JUDGMENT
P.D. Desai, C.J.
1. This judgment will be read along with the interim orders made from time to time in the course of the present proceeding and, more particularly, the interim order passed on Oct. 30, 1985.
2. Three separate Committees of Experts, one each for the subjects of Chemistry, Physics and Biology, appointed pursuant to the interim order passed on Oct. 30, 1985, have duly submitted their reports. The question papers of the petitioners were re-examined/re-checked in light of those reports. The position that has emerged upon such re-examination/ re-checking is set out in a statement filed in the Court under the signature of the Registrar of the respondent University on Dec. 17, 1985.
The statement reveals that petitioner No., 8, Taruna Nayyar, is the only one to secure a benefit on account of such re-examination/ re-checking. She has secured 218 marks upon re-examination/re-checking against 217 marks which she had secured upon original evaluation. The last candidate admitted in the First Year M.B.B.S. Course in the academic session 1985-86 had also secured 218 marks. Both, the last candidate accordingly securing admission and the petitioner No. 8, have thus obtained equal marks. According to the relevant provision made in S. V of the Prospectus for Graduate (M.B.B.S.) Course 1985-86 of the Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, the inter se ranking of the candidates obtaining equal aggregate marks in the competitive examination shall be according to the aggregate marks obtained by such candidates in Physics, Chemistry and Biology of the qualifying examination (Pre-medical). The respondent-University has clarified that petitioner No. 8 has obtained higher aggregate marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology than the last candidate admitted on the strength of his having secured equal number of marks (218 marks) and that under those circumstances she becomes entitled to claim admission in the First Year M.B.B.S. Course in the academic session 1985-86 in preference to the said candidate.
3. On behalf of the Medical Council of India, upon whom notice was ordered to issue on Dec. 26, 1985, to show cause why the Court should not direct that one seat be increased in the First Year M.B.B.S. Course in the Indira Gandhi Medical College Shimla, in the academic session 1985-86 in order to give admission to petitioner No. 8 in light of the foregoing position, an affidavit-in-reply dated January 8, 1986, has been filed opposing the issue of the proposed direction on two grounds. First, that in the course of the inspection carried out in May/June 1983 by three Inspectors appointed by the Medical Council of India it was found that the available teaching facilities for undergraduate teaching at the Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, were not adequate even for the candidates admitted in the existing number of seats and that the several recommendations to bring about improvements made in the Report of
the Inspectors have still not been implemented by the competent authority and that if any increase in seats is ordered, the same would adversely affect the standard of medical education and, second, that according to the Regulation of the Medical Council of India, the Pre. Clinical Course for 18 months has to be undergone by a candidate who appears at the First Year M.B.B.S. examination and that it is not likely that petitioner No. 8 would be able to complete the said Course if admission is granted to her at the present stage. The Court has taken into consideration the objections raised by the Medical Council of India. The Court is, however, not inclined to deny to petitioner No. 8 the relief of grant of admission in the First Year M.B.B.S. Course in the academic session 1985-86 by the increase of one seat on the basis of these objections. The only other way of granting the relief due to petitioner No. 8 is to quash the admission of the last candidate who has been admitted in the said course before six months and to adopt such a course of action appears to the Court to be inexpedient in the interest of justice. The addition of one more seat to a course for which sixty five seats are akeady sanctioned by the Medical Council of India cannot possibly disturb the academic balance to such an extent that it can be regarded as adversely affecting the standard of medical education. The Acting Director of the Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, who is present in the Court, states that even if the petitioner is granted admission in the First Year M.B.B.S. Course in the current academic session at this stage, she will be permitted to appear in the concerned examination only after she has undergone the pre-clinical Course for 18 months and that the relevant Regulation of the Medical Council of India will be accordingly complied with. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, it appears to the Court to be just and proper to direct that petitioner No. 8 be given admission in the said College in the First Year M.B.B.S. Course in the academic session 1985-86 by increasing one seal. Be it stated that in granting this relief the Court has been guided by the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Bhagwant Singh, AIR 1985 SC 981.
4. The Petitioner will be granted
admission in the First Year M.B.B.S. Course in the Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, tomorrow, that is Jan. 7, 1986. All the concerned authorities will take appropriate action in accordance with law in order to comply with these directions. The codal formalities, if any, will be completed soonest thereafter by the concerned authorities.
5. It is not in dispute that the petition does riot survive qua the rest of the petitioners and that they are not entitled to any relief on the basis of the re-examination/re-checking of their papers.
6. Rule made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.
7. Before parting with the case, the Court would like to observe that it is perturbing to find that the recommendations made in the course of their Inspection Report by the Inspectors nominated by the Medical Council of India in May/June, 1983 concerning improvement in the teaching facilities for undergraduate teaching in the Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, have still not been implemented. As pointed out in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Medical Council of India, non-implementation of those recommendations may adversely affect the standard of medical education. The State Government will, therefore, take expeditious action in the direction of compliance with the recommendations lest the Medical Council of India is compelled to take a stricter view resulting in bringing a bad name to the College and the infliction of avoidable hardship upon the student community.
8. By the consent of the parties, the Court passes the following interim order :
(1) From amongst the University professors, other than the Professors of the respondent University and those of the Universities in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Jammu and Kashmir, the Court will constitute three separate Committees of Experts, one each for the subjects of Chemistry, Physics and Biology, for the purposes of ascertaining and certifying whether the key answer(s) to any one or more of the objective-type questions) in the concerned subject is (are) demonstrably wrong, that is to say, such as no reasonable body of men well versed in the particular
subject would regard as correct. The petitioners and the respondent-university will be at liberty to suggest the names of Experts to be nominated on each of the Committees.
(2) The respondent-University will refer the question paper together with the key-answers in each of the subjects of Chemistry, Physics and Biology to the concerned Committee of Experts for the aforesaid purposes. If the Committee comes to the conclusion that any one or more of the key answers is demonstrably wrong, it will also further ascertain and certify whether any of the alternative key-answer of such question is correct answer. If not, the committee will indicate the correct answer.
(3) The Committees will submit their reports to the Court within a period of 15 days from the date of the communication by the respondent-University of their appointment as the Members of such Committees.
(4) Upon receipt of the report of the Committees, the question papers of the petitioners will be re-examined in light of such reports, if any one or more of the key-answers is found to be demonstrably wrong.
(5) If any one or more of the petitioners has not been given marks against one or more of questions in the papers in the subjects of Physics and Biology on the ground that there was erasures or cuttings, those question papers will be re-evaluated, and marks will be assigned on the basis of the key-answer(s) as certified by the concerned Committee ignoring such erasures and cuttings.
(6) The Court will consider the grant of appropriate relief to the petitioners in light of such re-evaluation, if any, subject, however, to the condition that the admission already granted will not be disturbed.
(7) No fresh petition will be entertained by the Court hereafter and none other than the petitioners shall be entitled to relief on the
basis of the formula hereinabove evolved.
(8) The parties have agreed to abide by the result of the re-evaluation, if any, undertaken on the strength of the directions given hereinabove.
9. Adjourned to October 31, 1985.
10. Let an ordinary copy of this order, duly authenticated by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial), be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties during the course of the day today.
11. Pursuant to the consent order passed on Oct. 30, 1985, the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent-University have suggested a panel of Experts, in each subject, for nomination to each of the Committees of Experts. Out of the names suggested by both the parties, the Court has selected five names, in the order of preference, for the constitution of each, of the Committees of Experts. The lists containing the names accordingly selected have been placed in a sealed cover under the signature of the Secretary to the Chief Justice. The learned counsel for the respondent-University will personally hand over the sealed cover to the Acting Vice Chancellor. The Acting Vice Chancellor will intimate to the first three persons in each of the lists that they have been appointed on the concerned Committee as members and also apprised them of the nature of their functions and duties and take all the necessary and incidental steps for the purposes of the discharge of such functions and duties. In case any of the experts so appointed expresses his inability to function as a member of the Committee, the person next in the order of preference in the concerned list will be appointed on the Committee. The remuneration payable to the members of the Committee will be determined by the respondent-University in accordance with its extant rules/regulations, instructions on the subjects.
12. Let an ordinary copy of this order, duly authenticated by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial), be furnished to the learned counsel for the respondent-University during the course of the day today.
13. Adjourned to November 20, 1985.
14. In view of the report submitted by the Committee of Experts pursuant to the interim order made on Oct. 30, 1985, it becomes apparent that the petition survives only qua petitioner No. 8 (Kumari Taruna Nayyer) who upon re-evaluation, has secured
218 marks, which are equivalent to the marks obtained by the last candidate admitted in the First Year M.B.B.S. Course in the academic Session 1985-86. The question of granting relief to the said petitioner, therefore,
survives.
15. In order that an equitable relief can be granted to her by directing that she be admitted in the First Year M.B.B.S. Course in the academic Session 1985-86, the presence of the Medical Council of India before the Court is essential since the question of increase of the sanctioned strength of seats may require consideration.
16. Let notice issue to the Medical Council of India, New Delhi, returnable on December 31, 1985 to show cause why the Court should not direct that one seat be increased in the First Year M.B.B.S. Course in the Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, for the academic Session 1985-86. If nocause is shown by the Medical Council of India on or before the returnable date, the court will presume that the Council has no objection to the increase of one seat and consequential
orders will be made on the basis of such presumption. Service of the notice to be effected on the Secretary of the Medical Council of India, Dasti service permitted. The packet containing the notice to be handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioners in the Course of the day today.