U.P. JUNIOR DOCTORS' ACTION COMMITTEE AND ORS. ETC.versusDR. B. SHEETAL NANDWANI AND ORS. ETC.

                                                                                  '1
                                                                                  \
                                                                                  f
                                                                                   ~·




A            U.P. JUNIOR DOCTORS' ACTION COMMITTEE
                           AND ORS. ETC.
                                v.
             DR. B. SHEET AL NANDW ANI AND ORS. ETC.

                             NOVEMBER 22, 1991

                   [RANGANATH MISRA, CJ., G.N. RAY
                        AND A.S. ANAND, JJ.]

          Admission to Professional Courses-Post-graduate courses in Medical
    Colleges-Reasonable period of study-Prescription by the Medical
C   Council-Dates of admission· and commencement of courses-Directions
    of Court-To be followed strictly--Interlocutory orders for provisional
    admission--Not to be granted unless for special reason to be indicated in
    clear terms.

         Practice & Procedure:
D
          Main relief prayed for--As a rule not to be granted at the interlocu-
    tory stage.

         These matters relate to admission in post-graduate .courses in
    the Medical Colleges in Uttar Pradesh.
E
          On a Writ Petition, which later turned out to be fake, the High
    Court had ordered that admission could be effected on the basis of
    the MBBS Examination. This has been disputed in appeal before
    this Court.

F        In another Writ Petition, pending hearing, the High Court
    directed that provisional admission be given to two candidates, one
    in MS (Surgery) and another in MD (Medicine). The Principal of
    the Medical college and others preferred an appeal against the High
    Court's order.

G        It was contended that granting admission, though provisional,
    at an interlocutory stage in a pending proceeding creates a lot of
    adverse consequences and indiscipline in the system of imparting
    education.

         Dismissing the matters, this. Court,
H

                                       384
                  JR. DOCTORS' COMMITTEE v. DR. NANDWANI                  385

            HELD : 1.1 It transpires that the proceedings before the High        A
      Court were totally fraudulent and no one by the name given in the
      petition ~ petitioner could really be identified. This Court had clearly
      indicated that no admission should be permitted on the basis of the
      MBBS results. Nothing survives now, as the High Court's order has
      already been reversed. (386 F,G]
                                                                                 B
            2.1 It is already' settled that admission for 25 per cent of the
      seats in post-graduate courses should be regulated on the basis of
      all-India selection and in regard to the remainder of 75 per cent the
      States were left to decide the procedure for admission. (387-E]

            2.2 Unless there is a sincere and thorough educational disci-        C
      pline to be gone through as a precondition to the grant of the requi-
      site certificate the lives of citizens would be at peril. The Indian
      Medical Council has prescribed a reasonable period of study, on
      expert advice, and upon taking into consideration the experience
      over th~ears as to how much study is necessary for the requisite
      qualification to be gathered. This Court has also indicated the dates      D
      of admission and commencement of the courses of str1dy. These are
      prescriptions for a purpose and are not intended to be empty for-
                               .
      malities to be .violated. [387 G, H; 388-A)

            Dr. Pradeep Jain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (1984) 3
     ' S.C.C. 654, relied on.                                                    E

           3. It is a well-known rule of practice and procedure that at
      an interlocutory stage, a relief which is asked for and is available at
      the disposal of the matter, is not (generally) granted. To have it
      granted at the threshold creates a lot of difficulties. In a case where
      the petitioner ultimately loses in a case of this type a very embar-       F
      rassing situation crops up. If he has by then read for two to three
      years, there is a claim of equity raised on the plea· that one cannot
      reverse the course of time. In a case of this type, equities should not
      be claimed or granted. Unless there is any special reason to be
      indicated in clear terms in an interlocutory order, as a rule no
      provisional admission should be granted and more so into technical         G
      courses. [388 C, DJ

           4.1 The order of the High Court in the instant case should be
      reversed but this is not being done so, on account of the fact that
-·    nine similarly placed medical graduates have already been given
      admission pursuant to such interlocutory orders by the respondents         H
     386                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (1991) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   wjthout even raising a challenge. The order was made as early as in
    February, 1991 and for nine months no steps have been taken by the
    appellants to comply with the order and they are in fact facing a
    contempt proceeding. (388-F)

         4.2 Notice had been issued to the Principals of the seven medi-
B   cal colleges who have appeared ·and given written undertakings to
    the Court by way of affidavit that there was some misunderstanding
    in regard to the requirement of a selection test for post graduate
    admission. Though there was hardly any scope for being misled, the
    benefit of doubt is being given to the Principals. The contempt pro-
    ceedings are discharged, but their undertakings are kept on record.
C   [388 G, H; 389-A)

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: I.A. No I IN C.A. No 4444
    of 1990 etc. etc.,

         From the Judgment and Order dated 25.5.90 of the Allahabad High
D   Court in CWP No. 5267 of90.                              -

         Yogeshwar Prasad, Gopal Subramanium, S.K. Mehta, Dhruv Mehta,
    Arvind Verma, Aman Vachher, Pradeep Misra and R.B. Misra for the
    appearing parties.
E
           The following order of the Court was delivered:

          The dispute in these cases relates to admission in post-graduate
    courses of the medical wing. There are seven medical colleges in the State
    ofUttar Pradesh. Sometime back in a fake writ petition the High Court of
F   Allahabad made an order that admission could be effected on the basis of_
    the MBBS results. That can counter to the decision of this Court and on
    being looked into it transpired that the proceedings before the High Court
    were totally fraudulent and no one by the name given in the petition as
    petitioner could really be identified. This Court at that stage had clearly
    indicated that the prescription by this Court has been that there should be
G   a selection test for post-graduate admission as admission has become very
    competitive and to have compliance of Article 14 of the Constitution a
    broad-based arrangement should be made. On that account this Court had
    clearly indicated that no admission should be permitted on the basis of the
    MBBS results. In view of the fact that the Allahabad High Court's order
    has already been reversed, nothing more need be done.
H
                                                                                     t·-
               JR. DOCTORS' COMMITIEE v. DR. NANDWANI                       387

 SLP (CJ ..... of 1990                                                             A

         This petition is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge
 of the Allahabad High Court dated 25.5.1990. U.P. Junior Doctors' Action
 Committee in their special leave petition whi.ch has not yet been num-
 bered challenge the order referred to above where the petitioner could not
 be identified and challenge was to the decision of the High Court dated           B
 25 .5. I 990 which permitted admission on the basis of MBBS results. Since
 we have already clarified the position and reiterated the requirement of a
 selection test the order of the High Court must be taken to have already
 been vacated. It is not necessary to entertain this special leave petition.

 CA in SLP 15354191                                                                c
       Special leave granted.

         In this appeal by special leave Principal of the Agra Medi.cal college
  along with some others is the appellant. The High Court by the impugned
  order required provisional admission in M.S. (Surgery) and in M.D. (Medi-        D
  cine) to be given to respondents 1 and 2 respectively in the Medical
  College of Agra while the writ petition was yet to be heard. The conten-
  tion raised before us is that grading admission at an interlocutory stage in
  a pending proceeding even by styling it as provisional creates lot of ad-
, verse consequences and leads to indiscipline in the system of imparting
  education. Admission into post-graduate degrees in the medical wing through-     E
  out the country has become very competitive and it has become clear that
  strict regulation is necessary. This Court by its judgment in Dr. Pradeep
 Jain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1984] 3 SCC 654 indicated that
 admission for 25 per cent of the seats in post-graduate courses should be
 regulated on the basis of all-India selection and in regard to the remainder
 15 per cent of the States were left to decide the procedure for admission.        F

       Appropriate knowledge and expertise are a prerequisite for a person
to be allowed to register himself as a medical· practitioner. Very often,
health problems require expert treatment. If anyone is authorised in soci-
ety to practise medicine or undertake medical-care without the appropriate
qualification, society exposes itself to health hazards. The prescriptions by      G
the Indian Medical Council and the attempts made by Government for
regulating the medical study are for establishing basically uniform knowledge
to be imparted to the students before they can be entrusted with the
nation's medicare. Unless there is a sincere and thorough educational
discipline to be gone through as a precondition to the grant of the requisite
certificate the lives of citizens would be at peril.                               H
     3~                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (1991] SUPP. 2 S.C.R,.

 A         The Indian Medical Council has prescribed a reasonable period of
     study on expert advice and upon taking into consideration the experience
     over the years as to how much study is necessary for the requisite qualifi-
     cation to be gathered. This Court has also indicated the dates of admission
     and commencement of the courses of study. These are prescriptions for a
     purpose and are not intended to be empty formalities to be violated.
 B
           One of the prescriptions of the Medical· Ccuncil is also the ratio
     between the teachers and the students. That again is a factor which cannot
     be brushed aside.

           It is a well..:known rule of practice and procedure that at interlocu-
 c tory stage a relief which is asked for and is available at the disposal of the
     matter is not granted. The writ petitioners wanted admission into post-
     graduate course as the main relief in the writ petition. To have it granted
     at the threshold creates a lot of difficulties. In a case where the petitioner
     ultimately loses in a case of this type a very embarrassing situation crops
     up. If he has l>y then read for two to three years, there is a claim of equity
 D   raised on the plea that one cannot reverse the course of time. In a case of
     this type equities should not be claimed or granted. Taking an overall
     picture of__the matter we are of the view that unless there is any special
     reason to be indicated in clear terms in an interlocutory order as a rule no
     provisional admission should be granted and more so into technical courses.

 E         On the basis of what we have said the order of the High Court
     should be reversed but we are not doing so on account of the fact that nine
     similarly placed medical graduates have already been given admission
     pursuant to such interlocutory orders by the respondents without even
     raising a challenge. The order was made as early as in February, 1991 and
     for all these nine months no steps have been taken by the appellants to
 F   comply with the order and,_they are in fact facing a contem9t proceeding.
     While on principle we indfoate that such provisional admission should not
     be granted. we dismiss this special leave petition and sustain the order not
     on merits but for the reason indicated. The interlocutory application in the
     civil appeal need not be further dealt with in view of what we have said
     above.
·G
           We had .issued notice. to the Principals of the seven medical col-
     leges. They liiive appeared and have given a written undertaking to the
     Court by way of affidavit that there was some misunderstanding in regard
     to the requirement of a selection test for post-graduate admission. There
     were two-year and three-year courses running simultaneously for some
 H   period and some confusion was there as to whether the two-year course
            JR. DOCTORS' COMMITTEE v. DR. NANDWANI                    389

students were covered by the direction of this Court. Though we are of the   A
view that there was hardly any scope for being misled, we are prepared to
give the benefit of doubt to the Principals. The contempt proceedings are
withdrawn but the undertaking are kept on record.

G.N.                                                  Appeals dismissed.