JUDGMENT
D.R. Dhanuka, J.
1. These petitions filed by the various students seeking admission to M.B.B.S. course during the academic year 1994-95 involve consideration of the following questions :—
(i) Whether the Rules for selection to M.B.B.S./B.D.S. Courses and particularly Rule 3.3.0 prohibits the candidates like the petitioners passing qualifying examination in March, 1993 as ineligible for seeking admission to M.B.B.S./B.D.S. courses for the academic year 1994-95?
(ii) Whether Rules for admission to M.B.B.S./B.D.S. courses for the academic year 1994-95 issued and published by the State Government on 10th June, 1994 and particularly Rule 3.3.0 treats the candidates passing the qualifying examination i.e. H.S.C. (12th Standard) examination in the month of March, 1994 alone as eligible for admission to such courses?
(iii) Whether the view taken by the Division Bench of our High Court i.e. Aurangabad Bench Aurangabad in Writ Petition No. 2143 of 1994 and companion matters requires reconsideration by larger bench of this Court?
2. For the sake of convenience, we shall summarise the facts concerning Writ Petition No. 3867 of 1994 in the first instance.
(a) Sometime in the month of March, 1993, the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3867 of 1994 appeared for higher secondary certificate examination conducted by the Maharashtra Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Pune and passed the said examination. The petitioners secured marks in the said examination as set out in para 3(A) of the petition.
(b) On June 5, 1993, the Government of Maharashtra issued and published “Rules for Admission” to the Government and private medical, dental, ayurvedic, homoeopathic and unani courses conducting degree courses for the year 1993-94. The relevant rule of eligibility prescribed under the said Government Resolution reads as under :
“The applicant must have passed Higher Secondary Certificate (12th std. Science) examination of the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education or the Indian School Certificate Examination (12th std. Science,) or any other equivalent examination from an institution situated in the State of Maharashtra and consisting of the subjects of Physics, Chemistry, Biology (Botany & Zoology) and English.”
The said rule did not prescribe that the applicant must have passed higher secondary certificate examination during the year in which the admission was sought to the courses concerned.
(c) The petitioners applied for admission to M.B.B.S. course. The petitioners were found eligible and qualified for admission. The petitioners were not selected for admission against free seats. The petitioners could not make arrangements to pay a sum of Rs. 1,71,500/- and furnish bank guarantee as required for availing of the payment sheets in private colleges.
(d) On 10th June, 1994, Government Resolution bearing No. A.D.M. 1094/C.R.-238/94/E.D.U. was issued and published concerning rules for selction to M.B.B.S. and B.D.S. Courses for the year 1994-95. Rule 3.3.0 of the said Rules is directly relevant for our purpose. The said rule reads as under :-
“3.3.0 QUALIFYING EXAMINATIONS
3.3.1 H.S.C. OR EQUIVALENT EXAMINATION
An applicant must have passed Higher Secondary Certificate (12th std. Science) examination of the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education or the Indian Secondary Certificate Examination (12th std. Science) or any other equivalent examination from an institution situated in the State of Maharashtra.”
(e) The said Rule 3.3.1 also did not prescribe as a condition of eligibility that the applicant must have necessarily passed higher secondary certificate examination of the Board during the current year only.
(f) The petitioners applied for admission to medical course for free seats as well as in payment seats for the academic year 1994-95. On July 9, 1994. The prescribed authority displayed the Regional provisional merit list wherein the petitioners’ names appeared as per their rank on merits.
(g) On July 6, 1994, the State Government issued a Government Resolution copy whereof is Exhibit `D’ to the petition. The said resolution does not appear to be relevant for the purpose of consideration of this petition.
3. In Writ Petition No. 2143 of 1994, the Aurangabad Bench of our High Court has taken a view to the effect that the said Rule 3.3.1 of Government Resolution dated 10th June, 1994 must be read down so as to restrict the admission for the M.B.B.S. and B.D.S. Courses to the students who have passed their qualifying examination during the current year 1994-95 only. In para, 28 of the judgment delivered by Brother Justices Halbe and Mutalik, JJ., it has been observed that the candidates who had passed their qualifying examination during the earlier years had their chance of consideration and were not eligible for being considered for admission during the year 1994-95. By operative part of the order, the Honourable Judges have directed the respondents in the said petition to prepare fresh merit list excluding the candidates of the previous years, namely, 1993 and years thereto before.
4. It appears to us that it is not necessary to summarise the facts concerning other writ petitions. The basic controversy arising in all these writ petitions is as to whether the condition of eligibility prescribed by the Government Resolution dated 10th June, 1994 can be read down so as to exclude all those who had passed their qualifying examination during the earlier years.
5. It has been the contention of the State of Maharashtra and the prescribed authorities throughout that it has been the consistent practice in the State throughout so as not to exclude the students who had appeared in the qualifying examination during the earlier years.
6. We have read and re-read the judgment of Brother Justice Halbe and Mutalik in Writ Petition No. 2143 of 1994. With respect, we are unable to subscribe to the view taken by our learned colleagues at Aurangabad in the above referred decision. According to us, Rule 3.3.0 must be interpreted according to its plain language and it is not open to the Court to add words or subtract words while interpreting the rule. In certain situations only it is open to the Courts to remedy an omission or add words in a statute. If necessary, a reference may be made to the statement of law well formulated in para. 862 of Halsbury’s Laws of England, Vol. 44. In foot note 9 appended to the said para, it is clearly stated that words should not be added where to do so would amount to legislation and not construction. If the statute is unworkable and if the plain meaning of the statute results in absurdity, the Court may sometimes step in and give effect to the legislative intention and add words or reject words appearing in the statute. That is not the case here. The above referred rules of interpretation shall have to be borne in mind while interpreting the above referred Government resolutions although the said resolutions are not legislative instruments as such. We are not satisfied that the above referred Rule 3.3.9 would have been exposed to the risk of being declared ultra vires Article 14of Constitution of India if it was interpreted to mean and include all students who have passed their qualifying examination in one year or another. With respect to our learned colleagues who decided the above referred matter, we must also observe that the language of Rule 3.3.0 is not at all ambiguous. In the absence of any ambiguity in the said rule, there is no scope for adding words or implying restriction in respect of conditions of eligibility prescribed by the said rule as done by the Court in the above case. In this situation, we are not persuaded to follow the ratio of the judgment of the Division Bench of our Court in Writ Petition No. 2143 of 1994. It is, therefore, our plain duty to make a recommendation to the Honourable the Chief Justice to refer all these petitions to the larger Bench for purpose of considering the questions formulated by the Court hereinabove. Urgency and emergency is the need of the hour. The students who have filed these writ petitions are on the verge of losing their academic career and it is desirable that a solution to the problem under consideration is provided for by the larger Bench of this Court at the earliest possible.
7. Since the matter is extremely urgent, we refrain ourselves from referring to large number of authorities which would have been referred to in this referring judgment.
8. We direct that the Registrar, High Court, Appellate Side, do place the papers and proceedings in all these writ petitions alongwith the copy of this judgment before the Honourable the Chief Justice. We request that the Larger Bench be constituted if possible within a few days in view of the visible anxiety of the students and their parents waiting in the queue.