# DR. DINESH KUMAR & ORS v. MOTILAL NEHRU MEDICAL COLLEGE ALLAHABAD & ORS

- **Citation:** [1985] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 41
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1984-06-22
- **Bench:** P.N. Bhagwati, A~Arendra Nath Sen, RANvANA1H MISRA
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/dr-dinesh-kumar-ors-v-motilal-nehru-medical-college-allahabad-ors-9064
- **Pages:** 22

## Headnote

41
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
diff~rent States to be conducted by Central Government or Indian Medical
Counl'il-Necessity o/-Admis~ion to various medical colleges in the country on
the basis of cornparative evaluation of marks obtained at entrance examination
havinp regard to the preference expressed by students/or any particular State or
Unil•ersity and speciality or specialities needed-Admission made by some States
or Universities on the basis of marks obtained at qualifying examinations he~d
hv States or Universities in ca~e of MBBS course and on the basis of marks
obtained at different MBBS examination in the case of Post Graduate CoursesWhether unjust and invalid being violative of Article 14-0ld rules regarding
rPservation 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 !985-86 arademic y,· ar-Switch over to three years post graduate course
with house job in the first year throughout the country in order to keep uniformity recommended.
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 oid 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 tJ1e basis of insti·
tutional 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 s~tisfied the residential requirements in that State.
In Dr. Pradeep Jain•s case the Supreme Court held that admission to
post graduate course, sueh 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 couse ii:l the same medical
college or University but such reservation should not in any event exceed 50°/o
of the total number of open seats available for admissions to the post graduate
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
42
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
fl985j SUPPL, S.C.R.
course". Subsequently, on 26th July, 1984 it was directed that the aforesaid
A
judgment shall be implemented with effect from the academic year 1985-86.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
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 fro1n Motilal Nehru Medical College
and completed obligatory internship of one year in July 1983. At that time
admission to the post graduate n1ed1cal 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 acadamic 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 tasis of mer it 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

## Text

_Characters 0–39,850 of 61,866. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39850 for what follows._

--
DR. DINESH KUMAR & ORS.
v.
MOTILAL NEHRU MEDICAL COLLEGE
ALLAHABAD & ORS.
May I, 1985
[P.N. BHAGWATI, A~ARENDRA NATH SEN
AND RANvANA1H MISRA, JJ.]
41
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
diff~rent States to be conducted by Central Government or Indian Medical
Counl'il-Necessity o/-Admis~ion to various medical colleges in the country on
the basis of cornparative evaluation of marks obtained at entrance examination
havinp regard to the preference expressed by students/or any particular State or
Unil•ersity and speciality or specialities needed-Admission made by some States
or Universities on the basis of marks obtained at qualifying examinations he~d
hv States or Universities in ca~e of MBBS course and on the basis of marks
obtained at different MBBS examination in the case of Post Graduate CoursesWhether unjust and invalid being violative of Article 14-0ld rules regarding
rPservation 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 !985-86 arademic y,· ar-Switch over to three years post graduate course
with house job in the first year throughout the country in order to keep uniformity recommended.
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 oid 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 tJ1e basis of insti·
tutional 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 s~tisfied the residential requirements in that State.
In Dr. Pradeep Jain•s case the Supreme Court held that admission to
post graduate course, sueh 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 couse ii:l the same medical
college or University but such reservation should not in any event exceed 50°/o
of the total number of open seats available for admissions to the post graduate
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
42
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
fl985j SUPPL, S.C.R.
course". Subsequently, on 26th July, 1984 it was directed that the aforesaid
A
judgment shall be implemented with effect from the academic year 1985-86.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
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 fro1n Motilal Nehru Medical College
and completed obligatory internship of one year in July 1983. At that time
admission to the post graduate n1ed1cal 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 acadamic 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 tasis of mer it 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 acaden1ic 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 Ju1y 1983. the admissions to post graduate courses were governed by the old
rules and so far as admissions to academic year 1934-85 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 I 9R4 in addition to the seats in
the post graduate courses for the academic year 1985-86. On the basis of 75%
s~ats for the academic years 1984-85 and 1985-86 being available to the students
passing MBBS examination from Moti1a1 Nehru Medical College they
reasonably anticipated that if they took a particular speciality, they would be
able to secure admission to tl1e post graduate course in that speciality on the
basis of institutional preference and bJsing themselves uporl this anticipation,
they selected their speciality for the house job. lf 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 '.udgment 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 peret>ntage
reserved for institutional candidates from 75 to 50 commencing from the
academic year 1985-86, they could not secure admission co 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
...
•
DJNESH KUMAR P. MEDICAL COLLEGE
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
A
University for testing the relative merits of the students seeking admission to
the.post graduate courses.
r artly 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 MBB :i examination held by
different Uni1 ersities, since there would be no comparable standards by
reference to which relativt:> n1erits of the students seeking admission to post
graduate courses :an be judged. Jn 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 basi'- of comparative evaluation of merits of the students
through an entrance examination, to be held by the Government of India or
the !ndian Medical Council sufficiently in advance. The students seeking
admission in f\·1BBS course as well as· in post graduate courses can express
their preference for any particular lJniversity 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 mark&
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 f1lade to conform to such preferences.
[51 E-F; 52 B-Dj
2. The Principal of the Motilal Nehru ~ledical College cannot be
blamed for granting admissions for the academic year 1985·86 in accordanc.e
with the new principle since the order dated 26th July 1984 says that the
judgment dated 22nd June 1934, 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-CJ
3. The grievance of the petitioners that even in regard to the 50% nonreserved 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
unju5tified 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 5G% non-reserved
seats on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidates at the different
MBBS examination held by different unhersities, without testing the relative
merits of the candidates on the basis of a common standard. The admissions
purported to have been made to 50o/0 non-reserved seats in the post graduate
courses were invalid. [59 H: 60 A-BJ
4
The admis-;ions already made cannot be struck down because the
students who have already been adn1itted are not parties to the present writ
petitions and without giving them an opportunity of being heard their
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
44
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1985] SUPPL. s.c.R.
admissions cannot be struck down. Secondly, such admis~ions were made in
January 1985 and since then the stude_nts 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 ·If edical 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 ca!>e of Dr. Pradeep Jain has been misinterpreted
to mean that 30% of the total seats available for adn1ission L> ?\.1BBS rourse in
a Medical College should t-e 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 a''ailable for non·reserved
categories, 30% or such seats at the least, should be left free for open competi·
tion 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 co npete for admissions to such 30% open seats. (51 A-CJ
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 dilTerent qualifying examinations cannot, by its very nature
be unifonn. 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
reac;onably uniform but at different qualifying examinations held by different
State Governments or Universities where the standard of judging would nece ..
ssarily vary and would not be the same. That would indeed be blatanly
violative of the concept of <'quality 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 examinati.ons. 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 Tndia or the Indian Medical Council on
an a1!-India basis and admissions should be granted to various Medical
Col1e1!es in the country on the basis of 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. 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-BJ
DINESH KUMAR V. MEDICAL COLLEGE
45
7. There is no difficulty in giving effect to the judgment from the
academic yectr 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 duratio11 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 seli!cted 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 hou e job in a particular speciality followed by admissions to a two year post graduate course in the same
specialily, the admissions to the two year post graduate courses for the
academic year 19:'5-86 should be governed, not by the new principle laid down
in the judgment, but by the old rules which prevailed prior to the delivery ofthe judgment, provided the students seeking admissions had commenced their
house job prior t'b 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 pnncip!e
laid down in the judgment.
l57 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 ad1nitted 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 \.1BBS
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 ~~tates which
follow the system of one year house job followed by two years post graduate
course to unifonnly adopt the system of three years post graduate course with
hout;ejob 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 shoulJ 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 ar~a of a State, there may be
more than one centre in some States both in regard to admissions to the post
graduate courses and l\1BB :> course. As directed earlier the lP.dian ~ edical
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 examination well in time before the next
academic year begins in June or July,
19~5. The writ petitions shall be
finally disposed of after such directions are issued. (52 F; 50 E· 62 BJ
Dr. Pradeep Jain aad Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [1984] 3 SCR 942
explained and Jagdish Saran v. Union of India [1980] 2 ~CR 831 referred to.
A
B
c
lJ
E
F
G
H
A
B
46
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1985J SUPPL. S.C.l<.
ORl"INAL JuRI5DICTlON : Writ Petition No. 348-52 of 1985.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
Shami Bhushan, G.L. Sanghi. Pra>hant Bhushan. Madan Lokur,
R. Satish, V.K. Pandita, and E.C. Agarwala for the Petitioners.
Kap;/ 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
C
Sharma, for the State of Rajasthan, and A. V. Rangam, for the State
of Tamil Nadu.
D
E
F
G
H
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
orhers.
The main judgment in that case was delivered by us on
22nd June. I 984 and we held in that judgement that "wholesale
reservation made by some of the State Governments on the basis
of 'dom•cile' or residence requirement within the state or on the
basis of institutional preference for students who have pa;sed 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 reserra;ion,
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
-
-:r-
-
-
-
DINESH KUMAR v. MEDICAL COLLEGE (Bhagwati, J.)
47
in a State where the level of educational development is
woefully low, there are comparatively inadequate oppor·
tunities 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". So many variables depending on social
and economic facts in the context of educational oppor·
!unities 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 pre·
ference.
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 f(\ir and just to fix the outer
limit at 70 per cent.
We are laying down this ~uter
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 1 eaned heavily
on the observations made by Krishna Iyer J. in Jagdish Saran v.
Union of India(') 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
(I} [1980] 2 S.C.R. 831.
A
B
c
D
E
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
G
H
48
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1985J SUPPL. S.C R.
the view was expressed categorically by the Government oflnd ia
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 opportu- ·
nity 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 ~ 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 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 delivrred by us may be given
effect only from the academic year J 985-86.
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 a11 formalities
· for admission, including the helding 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 preperations 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-S6.
This order was made by us on 26th July 1984 and it was directed
to form part of the main judgment dated '.2nd June 19R4.
i -
-
•
......
•
DINESH KUMAR v. MEDiCAL COLLEGE (Bhagwati, J.)
49
Since it was made dear 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 arrange·
ments 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 minimnm 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 ,iudged. 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
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
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
50
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1984) SUPPL. S.C.R.
in our opinion be held by the Government of India or the Indian
A
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 ex pressed by the students for any
particular State or University or Medical College or Colleges shall
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
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 impedi·
ment 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
se~king
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)ndian Medical
Council will produce a will thought out scheme for holding an allIndia 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 furter 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 ac11dernic year 1985·86.
...
------·----------------------------~--
DiNEsa KUMAR v. MEDICAL COLLEGE (Bhagwatt, J.)
.. 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 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 JOO seats, namely,
30 seats, must be filled up by open competition regardless ofresidence
requirement or institutional preference.
So far admissions to 50% open seats not reserved on the basis
of institutional preference (hereinafter . referred to as 50% nonrcserved 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 Constitutjon 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 rihere the standard of marking
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
52
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1985] SUPPL, S.C.R.
is strict.
We cannot therefore approve of admissions to 50% nonreserved seats for the post graduate course; 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 tbe 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 np 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 mmt 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 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 io 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 p9st graduate courses in the medical colleses situate within
-
....
ti1NESH KUMAR v. MEDICAL COLLEGE (Ehagwati, J.)
53
that State or attached or affiliated to that University. But unques·
tionably 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 ansmg ib
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 intership 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 be 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 ln
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 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
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
54
SUPREME COURT RBPOR TS
(1985] SUPPL. s.c.a.
in another speciality even if he does better in the entrance exami·
nation than a student who bas 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.