PETITIONER:
MRIDULA AVASTHI & ORS. ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT27/04/1988
BENCH:
MISRA RANGNATH
BENCH:
MISRA RANGNATH
DUTT, M.M. (J)
CITATION:
1988 SCR (3) 762 1988 SCC (2) 572
JT 1988 (2) 220 1988 SCALE (1)813
ACT:
Professional Colleges-Medical Colleges-Post Graduate
Medical courses Admission to-Delhi University adopting three
year P.G. degree and two year diploma courses from 1988-As a
transitory measure old system continued for the 1988
academic session only-Candidates with one year housemanship
made ineligible-Common selection list for both seniors and
freshers-Validity of-Directions issued.
HEADNOTE:
Pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court in Dr.
Dinesh Kumar & Ors v. Motilal Nehru Medical College
Allahabad, & Ors. [1987] 4 SCC 459 regarding uniformity in
post-graduate medical education, respondent No. 1-the
University of Delhi, decided to adopt the three years course
for the post-graduate degree and a two years course for the
diploma commencing from the academic session of 1988.
However, with a view to mitigating hardship to
candidates/students who had already completed the house job
and had become entitled to undergo the post-graduate course
in two years, as a transitory provision, the respondent-
University decided to continue the practice prevailing prior
to 1988 for a year. It evolved a scheme whereunder, the
number of seats for the post-graduate course and diploma
course available in the previous year for a student who had
completed one year's housemanship were left untouched. As a
transitional provision, the University agreed to fix 75%
quota, for the 1988 session only. As per a Note in the
scheme, candidates who had done house job/Junior Residency
for period of one year were not eligible for admission to 3
years post-graduate degree and 2 years post-graduate diploma
course.
The prospectus, however, prescribed one common
selection test for both the categories.
A set of writ petitions were filed before the High
Court challenging the scheme of the University mainly on the
basis that when there was one selection test, merit should
prevail and classification in the manner indicated by the
scheme was bad. The High Court made an interim
763
order requiring the University to have the selection
completed on the basis of merit adjudged in the common
selection test.
Disposing of the Writ Petitions and some cases
transferred from the High Court,
^
HELD: The seniors who have already done one year's
housemanship and freshers belong to two categories and
cannot be said to be equal. The question of test of
comparative merit would not have arisen if the University
had not prescribed a common selection test for these two
categories. If the merit list of the selection test is
followed, more seniors are entitled to admission and the
scheme of reservation would not work. [765F-G]
While selection in the higher course should be on the
basis of merit in the peculiar facts and circumstances of
this case, purely confined to a transitory measure, the
situation has to be handled not by first principles but by a
somewhat informed pragmatic adhocism especially because the
situation would not reoccur. [766D]
The impasse created on account of rival claims by
freshers and seniors has to have a rough and ready solution-
yet not arbitrary and as acceptable and satisfying as
possible. [766F]
With a view to providing some more seats for seniors,
the respondent University should create one seat in every
speciality. Thus, 21 additional seats will be available over
and above the seats fixed by the University representing
75%. From the reserved seats made for the freshers, 21
seats, being one from every speciality, should be taken away
and made available to the seniors. Thus, 42 seats in all
will be available for the seniors in the Post-Graduate
course to be filled up on the basis of inter se merit,
keeping the senior group apart. [766G-H; 767A-B]
The Central Government should make the necessary
provisions for funds. The Indian Medical Council may provide
the necessary accommodation by relaxing the requirements.
[767D]
Dr. Dinesh Kumar v. Motilal Nehru College, Allahabad &
Ors., [1987] 4 SCC 459, referred to.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) NO.
194 of 1988. etc etc.
764
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
D.D. Thakur, T.S. Krishnamurthi Iyer, Rajesh Mitra, Ms.
Santosh Kalra, H.K. Puri, R.L. Roshan, S.S. Sabharwal, S.K.
Sabharwal, and M.K.D. Namboodiri for the Petitioners.
P.P. Rao, S.N. Kacker, G. Rath, Mrs. A. Mathur, A.
Mariarputham, C.M. Nayyar, D.S. Narula, Kailash Vasudev,
Mrs. Uma Jain and P.K. Mehta for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
O R D E R
The writ application under Article 32 and the
transferred writ petitions from the Delhi High Court relate
to selection of medical graduates for undertaking post
graduate study for the year 1988 under the Delhi University.
In Dr. Dinesh Kumar v. Motilal Nehru College, Allahabad &
Ors., this Court emphasised the desirability of post
graduate education in the Medical Faculty as far as possible
to have uniformity throughout the country. It, therefore,
commended to the educational institutions which followed the
system of one year house job followed by two years’ post-
graduate course to switch over to the pattern of a three
year post-graduate course with house job in the first year.
On September 25, 1987, in the very same matter, when the
Court made an order reported in 1987 4 SCC 459, it was
pointed out that in some States the post graduate course is
for a term of two years with one year housemanship while in
the other States it is a full term of three years. This
Court, therefore, directed with a view to bringing about
uniformity on the basis of the principle accepted in the
earlier decision that for admission beginning from 1993,
there would be only one pattern, namely, a three year
integrated course without any separate housemanship. The
University of Delhi decided to adopt the three year course
for the post-graduate degree and a two year course for the
diploma commencing from the academic Session of 1988. With a
view to mitigating hardship to candidates/students who had
already completed the house job and had become entitled to
undergo the postgraduate course in two years, as a
transitory provision, the University decided to continue the
practice prevailing prior to 1988 for a year. The University
evolved a scheme where under the number of seats for the
post-graduate course and diploma course available in the
previous year for a student who had completed one year’s
housemanship were left untouched. The number of such seats
are 198 for the degree course
765
and 111 for the diploma course. Out of these 25% being
placed at the disposal of the Government of India to be
filled-up on all India selection basis, the exact number
available to be filled-up by the University worked out to
149 and 84 respectively. As a transitional provision
intended for the 1988 Session only the University agreed to
fix 75% quota (representing 139 seats in the three-year
degree course and 66 seats in the two-year diploma course).
The following was specified a part of the Scheme:
“Important Note
Candidates who have done house job/junior
Residency for a period of one year are not
eligible for admission to 3 years Post-Graduate
Degree and 2 years PostGraduate Diploma Course.”
The prospectus, however, prescribed one common selection
test.
A set of writ petitions were filed before the Delhi
High Court challenging the scheme of the University mainly
on the basis that when there was one selection test, merit
should prevail and classification in the manner indicated by
the scheme was bad. Reliance was placed before the High
Court on observations of this Court that for post graduate
degree the test of excellence should prevail and the level
of high proficiency should be maintained. The High Court
made an interim order requiring the University to have the
selection completed on the basis of merit adjudged in the
common selection test.
This is a dispute essentially between the University
and the freshers who have not done housemanship on one side
and the seniors who have already completed housemanship for
one year on the other. There can be no dispute that the
seniors and the freshers belong to two separate categories
and cannot be said to be equals. If the University had not
prescribed a common selection test for these two categories,
the question of test of comparative merit would not have
arisen. If that had not been done perhaps the High Court
would not have made its direction and the difficulty which
has arisen would not have cropped up.
The classification of freshers and those who have
completed a year’s housemanship, though a perceptible one,
loses its importance in view of the traditional situation
that in the system prevailing prior to
766
1987, both the groups were treated as qualified for
appearing at the selection test for post graduate study. We
are told by learned members at the Bar that after transitory
Note extracted above disappears in the coming year, the old
practice shall again revive. This is an unfortunate
situation. There being no limit to participation in the
selection test for post-graduate study candidates who become
unsuccessful year after year, in the absence of any limit,
keep on taking chances. This certainly is not a desirable
feature and should be looked into by the appropriate
authorities quickly.
If the merit list of the selection examination is
followed, more of seniors are entitled to admission and the
scheme of reservation would not work. As we have already
pointed out in the name of what counsel calls convenience
(and how inconvenient it was is not known), the Delhi
University made an initial mistake of having a common
selection test for two categories of candidates. While we
reiterate the view expressed by this Court on more than one
occasion that selection in the higher courses should be on
the basis of merit, in the peculiar facts and circumstances
arising in this case purely confined to a transitory
measure, the situation has to be handled not by first
principles but by a somewhat informed pragmatic adhocism.
This has to be so because the situation would not reoccur.
Again the initial mistake of the Delhi University had
brought some amount of confusion and it has mounted up
following the intervention by the High Court. The time
available is too short as under the Scheme intended to apply
to the whole country the course has to begin on the 2nd of
May, 1988.
In this background we are of the view that the impasse
created on account of the rival claims advanced by the
freshers and the seniors has to have a rough and ready
solution-yet not arbitrary and as acceptable and satisfying
as possible. We find that the two-year degree course
speciality-wise has 149 seats while the three-year degree
course has 139 seats. For convenience we extract the
particulars made available at page 4 of the Bulletine of
Information. It may be pointed out that there are 1003
candidates as against total 270 vacancies (degree and
diploma courses together) for the seniors; and there are 331
candidates as against 205 vacancies for the two courses for
the freshers. With a view to providing some more seats for
seniors we suggested to Mr. Rao appearing for the University
that the number of seats may be increased and he has on
instructions agreed, provided the Union of India provides
funds and the Medical Council agrees to accommodate. There
are 21 specialities as indicated above. We direct that the
University shall create one seat in every speciality and
thus 21 additional seats will
767
be available over and above the 149 seats fixed by the
University representing the 75% quota. To this enhanced
number of seats the 25% reservation of All India Selection
shall not apply. From the reserved seats made for the
freshers, 21 seats being one from every speciality shall be
taken away and made available to the seniors. Thus 42 seats
in all will be available for the seniors in the Post-
Graduate course to be filled up on the basis of inter se
merit keeping the senior group apart.
The creation of the 21 seats will involve additional
funds to be provided by the Union of India. It will also
require approval of the Medical Council of India and there
will perhaps also be necessity for permitting the variation
of guide-student ratio. Since it is for one year and there
would be no scope for recurrence and this has arisen in
peculiar circumstances explained above, we direct the
Government of India to take our order made without hearing
it with a sense of understanding and make the necessary
provisions. We also suggest to the Indian Medical Council to
provide the necessary accommodation by relaxing the
requirements. These may be done quickly so that the time
schedule may not be affected.
N.P.V. Petitions disposed of.
768