# U.P. JUNIOR DOCTORS' ACTION COMMITTEE AND ORS. ETC v. DR. B. SHEET AL NANDW ANI AND ORS. ETC

- **Citation:** [1991] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 384
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1991-11-22
- **Bench:** Ranganath Misra, G.N. Ray, A.S. Anand
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/u-p-junior-doctors-action-committee-and-ors-etc-v-dr-b-sheet-al-nandw-ani-and-11417
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Admission to Professional Courses-Post-graduate courses in Medical
Colleges-Reasonable period of study-Prescription by the Medical
C
Council-Dates of admission· and commencement of courses-Directions
of Court-To be followed strictly--Interlocutory orders for provisional
admission--Not to be granted unless for special reason to be indicated in
clear terms.
D
E
Practice & Procedure:
Main relief prayed for--As a rule not to be granted at the interlocutory stage.
These matters relate to admission in post-graduate .courses in
the Medical Colleges in Uttar Pradesh.
On a Writ Petition, which later turned out to be fake, the High
Court had ordered that admission could be effected on the basis of
the MBBS Examination. This has been disputed in appeal before
this Court.
F
In another Writ Petition, pending hearing, the High Court
G
H
directed that provisional admission be given to two candidates, one
in MS (Surgery) and another in MD (Medicine). The Principal of
the Medical college and others preferred an appeal against the High
Court's order.
It was contended that granting admission, though provisional,
at an interlocutory stage in a pending proceeding creates a lot of
adverse consequences and indiscipline in the system of imparting
education.
Dismissing the matters, this. Court,
384
'1
\
f
~·
-·
JR. DOCTORS' COMMITTEE v. DR. NANDWANI
385
HELD : 1.1 It transpires that the proceedings before the High
A
Court were totally fraudulent and no one by the name given in the
petition ~ petitioner could really be identified. This Court had clearly
indicated that no admission should be permitted on the basis of the
MBBS results. Nothing survives now, as the High Court's order has
already been reversed. (386 F,G]
2.1 It is already' settled that admission for 25 per cent of the
seats in post-graduate courses should be regulated on the basis of
all-India selection and in regard to the remainder of 75 per cent the
States were left to decide the procedure for admission. (387-E]
B
2.2 Unless there is a sincere and thorough educational disciC
pline to be gone through as a precondition to the grant of the requisite certificate the lives of citizens would be at peril. The Indian
Medical Council has prescribed a reasonable period of study, on
expert advice, and upon taking into consideration the experience
over th~ears as to how much study is necessary for the requisite
qualification to be gathered. This Court has also indicated the dates
D
of admission and commencement of the courses of str1dy. These are
prescriptions for a purpose and are not intended to be empty formalities to be .violated. [387 G, H; 388-A)
.
Dr. Pradeep Jain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (1984) 3
' S.C.C. 654, relied on.
E
3. It is a well-known rule of practice and procedure that at
an interlocutory stage, a relief which is asked for and is available at
the disposal of the matter, is not (generally) granted. To have it
granted at the threshold creates a lot of difficulties. In a case where
the petitioner ultimately loses in a case of this type a very embarF
rassing situation crops up. If he has by then read for two to three
years, there is a claim of equity raised on the plea· that one cannot
reverse the course of time. In a case of this type, equities should not
be claimed or granted. Unless there is any special reason to be
indicated in clear terms in an interlocutory order, as a rule no
provisional admission should be granted and more so into technical G
courses. [388 C, DJ
4.1 The order of the High Court in the instant case should be
reversed but this is not being done so, on account of the fact that
nine similarly placed medical graduates have already been given
admission pursuant to such interlocutory orders by the respondents H
386
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1991) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A
wjthout even raising a challenge. The order was made as early as in
February, 1991 and for nine months no steps have been taken by the
appellants to comply with the order and they are in fact facing a

## Text

A
U.P. JUNIOR DOCTORS' ACTION COMMITTEE
AND ORS. ETC.
v.
DR. B. SHEET AL NANDW ANI AND ORS. ETC.
NOVEMBER 22, 1991
[RANGANATH MISRA, CJ., G.N. RAY
AND A.S. ANAND, JJ.]
Admission to Professional Courses-Post-graduate courses in Medical
Colleges-Reasonable period of study-Prescription by the Medical
C
Council-Dates of admission· and commencement of courses-Directions
of Court-To be followed strictly--Interlocutory orders for provisional
admission--Not to be granted unless for special reason to be indicated in
clear terms.
D
E
Practice & Procedure:
Main relief prayed for--As a rule not to be granted at the interlocutory stage.
These matters relate to admission in post-graduate .courses in
the Medical Colleges in Uttar Pradesh.
On a Writ Petition, which later turned out to be fake, the High
Court had ordered that admission could be effected on the basis of
the MBBS Examination. This has been disputed in appeal before
this Court.
F
In another Writ Petition, pending hearing, the High Court
G
H
directed that provisional admission be given to two candidates, one
in MS (Surgery) and another in MD (Medicine). The Principal of
the Medical college and others preferred an appeal against the High
Court's order.
It was contended that granting admission, though provisional,
at an interlocutory stage in a pending proceeding creates a lot of
adverse consequences and indiscipline in the system of imparting
education.
Dismissing the matters, this. Court,
384
'1
\
f
~·
-·
JR. DOCTORS' COMMITTEE v. DR. NANDWANI
385
HELD : 1.1 It transpires that the proceedings before the High
A
Court were totally fraudulent and no one by the name given in the
petition ~ petitioner could really be identified. This Court had clearly
indicated that no admission should be permitted on the basis of the
MBBS results. Nothing survives now, as the High Court's order has
already been reversed. (386 F,G]
2.1 It is already' settled that admission for 25 per cent of the
seats in post-graduate courses should be regulated on the basis of
all-India selection and in regard to the remainder of 75 per cent the
States were left to decide the procedure for admission. (387-E]
B
2.2 Unless there is a sincere and thorough educational disciC
pline to be gone through as a precondition to the grant of the requisite certificate the lives of citizens would be at peril. The Indian
Medical Council has prescribed a reasonable period of study, on
expert advice, and upon taking into consideration the experience
over th~ears as to how much study is necessary for the requisite
qualification to be gathered. This Court has also indicated the dates
D
of admission and commencement of the courses of str1dy. These are
prescriptions for a purpose and are not intended to be empty formalities to be .violated. [387 G, H; 388-A)
.
Dr. Pradeep Jain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (1984) 3
' S.C.C. 654, relied on.
E
3. It is a well-known rule of practice and procedure that at
an interlocutory stage, a relief which is asked for and is available at
the disposal of the matter, is not (generally) granted. To have it
granted at the threshold creates a lot of difficulties. In a case where
the petitioner ultimately loses in a case of this type a very embarF
rassing situation crops up. If he has by then read for two to three
years, there is a claim of equity raised on the plea· that one cannot
reverse the course of time. In a case of this type, equities should not
be claimed or granted. Unless there is any special reason to be
indicated in clear terms in an interlocutory order, as a rule no
provisional admission should be granted and more so into technical G
courses. [388 C, DJ
4.1 The order of the High Court in the instant case should be
reversed but this is not being done so, on account of the fact that
nine similarly placed medical graduates have already been given
admission pursuant to such interlocutory orders by the respondents H
386
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1991) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A
wjthout even raising a challenge. The order was made as early as in
February, 1991 and for nine months no steps have been taken by the
appellants to comply with the order and they are in fact facing a
contempt proceeding. (388-F)
4.2 Notice had been issued to the Principals of the seven mediB
cal colleges who have appeared ·and given written undertakings to
the Court by way of affidavit that there was some misunderstanding
in regard to the requirement of a selection test for post graduate
admission. Though there was hardly any scope for being misled, the
benefit of doubt is being given to the Principals. The contempt proceedings are discharged, but their undertakings are kept on record.
C
[388 G, H; 389-A)
D
E
F
G
H
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: I.A. No I IN C.A. No 4444
of 1990 etc. etc.,
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.5.90 of the Allahabad High
Court in CWP No. 5267 of90.
-
Yogeshwar Prasad, Gopal Subramanium, S.K. Mehta, Dhruv Mehta,
Arvind Verma, Aman Vachher, Pradeep Misra and R.B. Misra for the
appearing parties.
The following order of the Court was delivered:
The dispute in these cases relates to admission in post-graduate
courses of the medical wing. There are seven medical colleges in the State
ofUttar Pradesh. Sometime back in a fake writ petition the High Court of
Allahabad made an order that admission could be effected on the basis of_
the MBBS results. That can counter to the decision of this Court and on
being looked into it transpired that the proceedings before the High Court
were totally fraudulent and no one by the name given in the petition as
petitioner could really be identified. This Court at that stage had clearly
indicated that the prescription by this Court has been that there should be
a selection test for post-graduate admission as admission has become very
competitive and to have compliance of Article 14 of the Constitution a
broad-based arrangement should be made. On that account this Court had
clearly indicated that no admission should be permitted on the basis of the
MBBS results. In view of the fact that the Allahabad High Court's order
has already been reversed, nothing more need be done.
·-t
JR. DOCTORS' COMMITIEE v. DR. NANDWANI
387
SLP (CJ ..... of 1990
This petition is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge
of the Allahabad High Court dated 25.5.1990. U.P. Junior Doctors' Action
Committee in their special leave petition whi.ch has not yet been numbered challenge the order referred to above where the petitioner could not
A
be identified and challenge was to the decision of the High Court dated B
25 .5. I 990 which permitted admission on the basis of MBBS results. Since
we have already clarified the position and reiterated the requirement of a
selection test the order of the High Court must be taken to have already
been vacated. It is not necessary to entertain this special leave petition.
CA in SLP 15354191
Special leave granted.
c
In this appeal by special leave Principal of the Agra Medi.cal college
along with some others is the appellant. The High Court by the impugned
order required provisional admission in M.S. (Surgery) and in M.D. (MediD
cine) to be given to respondents 1 and 2 respectively in the Medical
College of Agra while the writ petition was yet to be heard. The contention raised before us is that grading admission at an interlocutory stage in
a pending proceeding even by styling it as provisional creates lot of ad-
, verse consequences and leads to indiscipline in the system of imparting
education. Admission into post-graduate degrees in the medical wing throughE
out the country has become very competitive and it has become clear that
strict regulation is necessary. This Court by its judgment in Dr. Pradeep
Jain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1984] 3 SCC 654 indicated that
admission for 25 per cent of the seats in post-graduate courses should be
regulated on the basis of all-India selection and in regard to the remainder
15 per cent of the States were left to decide the procedure for admission.
F
Appropriate knowledge and expertise are a prerequisite for a person
to be allowed to register himself as a medical· practitioner. Very often,
health problems require expert treatment. If anyone is authorised in society to practise medicine or undertake medical-care without the appropriate
qualification, society exposes itself to health hazards. The prescriptions by G
the Indian Medical Council and the attempts made by Government for
regulating the medical study are for establishing basically uniform knowledge
to be imparted to the students before they can be entrusted with the
nation's medicare. Unless there is a sincere and thorough educational
discipline to be gone through as a precondition to the grant of the requisite
certificate the lives of citizens would be at peril.
H
3~
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1991] SUPP. 2 S.C.R,.
A
The Indian Medical Council has prescribed a reasonable period of
B
c
D
E
F
·G
H
study on expert advice and upon taking into consideration the experience
over the years as to how much study is necessary for the requisite qualification to be gathered. This Court has also indicated the dates of admission
and commencement of the courses of study. These are prescriptions for a
purpose and are not intended to be empty formalities to be violated.
One of the prescriptions of the Medical· Ccuncil is also the ratio
between the teachers and the students. That again is a factor which cannot
be brushed aside.
It is a well..:known rule of practice and procedure that at interlocutory stage a relief which is asked for and is available at the disposal of the
matter is not granted. The writ petitioners wanted admission into postgraduate course as the main relief in the writ petition. To have it granted
at the threshold creates a lot of difficulties. In a case where the petitioner
ultimately loses in a case of this type a very embarrassing situation crops
up. If he has l>y then read for two to three years, there is a claim of equity
raised on the plea that one cannot reverse the course of time. In a case of
this type equities should not be claimed or granted. Taking an overall
picture of__the matter we are of the view that unless there is any special
reason to be indicated in clear terms in an interlocutory order as a rule no
provisional admission should be granted and more so into technical courses.
On the basis of what we have said the order of the High Court
should be reversed but we are not doing so on account of the fact that nine
similarly placed medical graduates have already been given admission
pursuant to such interlocutory orders by the respondents without even
raising a challenge. The order was made as early as in February, 1991 and
for all these nine months no steps have been taken by the appellants to
comply with the order and,_they are in fact facing a contem9t proceeding.
While on principle we indfoate that such provisional admission should not
be granted. we dismiss this special leave petition and sustain the order not
on merits but for the reason indicated. The interlocutory application in the
civil appeal need not be further dealt with in view of what we have said
above.
We had .issued notice. to the Principals of the seven medical colleges. They liiive appeared and have given a written undertaking to the
Court by way of affidavit that there was some misunderstanding in regard
to the requirement of a selection test for post-graduate admission. There
were two-year and three-year courses running simultaneously for some
period and some confusion was there as to whether the two-year course
JR. DOCTORS' COMMITTEE v. DR. NANDWANI
389
students were covered by the direction of this Court. Though we are of the
A
view that there was hardly any scope for being misled, we are prepared to
give the benefit of doubt to the Principals. The contempt proceedings are
withdrawn but the undertaking are kept on record.
G.N.
Appeals dismissed.