{"id":50567,"date":"1988-11-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1988-11-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-mrs-sheela-ashok-patwardhan-vs-dean-dr-v-m-medical-college-on-24-november-1988"},"modified":"2017-01-08T03:33:36","modified_gmt":"2017-01-07T22:03:36","slug":"dr-mrs-sheela-ashok-patwardhan-vs-dean-dr-v-m-medical-college-on-24-november-1988","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-mrs-sheela-ashok-patwardhan-vs-dean-dr-v-m-medical-college-on-24-november-1988","title":{"rendered":"Dr. Mrs. Sheela Ashok Patwardhan vs Dean, Dr. V.M. Medical College, … on 24 November, 1988"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Dr. Mrs. Sheela Ashok Patwardhan vs Dean, Dr. V.M. Medical College, … on 24 November, 1988<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 382, \t\t 1988 SCR Supl. (3) 959<\/div>\n
Author: M Dutt<\/div>\n
Bench: Dutt, M.M. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nDR. MRS. SHEELA ASHOK PATWARDHAN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDEAN, DR. V.M. MEDICAL COLLEGE, SOLAPUR, & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT24\/11\/1988\n\nBENCH:\nDUTT, M.M. (J)\nBENCH:\nDUTT, M.M. (J)\nNATRAJAN, S. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1989 AIR  382\t\t  1988 SCR  Supl. (3) 959\n 1989 SCC  (3) 362\t  JT 1988 (4)\t513\n 1988 SCALE  (2)1460\n\n\nACT:\n     Professional Colleges--Rules regulating appointment  of\nHousemen and House-Surgeons at the hospitals attached to the\nGovt. Medical Colleges in State of Maharashtra--Rule  X(2)--\nM.D.  Course--Admission to Eligibility of M.B.B.S.  graduate\nfrom A.P. State.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     Rule  X(2) of the Rules regulating the appointments  of\nHousemen and House-Surgeons at the hospitals attached to the\nGovernment  Medical  Colleges in the  State  of\t Maharashtra\nprovides  that\tthe Government\tmay  sanction  supernumerary\nposts to allow spouses of Government servants on transfer to\nundertake  studies, if standing high in merit, from  another\ncollege.\n     The  appellant married to a Government Medical  Officer\nworking\t in  the State of Maharashtra  after  having  passed\nM.B.B.S. examination and completing one year internship from\na  college situated in the State of Andhra Pradesh.  On\t her\napplication,  the Government of Maharashtra in\texercise  of\nits power under rule X(2) created a Housepost in  Obstetrics\nand  Gynaecology  w.e.f.  July\tl5.  1986  specifically\t and\ncategorically  stating that the supernumerary Housepost\t was\ncreated\t to  enable  the appellant  to\tcomplete  her  post-\ngraduate  studies  at  Dr. V.M.\t Medical  College,  Solapur,\nrespondent  No.\t 2. The appellant joined the  Housepost\t and\nduly completed the same. However, she was refused  admission\nin  the M.D. Course by respondent  No.2 inasmuch as she\t was\nnot even issued an application form.\n     Being aggrieved, she filed a writ petition in the\tHigh\nCourt  challenging  the\t legality  of  the  action  of\t the\nrespondent  refusing to admit her in the said  post-graduate\nM.D.  Course.  The High Court dismissed\t the  writ  petition\nholding,  inter alia, that no inference could be drawn\tthat\neverybody  who completed the house-job was entitled  to\t get\nadmission  to the post-graduate cousre ipso facto  and\tthat\ngranting  of registration for house-job would not amount  to\nadmission to the post-graduate course in a Medical  College.\nHence this appeal by special leave.\n       Allowing the appeal,\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 959\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 960\n     HELD:  (l)\t All the seats in the  post-graduate  degree\ncourse\tfor Obstetrics and Gynaecology are not reserved\t for\nthe  candidates\t passing the M.B.B.S. examination  from\t the\nsaid  Dr.  V.M.\t Medical College. It is\t not  disputed\tthat\ncertain percentage of seats are reserved for the students of\nthe  College.  But, no application form was  issued  to\t the\nappellant and accordingly, the question of not admitting the\nappellant  on  the  ground of  institutional  preference  or\ninstitutional reservation of seats does not arise. [964F-G]\n     (2) The State of Maharashtra is entitled to  refuse  to\nadmit any student passing the M.B.B.S. examination from\t any\nMedical College in the State of Andhra Pradesh as that State\nhas  not  reciprocated in the matter of admission  to  post-\ngraduate  degree courses in Medical Colleges of that  State.\n[964G-H]\n     (3)  The  State of Maharashtra  after  considering\t all\nfacts  and  circumstances including the high  merit  of\t the\nappellant specifically created a supernumerary Housepost for\nthe  appellant. After creating the  supernumerary  Housepost\nspecifically for the appellant so as to enable her to become\neligible   for\t the  post  graduate  degree   course,\t the\nrespondents are not at all justified in refusing her even an\napplication  form  and\tin  not\t considering  her  case\t for\nadmission  in the post-graduate degree course on the  ground\nof  failure of reciprocity by the Andhra Pradesh  State.  It\nwas, therefore, unreasonable and unjust for the\t respondents\nto  refuse admission to the appellant on a ground  which  is\nnot  at\t all tenable in the facts and circumstances  of\t the\ncases. [965C-F]\n     (4) Normally the Supreme Court does ot interfere in the\nmatter\t of   admission\t of  students  in   an\t educational\ninstitution. Even if it interferes. it generally directs the\nauthorities concerned to consider the question of  admission\nin accordance with the rules of the institution. But, in the\npeculiar  facts and circumstances of the case,\tparticularly\nthe  fact  that the appellant had to lose two years  of\t her\nacademic  career for no fault of hers, it is  directed\tthat\nthe  respondents shall issue to her an application form\t for\nadmission in the post-graduate M.D. Course in Obstetrics and\nGynaecology and that alter the submission of the application\nform and compliance with other formalities by the appellant,\nshe  shall  be\tadmitted  in  the  post-graduate  course  in\nObstetrics  and\t Gynaecology in Dr.  V.M.  Medical  College,\nSolapur, in the 1989 session, provided she is not  otherwise\nunfit. [966B-D]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4128  of
\n1988.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 961
\n     From  the\tJudgment  and Order dated  3.8.1988  of\t the
\nBombay High Court in W.P. NO. 28 of 1987.\n<\/p>\n
     V.N. Ganpule and Mukul Mudgal for the Appellant.
\n     A.S.  Bhasme, B.R. Agarwala and Mrs.  Sushma  Manchanda
\nfor the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     DUTT,  J. Special leave granted. Heard learned  Counsel
\nfor both the parties.\n<\/p>\n
     The  appeal  is directed against the  judgment  of\t the
\nBombay High Court whereby the High Court dismissed the\twrit
\npetition  of  the  appellant challenging,  inter  alia,\t the
\nlegality of the action of the respondents refusing to  admit
\nthe appellant in the post-graduate M.D. Course in Obstetrics
\nand Gynaecology for the 1987 session.\n<\/p>\n
     The  appellant  passed the MBBS  examination  from\t the
\nKakatiya  Medical College under the University of  Kakatiya.
\nWarangal, in the State of Andhra Pradesh. She obtained\t72%,
\n66.63%\tand 67.5% marks in the first, second and third\tMBBS
\nexaminations.  She was awarded Governor’s Gold Medal by\t the
\nState of Andhra Pradesh for her consistent high merit at the
\nMBBS  examinations. In August, 1985, she completed  her\t one
\nyear internship.\n<\/p>\n
     She  married  one Dr. Ashok  Patwardhan,  a  Government
\nMedical Officer working in the State of Maharashtra. He\t was
\ntransferred  to Solapur in January, 1985. The appellant\t had
\nto  come to Solapur in October, 1985 and since then she\t has
\nbeen residing there with her husband.\n<\/p>\n
     After coming to Solapur, she intended to prosecute\t her
\nstudies\t  in  the  post-graduate  M.D.\tDegree\t Course\t  in
\nObstetrics  and\t Gynaecology in Dr.  V.H.  Medical  College,
\nSolapur, under the Shivaji University, the respondent No. 2.
\nRules X(2) and (3) of the Rules regulating the\tappointments
\nof  Housemen and House-Surgeons at the hospital attached  to
\nthe Government Medical Colleges in the State of Maharashtra,
\nhereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’. provide as follows:\n<\/p>\n
      “X…………………………………………….
\n      ………………………………………………\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 962
\n    Government\thave from time to time\tsanctioned  supernu-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
merary posts–\n<\/p>\n
     (1)…………………………………………….
\n     …………………<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (2) to allow spouses of Government servants on transfer
\nto\tundertake studies, if standing high in merit  (which
\nmeans  not  less than 55% at first attempt in  the  subject)
\nfrom another college;\n<\/p>\n
     (3) to allow students of other colleges in\t Maharashtra
\nto compete on merit for posts so as to conduct post-graduate
\ncourse for which facilities are not existant or very  meagre
\nin  their own college. These supernumerary posts  should  be
\nawarded\t after fullest consideration of these principles  in
\nthe above order and on merit and it is not incumbent to fill
\nall of them or to reserve them ………………………..
\nIt  is\tunderstood that granting of  registration  does\t not
\nabsolve a candidate from competing on merit and if he cannot
\nearn post on merit, his registration would lapse for failure
\nto compete housemanship requirements ……………….”\n<\/p>\n
    The\t appellant made an application to the Government  of
\nMaharashtra  praying  for  the creation of  a  Housepost  in
\nObstetrics  and Gynaecology under rule X(2) so as to  enable
\nher to do post-graduate studies in Dr. V.M. Medical College,
\nSolapur.  As  she fulfilled and requirements of\t rule  X(2),
\nnamely,\t that  she is the wife of a  Government\t servant  on
\ntransfer and that she stood high in merit securing more than
\n55%  marks  in\tObstetrics  and\t Gynaecology  in  her\tMBBS
\nexamination,   the   Dean  of\tthe   College\tspecifically
\nrecommended   her   case  for  the  creation   of   such   a
\nsupernumerary  Housepost.  While  the  application  of\t the
\nappellant   was\t under\tconsideration,\tthe  appellant\t was
\nselected for a Housepost in Surgery in the said College. She
\njoined\tthe  Housepost\tin  Surgery  in\t January,  ]986\t and
\ncompleted  the\tsame  in July, 1986. But,  in  order  to  be
\neligible   for\tpost-graduate  studies\tin  Obstetrics\t and
\nGynaecology, she was to join another Housepost in Obstetrics
\nand Gynaecology.\n<\/p>\n
     On\t July  2,  1986, the Government\t of  Maharashtra  in
\nexercise of its power under rule X(2) created a Housepost in
\nObstetrics  and Gynaecology with effect from July  15,\t1986
\nspecifically\tand   categorically   stating\t that\t the
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 963
\nsupernumerary Housepost was created to enable the  appellant
\nto  complete her post-graduate studies at Dr.  V.M.  Medical
\nCollege,  Solapur. The Government resolution dated  July  2,
\n1986 is extracted below:\n<\/p>\n
     “Government  hereby grants permission for\tcreation  of
\none  supernumerary  non-stipendary  post  of  Houseman\twith
\neffect\tfrom  15.7.1986 for a period of six  months  at\t Dr.
\nVaishampayan  Memorial Medical College, Solapur,  to  enable
\nDr.  Mrs.  S.A.\t Patwardhan to complete\t her  Post  Graduate
\nCourse in the subject of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.\n<\/p>\n
     Mrs.  Patwardhan  should join the said post  within  10
\ndays  from  15.7.1986. In the event of her not\tjoining\t the
\nsaid post will be treated as abolished.\n<\/p>\n
     By\t  order\t and  in  the  name  of\t the   Governor\t  of
\nMaharashtra.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t       Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t       J.P. Budhwant
\n\t\t\t\t\t    Deputy Secretary
\n\t\t\t\t       Govt. of Maharashtra”\n<\/p>\n
     The  Dean of the College called upon the  appellant  to
\njoin  the  Housepost  and  not\tto  quit  the  same   before
\ncompleting   the   term\t inasmuch  as  the   Housepost\t was
\nspecifically created to enable the appellant to complete her
\npost-graduate studies at Dr. V.M. Medical College,  Solapur.
\nThe  appellant joined the Housepost and duly  completed\t the
\nsame.  The  Dean  of the  College  issued  an  advertisement
\ninviting applications for the post-graduate seats in various
\ndisciplines  for January, 1987 batch. The appellant made  an
\napplication praying for the issuance of an application\tform
\nfor  the M.D. Course in Obstetrics and Gynaecology,  but  no
\nsuch  form was issued to her. In other words, the  appellant
\nwas refused admission in the M.D. Course at Dr. V.M. Medical
\nCollege, Solapur.\n<\/p>\n
     Being  aggrieved  by  the action of  the  Dean  of\t the
\nCollege,  the appellant filed a writ petition in the  Bombay
\nHigh Court. The High Court, as stated already, dismissed the
\nwrit  petition holding, inter alia, that no inference  could
\nbe  drawn  that everybody who completed\t the  house-job\t was
\nentitled  to get admission to the post-graduate course\tipso
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 964
\nfacto and that granting of registration for house-job  would
\nnot  amount  to admission to the post-graduate course  in  a
\nMedical College. Hence this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     There  can\t be no doubt that there is  no\tquestion  of
\nautomatic  admission  in the  post-graduate  course,  simply
\nbecause one has completed the house-job or housemanship.  It
\nis  not the case of the appellant that as she completed\t the
\nhousemanship,\tshe  has  acquired  a  right  of   automatic
\nadmission  to  the post-graduate degree course in  the\tsaid
\nCollege.  Her  complaint is that she was not even  given  an
\napplication  form for the post-graduate degree\tcourse.\t The
\nCollege\t authorities  or  the  University  did\tnot  at\t all
\nconsider  her  case for admission. The High  Court  has\t not
\nconsidered this aspect of the appellant’s case.\n<\/p>\n
     It\t is  contended by the learned Counsel  appearing  on
\nbehalf\tof the respondents that in view of the provision  in
\nthe  Rules giving institutional preference in the matter  of
\nadmission,  the appellant could not be admitted.  The  other
\nground\tthat has been urged on behalf of the respondents  is
\nthat  as the appellant passed the MBBS examination from\t the
\nKakatiya  University in the State of Andhra Pradesh  and  as
\nthere is failure on the part of the State of Andhra  Pradesh
\nto  reciprocate\t with regard to reservation of\t25%  of\t the
\ntotal  number of seats in the matter of admission  to  post-
\ngraduate  degree course in Medical Science, the\t respondents
\nwere justified in refusing admission to the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     So far as the first contention is concerned, we do\t not
\nthink that there is any merit in the same. All the seats  in
\nthe   post-graduate   degree  course   in   Obstetrics\t and
\nGynaecology are not reserved for the candidates passing\t the
\nMBBS  examination  from the said Dr. V.M.  Medical  College,
\nSolapur. It is not disputed that certain percentage of seats
\nare  reserved  for  the students of  the  College.  But,  no
\napplication   form   was  issued  to  the   appellant\tand,
\naccordingly, the question of not admitting the appellant  on
\nthe  ground  of institutional  preference  or  institutional
\nreservation  of\t seats does not arise. In our  opinion,\t the
\nfirst ground founded on institutional preference seems to be
\na  mere plea. The real ground for refusal to issue  even  an
\napplication  form  for\tadmission to the  appellant  is\t the
\nfailure\t of reciprocity on the part of the State  of  Andhra
\nPradesh.  The  State  of Maharashtra,  in  our\topinion,  is
\nentitled  to  refuse to admit any student passing  the\tMBBS
\nexamination from any Medical College in the State of  Andhra
\nPradesh, as that State has not reciprocated in the matter of
\nadmission   to\tpost-graduate  degree  courses\tin   Medical
\nColleges of that State. But, in the facts and  circumstances
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 965
\nof  the\t present  case,\t the  respondents  are\tnot  at\t all
\njustified  in  refusing\t to  admit  the\t appellant  in\t the
\npostgraduate  degree course. The most glaring fact  in\tthis
\nrespect\t  is  that  on\tthe  prayer  of\t the   appellant   a
\nsupernumerary  Housepost  was created so as  to\t enable\t the
\nappellant  to become eligible for the  post-graduate  degree
\ncourse. It is not the case of the respondents that they were
\nnot aware of the fact that the appellant had passed her MBBS
\nexamination  from a Medical College in the State  of  Andhra
\nPradesh.  Indeed, it has been categorically averred  by\t the
\nappellant  that\t in her application for the  creation  of  a
\nsupernumerary  Housepost, she disclosed all facts  including
\nthe  fact of her passing the MBBS examination from the\tsaid
\nMedical College in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The State of
\nMaharashtra  after considering all facts  and  circumstances
\nincluding  the\thigh  merit of\tthe  appellant\tspecifically
\ncreated\t a supernumerary Housepost for the appellant.  After
\nthe  appellant had completed her house-job and\tapplied\t for
\nthe  issuance of an application form for  the  post-graduate
\ndegree\t course,  she  was  refused  an\t application   form,
\npresumably  on\tthe  ground that she  had  passed  her\tMBBS
\nexamination  from a Medical College in the State  of  Andhra
\nPradesh.  In our opinion, the appellant could be refused  at
\nthe  very  outset,  that  is to\t say,  her  application\t for
\ncreation  of a supernumerary Housepost could be turned\tdown
\non the ground of failure to observe reciprocity by the State
\nof  Andhra  Pradesh. But, after creating  the  supernumerary
\nHousepost specifically for the appellant so as to enable her
\nto  become eligible for the post-graduate degree course\t the
\nrespondents,  in  our opinion, are not at all  justified  in
\nrefusing her even an application form and in not considering
\nher  case for admission to post-graduate degree\t course,  on
\nthe  ground of failure of reciprocity by the Andhra  Pradesh
\nState. We fail to understand how the College authorities and
\nthe  Government\t could\ttake this attitude  so\tfar  as\t the
\nappellant is concerned. In our opinion, it was\tunreasonable
\nand  unjust for the respondents to refuse admission  to\t the
\nappellant  on  a ground which is not at all tenable  in\t the
\nfacts and circumstances of the case.\n<\/p>\n
     It\t is  not  disputed that the appellant  has  all\t the
\nrequisite qualifications for admission in the  post-graduate
\ndegree\tcourse.\t She  applied to admission  in\tthe  session
\ncommencing from January, 1987, but she was not admitted. The
\n1988 sessions has also passed, as the appellant had to\tfile
\na  writ petition before the High Court of Bombay  which,  as
\nnoticed\t already,  was\tdismissed by  the  High\t Court.\t The
\nappellant  prays  that\tshe may be  admitted  in  the  post-
\ngraduate  course  in Dr. V.M. Medical College in  the\t1989
\nsession.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t  PG NO 966
\n     The  facts stated above reveal that the  appellant\t has
\nbeen harassed to a great extent. She was misled by the\tfact
\nof the creation of a supernumerary Housepost for her by\t the
\nState of Maharashtra. She has already lost two years of\t her
\nacademic career. Normally, this Court does not interfere  in
\nthe  matter  of\t admission of  students\t in  an\t educational
\ninstitution. Even if it interferes, it generally directs the
\nauthorities concerned to consider the question of  admission
\nin accordance with the rules of the institution. But, in the
\npeculiar   facts   and\t circumstances\tof   the   case,
\nparticularly the fact that the appellant had\tto lose\t two
\nyears of her academic career for no fault of hers, we direct
\nthe  respondens\t to  issue to her an  application  form\t for
\nadmission in the post-graduate M.D. Course in Obstetrics and
\nGynaecology  and  we\t further  direct  that\tafter  the
\nsubmission of the application form and compliance with other
\nformalities  by the appellant, she shall be admitted in\t the
\npost-graduate  course in Obstetrics and Gynaecology  in\t Dr.
\nV.M. Medical College, Solapur, in the 1989 session, provided
\nshe is not otherwise unfit. The learned Counsel appearing on
\nbehalf of the Indian Medical Council also supports the\tcase
\nof the appellant for her admission in the 1989 session.\n<\/p>\n
     The  judgment  of the High Court is set aside  and\t the
\nappeal\tis allowed. There will, however, be no order  as  to
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
     M.L.A.\t\t\t\t Appeal allowed.\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Dr. Mrs. Sheela Ashok Patwardhan vs Dean, Dr. V.M. Medical College, … on 24 November, 1988 Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 382, 1988 SCR Supl. (3) 959 Author: M Dutt Bench: Dutt, M.M. (J) PETITIONER: DR. MRS. SHEELA ASHOK PATWARDHAN Vs. RESPONDENT: DEAN, DR. V.M. MEDICAL COLLEGE, SOLAPUR, & ORS. DATE OF […]<\/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-50567","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDr. Mrs. Sheela Ashok Patwardhan vs Dean, Dr. V.M. Medical College, ... on 24 November, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/dr-mrs-sheela-ashok-patwardhan-vs-dean-dr-v-m-medical-college-on-24-november-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr. Mrs. Sheela Ashok Patwardhan vs Dean, Dr. V.M. Medical College, ... on 24 November, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-mrs-sheela-ashok-patwardhan-vs-dean-dr-v-m-medical-college-on-24-november-1988\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1988-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-07T22:03:36+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-mrs-sheela-ashok-patwardhan-vs-dean-dr-v-m-medical-college-on-24-november-1988#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-mrs-sheela-ashok-patwardhan-vs-dean-dr-v-m-medical-college-on-24-november-1988\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr. Mrs. Sheela Ashok Patwardhan vs Dean, Dr. V.M. Medical College, … on 24 November, 1988\",\"datePublished\":\"1988-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-07T22:03:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-mrs-sheela-ashok-patwardhan-vs-dean-dr-v-m-medical-college-on-24-november-1988\"},\"wordCount\":2120,\"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\\\/dr-mrs-sheela-ashok-patwardhan-vs-dean-dr-v-m-medical-college-on-24-november-1988#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-mrs-sheela-ashok-patwardhan-vs-dean-dr-v-m-medical-college-on-24-november-1988\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-mrs-sheela-ashok-patwardhan-vs-dean-dr-v-m-medical-college-on-24-november-1988\",\"name\":\"Dr. Mrs. Sheela Ashok Patwardhan vs Dean, Dr. V.M. Medical College, ... on 24 November, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1988-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-07T22:03:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-mrs-sheela-ashok-patwardhan-vs-dean-dr-v-m-medical-college-on-24-november-1988#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-mrs-sheela-ashok-patwardhan-vs-dean-dr-v-m-medical-college-on-24-november-1988\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-mrs-sheela-ashok-patwardhan-vs-dean-dr-v-m-medical-college-on-24-november-1988#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr. Mrs. Sheela Ashok Patwardhan vs Dean, Dr. V.M. Medical College, … on 24 November, 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:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"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":"Dr. Mrs. Sheela Ashok Patwardhan vs Dean, Dr. V.M. Medical College, ... on 24 November, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/dr-mrs-sheela-ashok-patwardhan-vs-dean-dr-v-m-medical-college-on-24-november-1988","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr. Mrs. Sheela Ashok Patwardhan vs Dean, Dr. V.M. Medical College, ... on 24 November, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-mrs-sheela-ashok-patwardhan-vs-dean-dr-v-m-medical-college-on-24-november-1988","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1988-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-07T22:03:36+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-mrs-sheela-ashok-patwardhan-vs-dean-dr-v-m-medical-college-on-24-november-1988#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-mrs-sheela-ashok-patwardhan-vs-dean-dr-v-m-medical-college-on-24-november-1988"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr. Mrs. Sheela Ashok Patwardhan vs Dean, Dr. V.M. Medical College, … on 24 November, 1988","datePublished":"1988-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-07T22:03:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-mrs-sheela-ashok-patwardhan-vs-dean-dr-v-m-medical-college-on-24-november-1988"},"wordCount":2120,"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\/dr-mrs-sheela-ashok-patwardhan-vs-dean-dr-v-m-medical-college-on-24-november-1988#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-mrs-sheela-ashok-patwardhan-vs-dean-dr-v-m-medical-college-on-24-november-1988","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-mrs-sheela-ashok-patwardhan-vs-dean-dr-v-m-medical-college-on-24-november-1988","name":"Dr. Mrs. Sheela Ashok Patwardhan vs Dean, Dr. V.M. Medical College, ... on 24 November, 1988 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1988-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-07T22:03:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-mrs-sheela-ashok-patwardhan-vs-dean-dr-v-m-medical-college-on-24-november-1988#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-mrs-sheela-ashok-patwardhan-vs-dean-dr-v-m-medical-college-on-24-november-1988"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-mrs-sheela-ashok-patwardhan-vs-dean-dr-v-m-medical-college-on-24-november-1988#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr. Mrs. Sheela Ashok Patwardhan vs Dean, Dr. V.M. Medical College, … on 24 November, 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:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","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\/50567","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=50567"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50567\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=50567"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=50567"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=50567"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}