http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: A.SUDHA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT06/10/1987

BENCH: DUTT, M.M. (J) BENCH: DUTT, M.M. (J) MISRA RANGNATH

CITATION:  1987 AIR 2305            1988 SCR  (1) 368  1987 SCC  (4) 537        JT 1987 (4)    29  1987 SCALE  (2)699

ACT:      Admission  to   Medical  College-Where  a  student  has obtained admission  relying upon information supplied by the head of  the institution  and later on it turns out that the admission  was   not  in   conformity  with  the  University Regulations, the student being innocent, cannot be penalised by not allowing to continue studies.

HEADNOTE:      The appellant,  who had  passed B.Sc.  Examination with Botany. Chemistry  and zoology  securing 54.7%  marks in the aggregate,  and,   who  had   passed  earlier   the   P.U.C. examination with  Physics, Chemistry  and  Biology  securing 43.1% marks  in the  aggregate,  joined  a  private  medical college after  its principal  had confirmed  in writing that she was eligible for admission to the M.B.B.S. Course. After six months in the college, she was informed by the principal that her  admission had  not been approved by the University as she  had secured only 43% marks in the P.U.C. examination while  the   required  minimum  was  50%  according  to  the Regulations framed  by the  University. The appellant’s writ petition challenging the validity of the cancellation of her admission to  the medical college having been dismissed by a Single Judge  and her  appeal against  the same  having been rejected by  the Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court,  she approached the Court by special leave.      Counsel for the appellant contended inter alia that she was eligible for admission in terms of the Karnataka Medical Colleges (Selection of Candidates for Admission to M.B.B.S.) Rules, 1985,  and that  in any case, since the appellant had completed the  first  year  M.B.B.S.  Course  by  virtue  of interim orders  passed by the High Court and this Court, she should be  allowed to  continue her  studies in the M.B.B.S. Course.      Allowing the appeal, ^      HELD: Under  Regulation l(a)  of the Regulations of the University regarding  admission to  M.B.B.S. Course  for the Academic  year  198586,  a  candidate  after  passing  B.Sc. Examination and  seeking admission in the seats reserved for B.Sc. candidates  should have secured 50% of the total marks

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

in Physics, Chemistry and Biology in the P.U.C. Exami- 369 nation. It is true that the appellant has obtained 54% marks in the  B.Sc. Examination,  but she had failed to obtain 50% marks in  the aggregate  in the  PUC Examination in Physics, Chemistry and  Biology. In  the circumstances,  she was  not eligible for admission in the First Year MBBS Course. [372H; 373A-B]      There is  no substance in the contention made on behalf of  the   appellant  that  the  Karnataka  Medical  Colleges (Selection of  Candidates for  admission to  I MBBS)  Rules, 1985  would  also  be  applicable  to  the  appellant.  Even assuming that  the said  Rules are applicable to the case of the appellant,  still the appellant will not be eligible for admission in  the First Year M.B.B.S. Course in view of sub- r. (5)  of r.  3 of  the said  Rules, which  provides, inter alia, that  a person  who does  not belong  to  any  of  the Scheduled Castes  or Scheduled  Tribes, has to obtain 50% of marks  in  P.U.C.  Or  equivalent  examination  in  Physics, Chemistry  and  Biology  as  optional  subjects.  Thus,  the appellant was not eligible for admission. [373H; 374A-B]      On  the   appellant’s  query,   the  Principal  of  the Institute by his letter dated February 26, 1986 informed her that she  was eligible  for  admission  in  the  First  Year M.B.B.S. Course.  lt was,  inter alia,  stated in the letter that the  candidate should  have obtained  50% marks  in the optional subjects  in the  B.Sc. Examination.  There  is  no dispute that  the appellant  had obtained 54% marks in those subjects  in  the  B.Sc.  Examination.  The  appellant  was, therefore, quite  innocent and  she was  quite justified  in relying upon  the information  supplied to  her by none else than the  Principal of  the Institute. In the circumstances, we do not think that we shall be justified in penalising the appellant by not allowing her to continue her studies in the M.B.B.S. Course.  Prima  facie  it  was  the  fault  of  the Principal of  the Institute  but, in our view, the statement that was  made by him in his said letter to the appellant as to the  eligibility of  the appellant  for admission  in the M.B.B.S. Course,  was on  a bona  fide interpretation of the Regulations framed  by the  University, which to some extent suffer from ambiguity. The Regulations should have been more clear and specific. [377C-F]      A.P. Christians Medical Education Society v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, [19861 2 S.C.C. 667, distinguished. G      Rajendra Prasad  Mathur v. Karnataka University, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1448, relied on.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2598 of 1987. 370      From the  Judgment and  order dated  26.5.1987  of  the Karnataka A High Court in W.A. No. 615 of 1987.      Dr. Y.S. Chitale and K.J. John for the Appellant.      S.S.  Javali,   Ranjit  Kumar  and  Dev  Dass  for  the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      Dutt,  J.   Special  leave  is  granted.  As  elaborate submissions have been made at the preliminary hearing of the special leave petition on the merits of the case by both the parties, we proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits.      This appeal involves the question as to the eligibility of the appellant for admission in the First Year MBBS Course

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

of the Mysore University.      The appellant  passed  the  B.Sc.  Examination  of  the Mysore  University   with  Botany,   Chemistry  and  Zoology securing 54.7%  marks in  the aggregate. She also passed the PUC in  the year 1979 with Physics, Chemistry and Biology as optional subjects and obtained 43.1% marks in the aggregate. She sought  for admission  in a  private Medical  College or Institute. On  her query,  the second respondent, who is the Principal of the Institute, by his latter dated February 26, 1986  con   firmed  that  the  appellant  was  eligible  for admission to  MBBS  Course.  The  relevant  portion  of  the letter,  as   quoted  in  the  special  leave  petition,  is extracted below:-           "With reference  to your telegram, I wish to write           that candidates  passing B.Sc.  degree examination           with Physics,  Chemistry and Biology or Chemistry,           Biology and  Zoology  as  optional  subjects,  are           eligible, provided  such of  these candidates  who           have passed  with Chemistry,  Biology and  Zoology           should have  passed Physics as optional subject in           II year  PUC or equivalent examination (Pre-degree           or  Intermediate)   or  the   additional   Physics           examination  of   any  University  or  Institution           recognised by  the State Government. The candidate           should have  obtained 50%  marks in  the  optional           subjects in the B.Sc. degree examination."      It is  the case  of the  appellant that on the basis of the said letter, she joined the Institute in February, 1986. However, by Memo dated 371 September 19,  1986  the  second  respondent  intimated  the appellant that  her admission  had not  been approved by the University of  Mysore. The relevant portion of the letter of the Registrar  of the University of Mysore, as quoted in the said Memo, is given below:-           "She has  secured 54% in B.Sc., but secured 43% in           PUC. Hence  she is not eligible. Her admission may           be cancelled. "      The appellant  moved the Karnataka High Court by filing a writ  petition under  Article 226  of the  Constitution of India challenging  the validity  of the  cancellation of her admission in  the First  Year MBBS Course and praying for an order directing  the respondents to allow her to continue as a student of the First Year MBBS Course.      A learned  Single  Judge  of  the  High  Court  by  his judgment dated  April 8,  1987 rejected the writ petition on the ground  that the appellant not having obtained 50% marks in the  aggregate in  Physics, Chemistry  and Biology in the PUC examination,  was not eligible for admission to the MBBS Course. On  appeal by  the appellant,  the Division Bench of the High  Court also  took the  same view  and dismissed the appeal. Hence the present appeal by special leave.      The Mysore University to which the Institute or College is affiliated  has framed regulations regarding admission to MBBS Course  for the  academic year  1985-86.  The  relevant provisions of the said regulations are extracted below:-           " 1. ADMlSSlONS-ELIGIBIL1TY:           (a) The  candidate shall  have passed the Two Year           PUC  Examination   conducted  by  the  PUC  Board,           Karnataka  State   with  Physics,   Chemistry  and           Biology  as   optional  subjects   or  any   other           examinations  recognised   as  equivalent  by  the           Mysore University                              and/or           shall  have  passed  the  competitive  examination

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

         conducted by  the Karnataka  Government  for  this           purpose.                                or           B.Sc. Examination of an Indian University provided that 372           he has  passed the B.Sc. Examination with not less           than two of the following subjects:                Physics, Chemistry, Biology (Botany, Zoology)           and  further   that  he  has  passed  the  earlier           qualifying   examinations   with   the   following           subjects:                Physics, Chemistry, Biology and English.           Provided that  the candidate  should have  secured           not less  than 50%  of the total marks in Physics,           Chemistry, Biology  subjects taken together at the           qualifying and/or competitive examination.           Provided further  that in  respect  of  candidates           belonging to  Scheduled Caste/Scheduled  Tribe the           minimum marks  required for admission shall be 40%           in lieu of 50% for general candidats.           (b) The  candidate should  have completed 17 years           on the 31st December of the year of admission. "      Under Regulation  l(a), a  candidate having  passed the Two-Year  PUC   or  equivalent   examination  with  Physics, Chemistry  and   Biology  as   optional  subjects  or  B.Sc. Examination of an Indian University with Physics, Chemistry, Biology will  be eligible  for admission  in the  First Year MBBS Course  subject to  this that the candidate should have secured not  less than  50% of  the total  marks in Physics, Chemistry and  Biology  taken  together  at  the  qualifying and/or competitive  examination. It follows, therefore, that a candidate has to secure 50% of the total marks in Physics, Chemistry and  Biology taken  together  in  the  PUC  or  an equivalent examination,  which is  a condition  precedent to her eligibility for admission in the First Year MBBS Course. The High  Court has  rightly observed  that as the appellant did not  secure 50% of the total marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology in the PUC Examination, she was not eligible for admission  in  the  First  Year  MBBS  Course  also  rightly overruling the  contention of  the appellant  that the marks obtained by her in Physics in the PUC Course should be added to the  marks obtained  by her  in the  B.Sc. Examination so that it  would work out to 50% of the tot. marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology.      Under Regulation  1(a), a candidate after passing B.Sc. Exami- 373 nation and seeking admission in the seats reserved for B.Sc. candidates has  to secure 50% of the total marks in Physics, Chemistry and  Biology in  the PUC  Examination. It  is true that the  appellant has  obtained 54%  marks  in  the  B.Sc. Examination, but  she had  failed to obtain 50% marks in the aggregate in  the PUC  Examination in Physics, Chemistry and Biology. In  the circumstances,  she was  not  eligible  for admission ill the First Year MBBS Course. We are afraid, the Karnataka Medical  Colleges  (Selection  of  Candidates  for Admission to 1 MBBS) Rules, 1985, hereinafter referred to as ’the said  Rules’, are  not applicable  to seats  in Private Colleges other than Government seats, which is apparent from Sub-rule (2)  of rule  1. Sub-rule (2) of rule 1 provides as follows:-           "R.1(2)-These rules  shall be  applicable  to  the           selection of  candidates made on or after the date           of commencement  of these  rules, for admission to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

         the I  year MBBS  Course in the State of Karnataka           in respect of all the seats in Government Colleges           and the  Government seats in the Private Colleges,           as indicated in the Schedule to these Rules."      Dr. Chitale, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has  placed much  reliance  upon  the  Government Order dated  August 1,  1984 annexing  a copy  of  the  said Rules. The  relevant portion  of the  Government Order is as follows:-                           "O R D E R                Accordingly, after  considering  the  matter,           Government of  Karnataka hereby  direct that Rules           for selection  of candidates for admission on to I           M.B.B.S. Course  in  the  Government  and  Private           Medical Colleges for the academic year 1985-86 and           onwards shall be as in Annexure to this order."      In the  Government order,  no  doubt,  Private  Medical Colleges have  been mentioned,  but it  does not follow that the said  Rules would apply to all candidates in the Private Medical Colleges.  Sub-rule (2) of rule 1 of the said Rules, which has  been extracted above, clearly shows that the said Rules would  apply to  only Government  seats in the Private Colleges and,  as such,  in  the  Government  order  Private Colleges  have  been  mentioned.  There  is,  therefore,  no substance in  the contention made on behalf of the appellant that  the  said  Rules  would  also  be  applicable  to  the appellant. 374      Even assuming that the said Rules are applicable to the case of  A the  appellant, still  the appellant  will not be eligible for admission in the First Year MBBS Course in view of sub-rule (5) of rule 3 of the said Rules, which provides, inter alia,  that a person who does not belong to any of the Scheduled Castes  or Scheduled  Tribes, he has to obtain 50% of marks  in  PUC  or  equivalent  examination  in  Physics, Chemistry  and  Biology  as  optional  subjects.  Thus,  the appellant was  not eligible  for admission in the First Year MBBS Course  of  Mysore  University.  The  High  Court  was, therefore,  right   in  overruling  the  contention  of  the appellant that  she was  eligible for admission in the First Year MBBS Course.      Now the  question is  whether the  appellant should  be allowed to  continue her  studies in  the  MBBS  Course.  By virtue of the interim order of the High Court, the appellant completed the  First Year  MBBS Course  and by virtue of the interim order  passed by  this Court, the appellant appeared in the  First Year MBBS Examination. It has been strenuously urged by  the learned  Counsel appearing  on behalf  of  the University that  as  the  appellant  was  not  eligible  for admission and  was illegally  admitted by  the Institute  in violation of  the eligibility  rules of  the University, the appellant should  not be  allowed to continue her studies in the MBBS  Course under  the University.  In support  of that contention, much  reliance has  been placed  by the  learned Counsel on  a decision  of this  Court  in  A.P.  Christians Medical Educational Society v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, [1986] 2  SCC 667.  What happened  in that case was that the appellant-Society without being affiliated to the University and despite  strong protests  and warnings of the University admitted students  to the  Medical College in the First Year MBBS Course in total disregard of the provisions of the A.P. Education  Act,   the  Osmania   University  Act   and   the regulations of  the Osmania  University. Some  students, who were admitted  to the Medical College, filed a writ petition before this Court. While dismissing the writ petition of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

students, this Court observed as follows:-           "Shri Venugopal  suggested  that  we  might  issue           appropriate  directions   to  the   University  to           protect the  interest of  the students.  We do not           think that  we can  possibly accede to the request           made by  Shri Venugopal  on behalf of the student.           Any direction  of the  nature sought  by Shri Venu           gopal would  be  in  clear  transgression  of  the           provisions  of   the  University   Act   and   the           regulations of  the University.  We cannot  by our           fiat direct  the University to disobey the statute           to which it owes its existence and the regulations 375           made by  the University  itself. We cannot imagine           anything more  destructive of the rule of law than           a direction by the court to disobey the laws."      It was further observed by this Court as follows:-           "We  regret   that  the  students  who  have  been           admitted into  the college  have not only lost the           money which they must have spent to gain admission           into the  college, but  have also  lost one or two           years  of  precious  time  virtually  jeopardising           their future  careers. But  that  is  a  situation           which they  have brought  upon themselves  as they           sought  and  obtained  admission  in  the  college           despite the warnings issued by the University from           time to time."      It appears  from the  observations extracted above that the students  were themselves  to blame,  for they had clear knowledge  that  the  College  was  not  affiliated  to  the University and  in spite  of the  warning of  the University they sought  for the  admission in  the College in the First Year MBBS  Course and  were admitted.  In that  context this Court made the above observations.      We may  refer to  a later  decision of  this  Court  in Rajendra Prasad  Mathur v. Karnataka University, AIR 1986 SC 1448. In  that  case,  the  condition  for  eligibility  for admission to  B.E. Degree Course of the Karnataka University was that  the students  seeking admission should have passed the  two-year   pre-University  Examination   of  the   pre- University Education  Board, Bangalore,  or  an  examination held  by   any  other  Board  or  University  recognised  as equivalent  to  it.  The  appellants,  in  that  case,  were admitted to  certain private  Engineering Colleges  for  the B.E. Degree Course upon payment of capitation fees, although they were not eligible for admission as the Higher Secondary Examination  held   by  the   Secondary   Education   Board, Rajasthan, passed  by some  of the  appellants and the first B.Sc. Examination of Rajasthan and Udaipur University passed by  the   remaining  appellants,   were  not  recognised  as equivalent to  the two-year  pre-University Education Board, Bangalore. While  dismissing the  appeals of the students on the ground  that they were not eligible for admission in the engineering  colleges,  Bhagwati,  C.J.  who  delivered  the judgment of the Court, observed as follows:-           "We accordingly  endorse the  view  taken  by  the           learned Judge  and affirmed  by the Division Bench           of the High 376           Court. But  the question  still remains whether we           should allow  the  appellants  to  continue  their           studies in  the respective Engineering Colleges in           which  they  were  admitted.  It  was  strenuously           pressed upon  us on  behalf of the appellants that           under the  orders initially  of the  learned Judge

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

         and  thereafter  of  this  Court  they  have  been           pursuing their  course of  study in the respective           Engineering Colleges  and their  admissions should           not now  be disturbed  because  if  they  are  now           thrown out  after a  period of  almost four  years           since their  admission their  whole future will be           blighted. Now  it is true that the appellants were           not eligible  for  admission  to  the  Engineering           Degree Course  and they had no legitimate claim to           such admission.  But it  must be  noted  that  the           blame for  their wrongful  admission must lie more           upon  the   Engineering  Colleges   which  granted           admission than  upon the  appellants. It  is quite           possible that  the appellants  did not  know  that           neither the  Higher Secondary  Examination of  the           Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan nor the first           year  B.Sc.   examination  of  the  Rajasthan  and           Udaipur Universities  was recognised as equivalent           to the  Pre-University  Examination  of  the  Pre-           University   Education   Board,   Bangalore.   The           appellants being  young  students  from  Rajasthan           might have presumed that since they had passed the           first year  B.Sc. examination  of the Rajasthan or           Udaipur University  or in  any  event  the  Higher           Secondary Examination  of the  Secondary Education           Board, Rajasthan they were eligible for admission.           The fault lies with the Engineering Colleges which           admitted the  appellants because  the Principal of           these Engineering  Colleges must  have known  that           the appellants were not eligible for admission and           yet for  the sake of capitation fee in some of the           cases they granted admission to the appellants. We           do not  see why  the appellants  should suffer for           the sins  of the  managements of these Engineering           Colleges. We would, therefore, notwithstanding the           view taken  by  us  in  this  judgment  allow  the           appellants  to   continue  their  studies  in  the           respective Engineering Colleges in which they were           granted admission. But we do feel that against the           erring   Engineering    Colleges   the   Karnataka           University should  take appropriate action because           the managements of these Engineering Colleges have           not  only   admitted   students   ineligible   for           admission but  thereby deprived an equal number of           eligible students from getting admission to the 377           Engineering Degree  Course. We  also  endorse  the           directions given  by  the  learned  Judge  in  the           penultimate paragraph  of his judgment with a view           to preventing admission of ineligible students."      This Court  was, therefore,  of the  view that  as  the students were innocent and were admitted to the Colleges for the sake of capitation fee in some cases, they should not be penalised and should be allowed to continue their studies in the respective  Engineering  Colleges  in  which  they  were granted admission.      The facts  of the  instant  case  are,  more  or  less, similar to the Rajendra Prasad Mathur’s case (supra). It has been already  noticed that  on the  appellant s  query’  the Principal of  the Institute by his letter dated February 26, 1986 informed her that she was eligible for admission in the First Year  MBBS Course.  It was,  inter alia, stated in the letter that the candidate should have obtained 5()% marks in the optional  subjects in the B.Sc. Examination. There is no dispute that  the appellant  had obtained 50% marks in those

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

subjects  in  the  B.Sc.  Examination.  The  appellant  was, therefore. quite  innocent and  she was  quite justified  in relying upon  the information  supplied to  her by none else than the  Principal of  the Institute  in the said letter in regard to the eligibility of the admission in the First Year MBBS Course.  In the  circumstances, we do not think that we shall be  justified  in  penalising  the  appellant  by  not allowing her  to continue  her studies  in the  MBBS Course. Prima facie  it was  the  fault  of  the  Principal  of  the Institute but,  in our  view, the statement that was made by him  in   his  said  letter  to  the  appellant  as  to  the eligibility of  the appellant  for  admission  in  the  MBBS Course, was on a bona fide interpretation of the regulations framed by the Mysore University for admission to MBBS Course for the  academic year  1985-86, which to some extent suffer from ambiguity.  The regulations should have been more clear and specific.  Be that  as it may, following the decision of this Court in Rajendra Prasad Mathur’s case (supra) while we dismiss the  appeal. we  direct that  the appellant shall be allowed to  prosecute her  studies in  the MBBS  Course, and that her  result for  the First  Year  MBBS  Examination  be declared within two weeks from date.      There will, however, be no order as to costs. H.L.C.                                       Appeal allowed. 378