http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 13  

PETITIONER: DR. HARIHAR PRASAD SINGH AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: PRINCIPAL,     M.L.N.     MEDICAL     COLLEGE     ALLAHABADA

DATE OF JUDGMENT21/08/1990

BENCH: RANGNATHAN, S. BENCH: RANGNATHAN, S. SAIKIA, K.N. (J)

CITATION:  1990 SCR  (3) 895        1990 SCC  (4) 533  JT 1990 (3)   670        1990 SCALE  (2)350

ACT:     Professional    Colleges--Admission    to:     Residency Scheme--Clause  5--Motilal Nehru Medical  College--Admission to P.G. Course--’Ussamay’ interpretation.

HEADNOTE:     The  appellants are junior doctors who were in  a  house job  on 22.8.1989. They had been admitted  to  post-graduate degree  course (second year) in the M.L.N.  Medical  COllege under  the "Residency Scheme" for junior doctors, which  was notified  on  22.8.1989 but was given  retrospective  effect from  1.8.1987. They, however, lost their seats as a  result of  the  High Court’s decision allowing the  writ  petitions flied  by  the  respondent-doctors  whose  applications  for admission to the same course had been rejected.     The  modifications  introduced by the  Residency  Scheme needed  certain  transitory provisions being  made  for  two purposes.  The  first was to devise a  formula  of  equating between the old and the new systems. This was done by redes- ignating  all students, junior doctors, house  officers  and others  in position in the manner set out in para 5  of  the scheme.  The  second provision necessary was  in  regard  to their admission to the post-graduate courses. This was  done by the second sub-para of para 5.     The  respondent-doctors  who had  done  their  M.B.B.S., internship  and  house-job by April 1988 and  who  had  even obtained  admission, in March 1989, into a  diploma  course, sought admission in the M.L.N. College into the second  year of  a degree course by taking advantage of clause 5  of  the Residency  Scheme. Their applications were rejected  on  the ground  that  the clause 5 of the scheme  was  a  transitory provision  intended  to benefit only persons who were  on  a house  job as on 22.8.1989; they alone could take  advantage of  the scheme as soon as they completed the house job;  and not  persons who had completed their house-job much  earlier to that date. Thereupon, these doctors filed writ  petitions in  the High Court. A Division Bench of the High  Court  al- lowed  the  petitions and held that clause  5  extended  the privilege of admission to 896 the second year of the degree course to all persons who were working as house-officers on or after 1st August, 1987.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 13  

   The State as well as certain doctors who were in  house- jobs  as  on  22.8.1989 and who had been  admitted  to  post graduate  degree courses on the basis of the State’s  inter- pretation of the scheme but lost their seats as a result  of the High Court’s decision, have preferred these appeals.     So far as the present appeals are concerned, all parties have proceeded on the footing that the residency scheme is a valid  one and that it envisaged that a person who had  com- pleted  house-job for one year could get admission into  the second  year of the course (whether degree or diploma).  The only controversy is whether this admission was open only  to those  persons who were in a house-job as on  22.8.1989  and had completed it before 30.10.1989. Dismissing the appeals, this Court,     HELD:  (1)  There is no rule which  prohibits  a  person (even though he may already be a student in a  post-graduate course) from seeking admission to the second year of  junior residency, the eligibility clauses for admission to which he fulfills.  The High Court was, therefore, right  in  holding that  they  could  not be excluded  from  consideration  for admission  to  the second year of the degree  course  merely because  they  were already students in  a  diploma  course. [901H; 902A-B]     (2) To ask persons, who had already completed a one year house job, to undergo the three year degree/two year diploma course would be a severe handicap to them as, earlier,  they could  have  got their  postgraduate  degree/diploma  course after  two years/one year. In order to adjust them into  the new  scheme  the State designated holders of house  jobs  as "junior  residents (first year)" under the new scheme.  This enabled  the  holders of house-jobs to get into  the  second year course under the residency scheme. [902H; 903A]     (3)  The  scheme, however, could not  be  stretched  and converted into a limitless provision making it possible  for all  persons  who  had completed their house  jobs  at  some distant past to compete for admission to the second year  of the  degree course. That is why para 5 limited the scope  of the redesignation and admission. The first part of it limit- ed  the equation only to persons who were working on  house- jobs since 1.8.1987. [903B-C] 897     (4) The date material for the purpose of their admission was  30.9.1989, the last date by which the applications  had to  be sent in. That being so, the words "ussamay"  used  in the second sub-para of para 5 are the operative words.  They clearly embody a reference to an anterior point of time  and this  can only be a reference to the period  since  1.8.1987 which finds specific mention in the first sub-para and which is  the period subsequent to the scheme coming  into  opera- tion. [905D-E]     (5)  All  persons doing house jobs  after  1.8.1987  are covered  by the second sub-para of para 5. The words  "after completion  of the tenure" had to be used here  because  the class of persons referred to also included those who were in house jobs as on 22.8.1989. [905F]     (6) It is clear that the words "House Officer",  "Junior Residents"  and "Senior Residents" used against serial  Nos. 1,  2  and 3 in para 5 of the scheme  redesignate  all  such officers  working since 1.8.1987 as  "junior  residents-1st, 2nd and 3rd year" respectively. That being so, both the writ petitioners as well as the appellants are all "junior  resi- dents  (1st year)" and should be eligible for  admission  to the second year of the residency scheme course. [903D-E]     (7) It is clear from the judgments of the High Court  on the  subject that the interpretation of the clauses  on  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 13  

scheme  is  by no means an easy task. In this state  of  af- fairs, it is upto the State to find out a practical solution to  ensure that the student community is not  prejudiced  by the ambiguities in the scheme. [909H; 910A]     Mridula  Avasthi and Others v. University of  Delhi  and Others, [1988] 3 S.C.R. 762, referred to.

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 432938 of 1990.     From  the  Judgment and Order dated 30.5.  1990  of  the Allahabad  High Court in C.M.W.P. Nos. 18102, 18036,  22161, 22836 and 22877 of 1989.     Kapil Sibal, Additional Solicitor General, Satish  Chan- dra,  Ms. Shobha Dixit, Pradeep Mishra, R.K. Virmani,  Gopal Subramaniam, Harish N. Salve and D.K. Garg for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 898 RANGANATHAN, J. We have come to the conclusion that the . High Court’s decision under appeal has to be upheld. But, as the question raised is one of importance and difficulty,  we have heard the counsel at length. We grant leave in all  the petitions and proceed to give the reasons for our conclusion in detail.     Both sets of appeals are the off-shoots of a  "Residency Scheme"  for junior doctors introduced in the State of  U.P. and they can be conveniently disposed of by a common order.     In the State of U.P., post-graduate courses in  medicine were  of two types: degree and diploma. The duration of  the degree course was two years and that of the diploma  course, one  year. The minimum requirement for admission to a  post- graduate  course  (whether degree or diploma) was  that  the candidate  should have passed the M.B.B.S.  degree  examina- tion, then done one year’s internship and then done a  house job for one year.     The "Residency Scheme" was notified on 22.8.89. This was the  culmination  of a long period of  agitation  by  junior doctors in the State for better emoluments and conditions of service.  This  scheme was given retrospective  effect  from 1.8.1987, for para 8 of the scheme says: "The above residen- cy  scheme  shall be deemed to have been enforced  from  1st August,  1987". Under the scheme, every  candidate  selected for  a  post-graduate degree course would have a  tenure  of three  years  which would also be the tenure of  the  course itself.  All such candidates were to be called Junior  Resi- dents--1st  year, 2nd year and 3rd year respectively  during their  tenure.  Each  candidate  selected  for  postgraduate diploma course would have a tenure of two years which  would also  be  the tenure of the course and all  such  candidates were  to be called Junior Residents--1st year and  2nd  year respectively.  In  other words, the duration of  the  degree course  was  raised to three years and that of  the  diploma course to two years. However, simultaneously, the eligibili- ty  requirement of one year’s experience in a house-job  was dispensed  with, the net result being that the total  period needed,  after taking a M.B.B.S. degree, to acquire a  post- graduate degree/diploma remained the same as before.     The  modifications introduced by the new  scheme  needed certain  transitory provisions being made for two  purposes. The  first was to devise a formula of equation  between  the old and the new systems. This was done by redesignating  all

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 13  

students,  junior  doctors,  house officers  and  others  in position in the manner set out in para 5 of the 899 scheme.  The  original notification is in Hindi but  a  free translation of the first part of the above para, as set  out in the judgment of the High Court, reads thus:           "Upon  enforcement of the above Residency  Scheme, all  the House Officers, Junior Residents 1st  year  working since  1st  August, 1987 and similarly working  all  Juniors Doctors ("all junior doctors similarly working" is perhaps a better  translation) shall stand converted to the  following new designation propose in the residency: S. No. President designation              Designation upon                                           enforcement of                                           residency scheme. 1.     House Officer/Demonstrator,         Junior Resident 1st year.                                  1st year. 2.    Junior Resident/RMO 1st year/         Junior Resident       RSO 1st year/RGO 1st year/            2nd year.       Demonstrator 2nd year/P. G.       degree student 1st year/       P.G. Diploma student 1st year. 3.    Senior Resident/RMO 2nd year/       Junior Resident       RSO 2nd year/RGO 2nd year/          3rd year.       Demonstrator 3rd year/       Registrar/P.G. Degree       students 2nd year. The second provision necessary was in regard to their admis- sion  to  the post-graduate courses. This was  done  by  the second sub-para or para 5 which ran thus:           "At the same time ("Iske sath hi sath") the admis- sion and registration of the House Officers, working at  the time  ("us sumay") to post graduate courses  (degree/diploma course)  shall be done after completion of their tenure  and on the basis of their merit at M.B .B .S. and house-job". [Words in brackets give the original Hindi expressions used; emphasis added by us. ] 900     The provisions of the scheme do not explicitly say  that the category of persons dealt with under the second sub-para above  will  be admitted to the second year  of  the  degree course  (junior resident--2nd year) of the residency  scheme on the basis of inter-se merit. A somewhat different line of thinking seems to have been adopted by the High Court in Dr. Sandeepa  Srivastava’s case (to which we will  be  referring later).  But, so far as the present appeals  are  concerned, all parties have proceeded on the footing that the scheme is a  valid  one and that it envisaged that a  person  who  had completed  house-job for one year could get  admission  into the  second year of the course (whether degree or  diploma). The only controversy is whether this admission is open  only to  those persons who were in a house-job as on 22.8.89  and completed  it before 30.10.1989 (hereinafter referred to  as ’the appellants’) or to all persons who had been in a  house job on or after 1.8.87. The question arose when a number  of doctors  (hereinafter referred to as ’the writ  petitioners) who  had  done their M.B.B.S., internship and  house-job  by April, 1988 and who (save for one) had even obtained  admis- sion, in March 1989, into a diploma course sought  admission in  the Motilal Nehru Medical College at Allahabad  (’M.L.N. College’, for short) into the second year of a degree course in the same or a different speciality by taking advantage of clause  5 of the residency scheme. Their  applications  were rejected  on  the  ground that the relevant  clause  of  the scheme  was a transitory provision intended to benefit  only

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 13  

persons who were on a house job as on 22.8.1989. They  alone could take advantage of the scheme as soon as they completed the house job; not persons who had completed their house-job much  earlier  to that date. The writ  petitioners  went  to Court  and this time they were successful. A Division  Bench of the Allahabad High Court held, interpreting rule 5,  that rule  5  extended the privilege of admission to  the  second year of the degree course to all persons who were working as house-officers  on or after 1st August, 1987. The State,  as well as certain doctors who were in house-jobs as on 22.8.89 and who had been admitted to post graduate degree courses on the  basis of the State’s interpretation of the  scheme  but lost  their seats as a result of the High Court’s  decision, have preferred these appeals. Four  questions  arose  for the consideration  of  the  High Court-- (1)  Is the concession contemplated by rule 5 of the  scheme limited  only  to  doctors in house jobs as  on  22.8.89  or available  to all those who were in house jobs as on  1.8.87 and later? (2) Is a candidate who has already been admitted to, and is 901 undergoing a diploma course eligible to seek admission to  a degree course under rule 57 (3)  Is it open to a candidate who is a student in  a  post- graduate diploma course in one speciality to seek  admission to the postgraduate degree course in any particular special- ity? (4)  Is it permissible for a candidate who is  undergoing  a diploma course to abandon it in the middle and join a degree course? The High Court expressed no opinion on the latter two  ques- tions  leaving it to the Principal of the College to  decide the same in due course but answered the first two  questions in  favour  of the writ petitioners. We are  concerned  here only with these two questions.     We  may  take the second of these questions  first.  The writ  petitioners say that a direct answer to this  question is  provided  by  a notification issued on  13.8.87  by  the Governor  of  the State in pursuance of  the  provisions  of Article  348 of the Constitution read with S. 28(5)  of  the Uttar  Pradesh  State Universities Act (Act X of  1973),  as amended Act 29 of 1974. This notification effects an  amend- ment to an earlier notification dated 15.12.1982 (as  subse- quently amended) by adding a new para thereto. The new  para provides: "(7A)  If any candidate has been admitted in  post  graduate Diploma  or Degree Course in one speciality he shall not  be eligible  for admission in Post Graduate Diploma  or  Degree Course in any other speciality. For removal of doubts it  is clarified  that  if a candidate has been  admitted  in  Post Graduate Diploma Course in one speciality he may be  allowed admission  in Post Graduate Degree Course in that very  spe- ciality." If  this is correct, there can be no doubt that none of  the writ  petitioners can be denied registration and  considera- tion for admission to the degree course merely on the ground that  he  has earlier been admitted to a diploma  course  in some  speciality.  It is urged on behalf of  the  appellants that this rule has lost its force on the promulgation of the new  scheme.  It is difficult to see why this should  be  so because its principle could be applied, mutatis mutandis, to the  residency scheme as well. But even if this  is  correct and this para is kept out of consideration altogether, there is  no  rule which prohibits a person (even  though  he  may

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 13  

already be a student in a post-graduate course) from seeking 902 admission to the second year of junior residency, the eligi- bility clauses for admission to which he fulfills. The  High Court was, therefore right, while expressing no view on  the question whether any of the writ petitioners are eligible to be  admitted to any particular speciality, in  holding  that they could not be excluded from consideration for  admission to the second year of the degree course merely because  they are already students in a diploma course.     The first question, however, is a more difficult one. We have considered the contentions of both sides carefully  and we  have come to the conclusion that there is no  reason  to disturb  the High Court’s conclusion. Prior to the  enforce- ment  of the scheme, all candidates who had completed  their M.B.B.S.  together with one year of internship and one  year of  house job were eligible for admission to a  postgraduate degree  or diploma course and a particular  candidate  could make repeated attempts for being considered for admission to a  particular post graduate speciality, irrespective of  the batch  to which he belonged or the particular year in  which he  was  admitted to the M.B.B.S. course or  the  particular year in which he passed the final M.B.B.S. examination. That liberty  is  available  after the introduction  of  the  new scheme also to all M.B.B.S. graduates who have completed one year  of internship. Irrespective of the year in which  they qualified in the M.B.B.S. degree examination, it is open  to all  such candidates to seek admission to the first year  of the  new three-year degree/two year diploma course. That  is not in dispute. The question only is whether any of them are entitled  to  claim  admission in the second  year  of  that course  on  the ground that they had  also  completed  their house-job  earlier. The answer to this question must  depend on the interpretation of--the none too clear--para 5 of  the Residency Scheme.     In  interpreting  the scheme, it is first  necessary  to point  out that the preamble to the notification sets out  a two-fold objective of prescribing a policy/procedure (a) for the  conversion of the existing designations in the  depart- ments  to equivalent designations and (b) for  specification of  the number of seats for various  degree/diploma  courses and  for  "eligibility examination for  selection  thereon". [sic:  apparently, this should read: "eligibility,  examina- tion  or selection thereto". ] One further important  factor to  be borne in mind is that the scheme was given effect  to from  1.8.87.  To ask persons, who had already  completed  a one-year  house  job, to undergo the three  year  degree/two year  diploma course would be a severe handicap to them  as, earlier,   they   could   have   got   their   post-graduate degree/diploma after two years/one year. In order to  adjust them into the new scheme 903 the State designated holders of house jobs as "junior  resi- dents  (first year)" under the new scheme. This enabled  the holders  of  house-jobs to get into the second  year  course under  the  residency  scheme. It has been  stated,  in  the appellants’ rejoinder, that a large number of candidates who had completed their M.B.B.S. even ten years earlier and some candidates who were even on the verge of completing a  post- graduate  degree  course  had applied  for  registration  as junior  residents (2nd year) along with the  appellants  and the  writ petitioners. This kind of situation would  be  im- practical. Obviously, the scheme could not be stretched  and converted into a limitless provision making it possible  for all  persons  who  had completed their house  jobs  at  some

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 13  

distant past to compete for admission to the second year  of the  degree course. That is why para 5 limited the scope  of the redesignation and admission. The first part of it limit- ed  the equation above referred to only to persons who  were working  on house-jobs since 1.8. 1987. The High  Court  was clearly  right in saying that the words "1st year"  used  in column  of the table in para 5 against serial No.  1  govern only  "demonstrator".  It  is clear that  the  words  "House Officer",  "Junior  Resident"  and  "Senior  Resident"  used against serial Nos. 1, 2 and 3 redesignate all such officers working since 1.8.87 as "junior residents--1st , 2nd and 3rd year" respectively. That being so, both the writ petitioners as  well as the appellants before us are all  "junior  resi- dents  (1st year)" and should be eligible for  admission  to the second year of the residency scheme course.     But, it is said, this cannot be, for two reasons. One is that  the  second sub-para of para 5 is restricted  only  to those who were House Officers on 22.8.89. We think that this contention  has been rightly repelled by the High Court.  To accept this construction would mean a segregation of the two parts  of para 5 and the substitution of the words "on  22nd August  1989" for the words "since 1st August 1987" used  in the  first  para  of para 5. The words  "us  sumay"  clearly establish  a nexus between the two parts of para 5  and  can only refer to the period referred to in the first part  viz. "since 1st August 1987". It is difficult to see how a refer- ence  to two different periods could have been  intended  by the  two parts of para 5. That this could not be so is  also clear for the scheme, though announced on 22.8.89, was to be effective from 1.8. 1987. That is why a line is drawn as  on that date and all persons who are working as house officers, junior  resident  doctors or senior resident  doctors  since that date are all assimilated into the new scheme. There  is no  justification to read such assimilation as  partial,  as contended for by the State. It was contended that the scheme was  the outcome of negotiations with junior doctors in  the State who were 904 agitating for better conditions of service and higher emolu- ments and that the settlement with them was only that higher emoluments will be paid w.e.f. 1.8.87. Necessary material to substantiate this plea was not placed before the High  Court or  before us. But even assuming that the  negotiations  and agreement  had  a limited scope, we have  to  interpret  the scope of para 5 on its language. The reference to the period since  1.8. 1987 in para 5 fits in with the  declaration  in para  8 that the scheme should be deemed to have  come  into force on 1.8.87. In this context, it is of significance that the  scheme notified on 22.8.89 states that the  scheme  has been  introduced in pursuance of proposals submitted to  the State  Government  "for  the desired  improvement  in  under graduate/post graduate training" in all colleges and  hospi- tals but makes no reference to the revision of the scales of pay  of the junior doctors. It is, therefore,  difficult  to accept  the plea that the date 1.8.87 has significance  only in the matter of pay scales and nothing else. This objection is not, therefore, sustainable.     The second point made by the State and the appellants is that  the  writ petitioners, under the scheme,  are  already "junior  residents--2nd  year" as they are  already  in  the first  year of a post graduate diploma course and they  can- not, therefore, be eligible for admission to the second year of  the degree course where also they will be designated  as "junior residents--2nd year". In our view, the objection  is untenable. In the first place, it is only a variation of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 13  

argument  that a person already undergoing a diploma  course cannot be admitted to a degree course, which we have reject- ed  already. But that apart, there is’ nothing wrong in  the writ  petitioners being admitted to the second  year  degree course  and being called "junior residents--2nd year"  there instead  of  in the diploma course. In this context,  it  is necessary to point out that they have been admitted into the diploma  course  only in March 1989 and that  they  are  not seeking  any  credit for the period of education  they  have undergone in the diploma course.     It is then argued that the words "ussamay" occurring  in the second part of para 5 of the scheme is really a  mistake for  "at  this  time" or "is sumay" or  "vartman  mein".  In support  of  this  contention, it is pointed  out  that  the Director  of Medical Education had written to the  secretary to  the  Government on 2.11.1989 requesting  that  the  word "vartman"  be  substituted  in place of "us  samay"  in  the notification  of 22.8.89 "so that the meaning of  the  above lines shall be clear". It is also submitted that the  refer- ence to such persons being eligible for admission "after the completion  of  the tenure" in the house-job also  makes  it clear that persons who had already completed 905 their  house jobs in 1987 or 1988 are not within  contempla- tion. We are unable to agree. When the notification talks of "us  samay",  we cannot read it differently. The  letter  of Director  of  Medical  Education dated 2.11.  1989  finds  a reference  only in the appellants’ rejoinder  affidavit  and the writ petitioners have had no opportunity to meet it. The State  has not referred to this letter, or the action  taken on  it, anywhere. These difficulties apart, the letter  pat- ently  seeks to bring about a change in the contents of  the notification  and is not a simple request for  clarification as  it purports to be. At best, it only reflects the  Direc- tor’s understanding of the notification and cannot bind  the writ petitioners or the Court. Also, no information has been furnished  by the appellants or the State as to whether  the request  of the Director has been accepted and an  amendment published by the Government for the amendment suggested  can become effective only on such publication. It may be pointed out  a  propose  this contention that  the  notification  of 22.8.89  itself  had been published in the Gazette  only  on 25.11.89,  much  subsequent to the Director’s  letter.  Even assuming that her suggestion has since been accepted and the words  "at  that time" stand replaced by the words  "at  the present time" by a proper notification later, that amendment cannot  affect the parties before us. The date material  for the  purposes of their admission was 30.9.89, the last  date by which the applications had to be sent in. That being  so, the  words "us samay" used in the second sub-para of para  5 are the operative words. They clearly embody a reference  to an  anterior point of time and this can only be a  reference to  the period since 1.8.87 which finds specific mention  in the first sub-para and which is the period subsequent to the scheme coming into operation. Thus, all persons doing  house jobs after 1.8.87 are covered by the second sub para of para 5. The words "after completion of the tenure" had to be used here because the class of persons referred to also  included those who were in house jobs as on 22.8.89. Indeed this  was how the scheme was understood by the Principal of the M.L.N. College  and, perhaps, by the other principals too. We  find that the terms of the advertisement issued by the Principal, M.L.N. College, to which the writ petitioners had  responded said this:           "Candidates must have passed M.B.B.S. Degree  from

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 13  

a University recognised by M.C.I., should have completed one year compulsory rotatory internship training and should have completed/will  be completing one year house manship in  the subject concerned by 30th October, 1989  ......  " 906 This  was  the understanding of the scheme  by  the  College Principal  and, admittedly, the writ  petitioners  fulfilled these requirements. There is, therefore, no substance in the second contention either.     Ms. Sobha Dixit, appearing for the State, submitted that the  interpretation  placed by the High  Court  creates  two types  of major difficulties. The first is that  though  the High  Court’s  decision related only to  M.L.N.  College  at Allahabad, similar claims have also been made for admissions into  post-graduate courses all over the State and, in  some cases,  the  High  Court, following the  present  case,  has issued  directions to a like effect with the result  that  a large  number of candidates who have secured admissions  are now  facing  the loss of their seats and of the  benefit  of almost  one year of study which they have already  undergone by now. This argument, in our opinion, has no force. It does not appear to be correct to say that the High Court’s  deci- sion in the present case will affect admissions all over the State. The respondents have stated thus in para 13 of  their counter-affidavit:          The  admission  in other Medical Colleges  of  U.P. have  been done on the basis of old rules i.e. on the  basis of  Govt. Notification dated 15.12. 1982 and  13.8.1987  and the students who have completed their house job much earlier prior to 22.8.89 were given admission in 2 year degree and 1 year  diploma  course according to their  respective  merits after the introduction of residency scheme dated 22.8.89." (underlining ours) This  remains uncontroverted. Further, the validity  of  the admissions made to the other colleges would depend on  those who  had applied for admission there. If earlier batches  of house-officers  had  also  applied for  admission  to  those colleges  and been refused admission, as in the M.L.N.  Col- lege,  the  position may be similar to that in  the  present case.  If, however, such persons had not at all  applied  or had  been  duly considered, no question can  arise  now  for their  consideration. No unjustified revision  of  completed admissions  is, therefore, likely to result. The  plea  that the  appellants have already completed about a year  in  the course  and should not lose the benefit thereof cannot  also be  given much weight because, by interim orders  passed  in the  writ petitions, the High Court had made it  clear  that they  were being allowed to continue in the course  only  on the specific understanding 907 that  their admissions will be subject to the result of  the writ petitions.     The  second point made by the State counsel is  that  it compels  the batch of students working in a house-job as  on 22.8.89  to face competition from earlier batches  and  this according  to  her, is contrary to law. In support  of  this contention,  she  referred to certain observations  made  by this  Court  that  it would not be correct  to  compare  the merits of candidates in different examinations and different States.  We see no force in this contention. As pointed  out earlier,  before and after the introduction of  the  scheme, admission  to the first year of the scheme was and  will  by open competition between medical graduates who had completed house-jobs or internships irrespective of the batch to which they belong. It is stated in an affidavit filed on behalf of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 13  

the  appellants  that, though the  writ  petitioners,  while getting admission to the postgraduate diploma course earlier had  to compete with earlier batches of students, they  were given  some  preference. We do not know on what  basis  such preference was given and it is too late now to examine  that aspect. But the fact remains that they were considered along with  candidates of earlier batches. We, therefore,  see  no justification  for contending that great injustice  will  be caused to the appellants because it has become necessary for them  to face competition from two earlier batches  of  stu- dents.     On the contrary, as pointed out by the High Court, it is the interpretation pleaded for by the State that may  offend article  14 of the Constitution. We have held  earlier  that the  scheme,  though introduced in 1989  is  effective  from 1.8.87.  If that be so, to place house-officers  working  on 22.8.89  alone in a better position than those who had  com- pleted  house  jobs in 1987, 1988 or earlier in  1989  would result  in a discrimination in their favour and against  the writ petitioners unrelated to--indeed, contrary to--the very object and purpose of giving the scheme retrospective effect from 1.8.87.     One further contention raised on behalf of the state and the  appellants is based on a decision of the High Court  in the case of one Dr. Sandeepa Srivastava (Civil Miscellaneous Writ  Petition No. 13419/89), a petition for  special  leave against  which  was  dismissed by this  Court  (SLP  1380/89 dismissed on 6.4.90). Dr. Srivastava had completed  M.B.B.S. in 1987 and one year internship in June 1988 and had applied for admission to a house job but before the admission  could be  decided upon, the Residency Scheme had been  introduced. She challenged the admission to the first year of the degree course granted by the M.L.N. College, in preference to  her, to one Dr. Surabhi Rai who 908 had completed her M.B.B.S. in 1987, completed her internship in 1988 and was in a house job as on 22.8.89. A very  pecul- iar situation seems to have arisen in that case. Dr. Surabhi Rai had applied for admission to the first year and not  the second year of the new residency course though she was on  a house job as on 22.8.89. It appears she could not apply  for the 2nd year like the writ petitioners here as her house job could  not be completed by 30.10.89, the date  mentioned  in the advertisement with which we are concerned. Dr. Srivasta- va  contended before the High Court (a) that only  the  1983 batch  of  students  who had passed M.B.B.S.  in  1988  were eligible  for admission to the degree course and  not  those who  had  passed out earlier; and (b) that Dr.  Surabhi  Rai should  have  sought admission to the second,  and  not  the first,  year of the Junior Residency course. The  court  re- jected the first contention which was patently untenable and this  was  sufficient to dispose of the writ  petition.  The court,  however, also proceeded to consider the second  con- tention and dealt with it as follows: "The second contention of the petitioner has also no  force. For this proposition, the petitioner has relied on the  last part of para 5 of the Government order dated 22.8.89. Para 5 of  the Government Order has laid down that  house  officers and  Junior  doctors working since August 1,  1987  will  be converted  into Junior Residents of First Year. Second  year etc.  in accordance with the chart given in this para.  Last part of this para lays down about these house officers,  who were  working since 1.8.87. This para does not  provide  for the criteria or deal with the admission of those candidates, who  have joined the First Year House Job and have  not  yet

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 13  

completed  even  first year. The cases of  those,  who  have joined  the course of house job but could not complete  till the  introduction  of the new scheme of the  residency,  has been considered in the meeting of the Principals of all  the Medical  Colleges of U.P. and Director of Medical  Education and  Training on 16.9.1989. Para 6 of this  resolution  laid down  that  as the course of house job  has  been  abolished after the enforcement of the residency scheme and the candi- dates,  who  are  undergoing training of  house  job  cannot pursue their studies and training any more and as such.  all those  candidates, who are undergoing training of house  job should be admitted in the first year course of Junior  Resi- dency on the basis of merit. This resolution of the  Princi- pals of all the Medical Colleges appears to be fair and 909 most reasonable.’ As the course of house job has been  abol- ished  and  the  candidates undergoing  this  course  cannot possibly  pursue their studies and if they are not  admitted in the first year of the Junior Residency, they will  suffer great hardship and irreparable loss, because they have  been deprived of their right to persue their course of house  job in the middle of the session.          When the course of house job has been abolished, it is impossible for the persons undergoing the course of house job to persue their studies any more. In fact respondent No. 3  would have been happy, if she was permitted  to  continue and  conclude the one year course of house job,  because  in that  case after few months she would have got admission  in the  second year of Junior Residency and would  have  become senior to the petitioner and all others, who will be joining the  first year of Junior Residency course now, but  on  ac- count of the abolition of the system of house job it  became impossible  for  the Respondent No. 3 to continue  with  the course and as such, she had to be contended with the  admis- sion in the first year of Junior Residency course."     We  do not wish to say anything about this part  of  the judgment  as  we are not aware whether any appeal  has  been sought therefrom. It is sufficient to point out that all the appellants before us are persons who were in a house job  on 22.8.89 and are claiming admission to the second year of the degree course. We shall, therefore, simply content ourselves by  saying that, since all the parties before us  have  pro- ceeded  on the footing that persons in the position  of  the appellants   are   eligible   for   admission   as    Junior Residents--2nd year, we are not called upon to consider  the correctness of the judgment in Dr. Sandeep Srivastava’s case on this point. That was a case which dealt with an admission to  the first year of the degree course and, since there  is nothing  in  the scheme which prohibits any  person  in  the position of the appellants or Dr. Surabhi Rai from  applying for admission as junior resident--1st year, the decision  of the High Court was clearly correct. The dismissal of the SLP in that case does not, therefore, affect our present discus- sion.     The Judgment of the High Court in appeal before us,  the judgment  in  Dr. Sandeepa Srivastava’s case and  the  other judgments to which Ms. Sobha Dixit made a reference,  howev- er, make it clear that the interpretation of the clauses  of the scheme is, by no means, an easy 910 task.   In   practice   also,  the  basis   on   which   the principals--at   least   the   principal   of   the   M.L.N. College--proceeded  does  not  appear  consistent  with  the letter  of the Director of Medical Education dated  2.11.89. In this state of affairs, we think that it is upto the State

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 13  

to find out a practical solution to ensure that the  student community  is  not  prejudiced by  the  ambiguities  in  the scheme.  In  this context, our attention was  drawn  to  the directions of this Court in the case of Mridula Avasthi  and Others v. University of Delhi and Others, [1988] 3 SCR 762:          "In  this  background we are of the view  that  the impasse  created on account of the rival claims advanced  by the  freshers and the seniors has to have a rough and  ready solution-yet not arbitrary and as acceptable and  satisfying as  possible. We find that the two-year degree  course  spe- ciality-wise  has  149  seats while  the  three-year  degree course has 139 seats. For convenience we extract the partic- ulars  made available at page 4 of the Bulletin of  Informa- tion.  It may be pointed out that there are 1003  candidates as  against total 270 vacancies (degree and diploma  courses together) for the seniors; and there are 33 1 candidates  as against 205 vacancies for the two courses for the  freshers. With  a  view to providing some more seats  for  seniors  we suggested  to Mr. Rao appearing for the University that  the number of seats may be increased and he has on  instructions agreed,  provided the Union of India provides funds and  the Medical Council agrees to accommodate. There are 21 special- ities  as  indicated above. We direct  that  the  University shall create one seat in every speciality and thus 21  addi- tional seats will be available over and above the 149  seats fixed by the University representing the 75% quota. To  this enhanced  number of seats the 25% reservation of  All  India Selection shall not apply. From the reserved seats made  for the freshers, 21 seats being one from every speciality shall be  taken  away and made available to the seniors.  Thus  42 seats in all will be available for the seniors in the  Post- Graduate  course  to be filled up on the basis of  inter  se merit keeping the senior group apart.           The  creation of the 21 seats will  involve  addi- tional  funds to be provided by the Union of India. It  will also  require approval of the Medical Council of  India  and there 911 will perhaps also be necessity for permitting the  variation of  guide-student ratio. Since it is for one year and  there would  be  no scope for recurrence and this  has  arisen  in peculiar  circumstances explained above, we direct the  Gov- ernment  of India to take our order made without hearing  it with a sense of understanding and make the necessary  provi- sions.  We  also suggest to the Indian  Medical  Council  to provide the necessary accommodation by relaxing the require- ments.  These may be done quickly so that the time  schedule may not be affected." Based  on  the above observations, an application  has  been filed before us praying that directions may be issued to the State of create, with the approval of the Medical Council of India, an adequate number of additional seats to accommodate all  the applicants in the second year of the degree  course in  some speciality subject to the other rules in  force  in the  State in this behalf. We do not know how far this  will be feasible having regard to the position prevalent not only in  the  M.L.N. Medical College but also  elsewhere  in  the State. We do not know how many additional seats will have to be created on this footing and whether it is at all possible to  do  so. We, therefore, give no specific  directions  but leave it to the State Government to review the situation  in the entire State and see if any solution that will  accommo- date all the contestants, who qualify on merit, can be found out. However, any such review should not stand in the way of the  immediate  consideration-subject  to  other  rules   in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 13  

force--of  the  writ petitioners for  admission  as  "junior residents--2nd year". They have already lost almost one year of the degree course though, presumably, (except perhaps for one)  they have been continuing their studies in  the  post- graduate courses where they had been earlier admitted.  This should be set right and such of those as are admitted should be  enabled to make up for lost time and to  complete  their post graduate course, if possible, by the end of 1991.     With  the  above observations, these  appeals  are  dis- missed. We, however, make no order as to costs. R.S.S.                                Appeals dismissed. 912