Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This appeal, arising out of such a context, throws up for consideration certain aspects which call for a difficult exercise in balancing equities. We, therefore, proceed to discuss the facts and issues at some length. The appellant Dr. Ku. Nilolaf Insaf and respondent no. 4, Dr. Devraj Jain, were competitors for a single seat in the Master's Degree (M.D.) course in Radiology at Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal. The appellant got admission to this seat in preference to Dr. Jain because she had obtained average marks of 59.60 per cent in the examinations of the M.B.B.S. course whereas Dr. Jain had obtained only 58.50 per cent. Dr. Jain successfully challenged the admission granted to the appellant in preference to himself in a writ petition in the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Dr. Insaf, who has for- feited her admission in consequence of the judgment of the High Court, has filed the present appeal. In order to appreciate the circumstances in which the admission granted to the appellant was quashed by the High Court, though she had admittedly got a higher percentage of marks than Dr. Jain, it is necessary to set out a few fur- ther facts. Dr. Jain and Dr. Insaf both completed their M.B.B.S. course in the years 1983-87. However, while Dr. Jain had been admitted into and completed that course in the Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal, the appellant had initially joined her M.B.B.S. course in the M.S. Ramayya Medical College, Bangalore, wrote the first examination and complet- ed the first year of the M.B.B.S. course there. Thereafter, in August 1984, she made an application for her transfer to the Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal. Her request was granted by the Gandhi Medical College with the approval of the State of Madhya Pradesh and with "no objection" from the Ramayya Medical College. Thereafter she sat in the second and third examinations pertaining to the MBBS degree along with Dr. Jain and completed her MBBS course along with Dr. Jain in 1987 from the Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal. Thereafter, both of them cleared their internship of one year and also joined a house job in Radiology in the same college and completed the same in August 1989. It was at this stage that both of them applied for being admitted to the M.D. course with the result already set out.

As already mentioned, it is not in dispute that, if the total number of marks obtained by the two contestants in all the examinations of the M.B.B.S. degree are taken and re- duced to an "effective" percentage and a common maximum as per the rules, Dr. Nilofar does get a higher percentage of marks than the respondent. In fact, we find from the papers filed before us that another candidate, Dr. Km. Indu Fotedar, had obtained a percentage of 59.04 which was also higher than the percentage obtained by Dr. Jain. However, she is no longer in the race for a seat in M.D. (Radiology) as she appears to have joined the M.D. course in medicine that was offered to her. Thus it was that the Radiology seat went to Dr. Insaf.

On the strength of these rules, Sri Sachar contends that the respondent, not having preferred objections to the merit list referred to earlier, is now estopped from challenging the merit list.

We find that there is a good deal of confusion about the relevant facts in this regard. In the High Court, the re- spondent's case was that he had duly filed his objections to the merit list of 1989 in July 1989 and well within time. The list that is relied upon by him is a list published by the Dean which bears the heading "Particulars of the candi- dates who have applied for registration in M.D. Radiology for the year 1989" placed at page 49 of the paper book. It contains 9 names (including Drs. Insaf, Jain and Fotedar) and the details of their period of study and internship. The last two columns are headed "Effective Marks" and "Effective Percentage". They are not, however, arranged in order of merit but are arranged on a different basis. The first four names are of candidates who had applied for the M.D. course in Radiology, whereas the others had applied also for admis- sion to M.D. courses in other subjects. It is on the basis of this list apparently, that the selections were made and, in his petition for special leave before us, the appellant also admitted this position. Sri Sachar, however, contends, that the earlier list produced by him (p. 68) is the merit list referred to in the rules and not this one which does not even purport to be a "merit list".

Another important consideration which prevents us from giving any relief to Dr. Jain--even if we accept all his conten- tions-is this. The M.D. course, admission to which is the bone of controversy, started in August 1989 and is coming to a close shortly. Though the appellant lost in the High Court, she was permitted by this Court--though, obviously, subject to the result of this appeal--to continue attending the classes for M.D. in Radiology. Now she has almost com- pleted her course and, to deprive her of her seat at this stage, apart from irretrievably harming her, will not bene- fit Dr. Jain who cannot now be admitted against the M.D. seat of 1989. This again is a development which militates against the grant of any relief to Dr. Jain. Before we conclude, we should like to touch upon one more aspect. The course of events narrated above will show that Dr. Jain has been the victim, partly, of a lapse on the part of the medical college authorities in properly applying the rules governing transfer and, partly, of courts' delay in disposing of his writ petition and the present appeal. In the course of the hearing, therefore, we were tempted to consider whether we should give some relief to Dr. Jain by directing the authorities to consider his case for admission to the M.D. course atleast this year. On careful thought, however, we find it difficult to make any specific direc- tions or recommendations for a number of reasons. In the first place, we are told that Dr. Jain has, in the meantime, undergone and completed a diploma course in Radiology and, in terms of a rule recently promulgated, is not eligible to apply for the M.D. course for another three years, even if he is interested to do so. Secondly, as noted already, the rules permit admission in M.D. in any year only to candi- dates who have finished their house jobs in that year and, Dr. Jain having completed his house job in 1989, may not be eligible to be considered for admission this year. Thirdly, if any direction of the above nature is given by us, it will operate to the prejudice of some other candidate who is eligible for admission to that course in the normal course. Fourthly, it would not also have been possible for us-even if we had come to the conclusion that Dr. Jain and not the appellant should have been admitted in 1989--to direct the University to carry forward that vacancy and grant him admission to it now. We therefore refrain from giving any directions to the authorities in the matter as had been mooted in the course of the hearing.