http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 18  

PETITIONER: DR. DINESH KUMAR & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MOTILAL NEHRU MEDICAL COLLEGE ALLAHABAD & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT01/05/1985

BENCH: BHAGWATI, P.N. BENCH: BHAGWATI, P.N. SEN, AMARENDRA NATH (J) MISRA RANGNATH

CITATION:  1985 AIR 1059            1985 SCR  Supl. (1)  41  1985 SCC  (3)  22        1985 SCALE  (1)1013  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1985 SC1415  (2)  E          1986 SC1877  (2)

ACT:      Constitution  of   India,  Articles   14,  15  and  32- Education-Admission to  MBBS and  Post Graduate  Courses  in Medical Faculty-Reservation-Open  seats-Guidelines given  in Pradeep Jain’s case-True import explained-All India Entrance Examination common  to all  medical colleges with centres in different States  to be  conducted by  Central Government or Indian Medical  Council-Necessity  of-Admission  to  various medical colleges  in the country on the basis of comparative evaluation of  marks obtained at entrance examination having regard to  the preference  expressed  by  students  for  any particular   State   or   University   and   speciality   or specialities  needed-Admission   made  by   some  States  or Universities on  the basis  of marks  obtained at qualifying examinations held  by States or Universities in case of MBBS course and  on the basis of marks obtained at different MBBS examination in  the case  of Post  Graduate  Courses-Whether unjust and  invalid being  violative of Article 14-Old rules regarding reservation  of seats  must  govern  admission  of students, who  started house  job prior  to the  decision in Pradeep Jain’s  case, to  two years Post Graduate course for 1985-86  academic  year-Switch  over  to  three  years  post graduate course  with house job in the first year throughout the country in order to keep uniformity recommended.

HEADNOTE:      Prior to  this judgment  of the  Supreme Court  in  Dr. Pradeep Jain’s case delivered on 22nd June, 1984, admissions to the  post graduate  medical courses in the State of Uttar Pradesh were  governed by  the old  rules which provided for reservation of  75% seats  for  students  passing  the  MBBS examination from  the same institution in which admission is sought, that  is on  the basis  of institutional  preference with the  remaining 25%  seats open  for  students  who  had passed the  MBBS examination from any medical college in the State of  Uttar Pradesh  and who  satisfied the  residential requirements in that State.      In Dr.  Pradeep Jain’s case the Supreme Court held that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 18  

admission to  post graduate  course, such  as MD, MS and the like, should  be entirely  on the  basis of all-India merit, subject only  to Constitutional  reservations in  favour  of scheduled castes  and scheduled  tribes. However, keeping in view equality of opportunity and institutional continuity in education a  certain percentage  of seats may be reserved on the basis  of institutional  preference "in the sense that a student who  has passed  MBBS course  from a medical college may be  given preference  for  admission  to  post  graduate course in  the same  medical college  or University but such reservation should  not in any event exceed 50% of the total number of  open seats  available for  admissions to the post graduate 42 course". Subsequently,  on 26th  July, 1984  it was directed that the aforesaid judgment shall be implemented with effect from the academic year 1985-86.      According to  the rules  prevailing in  all the medical colleges in  the State of Uttar Pradesh, a student has to do house job  for one  year and  then seek admission to the two year post  graduate course, barring some exceptions, only in the speciality  in which  he has  done his  house  job.  The petitioners passed  their MBBS examination in July 1982 from Motilal  Nehru  Medical  College  and  completed  obligatory internship of  one year in July 1983. At that time admission to the  post graduate  medical courses  were governed by the old rules. The petitioners could not secure admission to the post graduate  medical courses for the academic year 1984-85 on the  basis of  the old rules. For the academic year 1985- 86, the  Principal of  the College granted admissions to 50% of  the   seats  reserved  on  the  basis  of  institutional preference by  selecting institutional students on the basis of merit  and having  regard to the speciality in which they had done  their house  job and  so far  as the remaining 50% open non-reserved seats were concerned, he admitted students coming from  different parts  of the country on the basis of the  marks   obtained  by   them  at   the  different   MBBS examinations.  Thus   the  petitioners   could  not   secure admissions  in  the  post  graduate  courses  even  for  the academic year  1985-86. Therefore,  they filed  the  present Writ Petitions  challenging  the  admissions  made  for  the academic year 1985-86.      The petitioners contended: (i) that when they completed their  internship  in  July  1983  the  admissions  to  post graduate courses  were governed  by the old rules and so far as admissions  to academic  year 1984-85 were concerned they knew that  having regard  to the number of students, who had completed their  house job in 1983 and would be eligible for admission to  the post graduate courses in the academic year 1984-85, some  seats in  the post  graduate courses  for the academic year  1984-85 would  remain  vacant  and  would  be available to  them on  completion of their house job in July 1984 in  addition to  the seats in the post graduate courses for the academic year 1985-86. On the basis of 75% seats for the academic  years 1984-85  and 1985-86  being available to the students  passing MBBS  examination from  Motilal  Nehru Medical College  they reasonably  anticipated that  if  they took a  particular speciality,  they would be able to secure admission to  the post graduate course in that speciality on the basis  of institutional preference and basing themselves upon this  anticipation, they  selected their speciality for the house  job. If the old rule of 75% and 25% had continued to prevail  for the  academic year  1985-86 and had not been set at  naught by  the judgment  dated 22nd  June 1984, they would have  been  able  to  secure  admission  to  the  post

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 18  

graduate course  in the  speciality chosen  by them  for the house job.  But by reason of the reduction of the percentage reserved  for   institutional  candidates   from  75  to  50 commencing from  the academic  year 1985-86,  they could not secure  admission  to  the  post  graduate  course  for  the academic year  1985-86. Therefore,  in those cases where the system of  post graduate  education adopted is to have house job for  one year  followed by  a  two  year  post  graduate course, the  applicability  of  the  judgment  to  the  post graduate course  should be  deemed to commence from the time when the  students take  up house  job in  any  particularly speciality and  (ii) that  even in  regard to  the 50%  non- reserved seats they were denied an opportunity 43 of competing  for them,  because no entrance examination was held either  by the  Government of  India or  by  the  State Government or  even by  the concerned University for testing the relative merits of the students seeking admission to the post graduate courses.      Partly disposing of the petitions, ^      HELD: 1.  Admissions to  50% open seats not reserved on the basis  of institutional  preference  for  post  graduate courses can  not be  made on  the basis of marks obtained by the students at different MBBS examination held by different Universities, since  there would  be no comparable standards by reference  to  which  relative  merits  of  the  students seeking admission to post graduate courses can be judged. In order to  meet the  demands  of  the  equality  clause,  the admissions to  50% non-reserved  seats for the post graduate courses must  be made on the basis of comparative evaluation of merits  of the  students through an entrance examination, to be  held by the Government of India or the Indian Medical Council  sufficiently   in  advance.  The  students  seeking admission in MBBS course as well as in post graduate courses can express  their preference  for any particular University of Medical College or colleges as also for any speciality or specialities which  they  wish  to  take  up  for  the  post graduate course  and admissions  should be  granted  on  the basis of  marks obtained  at such  entrance examination  and while granting  admissions, the preferences expressed by the students must be kept in mind and as far as possible, effort should be made to conform to such preferences. [51 E-F; 52 B-D]      2. The  Principal of  the Motilal Nehru Medical College cannot be  blamed for  granting admissions  for the academic year 1985-86  in accordance with the new principle since the order dated 26th July 1984 says that the judgment dated 22nd June 1984, shall be effective from the academic year 1985-86 and  on   a  literal   interpretation  of  that  order  even admissions to  the two  years post  graduate courses for the academic year  1985-86 would  have to  be in accordance with the new principle.[59 B-C]      3. The grievance of the petitioners that even in regard to  the   50%  non-reserved   seats,  they  were  denied  an opportunity  of  competing  for  them  because  no  entrance examination was  held for testing the relative merits of the students seeking  admission to the post graduate courses, is based on  the premise  that the  admissions were governed by the new  principle. This  premise was  unjustified  and  the admissions were governed not by the new principle but by the old rules.  Even if  the admissions were governed by the new principle, the  Principal  was  clearly  wrong  in  granting admissions to  50% non-reserved  seats on  the basis  of the marks obtained  by the  candidates  at  the  different  MBBS

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 18  

examination held  by different universities, without testing the relative  merits of  the candidates  on the  basis of  a common standard.  The admissions purported to have been made to 50%  non-reserved seats in the post graduate courses were invalid.[59 H; 60 A-B]      4 The  admissions already  made cannot  be struck  down because the  students who have already been admitted are not parties to  the present  writ petitions  and without  giving them an opportunity of being heard their 44 admissions cannot  be struck down. Secondly, such admissions were made  in January  1985 and  since then the students are prosecuting their studies. Striking down their admissions at this stage would cause immense hardship to them. It would be fair and  just if the petitioners are also allowed admission to post  graduate  courses  in  the  Motilal  Nehru  Medical College on  the basis  of institutional preference according to old  rules. The petitioners shall be admitted to the post graduate courses  in the specialities respectively chosen by them for  their house  job, for  the academic  year  1985-86 either in  the Motilal Nehru Medical College or in any other five medical  colleges in  the State of Uttar Pradesh at the option of the State Government.[60 G-H; 61 A; G-H]      5. The  judgment in  the case  of Dr.  Pradeep Jain has been misinterpreted  to mean  that 30%  of the  total  seats available for  admission to MBBS course in a Medical College should be  kept  free  from  reservation  on  the  basis  of residence requirement or institutional preference. That is a total mis-reading  of that  judgment. True  import  of  that judgment is  that after  providing for  reservation  validly made,  whatever  seats  remain  available  for  non-reserved categories, 30%  of such  seats at the least, should be left free for  open competition  and admission  to such  30% open seats should  not  be  based  on  residence  requirement  or institutional preference  but students  from  all  over  the country should be able to compete for admissions to such 30% open seats. [51 A-C]      6. Some  of the  State Governments and universities are proposing to  fill up the minimum 30% non-reserved seats for the MBBS  course on  the basis  of  marks  obtained  by  the students  at   the  qualifying   examinations  held  by  the different States  and or  Universities, totally ignoring the fact  that  the  standard  of  judging  at  these  different qualifying  examinations  cannot,  by  its  very  nature  be uniform. It  would be  wholly unjust  to grant admissions to students by  assessing their  relative merits with reference to the  marks obtained  by them,  not at the same qualifying examination where  standard of  judging would  be reasonably uniform but  at different  qualifying examinations  held  by different  State   Governments  or  Universities  where  the standard of  judging would necessarily vary and would not be the same.  That would  indeed be  blatantly violative of the concept  of   equality  enshrined   in  Article  14  of  the Constitution. Therefore,  no State  Government or University or Medical College shall grant admission to students to fill the minimum  30% non-reserved  seats for the MBBS course, on the basis  of comparison  of the  marks obtained  by them at different qualifying  examinations. The  admissions must  be based on  evaluation of  relative merits through an entrance examination which  would be open to all qualified candidates throughout the  country. Such entrance examination should be held by  the Government  of  India  or  the  Indian  Medical Council on  an all-India  basis  and  admissions  should  be granted to  various Medical  Colleges in  the country on the basis of  marks obtained  at such  entrance examination  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 18  

while granting  admission any  preference expressed  by  the students for  any particular  State or University or Medical College or  Colleges shall  be kept  in mind  and; as far as possible,  efforts   should  be  made  to  conform  to  such preferences so  that the  students who  secure admission are least inconvenienced  and they  are able  to carry  on their studies near their place of residence. [49 D-H; 50 A-B] 45      7. There  is no  difficulty in  giving  effect  to  the judgment from the academic year 1985-86 so far as three year post graduate  courses are concerned and the admissions will be governed  by the principle laid down in the judgment. But in cases where students seek admissions to the post graduate courses of  two years  duration after  the completion of the house job,  if the principle laid down in that judgment were to govern such admissions from the academic year 1985-86, it would cause  considerable hardship  to the students who have selected house  job in  a particular speciality prior to the delivery of  the judgment  on 22nd  June, 1984.  In order to meet the demand of equality and justice it is directed, that in case  of Universities  and Medical  Colleges,  where  the system in  vogue  is  to  have  one  year  house  job  in  a particular speciality  followed by  admissions to a two year post graduate  course in the same speciality, the admissions to the  two year post graduate courses for the academic year 1985-86 should  be governed,  not by  the new principle laid down in  the judgment,  but by the old rules which prevailed prior to the delivery of-the judgment, provided the students seeking admissions  had commenced  their house  job prior to the delivery  of the judgment on 22nd June 1984. If however, the house  job was  commenced subsequent  to the delivery of the judgment  on 22nd  June 1984,  the admissions to the two year post  graduate courses  for the  academic year  1985-86 would be  governed by  the new  principle laid  down in  the judgment. [57 A-D]      8. In  most of  the States, the post graduate course is of three  years’ duration  and during  the first  year,  the student is  expected to  do house  job in  the speciality in which i  e has  been admitted  to the  post graduate course. This system  is more  advantageous to  the students since it gives an  opportunity to the students to secure admission to the  post   graduate  course   in  any  speciality  that  is available, on  the basis  of the  marks obtained at the MBBS examination in  case of  50% seats  reserved on the basis of institutional preference  and on the basis of marks obtained at the  entrance examination in the case of 50% non-reserved seats. It  is, therefore,  recommended to the Indian Medical Council as  also to  the State  of Uttar  Pradesh and  other "states which  follow the  system  of  one  year  house  job followed by  two years  post graduate  course  to  uniformly adopt the  system of  three years  post graduate course with house job  in the  first  year.  So  far  as  post  graduate education in  the Medical Faculty is concerned there should, be uniformity throughout the country. [54 B-D]      9. All  India Entrance  Examination should be conducted in at  least one  centre in each State. Having regard to the size of population, the number of students seeking admission and the  geographic area  of a State, there may be more than one centre  in some  States both  in regard to admissions to the post  graduate courses  and  MBBS  course.  As  directed earlier the  Indian Medical Council should submit a positive scheme for  holding an  all-India entrance  examination  for regulating admissions  to the minimum 30% non-reserved seats for MBBS  course on  the  next  hearing  so  that  necessary directions  could   be  issued  for  holding  such  entrance

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 18  

examination well  in time  before  the  next  academic  year begins in  June or  July, 1985.  The writ petitions shall be finally disposed of after such directions are issued. [52 F; 50 E. 62 B]      Dr. Pradeep  Jain and  Ors v.  Union of  India  &  Ors. [1984] 3  SCR 942  explained and  Jagdish Saran  v. Union of India [1980] 2 SCR 831 referred to. 46

JUDGMENT:      ORIGINAL JURISDICTION:  Writ  Petition  No.  348-52  of 1985.      Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.      Shanti Bhushan  G.L. Sanghi,  Prashant  Bhushan,  Madan Lokur, R.  Satish, V.K.  Pandita, and  E.C. Agarwala for the Petitioners.      Kapil Sibbal, Mr. Awad Behari, Mrs. Shobha Dikshit, R.K Mehta, B.R.  Agarwala. Miss  V. Menon,  Ravindru Bana,  A.K. Sanghi, A.K. Srivastava and J.R. Das for the Respondents.      G. Rath.  Advocate General  for the  State  of  Orissa. Badri Das  Sharma, for  the State  of  Rajasthan,  and  A.V. Rangam, for the State of Tamil Nadu.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      BHAGWATI, J.  This writ  petition is an offshoot of the decision rendered  by us  in Dr. Pradip Jain & Ors. v. Union of India  and others.  The main  judgment in  that case  was delivered by  us on  22nd June,  1984 and  we held  in  that judgement that  "wholesale reservation  made by  some of the State Governments  on the  basis of  ’domicile’ or residence requirement  within   the  state   or  on   the   basis   of institutional preference  for students  who have  passed the qualifying examination  held by the University or the State, excluding all  students  not  satisfying  this  requirement, regardless  of  merit"  was  unconstitutional  and  void  as offending the equality clause of the Constitution. But after condemning  such  wholesale  reservation,  we  proceeded  to observe that  the very mandate of the equality clause viewed in the  perspective of  social justice,  would justify  some extent of  reservation based on residence requirement within the  State  or  on  institutional  preference  for  students passing the qualifying examination held by the University or the State  and addressing  ourselves to  the question  as to what  extent   such  reservation   might  be   regarded   as constitutionally permissible, we said:           "It is  not  possible  to  provide  a  categorical      answer to  this question,  for as  pointed out  by  the      policy statement of the Government of India, the extent      of such  reservation would  depend on  several  factors      including opportunities  for professional  education in      that particular  area, the extent of competition, level      of education development of the area and other relevant      factors. It may be that 47      in a  State where  the level of educational development      is woefully  low, there  are  comparatively  inadequate      opportunities for  training in  the medical  speciality      and  there   is  large   scale  social   and   economic      backwardness there may be justification for reservation      of a higher percentage of seats in the medical colleges      in the State and such higher percentage of seats in the      medical  colleges   in  the   State  and   such  higher      percentage  may  not  militate  against  "the  equality      mandate viewed  in the  perspective of social justice".

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 18  

    So many  variables depending  on  social  and  economic      facts in the context of educational opportunities would      enter into the determination of the question as to what      in the  case of  any particular  State, should  be  the      limit of  reservation based  on  residence  requirement      within the  State or  on institutional preference. But,      in our  opinion, such  reservation should  in no  event      exceed the  outer limit  of 70  per cent  of the  total      number of  open seats  after taking  into account other      kinds  of   reservations  validly   made.  The  Medical      Education Review Committee had suggested that the outer      limit should  not exceed  75 per cent but we are of the      view that  it would  be fair  and just to fix the outer      limit at  70 per  cent. We  are laying  down this outer      limit of  reservation in  an attempt  to reconcile  the      apparently   conflicting   claims   of   equality   and      excellence".      We pointed out that in the result "at least 30 per cent of the  open seats  shall  be  available  for  admission  of students on  All India  basis irrespective  of the  State or University from  which they  come" and  directed that  "such admissions shall  be granted purely on merit on the basis of either  All   India   Entrance   Examination   or   entrance examination to  be held by the State". This was the decision given by  us in  regard to  admissions to  the MBBS  and BDS courses. We  proceeded to discuss the question of admissions to post  graduate courses  such as MD, MS and the like. We I earned heavily  on the  observations made by Krishna Iyer J. in Jagdish  Saran v.  Union  of  India(1)  as  also  on  the recommendation by the Indian Medical Council and the opinion expressed by the Medical Education Review Committee where an opinion  was  clearly  expressed  that  admissions  to  post graduate  courses   in  any  institution  should  be  guided strictly by  merit and  should be  open to candidates on all India basis. We also referred to the policy statement of the Government of  India filed  by the  learned Attorney General where 48 the view  was expressed  categorically by  the Government of India that  so far as admissions to the institutions of post graduate  colleges   and  such   professional  colleges  are concerned, they should be entirely on the basis of all India merit, subject only to Constitutional reservations in favour of scheduled  castes and  scheduled tribes  However,  taking into  account   broader  considerations   of   equality   of opportunity and  institutional continuity in education which has its  own importance  and value,  we took  the view  that though residence  requirement within the State should not be a ground  for reservation  in admissions  to  post  graduate courses, a  certain percentage  of seats  may in the present circumstances, be  reserved on  the basis  of  institutional preference "in  the sense  that a  student  who  has  passed M.B.B.S.  course   from  a  medical  college  may  be  given preference for admission to post graduate course in the same medical college  or University  but such  reservation on the basis of  institutional preference  should not  in any event exceed 50%  of the  total number of open seats available for admission to the post graduate course."      This Judgment  was delivered on 22nd June, 1984, but by that time,  admissions had  already been made in the medical colleges attached to some of the Universities in the country and moreover it was felt that sometime would be required for the  purpose   of  achieving  uniformity  in  the  procedure relating to  admissions in various Universities. Some of the students seeking  admission to  the M.B.B.S.  course in  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 18  

academic year 1984-85, therefore, made an application to the Court in  Civil Appeal  No. 6392  of 1983, Rita Nirankari v. University of  Delhi, that  the Judgment delivered by us may be given  effect only  from the  academic  year  1985-86  We accordingly issued  notice on the application to the learned advocates who  had appeared on behalf of the various parties at the  hearing of  Dr Pradip  Jain’s case  as also  to  the Attorney General  and after  hearing them  we  came  to  the conclusion that  "in view  of the  fact that all formalities for   admission,   including   the   holding   of   entrance examination. have been completed in some of the States prior to the Judgment dated 22nd June 1984 and also since sometime would be  required for making the necessary preparations for implementing the  Judgment "it  was not  practicable to give effect to  the judgment  from the  academic year 1984-85. We therefore directed  that the  judgment shall  be implemented with effect  from the  academic year 1985-86. This order was made by  us on  26th July  1984 and  it was directed to form part of the main judgment dated 22nd June 1984. 49      Since it was made clear as far back as 26th July, 1984, that our  Judgment dated  22nd June,  1984, shall  be  given effect from  the  academic  year  1985-86,  we  should  have thought that  the Government  of India  and  Indian  Medical Council would make the necessary arrangements for holding an All India  Entrance Examination  well in time for admissions to the  M.B.B.S. course for the academic year 1985-86 so far as the  minimum 30%  open seats not reserved on the basis of residence   requirement    or    institutional    preference (hereinafter referred  to as  the minimum  30% non  reserved seats) were  concerned. But it seems that so far nothing has been done  either by  the Government  of India or the Indian Medical  Council  and  the  fate  of  the  students  seeking admissions to  the M.B.B.S.  course for  the  academic  year 1985-86 is  in a  state  of  total  uncertainty.  The  State Governments have  also been  equally guilty  of indifference and inaction  in not  taking any  steps for  the purpose  of holding  an   entrance  examination  which  would  test  the relative merits  of the  students seeking  admission to  the minimum 30% non reserved seats in the M.B.B.S. course in the medical  colleges.   Some  of   the  State  Governments  and Universities, we  are informed, are proposing to fill-up the minimum 30%  non reserved  seats for  the M.B.B.S. course on the basis  of the  marks obtained  by the  students  at  the qualifying examinations  held by  different  States  and  or Universities, total  ignoring the  fact that the standard of judging at  these different  qualifying examinations cannot, by its very nature be uniform. Some Universities may be very liberal in  their marking  while some  other may  be strict. These would be no comparable standards on the basis of which the relative  merits of the students can be judged. It would be wholly  unjust to  grant admissions  to the  students  by assessing their  relative merits with reference to the marks obtained by  them, not  at the  same qualifying  examination where standard of judging would be reasonably uniform but at different qualifying  examinations held  by different  State Governments or  Universities where  the standard  of judging would necessarily  vary and  not be  the  same.  That  would indeed be  blatantly violative  of the  concept of  equality enshrined in  Article  14  of  the  Constitution.  We  must, therefore,  make  it  clear  that  no  State  Government  or University or  Medical  College  shall  grant  admission  to students to  fill the minimum 30% non reserved seats for the M.B.B.S. course,  on the  basis of  comparison of  the marks obtained by  them at  different qualifying examinations. The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 18  

admissions must  be based  one valuation  of relative merits through an  entrance examination  which would be open to all qualified candidates  through out the country. Such entrance examination should 50 in our  opinion be  held by  the Government  of India or the Indian Medical  Council on an all India basis and admissions should be  granted to  the various  medical colleges  in the country on  the basis of the marks obtained at such entrance examination and  while  granting  admission  any  preference expressed by  the  students  for  any  particular  State  or University or  Medical College  or Colleges shall be kept in mind, and  as far  as possible,  effort  shall  be  made  to conform to  such preferences so that the students who secure admissions are  least inconvenienced  and they  are able  to carry on  their studies near their place of residence. There can be  no constitutional  impediment  in  the  way  of  the Government of  India  or  the  Indian  Medical  Council  for holding such  entrance examination,  because  the  topic  of education is in the Concurrent List. We are of the view that such entrance  examination must be held by the Government of India or  the Indian Medical Council because then there will be only  one  examination  in  which  the  students  seeking admission  to  the  M.B.B.S  course  will  have  to  appear, irrespective of the place where or the University or Medical College in  which, they  are seeking  admission is  located. Today we  are witnessing the highly distressing spectacle of students rushing  from place  to place to appear at entrance examinations which  are being  held  in  Delhi,  Chandigarh, Bangalore and  various other places. So much time, money and energy of  the students is wasted and in addition there is a gnawing anxiety  at the almost chaotic uncertainty in regard to admission.  It is  therefore  absolutely  essential  that there should  be only one entrance examination common to all the medical  colleges  in  the  country  and  such  entrance examination can  be held  only by the Government of India or the Indian  Medical Council. That is why at the last hearing of the present writ petition, we directed the Indian Medical Council to  come forward  with a positive scheme for holding an all-India  entrance examination for regulating admissions to the  minimum 30%  non reserved  seats  for  the  M.B.B.S. course. We  hope and  trust that at the next hearing of this writ petition,  the Indian  Medical Council  will produce  a will thought  out scheme  for holding  an all India entrance examination so that the necessary directions can be given by the  court  in  regard  to  the  holding  of  such  entrance examination well  in time  before  the  next  academic  year begins in  June/July 1985.  Much time  has already been lost and we  are anxious  that no  further  delay  should  occur, because any  delay now  will jeopardise  the future  of  the students seeking  admissions to  the M.B.B.S. course for the academic year 1985-86. 51      We would  also like  to clear  up one  misunderstanding which seems  to prevail  with  some  State  Governments  and Universities in  regard to  the true  import of our judgment dated 22nd June, 1984. They have misinterpreted our judgment to mean  that 30% of the total number of seats available for admission to  M.B.B.S. course in a medical college should be kept  free  from  reservation  on  the  basis  of  residence requirement or  institutional preference.  That is  a  total mis-reading of  our judgment.  What  we  have  said  in  our judgment is  that after  providing for  reservation  validly made, whatever  seats  remain  available  for  non  reserved categories, 30%  of such  seats at the least, should be left

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 18  

free for  open competition  and admission  to such  30% open seats should  not  be  based  on  residence  requirement  or institutional preference  but students  from  all  over  the country should be able to compete for admissions to such 30% open seats.  To take an example, suppose there are 100 seats in a  medical college or University and 30% of the seats are validly  reserved  for  candidates  belonging  to  scheduled castes and  scheduled tribes.  That  would  leave  70  seats available for  others belonging  to non-reserved categories. According to  our judgment,  30% of  70 seats,  that is,  21 seats out  of 70  and not  30% of  the total  number of  100 seats,  namely,   30  seats,  must  be  filled  up  by  open competition   regardless   of   residence   requirement   or institutional preference.      So far admissions to 50% open seats not reserved on the basis of  institutional preference  (hereinafter referred to as 50% non-reserved seats) for post graduate courses such as M.D., M.B. and the like are concerned, we may point out that these admissions  also cannot  be made on the basis of marks obtained by  the students at different M.B.B.S. examinations held by  different universities,  since there  would  be  no comparable standards  by reference  to  which  the  relative merits of  the students  seeking admission  to post graduate courses can  be judged.  It would  not only  be  unfair  and unjust but  also contrary  to the  equality  clause  of  the Constitution to  grant admissions  to 50% non-reserved seats in the  post graduate  courses by mechanically comparing the marks obtained  by the students at the M.B.B.S. examinations held by different Universities where the standard of judging would necessarily  vary from  University to  University  and would not  be uniform. If admissions were to be made on this basis, a  less meritorious student appearing in the M.B.B.S. examination held  by a  University  where  the  standard  of evaluation is  liberal would  secure a  march  over  a  more meritorious student  who appears in the M.B.B.S. examination where the standard of marking 52 is strict.  We cannot therefore approve of admissions to 50% non reserved  seats for the post graduate courses being made on the  basis of  marks obtained  by  the  students  at  the different   M.B.B.S.    examinations   held   by   different Universities. Such  admissions would  be clearly  invalid as constituting denial of equality of opportunity. There can be no doubt  that in  order to meet the demands of the equality clause, the  admissions to  50% non-reserved  seats for  the post  graduate   courses  must  be  made  on  the  basis  of comparative evaluation  of merits of the students through an entrance examination. Such entrance examination must be held by the  Government of  India or  the Indian  Medical Council sufficiently in  advance before  the term is due to commence for the  post graduate  courses.  Here  again  the  students seeking admission to post graduate courses can express their preference for  any particular University or medical college or colleges as also for any speciality or specialities which they wish  to take  up for  the  post  graduate  course  and admissions should be granted to the post graduate courses in various medical  colleges in  the country  on the  basis  of marks  obtained  at  such  entrance  examination  and  while granting  admissions,   the  preferences  expressed  by  the students must be kept in mind and as far as possible, effort should be  made to  conform to  such  preferences.  We  have directed the  Government of  India and  the  Indian  Medical Council to put forward a positive scheme for holding an all- India entrance  examination for regulating admissions to the post graduate  courses at  the  next  hearing  of  the  writ

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 18  

petition so  that we  can give  necessary directions  to the Government of  India for  holding such  All  India  Entrance Examination which  would be conducted in at least one centre in each  State and  which would be open to the students from all over the country. We may point out that having regard to the size  of the  population the  number of students seeking admission and  the extent  of the  geographical  area  of  a State, it might be desirable to have more than one centre in some State  or States  both in  regard to  admissions to the post graduate  courses as  also in  regard to  admissions to M.B.B.S. course.  If for  any reason the Government of India and the  Indian Medical  Council are unable to organise such All India  Entrance Examination  for admissions  to the post graduate courses  on account  of paucity  of  the  time  now available to  them, a  situation for  which they  are almost entirely to  blame, we  may  have  to  direct  as  the  only possible  alternative  for  the  coming  academic  year,  an entrance examination  to be held by each State Government or University for  regulating admissions  to  50%  non-reserved seats for  the post graduate courses in the medical colleges situate within 53 that State or attached or affiliated to that University. But unquestionably no  admissions can  be allowed  to be made on the  basis   of  marks   obtained  at   different   M.B.B.S. examinations held by different universities.      That takes  to a  consideration of  the  main  question arising in  the present  writ petition. The question relates to the  admissions to  50% non-reserved  seats for  the post graduate courses  in  the  Motilal  Nehru  Medical  College, Allahabad. Now  in all  the Medical Colleges in the State of Uttar Pradesh  a student  who wishes to join a post graduate course namely M.D., M.S. or like has necessarily to do house job for  a period of one year after completion of internship and the  house job  has to  be in  a  speciality  which  the student wishes  to take  up for  the post  graduate  course. There are  a few  exceptions to  this general  rule, as  for example, a  student who  has done  house job  in medicine is qualified for  admission to  the  post  graduate  course  in radiology. That  is how  petitioner No. 5 who had done house job in  medicine could secure admission in the post graduate course for  radiology. Then  there are  also cases  where  a student who  has done  house job  in a particular speciality for six  months and  in another  allied speciality  for  the remaining six  months, may be qualified for admission to the post graduate  course in  the former speciality. But, by and large, barring  these few  exceptional situations, a student cannot qualify  for admission  to the  graduate course  in a particular speciality  unless he  has done house job in that speciality. A  student therefore,  according  to  the  rules prevailing in all the medical colleges in the State of Uttar Pradesh, has  to do  house job  for one  year and  then seek admission to the post graduate course which is of two years’ duration and  he can  take admission  to the  post  graduate course only in the speciality in which he has done his house job. We  are informed  that this  situation prevails also in the medical colleges of one or two other States. This system under which a student is first required to do house job in a speciality of his choice and then seek admission to the post graduate course  which can be only in that speciality and in no other,  is likely  to cause  considerable hardship to the students, because  it is  quite possible  that a student who has done  house job  in a particular speciality may not come within the  quota of  50% seats  reserved on  the  basis  of institutional preference and even so far as 50% non-reserved

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 18  

seats are  concerned, he  may be  left out,  if he gets less marks at  the entrance  examination than another student who has chosen  the  same  speciality  for  his  house  job.  He obviously cannot get admission to the post graduate course 54 in another speciality even if he does better in the entrance examination than  a student  who has  done house job in that speciality. His  admission to the post graduate course would become dicey  and one  year spent  by him in doing house job may turn  out to be futile. That is why we find that in most of the  States, the  post graduate course is of three years’ duration and  during the first year, the student is expected to do  house job  in the  speciality in  which he  has  been admitted to  the post  graduate course.  This system is more advantageous to  the students  since it given an opportunity to the  students to  secure admission  to the  post graduate course in  any speciality that is available, on the basis of the marks  obtained at  the M.B.B.S.  examination in case of 50% seats  reserved on the basis of institutional preference and  on   the  basis  of  marks  obtained  at  the  entrance examination in  case of  50% non  reserved seats.  We  would therefore recommend to the Indian Medical Council as also to the State of Uttar Pradesh and other States which follow the system of  one year  house job  followed by  two  year  post graduate course  to uniformly adopt the system of three year post graduate course with house job in the first year. It is desirable that  so far  as post  graduate education  in  the Medical  Faculty  is  concerned  there  should,  as  far  as possible, be uniformity throughout the country.      The petitioners  belong to  a batch of students who did the  M.B.B.S.  course  in  Motilal  Nehru  Medical  College, Allahabad and  who passed  the M.B.B.S.  examination held by the University  of Allahabad in July 1982. The internship of one year  which is  obligatory in  the case of every student passing the  M.B.B.S. examination  was completed  by them in July 1983.  The petitioners  thereafter took up house job in the Motilal  Nehru Medical  College, Allahabad.  The case of the petitioners  is that at the time when they took up their house job  in July 1983, the admissions to the post graduate courses were  governed by  the old  rules which provided for reservation of  75% seats  for students passing the M.B.B.S. examination from  the same institution in which admission is sought that  is, on  the basis  of institutional  preference with the  remaining 25%  seats open  for  students  who  had passed the  M.B.B.S. examination from any Medical College in the State  of Uttar  Pradesh and who satisfied the residence requirement in  the State  of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioners said that  so far as admissions to the post graduate courses for the  academic year 1984-85 were concerned-which academic year commenced  in January  1984-the petitioners  knew  that having regard  to the  number of  students who had completed their house 55 job  in  1983  and  who  would  therefore  be  eligible  for admission to  the post  graduate course in the academic year 1984-85, some  seats in  the post  graduate courses  for the academic year  1984-85 would  remain  vacant  and  would  be available to  the petitioners  on completion  of their house job in  July 1984.  These seats in the post graduate courses for the  academic year  1984-85 would  be available  to  the petitioners in  addition to  the seats  in the post graduate courses  for  the  academic  year  1985-86  commencing  from January 1985. The petitioners contended that on the basis of 75% of  the seats for the academic years 1984-85 and 1985-86 being available  to students passing the M.B.B.S examination

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 18  

from Motilal  Nehru Medical College, Allahabad-an assumption which according  to the  petitioners they  were entitled  to make before the Judgment of this Court dated 22nd June 1984- the petitioners  reasonably anticipated  that if they took a particular speciality,  they would  able to secure admission to the  post graduate course in that speciality on the basis of institutional  preference and basing themselves upon this anticipation, they  selected their  speciality for the house job. The petitioners claimed that if the old rule of 75% and 25% had  continued to  prevail for the academic year 1985-86 and had not been set at naught by the Judgment of this Court dated 22nd  June 1984,  they would  have been able to secure admission to  the post  graduate course  in  the  speciality chosen by  them for  the house  job. But  by reason  of  the reduction  of  the  percentage  reserved  for  institutional candidates from  75 to  50 commencing from the academic year 1985-86, the  petitioners could  not secure admission to the post graduate  course for  the academic  year  1985-86.  The petitioners therefore  urged that  in those  cases where the system of  post graduate  education adopted is to have house job for  one year  followed by  a  two  year  post  graduate course, it  would be  fair and  just to  give effect  to our Judgment dated 22nd  June 1984 so as to be applicable at the point of  time when  house job  is taken  up by the students with a  view to  securing admission  to  the  post  graduate course on  completion of  the house  job.  It  was  not  the contention of  the petitioner  that the applicability of our Judgment dated 22nd June 1984 should be postponed beyond the academic year  1985-86 and  they conceded  that the Judgment may be  given effect  to from  the academic year 1985-86 but they submitted  that for  the applicability  of the Judgment the post  graduate course  should be deemed to commence from the time  when  the  students  take  up  house  job  in  any particular speciality so that no injustice is done to them. 56      There is considerable force in this contention urged on behalf of  the petitioners.  We have  directed by  our order dated 26th  July, 1984  that the Judgment delivered by us on 22nd June 1984 shall become effective from the academic year 1985-86 and  we do  not propose to postpone the operation of the Judgment  beyond that academic year. But the question is as to  how the principle laid down by us in the Judgment for regulating admissions  to the post graduate courses is to be applied. So  far as  three year  post graduate  courses  are concerned-and in  most of the Universities in the country we have  three   years  post   graduate  courses-there   is  no difficulty  in  giving  effect  to  the  Judgment  from  the academic year  1985-86. Whatever  admissions are made to the three year post graduate courses for the academic year 1985- 86 will  be governed  by the  principle  laid  down  in  the Judgment. But  difficulty of  application  arises  in  cases where, as in the State of Uttar Pradesh and one or two other States, the students do house job for one year and then seek admission to  one or  the other of the post graduate courses which are of two years’ duration. The admissions to the post graduate  courses   in  such  cases  take  place  after  the completion of  the house job. Now if the principle laid down by us  in the  Judgment were  to govern such admissions from the academic  year  1985-86,  it  would  cause  considerable hardship to  the students  who have  selected house job in a particular speciality  prior to the delivery of the Judgment on 22nd  June, 1984, on the basis of reasonable anticipation that, according  to the old rules governing admissions which prevailed prior  to the  date of the Judgment, they would be able to  secure admission to the post graduate course in the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 18  

speciality chosen by them but who may now, as pointed out in the paragraphs,  be unable  to secure  such admissions under the  principle   governing  admissions   laid  down  in  the Judgment. Some  of these  students may legitimately complain that if  they know  that admissions  to  the  post  graduate courses for  the academic year 1985-86 were going to be made on the basis of the new principles laid down in the Judgment and that  only 50%  of the  seats were going to be available for institutional  students, they  would have  selected  for their house  job a  speciality which would have brought them within the  50% quota  of seats  reserved on  the  basis  of institutional preference.  Now having  chosen  a  particular speciality for the house job, they cannot obtained admission to the  post graduate  course in  any other  speciality  and consequently they  can hope  to get  admission to  the  post graduate course  only if an entrance examination is held and they secure  better marks  at the  entrance examination then other  students   who  have  done  house  job  in  the  same speciality. It is quite possible that in 57 the circumstances  some less  meritorious students might get admission to the post graduate course because they have done house job  in some  other speciality, while more meritorious students may  be left  out  on  account  of  choice  of  the speciality. It  would not therefore be fair and just to hold that in  case of  students who  have taken up house job in a particular speciality  prior to the delivery of the Judgment dated 22nd June, 1984, their admissions to the two year post graduate course  during the  academic year 1985-86 should be governed by  the new principle laid down in the Judgment. We would accordingly  direct, in  order to  meet the  demand of equality and  justice, that  in  case  of  Universities  and Medical Colleges,  where the  system in vogue is to have one year house  job  in  a  particular  speciality  followed  by admissions to  a two  year post  graduate course in the same speciality, the  admissions to  the two  year post  graduate courses for  the academic  year 1985-86  should be governed, not by  the new principle laid down in the judgment, but the old rules  which prevailed  prior to  the  delivery  of  the Judgment,  provided  the  students  seeking  admissions  had commenced their  house job  prior to  the  delivery  of  the Judgment on  22nd June  1984. If, however, the house job was commenced subsequent to the delivery of the Judgment on 22nd June 1984,  the admissions  to the  two year  post  graduate courses for  the academic  year 1985-86 would be governed by the new principle laid down in the Judgment.      Now let  us once again turn to the facts of the present case. The  academic year  1984-85 commenced  in January 1984 and  on   the  basis   of  75%   seats  being  reserved  for institutional candidates according to the rules of admission then prevailing  in the State of Uttar Pradesh, the students who completed  their house  job  before  January  1984  were admitted to  the post graduate courses for the academic year 1984-85, but  since the  number  of  students  eligible  for admission in that academic year were few, some seats for the post graduate courses for the academic year 1984-85 remained unfilled. Some of the students belonging to the batch of the petitioners who completed their house job in July 1984 there upon filed  writ petition No. 8362 of 1984 in the High Court of  Allahabad  contending  that  a  large  number  of  seats reserved for  institutional students  in the  post  graduate courses for  the academic year 1984-85 were lying vacant and that they should be directed to be filled. The High Court by an order  dated 28th  September, 1984 gave interim direction that applications should be invited for the vacant seats for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 18  

the  academic   year  1984-85.   Pursuant  to  this  interim direction, applications  were invited  in  September,  1984. Thereafter another direction was given 58 by the  High Court  on 13th  November 1984  that  the  State Government  shall  "complete  the  admissions  to  the  post graduate courses  for the academic year 1985-86 on or before 2nd January 1985 in accordance with the rules" applicable to such admissions.  It seems  that following  upon the earlier direction given  by the  High Court  on 28th September 1984, the State  Government passed  an order on 15th December 1984 directing that  the admissions  to the  vacant seats  in the post graduate  courses for the academic year 1984-85 be made by 31st December 1984. This direction was carried out by the Principal of  the Motilal  Nehru Medical  College and on the basis of  75% of  the seats being reserved for institutional candidates and  25% being  open to students from all medical colleges in  the State of Uttar Pradesh subject to residence requirement, the  Principal granted admissions to the vacant seats in  the post  graduate courses  for the  academic year 1984-85. Unfortunately,  the petitioners  could  not  secure admission in  these  vacant  seats  since  there  were  more meritorious students  who had  done better  in the  M.B.B.S. examination than  the petitioners.  The admissions  to these vacant  seats  were  completed  by  31st  December  1984  as directed by  the State  Government by  its order  dated 15th December 1984. The petitioners do not complain against these admissions  But   their  grievance   is  in  regard  to  the admissions  made  to  the  post  graduate  courses  for  the academic year 1985-86. These admissions were purported to be made on  the basis  of the  new principle  laid down  in the Judgment  dated   22nd  June   1984  as  understood  by  the Principal. What the Principal did was to grant admissions to 50% of  the seats  reserved on  the basis  of  institutional preference by  selecting institutional students on the basis of merit  and having  regard to the speciality in which they had done  their house  job and  so far  as the remaining 50% open  non-reserved   seats  were  concerned,  the  Principal admitted students coming from different parts of the country on the  basis of the marks obtained by them at the different M.B.B.S. examinations in which they had appeared and passed. The  result  was  that  the  petitioners  could  not  secure admission to the seats in the post graduate courses even for the academic  year 1985-86. It was under these circumstances that  the   petitioners  filed  the  present  writ  petition challenging the  admissions made for the academic year 1985- 86.      Now there  can be  no doubt  that the grievance made by the petitioners is justified. The petitioners are right when they contend  that having  regard to the fact that the house job was  started by  them  prior  to  the  delivery  of  the Judgment on  22nd June  1984, their  admissions to  the post graduate courses for the academic year 59 1985-86, that  being the academic year for which they became due to  be considered,  should have been governed by the old rules which  prevailed prior to the date of the Judgment and not by  the new principle laid down in the Judgment. We have already started our reasons for taking this view and we need not reiterate  those reasons. Of course the Principal of the Motilal  Medical  College  cannot  be  blamed  for  granting admissions for  the academic year 1985-86 in accordance with the new  principle laid down by us in the Judgment, since we had said in our order dated 26th July 1984 that the Judgment shall be  effective from  the academic year 1985-86 and on a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 18  

literal interpretation of that order even, admissions to the two year post graduate courses for the academic year 1985-86 would have  to be  in accordance with the new principle laid down in  the judgment.  But, as  pointed out above, it would work considerable  hardship and  injustice if,  in  case  of students who have started house job prior to the delivery of the Judgment  on 22nd  June 1984, admissions to the two year post graduate  courses for the academic year 1985-86 were to be made on the basis of the rule enunciated in the Judgment. We must  therefore hold  that in  the State of Uttar Pradesh and other  States where  the system of post graduate medical education adopted, is to have one year house job followed by two year  post graduate  course, students  who started their house job prior to the delivery of the Judgment on 22nd June 1984 should be governed by the old rules prevailing prior to the date  of the Judgment when seeking admission to the post graduate courses  for the  academic year 1985-86 but in case of students  who started  their house  job after the date of the Judgment,  their admissions to the post graduate courses for the  academic year 1985-86 should be governed by the new principle laid  down in  the Judgment.  On this view, 75% of the seats in the post graduate courses for the academic year 1985-86 should have been made available to the institutional students and  the case  of the petitioners was that, if that had been  done, the  petitioners would  have  been  able  to secure admission as falling within the 75% quota. It was not seriously disputed  on behalf of the respondents that if the old  rules   governing  admissions  had  been  applied,  the petitioners would,  save perhaps  in a  solitary case,  have been able to get admission to the post graduate courses. The petitioners were  thus unjustly  and improperly  left out of the quota  for institutional students on what was turned out to be  erroneous view of the legal position. The petitioners also complained  that even in regard to the 50% non-reserved seats,  the   petitioners  were  denied  an  opportunity  of competing for them, because no entrance examination was held either by the Government of India or by the State Government or 60 even by  the concerned  University for  testing the relative merits  of  the  students  seeking  admission  to  the  post graduate courses. This complaint was made in the alternative on the  premise that the admissions were governed by the new principle laid down in the Judgment. We have already pointed out that  this premise  was unjustified  and the  admissions were governed  not by  the new  principle laid  down in  the Judgment but  by the  old rules which prevailed prior to the delivery of  the Judgment.  But even  if the admissions were governed by the new principle laid down in the Judgment, the Principal could  not grant  admissions to  50%  non-reserved seats in  the post  graduate  courses  without  judging  the relative merits  of the candidates through a common entrance examination. The  Principal was  clearly wrong  in  granting admissions to  50% non-reserved  seats on  the basis  of the marks obtained  by the  candidates at the different M.B.B.S. examination held  by different  Universities. No  admissions could be  granted to 50% non-reserved seats except through a common entrance examination where the relative merits of the candidates could  be tested  and  a  comparative  evaluation could be made on the basis of a common standard. It is quite possible that  if a  common entrance  examination  had  been held, the  petitioners or  at least  some of them might have been able to establish their superior merit as against those who happen  to have  been admitted on the basis of the marks obtained at  the different  M.B.B.S.  examinations.  We  are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 18  

therefore of  the view that the admissions purported to have been made  to 50%  non-reserved seats  in the  post graduate courses were  invalid and  the admissions  should have  been made in  accordance with  the old  rules prevailing prior to the delivery of the Judgment on 22nd June 1984.      But we  are not  inclined to strike down the admissions which have  already been  made. There are two reasons why we do not wish to disturb these admissions. In the first place, the students  who have already been admitted are not parties to the  present writ  petition and  it would not be right to make any order striking down their admissions without giving them an opportunity of being heard. Secondly, the admissions have been  made as  far back  as January 1985 pursuant to an order of  the High  Court and  the students  who  have  been admitted have  been prosecuting their studies since the last about three  months and it would cause them immense hardship if their  admissions were  none to  be disturbed.  We do not therefore propose to strike down the admissions already made to the  post graduate courses for the academic year 1985-86. But at  the same  time we must not allow any injustice to be perpetrated on the petitioners. It would in 61 our opinion  be fair and just that the petitioners should be able to  get admission  to the  post graduate courses in the Motilal Nehru Medical College being the institution in which they did their M.B.B.S. course, the reason being that if the old rules  had been  applied they  would have  been able  to secure such  admission. The State of Uttar Pradesh, however, contended that  the number  of students admitted to the post graduate courses  in the various specialities was already in excess of  that permitted  by the Indian Medical Council and apart from  any objection  which may be raised by the Indian Medical Council,  the interest  of  higher  education  would suffer if  the petitioners  were directed  to be admitted to the post  graduate courses  in the specialities respectively chosen by  them for  their house job. Now it is necessary to point out  that the  number of students admitted to the post graduate courses  has turned  out to  be in  excess of  that authorised by  the Indian Medical Council simply because the students admitted  to the  vacant seats in the post graduate courses for  the academic year 1984-85 pursuant to the order of the High Court dated 28th September 1984 and the order of the State Government dated 15th December 1984 could commence their post  graduate study  only from  January 1985  and the students admitted  to the  post  graduate  courses  for  the academic year  1985-86 also  commenced their  post  graduate study at  the same  time with  the result  that both sets of students, one admitted for the academic year 1984-85 and the other admitted  for the  academic year  1985-86 started  and continued  their  post  graduate  study  simultaneously  and together and  this resulted  in the total number of students being in  excess of  that authorised  by the  Indian Medical Council. But  if we  take into  account only  the number  of students admitted  for the  academic year 1985-86, we do not think that by admitting the petitioners, the teacher-student ratio prescribed  by the  Indian Medical  Council  would  be substantially breached.  We may  point out  that even if the teacher-student ratio  is violated by granting admissions to the petitioners, we would direct that this may be allowed to be done  as an exceptional case, because otherwise injustice would result  to the  petitioners and  neither the Court nor the Indian  Medical Council can be so insensitive as to shut its eyes  to injustice.  We would  therefore direct that the petitioners shall  be admitted  to the post graduate courses in the  specialities respectively  chosen by  them for their

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 18  

house job,  for the  academic year  1985-86  either  in  the Motilal Nehru  Medical College  or in  any of the other five medical colleges  in the  State of  Uttar  Pradesh,  at  the option of the State Government.      We are  not finally disposing of the writ petition with this Judgment since directions have yet to be given by us in regard to the 62 holding of  entrance examination  both for  admission to the M.B.B.S. course  as also for admissions to the post graduate courses. We have already directed the Indian Medical Council to come  forward with  a positive  scheme in  regard to  the holding of  both these  entrance examinations  and we  shall finally dispose  of the  writ petition after considering the scheme put forward by the Indian Medical Council and issuing the necessary  directions to the Government of India and the State  Governments   and/or  Universities  for  holding  the necessary entrance examinations. A.P.J,    Petitions Partly allowed. 63