Supreme Court of India
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.versusDR. ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA & ORS.
- Citation
- 1988 INSC 319
- Decided
- 11 October 1988
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- M P THAKKAR
Holding
The provision granting a 5% mark addition based on college affiliation is unconstitutional as it violates the equality principle under Article 14.
Summary
The respondents, who had appeared for a common postgraduate medical entrance exam in Rajasthan, were denied admission despite higher marks because the University of Rajasthan Ordinance No. 278‑E(d)(ii) added a uniform 5% weightage to candidates who had obtained their MBBS degree from the same college for which they sought admission. The State of Rajasthan challenged the respondents' claim, and the respondents contended that the provision violated the equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court examined whether the institutional preference created an unreasonable classification that denied merit‑based admission and amounted to a de facto reservation. It held that the 5% addition, when combined with another 5% for university affiliation, gave an advantage of about 137.5 marks—effectively nullifying merit and constituting oppressive inequality. Consequently, the Court declared the provision unconstitutional, dismissed the appeal, and affirmed the High Court’s order striking down the ordinance.
Issues considered
- Whether the addition of 5% marks for candidates who passed MBBS from the same college under Ordinance 278‑E(d)(ii) violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
- Whether the institutional preference creates an unreasonable classification and amounts to arbitrary discrimination.
- Whether the provision can be sustained as a valid exercise of the university's power to regulate admissions.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 14
Subjects
Article 14EqualityAdmissionPost‑graduate medical coursesInstitutional preferenceConstitutional validityUniversity ordinance
Judgment
•
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.
A
v.
DR. ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA & ORS.
OCTOBER 11, 1988
(M.P. THAKKAR AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] B
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 14--'Equality doctrine'-
Ordinance No. 278-E(d)(ii)-Of University of Rajasthan Ordinunce-
Held void-Admission to P.G. Course in Medical Colleges in
Rajasthan-5% marks addition to aggregate marks obtained in com-
petitive examination in case of students who obtain MBBS degree of C
Rajasthan University-Offends 'equality doctrine'.
Professional Colleges-Admission to: Ordinance of University
of Rajasthan Ordinance No. 278-E(d)(ii)-Admission to P.G. Course
in the five Medical Colleges in State of Rajasthan-Aadition of 5%
marks to aggregate marks in the competitive examination by way of D
institutional preference if candidate has obtained MBBS degree from
the same Medical College for which selection sought-Held offends
'equality doctrine' and Constitutionally void.
The respondents had songht admission to post-gradnate courses·
in the five medical colleges affiliated to the Rajasthan University E
through a competitive examination which was common for all these five
colleges. They were not able to secure admission in any discipline even
though they had secured more marks as compared to the successful
candidates who had been granted additional marks on the basis of
Ordinance 278-E(d)(ii) of the Ordinance of University of Rajasthan.
Uoder this proviso the successful candidates were entitled to a uniform F
addition of 5% marks in the percentage of aggregate marks if they had
passed the final M.B.B.S. examination from the same institution for
iI which selection was hiing made. The respondents challenged this provi-
sion.as violative of the equality principle enshrined in Article 14 of the
Constitution. The High Court struck down as unconstitutional the
impugned provision embodied in note (d)(ii) of Ordinance 278-E. G
Dismissing the appeal, it was,
HELD: (l) The aggregate marks for all subjects put together is
2750. 5% of these makrs would work out to 137.5 marks. In the result, a
candidate from the same college will have an advantage of 137 .5 marks H
493
•
494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988) Supp. 3 S.C.R.
A over candidates from other colleges. In medical courses where there is
intense competition and candidates run neck to neck so often with a
differe'lce of a mark or two, a difference of 137 .S marks by way of
college-wise institutional preference would virtually make a mockery of
the merit criteria. [498C-D)
B (2) This factor coupled with other factors leave no room for doubt
that while on the face of it the impugned rule appears to extend or
accord equal treatment of 5% welghtage to the students of each of the
five Medical College, In actual operation It brings about oppressive and
obnoxious Inequality. Once the veil of apparent equality is pierced, the
ugly inequality stares one in the eyes which are opened to the offensive
C 'reality'. [502B·Cl
(3) Admission to post-graduate courses at SMS College at Jaipur
b.!ng considered as most advantageous, a candidate from Jaipur
College will get admission in P.G. Course at Jaipur In preference to the
other more meritorious candldntes merely because he pl!llscd the
D M.B.B.S. examination at Jaipur even though all of them secured their
marks at the lndentical competitive examination to all the Colleges. It
needs no argument that Article 14 ls seriously shattered. [4980)
(4) What may 'appear' to be equal treatment accorded in
obeisance to the equality doctrine embodied in Article 14 of the Con·
E stitution in its application In 'reality' may result In denial of equality
and may accordingly be liable to be condemned for defying the equality
doctrine. [495B]
' (5) Such being the position tbe constitutional vlllldlty of the
impugned rule cannot be sustained. It has to be buried uncere-
F moniously as uncons.tltutional being violate of Art, 14 of the Constltu·
tion of India. [S02C-D]
Nidamarti Mahesh Kumar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 80 SC
1362-(1980) 3 SCR 1302, referred to.
G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.
2461·2463 of 1987.
From the Judgment and Order dated 7 .8.1987 of the Rajasthan ·
High Court in D.B.C. Writ Petition Nos. 1374, 1387 and 1453of1987.
H Badri Das Sharma for the Appellants.
---'t-;~
•
;"'t
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. A.K. GUPTA [THAKKAR, J.] 495
Tapas Ray "and S.K. Jain for the Respondents.
A
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
THAKKAR, J. What may 'appear' to be equal treatment
acco~ded in obeisance to the equality doctrine embodied in Article 14
of the Constitution in its application in 'reality' may result in denial of B
equality and may accordingly be liable to be condemned for defying
the equality doctrine.This has been illustrated by the provision
embodied in Ordinance No. 278-E (d)(ii) of the Ordinance of Uni-
versity of Rajasthan which provides for uniform addition of 5% marks
to the students applying for admission to the post-graduate course in
any one of the five Medical Colleges provided the student has passed
his final MBBS Examination from the College to which admission in c
post-graduate course is sought. The said provision has been held to be
unconstitutional and in our opinion the conclusion reached by the
High Court is right though the reasoning which has commended itself
to this Court Is somewhat different.
D
Three Writ Petitions were instituted in the Rajasthan High
Court, (Jaipur Bench) by the Writ Petitioners who sought admission to
post-graduate courses in the Colleges affiliated to the Rajastban Uni-
versity. There arc five such Medical Colleges at five different centres
in Rajastban, viz. Jaipur, Bikaner, Udaipur, Jodbpur and Ajmer. It
appears that for the purpose of securing admission to these Colleges E
the applicants seeking admission have to appear at a competitive
examination called PMG, The passing of this Examination is a pre-
condition for securing admission to the PMG course in any one of the
aforesaid five Colleges in Rajasthan. The PMG competitive examination
is 'common' for all the five Medical Colleges. There is one syllabus and
one. combined examination is conducted by the University, The F
successful candidates arc entitled to addition of 5% marks in the
percentage of aggregate marks by way of institutional preference if the
concerned candidates had passed the final MBBS Examination con·
dµcted by the Rajastban University. A further addition of 5% of
marks by way of institutional preference in the sense of preference
dependent on the particular Medical College at which the concerned G
candidate bas passed his final MBBS examination is also provided. It is
this college-based institutional preference which has given rise to the
present controversy. Such preference is rooted in the impugned provi-
J sion nameliOrdinance 278-E(d) which deserves to be quoted:
"(d) The total marks so obtained shall be converted into H
496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988) Supp. 3 S.C.R.
percentage. The percentage so obtained shall be increased
A
as follows:
(i) By 5 if the applicant passed the final M.B.B.S. Exami-
nation from the Rajasthall University.
(ii) By another 5 if the · applicant passed the Final
M.B.B.S. Examination from the same institution for which
selections are being made."
The Writ Petitioners contended that this provision violated the
equality principle enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India and was
accord1ngly unconstitutional. It appears that while each of the five
C Medical Colleges in Rajasthan is conducting post-graduate courses in
specified specialities and super specialities, the Doctors who have
graduated from all the Medical Colleges in Rajasthan by and large
consider admission to post-graduate courses at SMS College at Jaipur
as most advantageous. In other words securing admission in post-
D graduate course at Jaipur in SMS College is ·considered to lie an
achievement and the courses at Jaipur are the most sought after
co·u'rses. The reasons underlying this keenness to secure admission in
Jaipur College are understandable inasmuch as:
(i) there are many more seats available for PG courses; and
E
(ii) there are many more specialities available at the Jaipur Col-
.!ege as compared to other Colleges;
A Tabular statement reflecting the positions of seats in the five
Medical Colleges may best scrutinized:
l
F
-------------------------------
Subject S.M.S. S.N. R.N.T. S.P. J.L.N. Total
Medical Medical Medical Medical Medical
College College College College College
Jaipur Jodhpur Udaipur Bikaner Ajmer
G
1. Genl. surgery 17(4) 10(2) 8(2) 8(2) 8(2) 51(12)
2. Genl. Medicines 21(5) 9(2) 10(3) 10(2) 11(3) 61(15)
3. T.B. & C.D. 2(1) 1(0) 1(0) 0(0) 0(0) 4(1)
4. Skin & V.D. 2(0) 1(1) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 3(1)
H
~ -~;:::-'<"' -"-<-: .;.,:
-·-- ~-~-~
~
'ti!"
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. A.K. GUPTA .[THAKKAR, J.] 497
5. Psychiatry 3(1) 0(0) 0(0) 11(0) 0(0) 4(1) A ii
6. Gyne. & Obst. 18(4) 8(2) 8(2) 8(2) 8(2) 50(12)
7. Paed. Medicine 11(3) 5(1) 4(1) 4(1) 4(1) 28(7)
8. Anaesthesia 11(3) 4(1) 4(1) 4(1) 4(1) 27(7)
9. Radio-Diagnosis 2(0) 2(1) 2(1) 2(1) 2(0) 10(3) B
10. Radio-Therapy 1(1) 0(0) 0(0) 1(0) 0(0) 2(1)
11. E.N.T. 2(0) 1(1) 1(0) 1(0) 1(1) 6(2)
12. Opthalmology 6(1) 2(0) 2(1) 2(0) 2(1) 14(3)
13. Orthopaedics 8(2) 2(1) 2(0) 2(1) 2(0) 16(4) 't
14. Pathology 4(1) 1(0) 1(0) 1(1) 1(0) 8(2)
15. Microbiology 2(1) 1(0) 1(1) 1(0) ~(O) 6(2)
16. P.S.M. 2(0) 1(0) 1(0) l(l) 1(0) 6(1)
;D
17. Physical Medicine 1(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 1(0)
& Rehabilitation
18. Anatomy 1(1) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) '1(1)
19. Physiology 0(0) 1(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 1(0)
20. Bio-Chemistry 0(0) 0(0) 1(0) 0(0) '0(0) 1(0) E
21. Pharmocology 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 1(0) 0(0) 1(0)
114(28) 49( 12) 46( 12) 47( 12) tl5(l1) 301(75)
;p
B. DIPLOMA I II III 'IV y VI
D.A. 6(1) 0 6(2) 6(1) 'O '.18(>l)
DCH. 6(2) 0 6(1) '6(2) 0 i8(5)
D.P.H. 6(1) 0 0 0 0 6('1) f6
D.G.0. 6(2) ·o 6(1) (0) 0 12(3)
D.M.R.D. 6(2) 0 (0) (0) 0 6(2)
Tot~!: 30(8) tJ 18(4) ·12(3) 0 •OO(li:S)
fH
498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS I1988) Supp. 3 S.C.R.
Note: The figures shown in bracket are the seats reserved for
A being filled up on all India basis in the year 1988.
The facility for the specialities from serial No. 18 to 21 i.e.
Anatomy, Physiology, Bio-Chemistry and Pharmacology,
are available in all the five Medical Colleges in Rajasthan.
B But from the year 1988, the facility in these specialities
will be provided by rotation.
Now it has to be realized that the aggregate marks for all subjects put
together is 2750. 5% of these marks would work out to 137 .5 marks. In
the result a candidate from the same College wiJI have an advantage of
137 .5 marks over candidates from other Colleges. In Medical courses
c where there is intense competition and candidates run neck to neck so
often with a difference of a mark or two, a difference of 137 .5 marks by
way of College-wise institutional preference would virtually make a
mockery of the merit criteria. A candidate, say from Jaipur College,
who secures 137 .5 marks less than a candidate from Jodhpur, Bikancr,
D Udalpur or Ajmer wJU get admission In P.O. Course at Jaipur In pre·
ference to the other more meritorious candidates merely because he
passed the M.B.B.S. Examination at Jaipur even though all of them
secured their marks at the identical competitive examination to all the
Colleg~s. It needs no argument that Art. 14 is seriously shattered.
E Statements filed by the parties in this Court further go to show
that some disciplines are available only in particular Colleges and not
in other Colleges. For instance:
. 1. M.D. in 'Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation' is available
only in S.M.S. College, Jaipur. ·
F
2. 'T.B. and£:.D.' is not available in Ajmer Medical College.
3. 'Skin and V.D.' is not available in Udaipur and Ajmer
Colleges.
o 4. 'Psychiatry' is available only in Jaipur and Bikaner Colleges
and not in others.
5. M.D. in 'Radio therapy' is available only in Jaipur and
Bikaner and not in other Colleges.
H An analysis of the data reflected in the aforesaid statement and
;:: ;;
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. A.K. GUPTA [THAKKAR, J.] 499
its impact on the fortunes of the students aspiring for the Post A
Graduate courses reveal:
(i) that a student passing his final degree examination in MBBS
from Jaipur would steal a march over the students passing from
the remaining four Colleges for with 5% weightage a student
from Jaipur would have. a far better chance of securing admission B
in a post-graduate C(,Jurse at Jaipur inasmuch as there are as many .
as 114 seats at the Jaipur Medical College as compared to the
number of seats ranging between 45 and 49 in each of the remain-
ing Medical Colleges regardless of the superior merits of students
from other colleges.
c
(ii) a student passing his final degree examination in M.B.B,S.
from Jaipur aspiring for admission in P.O. cour11e would have a
far better chance of securing admission in the sttbject of his
choice vis·a·vls students from all other Colleges inasmuch as in
each subject the number of scats in the Jaipur College is much D
larger .than in any of the remaining Colleges regardless of his
superior merits.
(iii) a candidate from any of the four Colleges other than Jaipur
College would have practically no chance of securing admission
in certain disciplines such as: E
(a) Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation,
(b) Anatomy, (subject to rotation after 1988)
(c) Radio therapy, and
(d) Psychiatry et.c. F
regardless of his superior merits.
(iv) A candidate with a special aptitude for a particular disci-
pline would not get admission in PG course in that discipline
unless he belongs to a College in which the particular discipline is G
available regardless of his superior merits.
The merit position in relation to the students would also undergo
a, vast change as is revealed by the tabular statement reproduced
hereunder:
500 SUPREME COURT ·REPOR'l'S !1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.
MER>tlt:P-OSll'IO'NfOF RESPONDENTS WimAND w:J:THOUT
A
'COLLEGE-WISE' INStrronoNAL WEIGHrAGE:
SI. No. Name Jvforit Position
with 5%
Institutional
- without 5%
Institutional
•.
'B 'Weightage weightage
SI.·No. Name Merit 'Position
1. Dr. AshOk'Kuma:rGupta '207 171
2. Dr. 1Rajeev A'huja 226 209
3. Dr. Ashwani Kumar Singh 201 162
(;
4. Dr. lshwar Das 177 131
5. 'Dr. Ratan Lal tiwari 215 181
6. Dr. Madhu Sanwal 97 45
·D
The fortunes of the candidates would thus·undergo a sea change.
Those who are more meritorious having secured more aggregate
•ma:rb'than·otherswould not get admission to PG courses anywhere in
Rajlisthan, whereas those with lesser -merits would get admission by
reason ·of the 5% College-wise preference. To take the case of the
iE appellilnts, they having secured aggregate marks of 1650, 1638, 1624,
161'7 and 1613 have not been able to secure admission in any discipline.
As ·against ·this candidates have secured much less marks already
>Secured <afirtiission in one or the other of the 5 Medical Colleges. In
·order :to <illustrate 'the 'point, the tabular statements reproduced
·hereilibei11w may·be•glanced at: '
'.j;
Medic~l'Cdllege Aggregate matks of 'Discipline allotted
'last candidate
·Joahpur 1548 M.D. (Anaesthesia)
I(; •
Udliipur 1626 M.S. (Surgery)
faipilr 1602 M.D. (Anaesthesia)
Bikaner 1622 M.D. (Microbiology)
If.I 'Statement'showing list of candidates, less meritorious (that the appel-
·11a1its)1Who have'Secured-admission:
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. A.K. GUPTA [THAKKAR, J.J 501 ..
'
College Aggregate marks Discipline allotted A.
Jodhpur 1610, M.D.
1605 (Medicine)
B
1601 M.D.
(Skin & V.D.)
1606, 1595, M.S.
1590 (Surgery)
c
1576, M.S.
1577 (Orthopaedics)
1582, 1570, M.D. D
1548 (Anaesthesia)
1638 M.D.
(Medicine)
1637' 1635, 1626 M.D. E
(InTB&CD,)
Psychiatry
(Skin & V.D.)
.1629, 1610, M.S . F
1604 (S\lrgery)
1620 M.S.
(Orthopaedics)
1617, 1603, 1602 M:.D. G
(Anaesthesia)
What emerges from the above statements is that wll* one of the
appellants who has secured 1650 marks in the common competitive
examination has not been able to secure admissioIJ i11 P.O. C911rse in
H
502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.
A any College in Rajasthan, a candidate who secured about 100 marks
less ( 1548 marks) in the very same examlnati<>n has been able to secure
admission, the rest of the appellants have not been able to secure
admission anywhere though they have demonstrably secured more
marks and are more meritorious than the aforesaid 22 persons. This
analysis exposes the extremely unfair and unjust impact of the
B impugned rule. This factor coupled with the four factors highlighted
earlier leave no room for doubt that while on the face of it the
impugned rule appears to extend or accord equal treatment of 5%
weightage to the students of each of the five Medical Colleges, in
actual operation it brings about oppressive and obnoxious inequality.
Once the veil of 'apparent' equality is pierced, the ugly inequality
stares one in the eyes which are opened to the offensive 'reality'. Such
c being the position the constitutional validity of the impugned rule
cannot be sustained. It has to be buried unceremoniously as uncon·
stitutional being violate of Art. J4 of the Constitution of India.
The High Court has struck down as unconstitutional the impugned
D provision embodied in note (d)(ii) of Ordinance 278-E mainly on the
ground that coupled with the institutional preference accorded under
clause (i) it would virtually amount tci making 100% reservation in
favour of the students of the Rajasthan University in the sense that no
other student of any other University would have any reasonable
chance to secure admission to these courses, relying in the principle
E enunciated in Nidamarti Mahesh Kumar v. State of Maharashtra.&
Ors., AIR 1980 SC 1362·( 1980) 3 SCR 1302, the reasoning is
reflected in the following passage extracted from paragraph 25 of the
judgment under appeal:
"Thus after having given 5% weightage on the ground of
F institutional preference that a candidate has passed his final
MBBS Examination from the University of Rajasthan,
further 5% weightage on the ground that he has passed his
MBBS final examination from the Medical College where
he seeks admission, in Post Graduate course, is unreaso;=--
able and arbitrary and does not stand the touchstone of
G Article 14 of the Constitution. If 10% weightage is given as
aforesaid it will come to 275 marks and with this increase in
marks no candidate from University other than University
of Rajasthan can get admission to Post Graduate course in
any one of the medical colleges. It is· against the equality
clause as it amounts to cent per cent reservation as 10%
H weightage in admission to Post Graduate course to a stu-
·~ ., .
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. A.K. GUPTA [THAKKAR, J.J 503
dent, 5% weightage on the University basis and 5% on the A
institutional basis, amounts to total exclusion of candidates
of other Universities. We have already referred to the
admissions for the years 1986 and 1987 and at the cost of
repetition we may say that a look at Schedules 'A' and 'B'
regarding admissions in SMS Medical College, Jaipur in
Post Graduate courses for the years 1986 and 1987 respec- B
tively will show that not a single candidate from the Uni-
versity other than University of Rajasthan could seek
admission.''
Since however a number of seats are now (since 1988) reserved in
each College for candidates on an All India basis as disclosed by the
tabular statements reproduced in the earlier part of this judgment, we
c
prefer to rest our decision on the reasoning indicated earlier. These
are the reasons which impelled us to pass the final order as under on
July 21, 1988:
"ORDER D
I
The appeals fail and are dismissed.
II
E
Ordinance 278-E(d)(ii) of the Ordinances of the
University of Rajasthan is declared as unconstitutional and
quashed.
III
F
Admissions to the Post Graduate Degre<! Courses in
all the Medical Colleges at all centres in Rajasthan shall
hereafter be made inaccordance with the decision of the
High Court rendered on August 7, 1987 in the Writ Peti-
tions giving rise to the present appeals which is hereby
confirmed.
G
TV
Future vacancies including unfilled vacancies to the
Post Graduate Degree Courses in all the Medical Colle-
ges in Rajasthan shall hereafter be filled on the basis that
Ordinance 278-E(d)(ii) is invalid provided however that
H
those students who have been admitted to Post Graduate
504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.
courses pursuant to the interim order of this Court will not
be disturbed. and will be permitted to complete their
COUfSf'.S.
v
B Ui;ifilled. vacancies may be filled in accordance with
and in the light of this order even at this juncture if it can be
so done.
VI
Reasons will follow.
c
VII
'fhcore will be no order as to costs."
R.S.S. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Article 14"Sign in to search