{"id":69614,"date":"1992-05-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1992-05-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-goel-and-ors-vs-u-p-medical-council-and-ors-on-15-may-1992"},"modified":"2016-04-21T13:25:19","modified_gmt":"2016-04-21T07:55:19","slug":"p-k-goel-and-ors-vs-u-p-medical-council-and-ors-on-15-may-1992","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-goel-and-ors-vs-u-p-medical-council-and-ors-on-15-may-1992","title":{"rendered":"P.K. Goel And Ors vs U.P. Medical Council And Ors on 15 May, 1992"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
P.K. Goel And Ors vs U.P. Medical Council And Ors on 15 May, 1992<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1992 AIR 1475, \t\t 1992 SCR (3) 363<\/div>\n
Author: N Kasliwal<\/div>\n
Bench: Kasliwal, N.M. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nP.K. GOEL AND ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nU.P. MEDICAL COUNCIL AND ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT15\/05\/1992\n\nBENCH:\nKASLIWAL, N.M. (J)\nBENCH:\nKASLIWAL, N.M. (J)\nSHARMA, L.M. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1992 AIR 1475\t\t  1992 SCR  (3) 363\n 1992 SCC  (3) 232\t  JT 1992 (3)\t508\n 1992 SCALE  (1)1120\n\n\nACT:\n     Education-Admission   to  Professional   Colleges-Post-\nGraduate   Medical  Courses-Combined  Entrance\t Examination\nconducted-Clause  G(ii)\t of  guidelines\t issued\t by  Lucknow\nUniversity-Merit   list\t  prepared   college-wise   out\t  of\ninstitutional  candidates-Combined merit list not  prepared-\nWhether\t discriminatory and violative of Article 14  of\t the\nConstitution.\n     Constitution of India, 1950:\n     Article   14-Post-Graduate\t  Medical   Courses-Combined\nentrance examination conducted-Merit list prepared  college-\nwise-Combined merit list not prepared-Whether discriminatory\nand violative of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     A combined Entrance Examination was held for  admission\nto  all\t the seven Medical Colleges in the  State  of  Uttar\nPradesh.  However,  the seats were filled as  per  admission\nrules on the basis of a merit list prepared for each Medical\nCollege\t out  of  the  institutional  candidates  from\tthat\nCollege.   This\t has been done as per clause  G(ii)  of\t the\nguidelines issued by the Lucknow University.\n     The  petitioners, who appeared in the combined  Entrace\nExamination have challenged in the present Writ Petition the\nvalidity  of the rule as being discriminatory and  violative\nof  Article 14 of the Constitution of India.   According  to\nthe petitioners, in view of the directions of this Court  in\nDr.  Dinesh Kumar & Ors. v. Motilal Nehru  Medical  Collage,\nAllahabad & Ors., AIR<\/a> 1986 SC 1877, in almost all the States\nin  India, 75% seats for Post-Graduate Medical Courses\twere\nbeing  filled  up by holding one common\t examination  and  a\ncombined merit list prepared for all the Medical Colleges in\nthe State and that in the State of Uttar Pradesh alone\tsuch\na  combined  merit  list  has  not  been  prepared   despite\nconducting a common examination.\n     Allowing the Writ Petition, this Court,\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       364\n     HELD:  1.\tRule (G)(ii) laying down the  provision\t for\npreparing  a  merit  list  for\teach  college  out  of\t the\ninstitutional  candidates of that college, is  struck  down.\nThe  State  Government is directed to  make  admissions\t for\nPost-Graduate  Medical\tCourses\t in all\t the  seven  Medical\nColleges  on the basis of a combined merit list.  The  State\nGovernment  shall  issue a Notification in this\t regard\t and\npublish\t the  same immediately in one Hindi and one  English\nnewspaper having wide circulation in the State as well as by\nputting\t the  same  on the notice board\t of  all  the  seven\nMedical Colleges.  It would state that the admissions  shall\nbe  made in Post-Graduate Medical Courses on the basis of  a\ncombined  merit list for the entire State and allow all\t the\neligible  candidates  to  mention  their  fresh\t choice\t  of\nspecialities in the Post-Graduate Courses within 10 days  of\nsuch  publication  in  the  newspaper  and  thereafter\tmake\nselection on the basis of combined merit list for the  whole\nState.\tIn case any candidate  does not submit his choice of\nspeciality  within  the aforesaid time, the  choice  already\ngiven by him shall be taken into consideration in his  case.\n[370 E-G]\n     2.\t This  Court  had already struck down  the  rule  of\ncollege-wise institutional preference as being violative  of\nArticle\t 14 of the Constitution and all the States in  India\nare  following the rule of one combined merit list  for\t the\nwhole State except the State of Uttar Pradesh.\tThe  Medical\nCouncil of India also took the stand that one combined merit\nlist  should  be prepared when the  entrace  examination  is\nconducted by one University for all the Medical Colleges  in\nthe  State.  There in no question of claiming and  right  by\nthe  candidates\t on  the ground of having  appeared  in\t the\nexamination   on  the  basis  of  the  impugned\t  guidelines\nmentioned   in\tthe  information  brochure  issued  by\t the\nUniversity,  as no admissions in the present case have\tbeen\nmade  so far in any of the colleges.  No admission could  be\nallowed\t on the basis of a rule which is  clearly  arbitrary\nand   discriminatory  and  has\talready\t been  declared\t  as\nviolative of Article 14 of the Constitution. [367 H; 368  A-\nD]\n     Dr.  Dinesh  Kumar\t & Ors.\t v.  Motilal  Nehru  Medical\nCollege,  Allahabad  &\tOrs., AIR<\/a> 1986\tSC  1877;  State  of\nRajasthan  & Anr. v. Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta & Ors.,<\/a> [1989]  1\nSCC  93; Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay &  Ors.  v.\nThukral Anjali Deokumar & Ors.,<\/a> [1989] 2 SCC 249, relied on.\n     3.\t There cannot be any right vested in the  candidates\nin seeking admission in a particular college.  Merit as\t the\nbasis for selection in the\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       365\nspeciality  in a Post-Graduate course cannot  be  sacrificed\nagainst convenience. [368 H]\n     4.\t In the case of a combined merit list for the  whole\nState of Uttar Pradesh, the candidates having secured a high\nposition in merit would also be entitled to get specialities\nof  their choice in Medical Colleges of Lucknow\t and  Kanpur\neven  though they might have passed their MBBS\tCourse\tfrom\nMedical Colleges other than Lucknow and Kanpur. [370 C-D]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     ORIGINAL  JURISDICTION  : Writ Petition (C)  No.964  of
\n1991.\n<\/p>\n
     (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
\n     Gobind  Mukhoty, D.K. Garg and R.C. Kaushik  (NP),\t for
\nthe Petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
     A.S.  Nambiar, R.B. Misra, L.R. Singh, S.K.  Agnihotri,
\nJ.R.  Das, D.K. Sinha, G. Prabhakar, Smt. Shanta  Vasudevan,
\nP.K. Manohar G.K. Bansal, B.B. Singh and T.T. Kunikannan for
\nthe Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     Ms.   Kamini   Jaiswal  and  Pramod  Swarup   for\t the
\nInterveners.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     KASLIWAL,\tJ. By this petition under Article 32 of\t the
\nConstitution  challenge\t has  been made\t to  the  guidelines
\nissued\tby the University of Lucknow for  the  Post-Graduate
\nMedical Entrance Examination held on 12.1.1992 providing for
\na  merit  list\tfor each college out  of  the  institutional
\ncandidates  of\tthat  college.\t There\tare  seven   medical
\ncolleges  in the State of Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow,  Kanpur,
\nAgra,  Allahabad, Meerut, Jhansi and Gorakhpur.\t A  combined
\nentrace\t examination for admission in Post-Graduate  Medical
\nCourses for all the seven medical colleges has been held  by
\nthe  University\t of Lucknow.  Though,  a  combined  entrance
\nexamination   was  conducted  for  all\tthe  seven   medical
\ncolleges,  the seats are filled according to  the  admission
\nrules on the basis of a merit list prepared for each college
\nout  of the institutional candidates of that  college.\t The
\nclause (G)(ii) under challenge reads as under:-
\n\t “Based\t on  the marks obtained at  the\t competitive
\n\t entrance  examination and the candidates choice  of
\n\t the course a merit list shall be prepared for\teach
\n\t college out of the institutional candidates of that
\n\t college.”\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t       366<\/span><\/p>\n
     The  information  brochure\t issued\t by  the  University
\ndefines ‘Institutional candidate’ and ‘Institutional  seats’
\nas under:-\n<\/p>\n
\t “Institutional candidate’ shall mean a student\t who
\n\t has   obtained\t M.B.B.S.\/M.D.S.  degree   of\tthat
\n\t University\/Institution.\n<\/p>\n
\t ‘Institutional seats’ shall mean 75% of total seats
\n\t available for post graduate degree diploma  courses
\n\t in  an Institution after excluding 25% seats to  be
\n\t filled by the All India Competition called the “All
\n\t India MD\/MS\/Diploma\/MDS Entrance Examination.”
\n     The petitioners who had appeared in the above  Entrance
\nExamination have challenged the above rule on the ground  of
\ndiscrimination\t and   violation  of  Article  14   of\t the
\nConstitution.\tThe  case  of the  petitioners\tis  that  in
\npursuance  to  the directions of this Hon’ble Court  in\t Dr.
\nDinesh\tKumar  &  Ors. v.  Motilal  Nehru  Medical  College,
\nAllahabad  & Ors. AIR<\/a> 1986 SC 1877, 25% of the total  number
\nof  seats  for Post-Graduate Courses are filled\t up  on\t the
\nbasis of All India Entrace Examination and the remaining 75%
\nby  holding a State level Entrance Examination.\t  In  almost
\nall  the  States in India the 75%  seats  for  Post-Graduate
\nMedical\t Courses are filled up by holding one  common  State
\nlevel examination and a combined merit list is prepared\t for
\nall  the  medical colleges in the State.  According  to\t the
\npetitioners  the  above rule is followed in almost  all\t the
\nStates\t including   the  States   of\tOrissa,\t  Rajasthan,
\nMaharashtra,  Karnatake and Punjab and Haryana.\t It is\tonly
\nthe  State of Uttar Pradesh which is admitting students\t for
\nPost-Graduate  Medical Courses on the basis of a merit\tlist
\nprepared   for\teach  college  out  of\t the   institutional
\ncandidates  of\tthat  college.\tThus,  the  State  of  Uttar
\nPradesh is not preparing a combined merit list for the whole
\nState inspite of the examination being conducted by the same
\nLucknow University.\n<\/p>\n
     It\t is not necessary for us to labour on the  point  in
\nissue  inasmuch\t as  the  point\t stands\t concluded  by\t the
\nfollowing  decisions of this Court in State of\tRajasthan  &
\nAnr. v. Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta & Ors.,<\/a> [1989] 1 SCC 93 and in
\nMunicipal  Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors.\t v.  Thukral
\nAnjali\tDeokumar  & Ors.,<\/a> [1989] 2 SCC 249.   In  Dr.  Ashok
\nKumar  Gupta’s case, a benefit to the extent of 5% in  total
\nmarks\twas  given  by\tway  of\t collegewise   institutional
\npreference in Rajasthan and the same was struck down by this
\nCourt on the ground of being unreasonable and arbitrary\t and
\nviolative of\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t       367.
\nArticle 14 of the Constitution.\t In Municipal Corporation of
\nGreater\t Bombay\t & Ors. v. Thukral Anjali  Deokumar  &\tOrs.<\/a>
\n(supra)\t the  question\twas  regarding\tadmission  to  Post-
\nGraduate  Degree\/Diploma Courses in medical colleges run  by
\nMunicipal  Corporation\tand state  Government.\t Collegewise
\ninstitutional preference was given under Rule 4(A) of  Rules
\nfor  admissions framed by Bombay Municipal  Corporation\t and
\nRule 5 framed under resolution for admission of\t Maharashtra
\nGovernment.\n<\/p>\n
     This Court held as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t “There\t is  not intelligible  differentia  for\t the
\n\t Classification by way of collegewise  institutional
\n\t preference  as\t provided  by  the  impugned   rules
\n\t distinguishing\t the preferred candidates in respect
\n\t of  each  college  from those\texcluded  from\tsuch
\n\t classification.    But\t  such\t classification\t  or
\n\t collegewise  institutional  preference,  merit\t has
\n\t been  sacrificed, far less it has  been  preferred.
\n\t When  the  university\tis the same  for  all  these
\n\t colleges, the syllabus, the standard of examination
\n\t and even the examiners are the same, any preference
\n\t to candidates to the post-graduate degree course of
\n\t the same university, except in order of merit, will
\n\t exclude  merit\t to  a great  extent  affecting\t the
\n\t standard  of  educational  institutions.   In\tsuch
\n\t circumstances, collegewise institutional preference
\n\t cannot\t be  supported\tand,  it  has  already\tbeen
\n\t noticed  that this Court has not approved  of\tsuch
\n\t preference at all.”\n<\/p>\n
     We\t have heard learned Counsel for the State  of  Uttar
\nPradesh\t as well as Counsel appearing for  the\tinterveners.
\nNone  of the Counsel were able to put forth any argument  on
\nmerits to distinguish the above-mentioned decisions of\tthis
\nCourt.\t The only argument made is that the  candidates\t who
\nhave  appeared\tin the examination for this year  under\t the
\nscheme\tof the rules under challenge have acquired  a  right
\nand it would be inequitable to strike the aforesaid rule and
\nto make the selection on the basis of a combined merit\tlist
\nfor  the  whole\t State.\t  We find  no  force  in  the  above
\ncontention.  As already mentioned above this Court in  State
\nof Rajasthan & Anr. v. Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta & Ors.<\/a>  decided
\non October 11, 1988 and in Municipal Corporation of  Greater
\nBombay\t& Ors. v. Thukral Anjali Deokumar & Ors.<\/a> decided  on
\nMarch\t7,  1989  had  already\tstruck\tdown  the  rule\t  of
\ncollegewise  institutional preference as being violative  of
\nArticle
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       368<\/span>
\n14  of\tthe  Constitution and all the States  in  India\t are
\nfollowing the rule of one combined merit list for the  whole
\nState except the State of Uttar Pradesh.  We had also issued
\nnotice\tto the Medical Council of India and Learned  Counsel
\nappearing  for\tthe Medical Council of India also  took\t the
\nstand  that one combined merit list should be prepared\twhen
\nthe entrance examination is conducted by one University\t for
\nall the medical colleges in the State.\tThere is no question
\nof  claiming  any right by the candidates on the  ground  of
\nhaving\tappeared  in  the examination on the  basis  of\t the
\nimpugned  guidelines mentioned in the  information  brochure
\nissued\tby the University, as no admissions in\tthe  present
\ncase  have  been made so far in any of the  colleges.\tThis
\nwrit petition had been filed prior to the declaration of the
\nresults\t and  after hearing Counsel for the parties  we\t had
\ngranted\t stay  of admissions in the entire  State  of  Uttar
\nPradesh\t  for\tPost-Graduate\tCourses.    If\t we    allow
\nclassification\ton collegewise institutional preference,  it
\nwould  be in violation of the law already declared  by\tthis
\nCourt.\t It would also result into great injustice to  large
\nnumber of candidates who are not before us but are bound  to
\nbe  affected if combined merit list is not prepared for\t the
\nentire\tState  as  a  whole.  We find  no  valid  ground  or
\njustification to allow any admissions on the basis of a rule
\nwhich  is  clearly  arbitrary  and  discriminatory  and\t has
\nalready\t been  declared as violative of Article\t 14  of\t the
\nConstitution.\n<\/p>\n
     An\t application  has been submitted on  behalf  of\t Dr.
\nRajat  Shekhar, Dr. Rakesh Yadav and Dr. Reena Aggarwal\t for
\nimpleading  them  as parties in this case.  Looking  to\t the
\nurgency of the matter and the nature of the issues involved,
\nwe  do\tnot find any ground or justification  to  allow\t the
\napplicants to be impleaded as parties in the case.  However,
\nwe  have  already permitted the interveners  to\t file  their
\nsubmissions  in\t writing and as such we\t are  examining\t the
\nwritten submissions of the applicants also.\n<\/p>\n
     The  objections raised by the interveners\tare  totally
\nbaseless  and without any foundation.  It may be noted\tthat
\nin the reply submitted by the State of Uttar Pradesh it\t has
\nbeen  stated  that  a total of 316 candidates have qualified
\nagainst\t 540  seats.   Thus,  it  is  clear  that  all\t the
\ncandidates including the interveners will get admission\t for
\nPost-graduate  Courses in one college or the  other.   There
\ncannot\tbe  any\t vested\t right in  seeking  admission  in  a
\nparticular college.  Merit as the basis for selection in the
\nspeciality  in a Post-Graduate course cannot  be  sacrificed
\nagainst\t  convenience.\t  The\tapplicant\/interveners\thave
\nsubmitted that the brochure clearly mentioned that
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       369<\/span>
\nthe  competitive entrance examination was held on the  basis
\nof  a  merit list for each college out of the  institutional
\ncandidates  of that college.  It has been submitted  that  a
\nstudent\t who  appears  in  a  competitive  examination\t for
\nadmission to a particular institution is aware of the likely
\ncompetition he is to face in his home institution.  Had\t the
\napplicants  been  aware\t that it  was  an  open\t competitive
\nexamination for the whole State and a combined merit list of
\nthe entire seats, the effort put in by the students would be
\ncommensurate to the competition they are likely to face.  We
\ncannot comprehend an argument like the one made above that a
\ncandidate while appearing in an examination for selection on
\nthe  basis  of\tmerit  will  adopt  different  standards  of
\npreparation  and effort if they would have known that  merit
\nwould  be determined on the basis of a combined\t merit\tlist
\nfor  the  whole State instead of merit\tcollegewise.   Every
\nstudent\t is  expected and in fact puts all his\tefforts\t and
\nenergies  in  securing the best position on merit  in  every
\ncompetitive examination.  It has been further submitted that
\nchanging  or  setting  the clock back at  this\tstage  would
\nresult\tin severe disappointment amongst a large  number  of
\nsuccessful  candidates\tand  that  the\tstudents  would\t  be
\ndisturbed  from\t their\thearths and  homes  where  they\t are
\nsettled\t for  the last so many years and  are  not  mentally
\nprepared to be shifted from the said atmosphere.  We find no
\nforce  in  the\tsubmission.   In the  present  case  we\t are
\nconcerned  with\t admission to Post-Graduate courses  in\t the
\nmedical colleges where the eligible candidates are those who
\nhave  already  passed MBBS examination\tand  have  completed
\ncompulsory rotatory internship.\t Thus, it is not a course in
\nwhich  any young or teenagers are seeking admissions but  on
\nthe  other  hand it is a course where  candidates   who\t are
\nalready mature in age and have already qualified  as doctors
\nare seeking  admission\tand such candidates  cannot  take  a
\nground\tthat they would be disturbed from their hearths\t and
\nhomes and were not mentally prepared to be shifted from\t the
\nsaid  atmosphere.  If a candidate is prepared to  come\tfrom
\nLucknow\t and Allahabad to Jhansi and Gorakhpur why  not\t the
\ncandidates  of\tJhansi\tand Gorakhpur go  to  other  medical
\ncolleges  in  the same State of Uttar Pradesh.\t Even  after
\nobtaining  Post-Graduate  degrees the candidates  should  be
\nwell  prepared\tfor being posted anywhere in  the  State  of
\nUttar  Pradesh,\t and even may have to go outside  their\t own
\nState  for  the betterment of their career.   We  cannot  be
\noblivious to the situation that\t if the rule of merit on the
\nbasis  of institutional preference is applied,\ta  candidate
\nhaving secured a very high position in merit in the combined
\nmerit list for the whole State of Uttar Pradesh may
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       370<\/span>
\nbe  deprived  of  getting a speciality of  his\tchoice\teven
\nthough be might be prepared to go in another medical college
\nin the same State of Uttar Pradesh.\n<\/p>\n
     It\t    has\t    also    been    submitted\t  by\t the
\napplicants\/interveners that the students having passed their
\nMBBS  courses  from Gorakhpur, Jhansi and Agra were  put  to
\ngreater\t hardship  and\tless  privileges  in  comparison  to
\nLucknow and Kanpur where there were more facilities like the
\nspecial cardiac lab, neurology lab, cat scan  facility, echo
\ncardiography   or  facilities  for  advanced   surgery\t and
\nmicroscopic  surgery.  We fail to understand as to  how\t the
\nfacility  ground  can at  all be to the\t disadvantage  of  a
\nmeritorious  student  having  passed his  MBBS\tcourse\tfrom
\nGorakhpur, Jhansi or Agra.  In the case of a combined  merit
\nlist  for the whole State of Uttar Pradesh,  the  Candidates
\nhaving\tsecured\t a  high position in  merit  would  also  be
\nentitled  to  get specialities of their\t choice\t in  medical
\ncolleges  of Lucknow and Kanpur even though they might\thave
\npassed\ttheir MBBS course from medical colleges\t other\tthan
\nLucknow and Kanpur.\n<\/p>\n
     In\t the result, we allow this writ petition and  strike
\ndown the impugned Rule (G)(ii) laying down the provision for
\npreparing  a  merit  list  for\teach  college  out  of\t the
\ninstitutional  candidates  of that college.  We\t direct\t the
\nState  Government  to  make  admissions\t for   Post-Graduate
\nMedical\t Courses  in all the seven medical colleges  on\t the
\nbasis of a combined merit list.\t The State Government  shall
\nissue a Notification in this regard and publish the same  in
\none Hindi and one English newspaper immediately having\twide
\ncirculation  in\t the State of Uttar Pradesh as\twell  as  by
\nputting\t the  same  on the notice board\t of  all  the  seven
\nmedical colleges.  It would state that the admissions  shall
\nbe  made in Post-Graduate Medical Courses on the basis of  a
\ncombined  merit list for the entire State of  Uttar  Pradesh
\nand allow all the eligible candidates to mention their fresh
\nchoice\tof specialities in the Post-Graduate Courses  within
\n10 days of such publication in the newspaper and  thereafter
\nmake  selection on the basis of combined merit list for\t the
\nwhole  State.\tIn case any candidate  does not\t submit\t his
\nchoice\tof speciality within the aforesaid time, the  choice
\nalready\t given by him shall be taken into  consideration  in
\nhis case.  No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
G.N.\t\t\t\t\t    Petition allowed.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t       371<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India P.K. Goel And Ors vs U.P. Medical Council And Ors on 15 May, 1992 Equivalent citations: 1992 AIR 1475, 1992 SCR (3) 363 Author: N Kasliwal Bench: Kasliwal, N.M. (J) PETITIONER: P.K. GOEL AND ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: U.P. MEDICAL COUNCIL AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT15\/05\/1992 BENCH: KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) BENCH: KASLIWAL, […]<\/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-69614","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nP.K. Goel And Ors vs U.P. Medical Council And Ors on 15 May, 1992 - 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\/p-k-goel-and-ors-vs-u-p-medical-council-and-ors-on-15-may-1992\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"P.K. Goel And Ors vs U.P. Medical Council And Ors on 15 May, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-goel-and-ors-vs-u-p-medical-council-and-ors-on-15-may-1992\" \/>\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=\"1992-05-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-21T07:55:19+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-k-goel-and-ors-vs-u-p-medical-council-and-ors-on-15-may-1992#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-k-goel-and-ors-vs-u-p-medical-council-and-ors-on-15-may-1992\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"P.K. Goel And Ors vs U.P. Medical Council And Ors on 15 May, 1992\",\"datePublished\":\"1992-05-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-21T07:55:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-k-goel-and-ors-vs-u-p-medical-council-and-ors-on-15-may-1992\"},\"wordCount\":2373,\"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\\\/p-k-goel-and-ors-vs-u-p-medical-council-and-ors-on-15-may-1992#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-k-goel-and-ors-vs-u-p-medical-council-and-ors-on-15-may-1992\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-k-goel-and-ors-vs-u-p-medical-council-and-ors-on-15-may-1992\",\"name\":\"P.K. Goel And Ors vs U.P. Medical Council And Ors on 15 May, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1992-05-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-21T07:55:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-k-goel-and-ors-vs-u-p-medical-council-and-ors-on-15-may-1992#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-k-goel-and-ors-vs-u-p-medical-council-and-ors-on-15-may-1992\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/p-k-goel-and-ors-vs-u-p-medical-council-and-ors-on-15-may-1992#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"P.K. Goel And Ors vs U.P. Medical Council And Ors on 15 May, 1992\"}]},{\"@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":"P.K. Goel And Ors vs U.P. Medical Council And Ors on 15 May, 1992 - 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\/p-k-goel-and-ors-vs-u-p-medical-council-and-ors-on-15-may-1992","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"P.K. Goel And Ors vs U.P. Medical Council And Ors on 15 May, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-goel-and-ors-vs-u-p-medical-council-and-ors-on-15-may-1992","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1992-05-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-21T07:55:19+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-goel-and-ors-vs-u-p-medical-council-and-ors-on-15-may-1992#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-goel-and-ors-vs-u-p-medical-council-and-ors-on-15-may-1992"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"P.K. Goel And Ors vs U.P. Medical Council And Ors on 15 May, 1992","datePublished":"1992-05-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-21T07:55:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-goel-and-ors-vs-u-p-medical-council-and-ors-on-15-may-1992"},"wordCount":2373,"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\/p-k-goel-and-ors-vs-u-p-medical-council-and-ors-on-15-may-1992#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-goel-and-ors-vs-u-p-medical-council-and-ors-on-15-may-1992","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-goel-and-ors-vs-u-p-medical-council-and-ors-on-15-may-1992","name":"P.K. Goel And Ors vs U.P. Medical Council And Ors on 15 May, 1992 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1992-05-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-21T07:55:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-goel-and-ors-vs-u-p-medical-council-and-ors-on-15-may-1992#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-goel-and-ors-vs-u-p-medical-council-and-ors-on-15-may-1992"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/p-k-goel-and-ors-vs-u-p-medical-council-and-ors-on-15-may-1992#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"P.K. Goel And Ors vs U.P. Medical Council And Ors on 15 May, 1992"}]},{"@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\/69614","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=69614"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69614\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69614"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69614"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69614"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}