{"id":29779,"date":"1988-04-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1988-04-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mridula-avasthi-ors-etc-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-27-april-1988"},"modified":"2015-07-10T22:20:20","modified_gmt":"2015-07-10T16:50:20","slug":"mridula-avasthi-ors-etc-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-27-april-1988","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mridula-avasthi-ors-etc-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-27-april-1988","title":{"rendered":"Mridula Avasthi &amp; Ors. Etc vs University Of Delhi &amp; Ors on 27 April, 1988"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mridula Avasthi &amp; Ors. Etc vs University Of Delhi &amp; Ors on 27 April, 1988<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1988 SCR  (3) 762, \t  1988 SCC  (2) 572<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M Rangnath<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Misra Rangnath<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nMRIDULA AVASTHI &amp; ORS. ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNIVERSITY OF DELHI &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT27\/04\/1988\n\nBENCH:\nMISRA RANGNATH\nBENCH:\nMISRA RANGNATH\nDUTT, M.M. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1988 SCR  (3) 762\t  1988 SCC  (2) 572\n JT 1988 (2)   220\t  1988 SCALE  (1)813\n\n\nACT:\n     Professional  Colleges-Medical  Colleges-Post  Graduate\nMedical courses Admission to-Delhi University adopting three\nyear P.G. degree and two year diploma courses from 1988-As a\ntransitory  measure   old  system  continued  for  the\t1988\nacademic session  only-Candidates with one year housemanship\nmade ineligible-Common\tselection list\tfor both seniors and\nfreshers-Validity of-Directions issued.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     Pursuant to  the directions of the Supreme Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1680683\/\">Dr.\nDinesh\tKumar\t&amp;  Ors\tv.  Motilal  Nehru  Medical  College\nAllahabad, &amp;  Ors.<\/a> [1987]  4 SCC 459 regarding uniformity in\npost-graduate  medical\t education,  respondent\t  No.  1-the\nUniversity of Delhi, decided to adopt the three years course\nfor the\t post-graduate degree and a two years course for the\ndiploma commencing from the academic session of 1988.\n     However,  with   a\t view\tto  mitigating\thardship  to\ncandidates\/students who\t had already completed the house job\nand had\t become entitled to undergo the post-graduate course\nin two\tyears, as  a transitory\t provision, the\t respondent-\nUniversity decided to continue the practice prevailing prior\nto 1988\t for a\tyear. It  evolved a  scheme whereunder,\t the\nnumber of  seats for  the post-graduate\t course and  diploma\ncourse available  in the previous year for a student who had\ncompleted one  year's housemanship were left untouched. As a\ntransitional provision,\t the University\t agreed to  fix\t 75%\nquota, for  the 1988  session only.  As per  a Note  in\t the\nscheme, candidates  who had  done house job\/Junior Residency\nfor period  of one year were not eligible for admission to 3\nyears post-graduate degree and 2 years post-graduate diploma\ncourse.\n     The  prospectus,\thowever,   prescribed\tone   common\nselection test for both the categories.\n     A set  of writ  petitions were  filed before  the\tHigh\nCourt challenging the scheme of the University mainly on the\nbasis that  when there\twas one selection test, merit should\nprevail and  classification in\tthe manner  indicated by the\nscheme was bad. The High Court made an interim\n763\norder  requiring   the\tUniversity  to\thave  the  selection\ncompleted on  the basis\t of merit  adjudged  in\t the  common\nselection test.\n     Disposing\tof   the  Writ\t Petitions  and\t some  cases\ntransferred from the High Court,\n^\n     HELD: The\tseniors who  have already  done\t one  year's\nhousemanship and  freshers  belong  to\ttwo  categories\t and\ncannot be  said\t to  be\t equal.\t The  question\tof  test  of\ncomparative merit  would not  have arisen  if the University\nhad not\t prescribed a  common selection\t test for  these two\ncategories. If\tthe merit  list of  the\t selection  test  is\nfollowed, more\tseniors are  entitled to  admission and\t the\nscheme of reservation would not work. [765F-G]\n     While selection  in the  higher course should be on the\nbasis of  merit in  the peculiar  facts and circumstances of\nthis case,  purely confined  to a  transitory  measure,\t the\nsituation has to be handled not by first principles but by a\nsomewhat informed  pragmatic adhocism especially because the\nsituation would not reoccur. [766D]\n     The impasse  created on  account  of  rival  claims  by\nfreshers and seniors has to have a rough and ready solution-\nyet not\t arbitrary  and\t as  acceptable\t and  satisfying  as\npossible. [766F]\n     With a  view to  providing some more seats for seniors,\nthe respondent\tUniversity should  create one  seat in every\nspeciality. Thus, 21 additional seats will be available over\nand above  the seats  fixed by\tthe University\trepresenting\n75%. From  the reserved\t seats made  for  the  freshers,  21\nseats, being one from every speciality, should be taken away\nand made  available to\tthe seniors.  Thus, 42\tseats in all\nwill be\t available for\tthe  seniors  in  the  Post-Graduate\ncourse to  be filled  up on  the basis\tof inter  se  merit,\nkeeping the senior group apart. [766G-H; 767A-B]\n     The  Central   Government\tshould\tmake  the  necessary\nprovisions for funds. The Indian Medical Council may provide\nthe necessary  accommodation by\t relaxing the  requirements.\n[767D]\n     <a href=\"\/doc\/1603652\/\">Dr. Dinesh\t Kumar v. Motilal Nehru College, Allahabad &amp;\nOrs.,<\/a> [1987] 4 SCC 459, referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>     CIVIL ORIGINAL  JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) NO.<br \/>\n194 of 1988. etc etc.<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">764<\/span><br \/>\n     (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).<br \/>\n     D.D. Thakur, T.S. Krishnamurthi Iyer, Rajesh Mitra, Ms.<br \/>\nSantosh Kalra,\tH.K. Puri, R.L. Roshan, S.S. Sabharwal, S.K.<br \/>\nSabharwal, and M.K.D. Namboodiri for the Petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p>     P.P. Rao,\tS.N. Kacker,  G. Rath,\tMrs. A.\t Mathur,  A.<br \/>\nMariarputham, C.M.  Nayyar, D.S.  Narula,  Kailash  Vasudev,<br \/>\nMrs. Uma Jain and P.K. Mehta for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The following Order of the Court was delivered:<br \/>\n\t\t\t O R D E R<br \/>\n     The  writ\t application  under   Article  32   and\t the<br \/>\ntransferred writ  petitions from the Delhi High Court relate<br \/>\nto selection  of  medical  graduates  for  undertaking\tpost<br \/>\ngraduate study for the year 1988 under the <a href=\"\/doc\/1603652\/\">Delhi University.<br \/>\nIn Dr.\tDinesh Kumar  v. Motilal  Nehru College, Allahabad &amp;<br \/>\nOrs.,<\/a>  this   Court  emphasised\t the  desirability  of\tpost<br \/>\ngraduate education in the Medical Faculty as far as possible<br \/>\nto have\t uniformity throughout\tthe country.  It, therefore,<br \/>\ncommended to the educational institutions which followed the<br \/>\nsystem of  one year  house job\tfollowed by two years&#8217; post-<br \/>\ngraduate course\t to switch  over to  the pattern  of a three<br \/>\nyear post-graduate  course with house job in the first year.<br \/>\nOn September  25, 1987,\t in the\t very same  matter, when the<br \/>\nCourt made  an order  reported in  1987 4  SCC 459,  it\t was<br \/>\npointed out  that in some States the post graduate course is<br \/>\nfor a  term of two years with one year housemanship while in<br \/>\nthe other  States it  is a  full term  of three\t years. This<br \/>\nCourt, therefore,  directed with  a view  to bringing  about<br \/>\nuniformity on  the basis  of the  principle accepted  in the<br \/>\nearlier decision  that for  admission beginning\t from  1993,<br \/>\nthere would  be only  one  pattern,  namely,  a\t three\tyear<br \/>\nintegrated course  without any\tseparate  housemanship.\t The<br \/>\nUniversity of  Delhi decided  to adopt the three year course<br \/>\nfor the\t post-graduate degree  and a two year course for the<br \/>\ndiploma commencing from the academic Session of 1988. With a<br \/>\nview to\t mitigating hardship  to candidates\/students who had<br \/>\nalready completed  the house  job and had become entitled to<br \/>\nundergo\t the   postgraduate  course   in  two  years,  as  a<br \/>\ntransitory provision, the University decided to continue the<br \/>\npractice prevailing prior to 1988 for a year. The University<br \/>\nevolved a  scheme where\t under the  number of  seats for the<br \/>\npost-graduate course  and diploma  course available  in\t the<br \/>\nprevious year  for a  student who  had completed  one year&#8217;s<br \/>\nhousemanship were  left untouched.  The number of such seats<br \/>\nare 198 for the degree course<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">765<\/span><br \/>\nand 111\t for the  diploma course.  Out of  these  25%  being<br \/>\nplaced at  the disposal\t of the\t Government of\tIndia to  be<br \/>\nfilled-up on  all India\t selection basis,  the exact  number<br \/>\navailable to  be filled-up  by the  University worked out to<br \/>\n149  and   84  respectively.  As  a  transitional  provision<br \/>\nintended for  the 1988 Session only the University agreed to<br \/>\nfix 75%\t quota (representing  139 seats\t in  the  three-year<br \/>\ndegree course  and 66 seats in the two-year diploma course).<br \/>\nThe following was specified a part of the Scheme:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t  &#8220;Important Note<br \/>\n\t       Candidates who  have  done  house  job\/junior<br \/>\n\t  Residency  for  a  period  of\t one  year  are\t not<br \/>\n\t  eligible for\tadmission to  3 years  Post-Graduate<br \/>\n\t  Degree and 2 years PostGraduate Diploma Course.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The prospectus,\t however, prescribed  one  common  selection<br \/>\ntest.\n<\/p>\n<p>     A set  of writ  petitions were  filed before  the Delhi<br \/>\nHigh Court  challenging the  scheme of the University mainly<br \/>\non the\tbasis that  when there was one selection test, merit<br \/>\nshould prevail and classification in the manner indicated by<br \/>\nthe scheme  was bad.  Reliance was  placed before  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt on  observations of  this Court that for post graduate<br \/>\ndegree the  test of  excellence should prevail and the level<br \/>\nof high\t proficiency should  be maintained.  The High  Court<br \/>\nmade an\t interim order\trequiring the University to have the<br \/>\nselection completed  on the  basis of  merit adjudged in the<br \/>\ncommon selection test.\n<\/p>\n<p>     This is  a dispute\t essentially between  the University<br \/>\nand the\t freshers who have not done housemanship on one side<br \/>\nand the\t seniors who have already completed housemanship for<br \/>\none year  on the  other. There\tcan be\tno dispute  that the<br \/>\nseniors and  the freshers  belong to two separate categories<br \/>\nand cannot  be said  to be equals. If the University had not<br \/>\nprescribed a common selection test for these two categories,<br \/>\nthe question  of test  of comparative  merit would  not have<br \/>\narisen. If  that had  not been\tdone perhaps  the High Court<br \/>\nwould not  have made  its direction and the difficulty which<br \/>\nhas arisen would not have cropped up.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The classification\t of  freshers  and  those  who\thave<br \/>\ncompleted a  year&#8217;s housemanship,  though a perceptible one,<br \/>\nloses its  importance in  view of  the traditional situation<br \/>\nthat in the system prevailing prior to<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">766<\/span><br \/>\n1987,  both   the  groups  were\t treated  as  qualified\t for<br \/>\nappearing at  the selection test for post graduate study. We<br \/>\nare told by learned members at the Bar that after transitory<br \/>\nNote extracted\tabove disappears in the coming year, the old<br \/>\npractice  shall\t  again\t revive.   This\t is  an\t unfortunate<br \/>\nsituation. There  being no  limit to  participation  in\t the<br \/>\nselection test for post-graduate study candidates who become<br \/>\nunsuccessful year  after year,\tin the absence of any limit,<br \/>\nkeep on\t taking chances.  This certainly  is not a desirable<br \/>\nfeature\t and  should  be  looked  into\tby  the\t appropriate<br \/>\nauthorities quickly.\n<\/p>\n<p>     If the  merit list\t of  the  selection  examination  is<br \/>\nfollowed, more\tof seniors are entitled to admission and the<br \/>\nscheme of  reservation would  not work.\t As we\thave already<br \/>\npointed out  in the  name of  what counsel calls convenience<br \/>\n(and how  inconvenient it  was\tis  not\t known),  the  Delhi<br \/>\nUniversity made\t an  initial  mistake  of  having  a  common<br \/>\nselection test\tfor two\t categories of\tcandidates. While we<br \/>\nreiterate the  view expressed by this Court on more than one<br \/>\noccasion that  selection in  the higher courses should be on<br \/>\nthe basis  of merit, in the peculiar facts and circumstances<br \/>\narising\t in  this  case\t purely\t confined  to  a  transitory<br \/>\nmeasure, the  situation has  to\t be  handled  not  by  first<br \/>\nprinciples but\tby a  somewhat informed\t pragmatic adhocism.<br \/>\nThis has  to be\t so because the situation would not reoccur.<br \/>\nAgain the  initial  mistake  of\t the  Delhi  University\t had<br \/>\nbrought some  amount of\t confusion and\tit  has\t mounted  up<br \/>\nfollowing the  intervention by\tthe  High  Court.  The\ttime<br \/>\navailable is too short as under the Scheme intended to apply<br \/>\nto the\twhole country  the course has to begin on the 2nd of<br \/>\nMay, 1988.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In this  background we are of the view that the impasse<br \/>\ncreated on  account of\tthe rival  claims  advanced  by\t the<br \/>\nfreshers and  the seniors  has to  have a  rough  and  ready<br \/>\nsolution-yet not  arbitrary and as acceptable and satisfying<br \/>\nas  possible.  We  find\t that  the  two-year  degree  course<br \/>\nspeciality-wise has  149 seats\twhile the  three-year degree<br \/>\ncourse\thas  139  seats.  For  convenience  we\textract\t the<br \/>\nparticulars made  available at\tpage 4\tof the\tBulletine of<br \/>\nInformation. It\t may be\t pointed out  that  there  are\t1003<br \/>\ncandidates  as\tagainst\t total\t270  vacancies\t(degree\t and<br \/>\ndiploma courses together) for the seniors; and there are 331<br \/>\ncandidates as  against 205 vacancies for the two courses for<br \/>\nthe freshers.  With a  view to providing some more seats for<br \/>\nseniors we suggested to Mr. Rao appearing for the University<br \/>\nthat the  number of  seats may\tbe increased  and he  has on<br \/>\ninstructions agreed,  provided the  Union of  India provides<br \/>\nfunds and  the Medical\tCouncil agrees to accommodate. There<br \/>\nare 21\tspecialities as\t indicated above. We direct that the<br \/>\nUniversity shall  create one  seat in  every speciality\t and<br \/>\nthus 21 additional seats will<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">767<\/span><br \/>\nbe available  over and\tabove the  149 seats  fixed  by\t the<br \/>\nUniversity representing\t the 75%  quota.  To  this  enhanced<br \/>\nnumber of  seats the  25% reservation of All India Selection<br \/>\nshall not  apply. From\tthe  reserved  seats  made  for\t the<br \/>\nfreshers, 21  seats being one from every speciality shall be<br \/>\ntaken away  and made available to the seniors. Thus 42 seats<br \/>\nin all\twill be\t available for\tthe  seniors  in  the  Post-<br \/>\nGraduate course\t to be\tfilled up  on the  basis of inter se<br \/>\nmerit keeping the senior group apart.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The creation  of the  21 seats  will involve additional<br \/>\nfunds to  be provided  by the  Union of\t India. It will also<br \/>\nrequire approval  of the  Medical Council of India and there<br \/>\nwill perhaps  also be necessity for permitting the variation<br \/>\nof guide-student  ratio. Since\tit is for one year and there<br \/>\nwould be  no scope  for recurrence  and this  has arisen  in<br \/>\npeculiar  circumstances\t  explained  above,  we\t direct\t the<br \/>\nGovernment of  India to\t take our order made without hearing<br \/>\nit with\t a sense  of understanding  and make  the  necessary<br \/>\nprovisions. We also suggest to the Indian Medical Council to<br \/>\nprovide\t the   necessary  accommodation\t  by  relaxing\t the<br \/>\nrequirements. These  may be  done quickly  so that  the time<br \/>\nschedule may not be affected.\n<\/p>\n<pre>N.P.V.\t\t\t\t Petitions disposed of.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">768<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Mridula Avasthi &amp; Ors. Etc vs University Of Delhi &amp; Ors on 27 April, 1988 Equivalent citations: 1988 SCR (3) 762, 1988 SCC (2) 572 Author: M Rangnath Bench: Misra Rangnath PETITIONER: MRIDULA AVASTHI &amp; ORS. ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: UNIVERSITY OF DELHI &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT27\/04\/1988 BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH BENCH: [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-29779","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Mridula Avasthi &amp; Ors. Etc vs University Of Delhi &amp; Ors on 27 April, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mridula-avasthi-ors-etc-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-27-april-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mridula Avasthi &amp; Ors. Etc vs University Of Delhi &amp; Ors on 27 April, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mridula-avasthi-ors-etc-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-27-april-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1988-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-10T16:50:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mridula-avasthi-ors-etc-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-27-april-1988#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mridula-avasthi-ors-etc-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-27-april-1988\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mridula Avasthi &amp; Ors. Etc vs University Of Delhi &amp; Ors on 27 April, 1988\",\"datePublished\":\"1988-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-10T16:50:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mridula-avasthi-ors-etc-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-27-april-1988\"},\"wordCount\":1483,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mridula-avasthi-ors-etc-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-27-april-1988#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mridula-avasthi-ors-etc-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-27-april-1988\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mridula-avasthi-ors-etc-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-27-april-1988\",\"name\":\"Mridula Avasthi &amp; Ors. Etc vs University Of Delhi &amp; Ors on 27 April, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1988-04-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-10T16:50:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mridula-avasthi-ors-etc-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-27-april-1988#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mridula-avasthi-ors-etc-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-27-april-1988\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mridula-avasthi-ors-etc-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-27-april-1988#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mridula Avasthi &amp; Ors. Etc vs University Of Delhi &amp; Ors on 27 April, 1988\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mridula Avasthi &amp; Ors. Etc vs University Of Delhi &amp; Ors on 27 April, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mridula-avasthi-ors-etc-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-27-april-1988","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mridula Avasthi &amp; Ors. Etc vs University Of Delhi &amp; Ors on 27 April, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mridula-avasthi-ors-etc-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-27-april-1988","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1988-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-10T16:50:20+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mridula-avasthi-ors-etc-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-27-april-1988#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mridula-avasthi-ors-etc-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-27-april-1988"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mridula Avasthi &amp; Ors. Etc vs University Of Delhi &amp; Ors on 27 April, 1988","datePublished":"1988-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-10T16:50:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mridula-avasthi-ors-etc-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-27-april-1988"},"wordCount":1483,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mridula-avasthi-ors-etc-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-27-april-1988#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mridula-avasthi-ors-etc-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-27-april-1988","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mridula-avasthi-ors-etc-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-27-april-1988","name":"Mridula Avasthi &amp; Ors. Etc vs University Of Delhi &amp; Ors on 27 April, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1988-04-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-10T16:50:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mridula-avasthi-ors-etc-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-27-april-1988#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mridula-avasthi-ors-etc-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-27-april-1988"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mridula-avasthi-ors-etc-vs-university-of-delhi-ors-on-27-april-1988#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mridula Avasthi &amp; Ors. Etc vs University Of Delhi &amp; Ors on 27 April, 1988"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29779","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=29779"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29779\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29779"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29779"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29779"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}