Holding

The Court cannot withdraw a seat already surrendered to the State Government or direct the appellant's admission for the current admissions, but may consider him for any seat that becomes vacant for the year 1992.

Summary

The appellant, who had appeared for the All India Post‑Graduate medical entrance examination of 1992, was not allotted any seat despite having higher marks than some candidates who were later admitted in Kerala. After the first, second and third admission lists were issued, the remaining vacant seats were surrendered to the State Government, which filled them. The appellant sought a direction that he be given a seat in any college in Kerala or elsewhere, arguing that lower‑scoring candidates were being admitted. The Supreme Court held that at this stage it could not withdraw a seat from the State Government or direct admission of the appellant, especially since the course had already commenced and there might be other higher‑scoring candidates. The Court also noted that the modified counselling system proposed by the authorities would apply only from the 1994 admissions, not to the ongoing 1992 admissions. Consequently, the Court directed that if any seat becomes vacant in 1992, the Director of Medical Education may consider admitting the appellant, but no further relief was granted. The appeal was disposed of without costs.

Issues considered

Whether the Supreme Court can direct that a seat already surrendered to the State Government be withdrawn and allotted to the appellant.
Whether the appellant can be considered for admission against the 1993 vacancies despite not having appeared for the 1993 examination.
Whether the modified counselling procedure for seat allocation is applicable to the admissions currently underway.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 136, s. Article 14

Subjects

All India PG entrance examinationmedical postgraduate admissionmerit‑cum‑preference‑cum‑eligibilityseat allocationcounselling systemvacancy surrenderSupreme Court directionequality of opportunity

Judgment

ANANDS.BUI A

v.
STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

APRIL 22, 1993
B
[B.P.JEEVANREDDY ANDN. VENKATACHALA,JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950:

Articles 136, 14-Appeal-All India post graduate entrance examination of
I992-Appearance of appellanr along with others-Students with lesser marks C
admitted but not appellant-Vacant sears surrendered to State Government filled
up-Direcrion ofSupreme Court-Existing system and Modified system-Effect of

Education-All India post-graduate entrance examination-Admission ro
M.D./M.S!Diploma and M.D.S. courses-Existing system- Modified
system-Effect-Directions of Supreme Court. D

The appellant had appeared for All India competitive examination. He
was not allotted any seat in any college according to the merit-com-prefer-
ence-cum-eligibility. His grievance now is that students with lesser marks
than him are being admitted to Colleges in Kerala. He says that he may be
E
given a seat in any subject in any of the colleges in Kerala-or for that matter
anywhere else. After the first, second and third lists pertaining to AIMndia
seats were published, the remaining vacant seats have been surrendered to
the State Government already. The State Government had already rdled
almost all of them.

Disposing of the appeal, this Court, F

HELD: 1.1. This Court cannot withdraw one seat from the State
Government, at this belated stage-the course has begun in the month of
September, 1992 itself-and giv~ it to the appellant. Even otherwise it is not
certain thatthere are no other candidates (who had appeared in the All India
competitive examination) who may have scored higher _marks than the G
appellant. No direction can be given for his being considered against the 1993
vacancies because he has not appeared for the 1993 examination. If, in case,
· any seat in lying vacant in any of the medical courses in Kerala, the second
respondent, Director of Medical Education Thiruvananthapur.1m shall con-
e
----- sider admitting the appellant against such seat relating to the year 1992.
(342-G)
337
.
338 SUPREME COURT RFPORTS [1993)3 S.C.R.

A. 1.02. The post-graduate courses comprise degree courses as well as
diploma courses. After the r~ults of examinations are published, the admis-
sions are made on the basis of merit-cum-preference-cum-eligibility with the
aid of a cojnputer. (339-G)

1.03. According to the system in vogue, a candidate who applies for
B · admission in the All India quqta is required to indicate eight medical colleges
and six subjects, in the orde~ of pref~rence, to which he seeks admission.
(339-G)

1.04. In the first instance, a list.of admissions is issued. But it so happens
c thatfor one or the other reason, many of the candidates in the list do not turn-
up to join the course. Hence,~ second list is issued and then a third. But while
preparing the second list or the third list, the overall merit-cum-preference-
cum-eligibility is not again, examined, with the result that sometimes a
candidate with lesser score gets a better subject than a candidate with higher
score. (339-H)
D
1.05. Inspite.ofpromptings from this court, the authori.ties in-charge of
holding All India competitive examination have not been able to adhere to the
prescribed schedule. In sucij a situation, it is bound to happen that issuance
of second and third lists delay the process of admission still further. By the
time the second and third lists are communicated, half the course is over.
E
(340-D)

1.06. The new system, in short, is this: after the examination is over, the
· results would be published ib the order of merit. The selection committee Will
call 150 candidates a day in the order of merit. A chart will be kept ready and
1

F displayed at all relevant places indicating the colleges and subjects wherein
the seats are available. Candidates
I
will be called in the order of •merit and
asked to indicate his/her choice. The slot chosen by him/her then gets closed.
This procedure will be gone through until all the seats are fdled up. There
w.ould be no second or third list. Any seats remaining vacant thereafter will
be surrendered to the State. Government. But this modification will apply to
G and come into effect only for and from the admissions for the year 1994. It will
n~t apply to the admissio~ currently underway. (340-H, 341-A)

1.07. In all other respects, the scheme in vogue shall continue to be
B effective.
A.S. BIJI v. STA1E OF KERALA

Dr. Pradip Jain v Union of India, [1994) 3 S.C.C. 654; Dr. Dinesh Kumar A·
"'Motilal Nehru college, [1986] 3 S.C.C. 327;and Dr. Dinesh Kumar v Motilal
Nehru College, [1987) 4 S.C.C.459, referred t:O. ··

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1944 of 1993.

B
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.1.1993 of the Kerala High Coyrt in
O.P.No. 13371of1992.

G. Prakash for the Appellant.

V.R. Reddy, Addi. Solicitor General, C.V. Subba Rao, B. Parthasarthy and C
R. Sasiprabhu for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered:

Leave granted. Heard counsel for the parties.

Havjng regard to the broader considerations of equality of opportunity, this
Court directed in Dr. Pradip Jain v. Union of India [1984] 3 S.C.C. 654 that a
certain percentage of seats in the post-graduate medical courses should be made
available to the candidates on the basis of All India Competition. The percentage
was later determined at 25%. In Dr. Dinesh Kumar v. Motilal Nehru College E
[1986] 3 S.C.C. 327 this Court prescribed a schedule for the All India Competitive

---·
Examination, which was modified in certain respects in Dr. Dinesh Kumar v.
Motilal Nehru College [1987] 4 S.C.C. 459. In subsequent decisions, this Court
has been impressing upon the concerned authorities the necessity of adhering to
the time-frame prescribed in the matter of holding All India Competitive Exami-
nation and for making admissions. F

According to the system in vogue, a candidate who applies for admission in
the All India quota is required to indicate eight medical colleges and six subjects,
in the order of preference, to which he seeks admission. There are seventy medical .
colleges/institutions and forty specialities. The post-graduate courses comprise G
degree courses as well as diploma courses. After the results of examinations are
published, the admissions are made on the basis of merit-cum-preference-c:um-
eligibility with the aid of a computer. In the first instance, a list of admissions is

- issued. But it so happens that for one or the other reason, many of the candidates
in the list do not tum-up to join the course. H~nce, a second list is issued and then
a third. But while preparing the second list or the third list, the overall merit-cum- H
preference-cum-eligibility is not again examined, with the result that sometimes
340 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] 3 S.C.R.

A a candidate with lesser score gets a better subject than a candidate with higher
score. We may illustrate; what we say. In.the first list, a candidate with say 250
marks is allotted a seat in M.S. (General Surgery) and a candidate with 225 marks
is allotted a seat in M.S., (Opthalomology). Now for some reason, the candidate
allotted a seat in M .S. (General Surgery) does not join. That seat falls vacant. When
the second list is taken up, the candidates available will necess.arily be those who
B
have secured less than 225 marks. Since the merit-cum-preference-cum-eligibility
is not determined overall again, what happens is that a candidate with 220 marks
gets M.S. (General Surgery), while the candidate with 225 marks has to continue
inM.S. (Opthalomology), though given a choice, he would very much like to come
into M .S. (General Surgery). That there have been many such instances, is beyond
C dispute and has been commented upon by the Kerala High Court in the judgment
under appeal. Besides the above, there is yet another circumstance. Inspite of
promptings from this court, the authorities in-charge of holding AH India competi-
tive examination.bave not been able to adhere to the prescribed schedule. In such
a situation, it is bound to happen that issuance of second and third lists delay the
process of admission still further. By the time the second and third lists are
D communicated, half the course is over. This aspect has been agitating us while
hearing this appeal.
I
We have, therefore, discussed this matter thoroughly with Sri V.R. Reddy,
Additional Solicitor General for the respondents. He, in tum, discussed the matter
with the concerned authorities .and has placed before us a modified scheme for
E allotment of the candidates declared successful in All India post-graduate entrance
examination for admission to M.D./M.S/Diploma and M.D.S. courses. We must ,-
make it clear that the modification which we are proposing herewith is only with
respect to the procedure to be followed in the matter of making adrtlission and is
designed to eliminate unequal results and the delay mentioned above. In the place
of present requirement of a candidate indicating his preference for eight colleges
F
and six subjects, on the basis of which admissions are finalised, we wish to
introduce the system of what is call.~d 'counselling~ which is in vogue in some of
the States and is working satisfactorily. The learned Additional Solicitor General
agreed whole"heartedly that this would be a definite improvement and would
eliminate grievances which are arising from the present system and would also
G help the authorities to adhere to the time-frame prescribed by this Court. The new
system, in short, is this: after the examination is over, the results would be
published in the order of merit. The selection committee will call 150 candidate&
a day in the order of merit. A chart will be kept ready and displayed at all relevant
places indicating th~ colleges and subjects wherein the seats are available.
Candidates will be called in the order of merit and asked to indicate his/her choice.
H The slot chosen by hi'1lfher then gets closed. This procedure will be gone through
A.S. BIJI v. STAlE OF KERALA 341

until all the seats are filled up. There would be no second or third list. Any seat" A
remaining vacant thereafter will be surrendered to the State Government. But this
modification will apply to and come into effect only for and from the admissions
for the year 1994. It will not apply to the admissions currently underway. ln
approving the modifications, we have kept in mind the fact that most of the
candidates for post-graduate admissions are employed and have the means to
come to Delhi for a day for counselling. We, accordingly, approve the modifica- B
tions, mentioned below, as suggested by the Director General of Health Services,
New Delhi.

I. The All India PG Entrance Examination will be conducted on second
Sunday of January. The candidates will not be required to give any choices at the C
time of submission of the application forms.

2. The results will be announced by the third week of February every year. ·

3. The merit list will consists of number of candidates equal to the number
of seats available for allotment. A waiting list containing not. more than I 0% of the D
merit list will also be declared from amongst the successful candidates who have
secured more than 50% marks in the competitive examination.

4. The allotment by personal appearance will start from the first of March
every year and will continue upto 15th March. E

5. In the Bulletin of Information the dates for allotment by personal
appearance and the venue at Delhi will be notified. The time schedule for personal
appearance will also be notified alongwith the results in the newspapers.

6. For personal appearance, the candidates will be called in batches of 150 F
each day in the order of merit.

7. The candidates shall have the right to choose any one of the available seats
at his/her rank. The same will be allotted to him/her and the allotment letters will
be issued on the next day.
G

8. In case a candidate is unable to apJfi:ar in person on a notified date for

-- personal appearance, he/she can send his/her representative with an authority
letter for allotment. The allotment made to the authorised representative shall-be
binding on the candidate.
H
342 SuPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 3 S.C.R.

A 9. Each candidate shall be given 15 days time to join the allotted college and
course. The last date of joining shall be 31st March every year.
I

10. The allotments' made will be firm and final.

11. The candidate~ who will not appear for allotment on the notified dates
B
or who will reject the available seats for allotment or those who will not join the
allotted course and college by the 31st March shall forfeit the claim for a seat under
the All India Scheme. · .....

12. All the seats repiaining vacant after the allotment shall be deemed to have
c been surrendered back to the respective States.
\
In all other respects, the scheme .in vogue shall continue to be effective.

I.
Now coming to the relief to be granted to the appellant, we regret, we are not
in a position to make any positive direction. The appellant had appeared for All
!
D
India competitive examination. He was not allotted any seat in any college
"'
according to the merit,cum-preference-cum-eligibility. His grievance now is that .
students with lesser marks than him are being admitted to college in Kerala. He
says that he may be given a seat in any subject in any of the colleges in Kerala-or
.for that matter anywhere alse. We are afraid, we cannot do so at this stage. After
E the first, second and ~hird lists pertaining to All-India seats were published, the
remaining vacant seats have been surrendered to the State-Government already.
The State Governmedt has already filled almost all of them. We cannot withdraw
one seat from the State Government, at this stage-the course has begun in the
month of September,, 1992 itself-and give it to the appel~ant. Even otherwise it
is not certain that there are no other candidates (who had appeared in the All India
F competitive examination) who may have scored higher marks than the appellant.
We cannot also give any direction for his being con~idered against the 1993
vacancies because ~e has not appeared for the 1993 examination. The only
observation we can make is this: if, in case, any seat is lying vacant in any of the
medical courses in Kerala, the second respondent, Director of Medical Education, ·
Thirvananthapuram 'shall consider admitting the appellant against such seat
G relating to the year i 992. .

The appeal is disposed of with the above directions and observation. No
costs.

VPR. Appeal disposed of.