Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.27 seconds)Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Dr. Pradeep Jain And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 22 June, 1984
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
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
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.
Jagdish Saran & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 28 January, 1980
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."
Article 15 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1