http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: GUJARAT UNIVERSITY

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RAJIV GOPINATH BHATT & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       01/05/1996

BENCH: SINGH N.P. (J) BENCH: SINGH N.P. (J) AHMADI A.M. (CJ) KIRPAL B.N. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR 2066            1996 SCC  (4)  60  JT 1996 (5)   333        1996 SCALE  (4)305

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T N.P.SINGH, J.      Leave granted.      This appeal  has been  filed on  behalf of  the Gujarat University (hereinafter  referred to  as the university) for setting aside  an order  dated 30.9.1991, passed by the High Court directing  the appellant-university to grant admission to the  respondent No.1  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the respondent) in  the super speciality course of M.Ch. (Master of  Chirurgee)   in  Onco  surgery,  in  the  session  which commenced from 1.7.1991.      It  appears   that  the   appellant-university  invited applications for  admission to  two years’  super speciality courses of  D.M. and  M.Ch.  commencing  from  1.7.1991,  An entrance  examination  was  also  conducted  to  select  the students  for admission in the aforesaid courses. The number of seats  in the  super speciality courses are very limited, because of  which  in  the  rule  framed  by  the  appellant university it  has been  provided that  the first preference shall be  given to the students of the appellant-university. The  students   from  other   universities  are  not  denied admission but  they have to rank next to the students of the appellant-university. As the respondent aforesaid was denied admission on  the ground  that he  was not  a student of the appellant-University, a  writ  petition  was  filed  on  his behalf, before the High Court, which as already stated above was allowed by the impugned order.      When the  appeal was  taken  up  for  hearing,  counsel appearing for  the parties,  informed the  Court  that  this appeal has become infructuous, because on basis of the order passed by the High Court, the respondent was allowed to join the course  and he has already completed the course. In this background, this  Court is  not actually required to examine the grievance  made on behalf of the appellant-university in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

respect of  the directions given by the High Court. However, the learned  counsel, appearing  for the university drew the attention of the Court to the relevant rule for selection of the candidate for admission in the super speciality courses:           "O.M.S. -  16:  Selection  for      super-specialities  courses   (i.e.      M.Ch and D.M.).           1. First  preference  will  be      given to  candidates  from  Gujarat      University. Second preference  will      be given  to candidates  from other      Universities of  Gujarat State. Any      vacancy remaining  after this shall      remain unfilled.           2.    Post-graduate     degree      qualification i.e.  M.D. or M.S. is      essential.           3.  The  Vice-Chancellor  will      arrange  thereby   examination  the      candidates,  preferably  objective.      No practicals  will  be  held.  The      result of  this examination will be      sole criterion  for  admission  and      decision  of   the  Vice-Chancellor      will be final . The stand  of the university in the affidavit in reply filed before the  High Court,  was that the basis of the admission is merit;  only preference is to be given to the students of the appellant-university.  The High  Court has  pointed  out that students  who have  passed M.D./M.S. examination either from the  appellant-university or  from any other university recognized by  the  appellant-university  are  eligible  for being admitted  to the super speciality courses in question, and the  clause saying  that preference will be given to the students  of   the  appellant-university  was  violative  of Article 14  of the Constitution of India. In this connection reference was  made by  the High  Court to  the judgments of this Court in the cases of Jagdish Saran vs. Union of India, (1980) 2  SCC 768 and Pradeep Jain vs. Union of India,(1984) 3 SCC  654, where it has been observed that the Court cannot allow  excellence   to  be   compromised   for   any   other consideration.      Without examining  that question  in detail  it may  be pointed  out  that  the  aforesaid  judgments  were  not  in connection with the admission in super speciality course. At the same  time, we reiterate that object. of any institution while selecting  applicants for  admission is  to select the best   amongst    the   applicants,   regional   and   other considerations which  do not  satisfy the test of Article 14 of the  Constitution should  not affect  the merit criteria. But from  time to time, this Court taking into consideration the local  and regional compulsions have been making efforts to strike  a balance  so that  the students who have pursued the studies  in a particular State and have been admitted in the medical  colleges of  that State are not suddenly thrown on the  street when  question of  their admission  in  super speciality courses arises, in which the seats are limited in number. In  the case  of Pradeep  Jain vs.  Union of  India, (supra) this Court has observed:      "We are,  therefore,  of  the  view      that  a   certain   percentage   of      reservation   on   the   basis   of      residence      requirement      may      legitimately be  made in  order  to      equalise opportunities  for medical

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

    admission on a broader basis and to      bring about  real and  not  formal,      actual  and   not   merely   legal,      equality.   The    percentage    of      reservation made  on this count may      also     include      institutional      reservation  for  students  passing      the PUC  or pre-medical examination      of the  same university or clearing      the qualifying examination from the      school system  of  the  educational      hinterland of  the medical colleges      in the State...." The same  question was  again examined in the case of Dinesh Kumar vs.  Motilal Nehru  Medical College, (1986) 3 SCC 727. Recently, in  the case  of Anant Madan vs. State of Haryana, (1995) 2 SCC 135, it was said :           "The  eligibility   condition,      therefore, which  requires that the      candidate should have studied 10th,      10+1  and   10+2  classes   from  a      recognized institution in the State      of Haryana is neither arbitrary nor      unreasonable  and  the  Punjab  and      Haryana  High   Court  has  rightly      upheld the same." Therefore, if  a rule  has been framed that out of the merit list prepared,  preference is  to be  given for admission in the  super   speciality  courses  to  the  students  of  the university in  question  perse  it  cannot  be  held  to  be arbitrary, unreasonable  or violative  of Article  14 of the Constitution.      The  learned   counsel,  appearing  for  the  appellant university, could not explain the object and purpose of part of the  impugned rule  which provides "any vacancy remaining after this  shall remain  unfilled". This  part of  the rule cannot be  held to rational. It is only just and proper that the. university  should examine and give a fresh look to the said  rule   making  provision  for  filling  up  even  such vacancies which  are not filled for one reason or the other; of course  within the time schedule prescribed for the super speciality courses.      The  appeal   is  accordingly  allowed  to  the  extent indicated above. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no orders as to cost.