JUDGMENT
Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. The petitioner Dr. Jai Hari Jai Aggarwal by the present writ petition seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned Note 2 in Clause II contained in the Bulletin of Information (Post- Doctoral/Post Graduate Degree/Diploma Courses) Session-2002 of the University of Delhi. The above Note requires a Diploma Holder who is desirous of obtaining admission in the post Graduate Degree course i.e. MD in a subject other than that of the Diploma, to give a gap of 2 years. Alternatively, it is prayed that the said impugned Note 2 to Clause II be held as prospective in operation and not applicable to the petitioner.
2. The factual matrix of the case may be briefly noticed. The petitioner has excellent academic credentials and has attained the 1st position in the merit list in the entrance test conducted by University of Delhi for admission to Post-Graduate course in Session 2002. The petitioner had completed his MBBS in the year 1996, and enrolled himself for 2 years Diploma course in DTCD called Diploma in Tuberculosis and Chest Diseases (for short DTCD). The petitioner successfully completed the said course during the period 1999 to 2001.
3. The predicament of the petitioner is that he wants to seek admission to Post Graduate Degree Course i.e. MD in Radio-Diagnosis. The petitioner would be eligible to be admitted to the MD course for admission, but for Note 2 in clause II of the Bulletin of Information. The relevant provisions are reproduced as below:
II. Duration of Courses:
The period of training for obtaining these degrees shall be three completed years including the period of examination:
Provided that in the case of students having a recognized two years Postgraduate diploma course in the same subject, the period of training including the examination shall be two years.
NOTE
1. Student having diploma, if he or she seeks admission in any other MD/MS course will undergo 3 years course.
2. There shall be a gap of at least two years if diploma holders seeks admission in any other subject (other than in which he or she has done diploma) .”
4. The petitioner assails the above condition requiring a Diploma Holder to give a gap of two years, if he wishes to do the Post Graduate Degree course in a subject other than that of the Diploma, as arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory and liable to be struck down, being in contravention of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner having done in Diploma in DTCD is now an aspirant for the Post Graduate Degree Course in Radio-Diagnosis. The compatible Post Graduate Decree course in the same discipline as that of the Diploma, would be MD in Pulmonary Medicine.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Dhingra, while assailing Note 2, submitted that the condition does not subserve public interest or public good. It has no nexus or rationale with the object sought to be achieved rather it compels a candidate to idle away his time for two years, if he wishes to pursue another discipline. Learned counsel has also submitted that such restrictive condition is not applicable to those who have done a Post Graduate Degree course in one discipline and want to pursue a Post Graduate Degree in another discipline. It does not also apply to any candidate wishing to pursue a Diploma in another discipline. Learned counsel for the petitioner also assailed the condition as not binding or applicable to the petitioner. He submitted that it was not in existence, when the petitioner enrolled himself for the DTCD course in 1999. The condition, admittedly, has only now been introduced for the Session 2002. He argued that introduction of such a condition could only be prospective and cannot bind the candidate, who has already completed his Diploma. It was urged that when the petitioner enrolled himself for the Diploma in DTCD and completed the same. there was no such restriction and the petitioner was free to do the Post Graduate Degree course in any other discipline.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Dhingra further supplemented his submissions by pointing out that most of the Institutions do not have any similar embargo requiring a two years gap or waiting period. He relied on Mohini Jain (Miss) v. State of Karnataka and others reported at in support of his contention regarding right to education being concomitant to the fundamental rights enshrined under Part III of the Constitution. He submitted that the State was under a constitutional mandate to create conditions in which the fundamental rights guaranteed to the individuals under Part III could be enjoyed by all and such a right would not be complete without citizen being able to pursue the right to education guaranteed under Article 41 and strive for excellence as enshrined in Article 51 of the Constitution of India.
7. Reference was also made to Dr. Preeti Srivastava and another v. State of M.P. and Ors. reported at in support of his contention that it was the obligation of the Medical Council of India to frame the regulations and set the standard for Medical education and it was not within the competence of Delhi University to impose such a condition. He also submitted that the Post Graduate Regulations of 2000 framed by the Medical Council of India also do not contain any such embargo or condition. 8 Learned counsel also assailed the condition as being arbitrary and restrictive to the pursuit of further studies and excellence in as much as if a candidate having done Diploma in DTCD was required to do the Post Graduate Degree or MD only in Pulmonary Medicine. It could block future growth in as much as there was no D.M. available in Pulmonary Medicine. He thus urged that there should be no fetter placed in pursuit of education. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the subject, namely, Radio-Diagnosis in which the petitioner wanted to pursue the Post Graduate Course, the Diploma already done in DTCD would be of great help. Rather the Post Graduation in Radio-Diagnostic would enable the candidate to have the benefit of revolutionized diagnostic capabilities on account of new imaging techniques like ultrasound, Cat-Scan and MRI. In other words, it was submitted that knowledge gained by the petitioner in DTCD Course would be further supplemented and enable the petitioner as the two disciplines were closely inter-related to each other. While MD in Radio-diagnosis would equip the incumbent with latest knowledge in Diagnostic techniques, DTCD Diploma would imbibe the skills as a chest clinician. Cumulatively it would improve the diagnostic and clinical capabilities. The combination of the two would be extremely useful. To put it simply, it was not a case of a subject being unrelated to the other, rather it is a situation where one course and experience would complement and supplement the other.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Mariaputtham fairly concedes that the condition had been introduced only with effect from the year 2002. He submitted that the purpose and object of introduction of this condition was to ensure that the Society benefits from the experience and knowledge acquired by a candidate, while pursuing a particular discipline. He submitted that the Society would benefit if the knowledge and experience gained is utilized. Further, in this era of specialization it would encourage candidates seeking specialization in their respective fields or subjects. Medical education is expensive and heavily subsidized by the State. The candidates receive salary and stipend during pursuit of these courses. The impugned condition was intended to ensure that Society benefits from the experience of the candidate in its field or specialization.
As regards the challenge on grounds of prospectivity, learned counsel submitted that it was open for the University to introduce a condition prospectively. The restriction is on admission to a Post Graduate Degree Course in a different discipline and not on a change of condition in Diploma Course, which the petitioner has already completed.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent, in opposing the writ petition submitted that interference by the Courts in academic matters should be minimal and such decision should be left to Experts in the field. He relied on University of Mysore and Anr. v. C.D. Govinda Rao and Anr. and Medical Council of India v. State Sarang and Ors. . It has been held in the above decisions that in matters of setting up of academic standards, courses etc., Court should not normally interfere or interpret rules and such matters should be left to the Experts in the field. Reference was lastly made to Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology and Anr. v. Gangandeep Sharma and Anr. , wherein it was held that prescribing the academic standards falls exclusively in the domain of special bodies like the Senate, Governing body etc. The Court would not normally interfere with such prescribed standards and especially, when they are intended to improve the academic standards in their respective institutes. The scope of judicial review in such matters would be very limited. Learned counsel for the respondent, therefore, contended that the Court would be pleased not to interfere in the matter or entertain the writ petition.
11. There is no dispute with regard to the principles as enumerated in the judicial pronouncements noted above. However, the question in the present case is really not concerning the criteria or academic standards. Rather the question involved is with regard to the validity of a restriction being put on the pursuit of a course. An embargo or gap is being introduced so as to disentitle a candidate from pursuing the educational Court comes to conclusion that the restriction or embargo is discriminatory, arbitrary, irrational and has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved, it would be entitled to interfere in the matter, despite the limitations of judicial review and the constraint of minimal interference in academic matters.
12. Let us examine the impugned Note under challenge.
It would be noticed from Clause II that in case a candidate is pursuing a MD or Post Graduate Degree course in the same subject, in which he did a Diploma, the period of training including examination is only of two years. As against it, if a candidate having a Diploma seeks admission to Post Graduate Degree Course in another subject, the duration of the MD course is three years. Thus, there is already an incentive provided for pursuing the Diploma and Post Graduate degree in the same subject as the Post Graduate Degree would be completed within a lesser period of two years. There is a corresponding disincentive in case the candidate chooses to pursue Post Graduate Degree in a subject other than that of his Diploma, which entails further period of one year. The impugned Note 2 prescribes the two year waiting period in the following terms:
“NOTE: 2. There shall be a gap of at least two years if diploma holders seeks admission in any other subject (other than in which the he or she has done diploma).”
I find merit in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the above condition is arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also an unreasonable restriction on the right to education under Article 41 and impinges upon the petitioner’s pursuit of excellence in terms of Article 51A(j) of the Constitution of India. It requires a candidate who wishes to change to another subject, to wait for a period of two years. This condition would also not subserve public good in case in case a Doctor or a Diploma Holder is made to wait for a period of two years before he is permitted to pursue a Post Graduate Degree course of his choice. A disinterested or distraught candidate during this intervening period could hardly be of any gain to the society or subserve the public good. The candidates pursuing a Diploma Course are already Doctors, having MBBS Degree. Such candidates are discharging their duties in Hospital wards, holding clinics etc. They are regularly paid for the services being rendered. Thus at all stages i.e. either while pursuing the Diploma Course or MD course, the candidate are performing their regular medical duties for which they are paid. Hence the plea of the Respondent that the Diploma Holder must serve for two years before being permitted to pursue MD course on account of society not getting benefit for the subsidized expensive medical education, is of no avail and not tenable.
13. There is also no rationale for imposing such a condition on a Diploma Holder, when a Post Graduate Degree holder can without any waiting period take up a Post Graduate Course in another discipline. Similar is the position for changing from one Diploma course to another diploma course. The professed rationale or justification and reasons advanced for a waiting period for Diploma Course would apply with greater vigour to those pursuing Post-graduate Degree or MD course in a different subject. However, it is only the Diploma Holders who have been singled out for the embargo of two years waiting period, without any rationale or justification. Considering the view being taken on the validity of Note II, it is not necessary to deal or pronounce on the plea of the petitioner of the condition in Note II being beyond the power and competence of the Delhi University, as the same falls within the domain of Medical Council of India or on the plea that the condition being prospective in nature is not binding on the petitioner.
14. A blanket condition has been imposed prescribing a waiting period for change from subject of the Diploma to another Post Graduate subject. This condition has been applied without giving any thought or attention to the fact that number of subject done in the Diploma course could be complementary to or be inextricably linked with the subjects of the Post Graduate Course. this aspect has not been considered at all and the condition impose a general and blanket waiting period of two years irrespective of their being any co-relation or one subject complementing the other i.e. the Diploma course and the Post Graduate Course. This becomes apparent even from the present case.
15. Taking the case of the petitioner at hand, here is a candidate who has stood first in the entrance exam and is, therefore, fully eligible for admission to the Post Graduate Degree Courses. He happened to do a diploma in DTCD. He wants to pursue MD in Radio-Diagnosis. The petitioner has also produced on record a certificate from Dr. Pritam Singh, MBBS, DTCD, DMRD, Head of the Department Radiology, RBTB Hospital, The said certificate is in the following terms:
“In my opinion Radio-diagnosis has revolutionised the diagnostic capabilities of the clinicians. Since it is not restricted to conventional X-Ray but includes newer Imaging Techniques like Ultrasound, CAT-Scan & MRI etc.
The proper management of the patients by clinician depends upon the timely and accurate diagnosis for which the knowledge of Radiology & newer Imaging techniques is very essential in the emerging scenario in the world.
I myself had done Post graduation in TB & Chest Diseases (DTCD) in year 1974 and later on to strengthen my diagnostic ability, I did post graduation in Radio-diagnosis (DMRD) in year 1977. In my further experience of more than 27 years the above combination of two speciality is very closely related and it certainly helped the chest clinician to improve his clinical expertise. Infact the knowledge of Radio-diagnosis is the back-bone of a good TB & Chest specialist.”
16. From the foregoing it would be seen that in the instant case the petitioner is seeking admission to Post Graduate Degree course although not in the same discipline but in a discipline which is complimentary and the knowledge gained in the Diploma would get further supplemented by the MD Course in Radiology. In view of the foregoing discussion, I hold that Note 2 in Clause II of Bulletin of Information (Post-Doctoral/ Post-Graduate Degree/Diploma Courses) Session-2002, which requires a student of Diploma Holder to wait for two years before he seeks admission in a subject other than which he has done Diploma as arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is also an unreasonable restriction on the right to education under Article 41 of the Constitution of India and impinges upon the pursuit of excellence as enshrined under Article 51(A)(j) of the Constitution of India. The same is liable to be quashed and is quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to be considered for admission to MD Radio-Diagnosis Course in accordance with his position and merit.
The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.
