Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. In the context of regulations prescribed by the Medical Council for selection for Post-graduate studies and practice of selection adopted by the University in the case of Vikram K. Shah v. State of Gujarat reported in 1983(1) GLR 554 the learned single Judge of this Court found that imparting of instructions and training for Postgraduate studies is the exclusive concern of the University. It is the vital function of the University to co-ordinate and manage the educational functions in respect of all braches of learning including medicine. It is for this purpose that registration of students is to be done by the University and not by any other authority. The registration for Post-graduate courses cannot be left to the good sense of the Dean of the college. The Court found that the only defence of the University was that it was the time-honoured practice following which the Dean of respective institutions were granting registration. It was in the context of those students, the Court found that it cannot mechanically and blindly adopt the merit list prepared by the Dean for the purpose of appointing Residents in a particular subject. If it is the function of the University to grant registration, that is to be done by the University alone and it may not assign this important administrative function to one of its functionaries, may be a highly placed person. The Court found that the University has been mechanically adopting the list prepared by the Dean and this blind mechanical adoption of the list is amply illustrated by the fact that two different centres imparting Post-graduate training in the University area are sending the so-called merit list of Resident doctors in various subjects on different criteria. The Court found that the criteria adopted by the Government owned medical college, namely, B.J. Medical College was different from the criteria adopted by the Dean of N.H.L. Municipal Medical College. The Court found that this practice of permitting different colleges under the same University to adopt different criteria for admitting Residents for Postgraduates studies was not permissible as it was ex-facie unreasonable. The legality, unconstitutionality or ultra vires character of an action of a public body cannot be validated by passage of time, and therefore, the Court found that the plea of time-honoured practice vigorously put forward cannot render any assistance to the case of the Dean of Colleges or of University.