Holding

The High Court's directions to admit Renuka Singla on compassionate ground and to create an additional seat for Savita Gera are set aside as they violate Sections 10A and 10B(3) of the Dentists Act; the vacant seat must be given to Savita Gera, who made a proper reservation claim.

Summary

The State of Punjab appealed against a Punjab High Court order that admitted Renuka Singla to a vacant B.D.S. seat on "compassionate ground" and created an additional seat for Savita Gera, both claiming reservation for backward areas. Renuka had not claimed reservation in her original application and submitted the required certificate after the deadline, whereas Savita had filed a proper claim with supporting certificate. The Supreme Court held that the High Court could not override the Dentists Act by admitting a candidate without a valid reservation claim or by increasing the institution's admission capacity without Central Government permission. Accordingly, the direction to admit Renuka was set aside and the seat was awarded to Savita, who had the better claim. The Court also struck down the creation of an extra seat as a violation of Sections 10A and 10B(3) of the Dentists Act, and allowed the State's appeals.

Issues considered

Whether a High Court can direct admission of a candidate to a reserved seat on compassionate ground when the candidate did not claim reservation at the time of application.
Whether a High Court can order the creation of an additional seat in a professional course, thereby increasing admission capacity, in violation of the Dentists Act.
Interpretation of Sections 10A and 10B(3) of the Dentists Act, 1948 concerning increase in admission capacity without Central Government permission.

Legislation cited

Dentists Act, 1948s. 10A, s. 10B(3)

Subjects

admissionreservationbackward classescompassionate groundDentists Actseat creationtechnical educationjudicial reviewwrit petition

Judgment

A STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
v.
RENUKA SINGLA AND ORS.

NOVEMBER 26, 1993

B [S.C. AGRAWAL AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.]

Education-Admission to Professional Course-Dentists Act, 1948-
Sections 10~ and JOB (3)--Admission-B.D.S. Course-Direction of High
Court to admit a candidate against reserved seat on compassionate ground-
C Admission of another candidate directed after creating additional seat-Viola-
tive of Sections JOA and JOB (3}-Directions set aside.

For admission to B.D.S. Course, respondents appeared at the Pre-
.. Medical Test. In the merit list of Students belonging to backward areas,
the position of respondent no. 1 was at serial no. 9 whereas that of
D respondent no. 2 was at serial no. 10. In the admission form respondent
No. 1 had made no claim for admission against a a seat reserved for
backward areas. On the basis of the merit list, respondent No. 1 was
granted admission to B.A.M.S. Course against general category seats. In
the meantime because of withdrawal of a candidate, one seat fell vacant in
E the B.D.S. Course, Respondent No. 1 filed a writ application claiming that
seat, saying that she belonged to a backward area.

The High Court took note of the fact that respondent no. 1.had not

F
submitted any certificate alongwith the admission from but claimed to
have forwarded the same later, which did not reach the competent
authority before the prescribed date. However, it directed that respondent
No. 1 be admitted against the said seat, which had become vacant, on
-
"compassionate ground", treating her to be belonging to the backward area.
In respect of respondent no. 2, the High Court directed that a seat be
created for her admission.
G In these appeals filed by the State, it is submitted that the applica·
tion for admission of respondent no. 1 cannot be considered against a seat
reserved for candidates coming from backward area, in view of the fact
that no such claim was made and it was only at a latter stage, that a
certificate was forwarded. It was also stated that the number of seats are
H fixed taking into consideration the staff position and infrastructure of a
866
·,, STATEv. R.SINGLA 867

college and the High Court ought not have directed to creation of an A
additional seat for the admission of respondent no. 2. It was pointed out
that the Dental Council of India has to function under the Dentists Act
and to act according to the regulations framed thereunder.

Allowing the appeals, this Court
B
Held : 1.1 For technical education, including medical education,
taking into consideration the infra-structure, equipment, staff, the limit of
the number of admissions is fixed either by the Medical Council of India
or Dental Council of India. The High Court cannot disturb that balance
between the capacity of the institution and the number of admissions, on C
"compassionate ground". The High Court should be conscious of the fact
that in this process they are affecting the education of the students who
have already been admitted, against the fixed seats after very tough com-
petitive examination. There does not appear to be any justification on the
part of the High Court, in the present case, to direct admission of respon-
dent no. 1 on "compassionate ground" and to issue a fiat to create an D
addition seat which amounts to a direction to violate Section 10 A and
Section 10 B (3) of the Dentists Act. (870-E-GJ

1.2 In the instant case, the direction given to admit respondent no. 1
against the one vacant seat, is set aside, since against that seat respondent
no. 2 has a better claim, because her application was in proper form E
alongwith proper certificate that she belonged to a backward area. She
should be admitted against the seat which had fallen vacant due to
withdrawal of the admission. If any seat in B.A.M.S. Course is available,
respondent no. 1 should be considered for admission against that.
(870-H, 87l·A·CJ
F
CIVIL AP~ELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 3363-
3364 of 1993.

From the Judgment and Order dated 18.12.92 of the Punjab &
Haryana in C.W.P. Nos. 15863 & 16329 of 1992.
G
Ranbir Singh Yadav and G.K. Bansal for the Appellants.

Rajni Atma Ram and K. Mahajan for the Respondent No. 2.

R.L. Kohli, Ms. S. Bagga, Aman, Vivek and Prem Malohtra for the
Respondents Nos. 1. & 3. H
868 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R ..

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

N.P. SINGH, J. These appeals have been filed on behalf of the State
of Punjab for setting aside an order dated_18.12.1992 passed by the High
Court on writ applications, filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, Renuka
Singla,"°and respondent No. 2, Savita Gera, directing to admit respondent
B
No. 1 against the seat reserved for candidates belonging to backward areas
which had fallen vacant as a result of withdrawal of one Sanjiv Goyal from
the B.D.S. Course and to admit respondent No. 2, after creating an
additional .seat on compassionate ground.

C The respondents aforesaid appeared at the Pre-Medical Test con-
ducted in May 1992. In the merit list of candidates belonging to backward
areas, the position of respondent No. 1 was at serial No. 9 whereas that of
respondent No. 2 was at serial No. 10. There is no dispute that in the
application form which had been filed on behalf. of respondent No.l for
D the aforesaid Test, no claim was made on her behalf for admission against
a seat reserved for backward area. So far respondent No. 2 is concerned,
in her application form she claimed admission against a seat reserved for
backward areas and in support of her said claim she also enclosed a ·
certificate as required by the prospectus issued for the year 1992-93. On
basis of the merit list, respondent No. 1 was granted admission to B.A.M.S.
E Course against general category seats. In the meantime, the aforesaid
Sanjiv Goyal, who had been admitted in the B.D.S. Course, withdrew his
admission and because of that a seat became available. Respondent no. 1
filed the writ application aforesaid claiming that seat, saying that she
belonged to a backward area and as such she was entitled to be admitted
p against that seat in B.D.S. Course. As already mentioned, in her application
for admission, neither she had claimed admission, as a candidate belonging
to backward area, nor she had produced any certificate in support thereof.
Later she forwarded a certificate that she belonged to a backward area and
made the claim even on that basis, apart from her original claim against
the general category seat.
G
The High Court by the impugned order, having taken note of the
fact that respondent No. 1 had not submitted any certificate along with the
admission form and claimed to have forwarded the same later, which did
not reach the competent authority before the prescribed date, still directed
H that respondent No. 1 be admitted against the said seat, which had beco~e
STATE v. R. SING~A [N.P. SINGH, J.) 869

vacant, on "compassionate ground", treating her to be belonging to the A
backward area. In respect of respondent No. 2 as already mentioned above,
the High court directed that a seat be created for her admission. Having
issued the direction aforesaid, the learned Judges observed that the admis-
sion of the respondents should not be treated as precedent, because
direction had been issued for the admission, in view of the peculiar facts
of the case.
B

The stand of the appellant-State is that the application for admission
of respondent No. 1 cannot be considered, against a seat reserved for
candidates coming from backward area, in view of the fact that no such
claim was made on behalf of respondent No. 1 and it was only at a later C
stage, after the prescribed date, a certificate was forwarded on behalf of
the said respondent, claiming admission even as a candidate belonging to
the backward area.

The Dental Council of India has appeared and filed an affidavit,
saying that the number of seats are fixed and the High Court should not D
have directed to create an additional seat for the admission of respondent
No. 2. On behalf of Dental Council of India, it was pointed out that it has
to function under the Dentists Act, 1948 and to act acc0rding to the
regulations framed thereunder, which prescribe the requirement regarding
medical staff. Other staff, equipment and the infra-structure of a Dental E
College. The number of seats are fixed taking into consideration the staff
position and infra-structure of a particular college. For the Government
Dental College Amritsar, in B.D.S. Course, the number of admissions have
been fixed at 40.

Section 10 A of the Dentists Act provided that except with previous F
permission of the Central Government obtained in accordance with the
provisions of the said section, no authority or institution shall increa&i its
admission capacity in any course of study or training (including a post-
graduate course of study or training). The relevant part of Section 10 B
~: G
"Sec. 10 B (3). Where any authority or institution granting recog-
nised dental qualification increases its admission capacity in any
course of study or training (including a post-graduate course of
study or training) except with the previous permission of the
Central Government in accordance with the provisions of Section H
870 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A 10 A, no dental qualification granted to. any student of such
authority or institution on the basis of the increase in its admission
capacity shall be a recognised dental qualification for the purpose
of this Act."

On behalf of the State, a firm stand was taken that there is no other
B seat vacant than the one due to withdrawal of the admission of aforesaid
Sanjiv Goyal.

The admission in Medical Course throughout India is governed by
different statutory provisions, including regulations framed under different
C Acts. During last several years efforts have been made to regulate the
admissions to the different medical inStitutions, in order to achieve
academic excellence. But, at the same time, a counter attempt is also
apparent and discernible, by which the candidates, who are not able to get
admissions against the seats fixed by different statutory authorities, file writ
D applications and interim or final directions are given to admit such
petitioners. We fail to appreciate as to how the High Court can be generous
or liberal in issuing such directions which in substance amount to directing
the authorities concerned to violate their own statutory rules ad regula-
tions, in respect of admissions of students. It cannot be disputed that
technical education, including medical education, requires infra-structure
, __E to cope with the requirement of giving proper education to the students,
who are admitted. Taking into consideration the infra-structure, equip-
ment, staff, the limit of the number of admissions is fixed either by the
Medical Council of India or Dental Council of India. The High Court
cannot disturb that balance between the capacity of the institution and
F number of admissions, on "compassionate ground". The High Court should
be conscious of the fact that in this process they are affecting the education
of the student who have already been admitted, against the fixed seat, after
a very tough competitive examination. According to us, there does not
appear to be any justification on the part of the High Court, in the present
case, to direct admission of Respondent No. 1 on "compassionate ground"
G and to issue a fiat to create an additional seat which amounts to a direction
to violate section 10 A and section lOB (3) of the Dentists Act referred to
above.

Accordingly, the direction given to admit respondent No. 1 Renuka
H Singla, against the one vacant seat, is set aside, since we are of the opinion
. STATEv. R.SINGLA[N.P.SINGH,J.] 871

that against that seat respondent No. 2, Savita Gera, has a better claim, A
because her application was in proper form along with proper certificate
that she belonged to a backward area. No such claim had been made on
behalf of respondent No. 1, Renuka Singla, and no certificate in support
of said claim had been filed on her behalf. Respondent No. 2 Savita Gera,
should be admitted against the seat which had fallen vacant due to B
withdrawal of the admission by Sanjiv Goyal.

On behalf of Renuka Singla, it was pointed out that pursuant to the
order passed by the High Court, she has been admitted and because of her
admission in the B.D.S. Course she has left B.A.M.S. Course. It is not
possible to issue a direction that she be again admitted to B.A.M.S. Course. C
But, if any seat in B.A.M.S. Course is available, then she should be
considered for admission against that seat.

The appeals are accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above.
In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

A.G. Appeals allowed.