] 369

the competitive entrance examination was held on the basis of a merit list A
~ for each college out of the institutional candidates of that college. It has
been submitted that a student who appears in a competitive examination
for admission to .a particular institution is aware of the likely competition
he is to face in his home institution. Had the applicants been aware that it
was an open competitive examination for the whole State and a combined
merit list of the entire seats, the effort put in by the students would be
B
~
commensurate to the competition they are likely to face. We cannbt
comprehend an argument like the one made above that a candidate while
-v appearing in an examination for selection on the basis of merit will adopt
clifferent standards of preparation and effort if they would have known that
merit would be determined on the basis of a combined merit list for the c
whole State instead of merit collegewise. Every student is expected and fo
fact puts all his efforts and energies in securing the best position on merit
in every competitive examination. It has been further submitted that chang-
ing or setting the clock back at this stage would result in severe disappoint-
~ ment amongst a large number of successful candidates and that th~
D
...... students would be disturbed from their hearths and homes where they ar~
settled for the last so many years and are not mentally prepared to be
shifted from the said atmosphere. We find no force in the submission. In
the present case we are concerned with admission to Post-Graduate cour~
ses in the medical colleges where the eligible candidates are those who
have already passed MBBS examination and have completed compulsoi;'. E
~
rotatory internship. Thus, it is not a course in which any young or teen-
agers are seeking admission, but on the other hand it is a course where
candidates who are already mature in age and have already qualified as
doctors are seeking admission and such candidates cannot take a ground ,
that they would be disturbed from their hearths and homes and were not , F
mentally prepared to be shifted from the said atmosphere. If a candidate ,
y is prepared to come from Lucknow and Allahabad to Jhansi and ,
Gorakhpur why not the candidates of Jhansi and Gorakhpur go to other ,
medical colleges in the same State of Uttar Pradesh. Even after obtaining,
Post-Graduate degrees the candidates should be well prepared for being
posted anywhere in the State of Uttar Pradesh, and even may have to go . G
outside their own State for the betterment of their career. We cannot be .
oblivious to the situation that if the rule of merit on the basis of institutional
preference is applied, a candidate having secured a very high position in
merit in the combined merit list for the whole State of Uttar Pradesh may
'H
370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 3 S.C.R.

A be deprived of getting a speciality of his choice even though he might be
prepared to go in another medical college in the same State of Uttar
Pradesh.

It has also been submitted by the applicants/interveners that the
students having passed their MBBS courses from Gorakhpur, Jhansi and
B Agra were put to greater hardship and less privileges in comparison to
Lucknow and Kanpur where there were more facilities like the special
cardiac lab, neurology lab, cat scan facility, echo cardiography or facilities
for advanced surgery and microscopic surgery. We fail to understand as to
how the facility ground can at all be to the disadvantage of a meritorious
C student having passed his MBBS course from Gorakhpur, Jhansi or Agra.
In the case of a combined merit list for the whole State of Uttar Pradesh,
the Candidates having secured a high position in merit would also be
entitled to get specialities of their choice in medical colleges of Lucknow
-
an<! Kanpur even though· they might have passed their MBBS course from
D medical colleges other than Lucknow and Kanpur.

In the result, we allow this writ petition and strike down the im-
pugned Rule (G)(ii) laying down the provision for preparing a merit list
for each college out of the institutional candidates of that college. We
direct the State Government to make admissions for Post-Graduate Medi-
E cal Courses in all the seven medical colleges on the basis of a combined
merit list. The State Government shall issue a Notification in this regard
and publish the same in one Hindi and one English newspaper immediately

F
having wide circulation in the State of Uttar Pradesh as well as by putting
the same on the notice board of all the seven medical colleges. It would
state that the admissions shall be made in Post-Graduate Medical Courses
-
on the basis of a combined merit list for the entire State of Uttar Pradesh
and allow all the eligible candidates to mention their fresh choice of
specialities in the Post-Graduate Courses within 10 days of such publica-
tion in the · newspaper and thereafter make selection on the basis of
combined merit list for the whole State. In case any candidate does not
G submit his choice of speciality within the aforesaid time, the choice already
given by him shall be taken into consideration in his case. No order as to
costs.

G.N. Petition allowed.