Supreme Court of India
DR. DINESH KUMAR & ORS.versusMOTILAL NEHRU MEDICAL COLLEGE ALLAHABAD & ORS.
- Citation
- 1985 INSC 115
- Decided
- 1 May 1985
- Disposal
- Case Partly allowed
- Bench
- P N BHAGWATI
Holding
For two‑year postgraduate courses, students who commenced house‑job before the 22 June 1984 judgment are governed by the pre‑judgment rules, admissions to non‑reserved seats require a common entrance examination, and the petitioners must be admitted under the old rules while existing admissions stand.
Summary
The petitioners, who had completed their MBBS and house‑job before the Supreme Court’s June 22, 1984 judgment in Dr. Pradeep Jain’s case, were denied admission to two‑year postgraduate medical courses for 1985‑86 because the college applied the new 50% institutional‑preference rule instead of the earlier 75% rule. They contended that admissions to the 50% non‑reserved seats must be made through an All‑India entrance examination and that the college’s reliance on disparate MBBS marks violated Article 14. The Court held that for students who began their house‑job before the June 1984 judgment, the old pre‑judgment rules apply, and that admissions to non‑reserved seats without a common entrance test are invalid. However, the Court refused to set aside admissions already made, as the admitted students were not parties and had already commenced studies. Consequently, the petitioners were ordered to be admitted under the old rules, and the Court directed the Indian Medical Council to devise a scheme for an All‑India entrance examination for future admissions.
Issues considered
- Whether admissions to 50% non‑reserved postgraduate medical seats must be made through a common All‑India entrance examination under the new principle.
- Whether the 22 June 1984 judgment in Dr. Pradeep Jain’s case applies to two‑year postgraduate courses where students started house‑job before the judgment.
- Whether admissions made without such an entrance examination are invalid.
- Whether admissions already made can be struck down.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to admission under the pre‑judgment institutional‑preference rules.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 15, s. Article 32
Subjects
educationreservationmedical admissionArticle 14equalityentrance examinationpostgraduate medical coursesinstitutional preferencehouse jobSupreme Court
Judgment
41
DR. DINESH KUMAR & ORS.
A
v.
MOTILAL NEHRU MEDICAL COLLEGE
ALLAHABAD & ORS.
May I, 1985
B
[P.N. BHAGWATI, A~ARENDRA NATH SEN
AND RANvANA1H MISRA, JJ.]
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 c
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 D
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 Courses-
Whether 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 E
with house job in the first year throughout the country in order to keep unifor-
mity 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 F
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 G
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 H
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
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.
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
B 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
c 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
D 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
E 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
F 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
G 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
H 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 B
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
c
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 D
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
E
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% non-
reserved seats, they were denied an opportunity of competing for them because F
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 G
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
H
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
44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985] SUPPL. s.c.R.
admissions cannot be struck down. Secondly, such admis~ions were made in
A 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
B 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 resi-
c dence 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
D
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
E 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.
F 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 evalua-
tion 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
G 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
H 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 A
and the admissions will be governed by the principle laid down in the judg-
ment. 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 B
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 specia-
lity 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 of-
the judgment, provided the students seeking admissions had commenced their c
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'
lJ
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 prefe- E
rence 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. F
[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 G
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 H
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.
46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985J SUPPL. S.C.l<.
ORl"INAL JuRI5DICTlON : Writ Petition No. 348-52 of 1985.
A
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.
B
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.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BHAGWATI, J. This writ petition is an offshoot of the decision
D 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
E 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
F 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 exami-
nation held by the University or the State and addressing ourselves
to the question as to what extent such reservation might be regarded
G 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
H would depend on several factors including opportu-
nities 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
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· A
-:r- 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 B
- '"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
c
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 D
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
E
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
G
expressed that admissions to post graduate courses in any institution
should be guided strictly by merit and should be open to candidates H
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.
48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985J SUPPL. S.C R.
the view was expressed categorically by the Government oflnd ia
A 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 reser-
vations in favour of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes However,
taking into account broader considerations of equality of opportu- ·
B 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 insti-
tutional preference "in the sense that a student who has passed
c 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 pre-
ference should not in any event exceed 50% of the total number of
open seats available for admission to the post graduate course."
D
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 achiev-
ing uniformity in the procedure relating to admissions in various
E
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 J985-86. 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
-
i
came to the conclusion that "in view of the fact that a11 formalities
· for admission, including the helding of entrance examination, have
G
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
H 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.
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 acade- A
mic 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 B
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 c
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
D
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 E
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 reason- F
ably 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
G
• 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 H
an entrance examination which would be open to all qualified candi-
dates through out the country. Such entrance examination should
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
be kept in mind, and as far as possible, effort shall be made to con-
B form 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
c 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
D 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
E almost chaotic uncertainty in regard to admission. It is therefore
absolutely essential that there should be only one entrance exami-
nation 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
F 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 all-
India entrance examination so that the necessary directions can be
G
given by the court in regard to the holding of such entrance exami-
nation 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
H 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
B
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 insti-
tutional preference but students from all over the country should be c
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 cate-
gories. According to our judgment, 30% of 70 seats, that is, 21 D
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 E
of institutional preference (hereinafter . referred to as 50% non-
rcserved 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 F
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 G
M.B.B.S. examinations held by different Universities where the
standard of judging would necessarily vary from University to Uni-
versity 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 H
liberal would secure a march over_ a more meritorious student who
appears in the M.B.B.S. examination rihere the standard of marking
52 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985] SUPPL, S.C.R.
is strict. We cannot therefore approve of admissions to 50% non-
A reserved seats for the post graduate course; being made on the basis
of marks obtained by the students at the different M.B.B.S. exami-
nations 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
B 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 examina-
tion. 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
c 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
D
entrance examination and while granting admissions, the preferences
expressed by the students mmt be kept in mind and as far as possi-
ble, 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
E 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
-
F 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 admis-
sions to M.B.B.S. course. If for any reason the Government of
G 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
H 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 A
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 B
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
c
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 D
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 situa-
tions, a student cannot qualify for admission to the graduate course E
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 F
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
G
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
H
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
54 SUPREME COURT RBPOR TS (1985] SUPPL. s.c.a.
in another speciality even if he does better in the entrance exami·
A 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
B 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
c 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
D three year post graduate course with house job in the first year. It
is desirable that so far as post graduate education in the Medical
Faculty is concerned there should, as far as possible, be uniformity
throughout the country.
The petitioners belong to a batch of students who did the
E
M.B.B.S. course in Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad and
who passed the M.B.B.S. examination held by the University of
Allahabad in July 1982. The internship of one year which is obli·
gatory in the case of every student passing the M.B.B.S. examination
was completed by them in July 1983. The petitioners thereafter took
F up house job in the Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad.
The case of the petitioners is that at the time when they took up
their house job in July 1983, the admissions to the post graduate
courses were governed by the old rules which provided for reser·
vation of 75% seats for students passing the M.B.B.S. examination
from the same institution in which admission is sought that is, on
G the basis of institutional preference with the remaining 25% seats
open for students who bad passed the M.B.B.S. examination from
any Medical College in the State of Uttar Pradesh and who satisfied
the residence requirement in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The peti-
tioners said that so far as admissions to the post graduate courses
H for the academic year 1984-85 were concerned-which academic year
commenced in January 1984-tbe petitioners knew that having
regard to the number of students who bad completed their house
nINESH KUMAR V, MEDICAL COLLLGE (Bhagwati, J.) 55
job in 1983 and who would therefore be eligible for admission to the
post graduate course in the academic year 1984-85, some seats in the A
post graduate courses for the academic year 1984-85 would remain
vacant and would be available to the petitioners on completion of
their house job in July 1984. These seats in the post graduate
courses for the academic year 1984-85 would be available to the
petitioners in addition to the seats in the post graduate courses for
the academic year 1985-86 commencing from January 1985. The B
petitioners contended that on the basis of 75% of the seats for the
academic years 1984-85 and 1985-86 being available to students
passing the M.B.B.S. examination from Motilal Nehru Medical
College, Allahabad - an assumption which according to the peti-
tioners they were entitled to make before the Judgment of this Court c
di\ted 22nd June 1984 - the petitioners reasonably anticipated that
if they took a particular speciality, they wouid able to secure admis-
sion to the post graduate course in that speciality on the basis of
institutional preference and basing themselves upon this anticipation,
they selected their speciality for the house job. The petitioners
claimed that if the old rule of 75% and 25% had continued to prevail IJ
for the academic year 1985-86 and had not been set at naught by the
Judgment of this Court 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 percentage reserved for institutional candidates from 75 to
E
50 commencing from the academic year 198 5-86, the petitioners
could not secure admission to the post graduate course for the
academic year 1985-86. The petitioners therefore urged that 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,
it would be fair and just to give effect to our Judgment dated F
2dn2 June 1984 so as to be applicable at the point of time when
house job is taken up by the students with a view to securing
admission to the post graduate course on completion of the house
job. It was not the contention of the petitioner that the appli-
cability of our Judgment dated 22nd June 1984 should be postponed
beyond the academic year 1985-86 and they conceded that the Judg- G
ment may be given effect to from the academic year 1985-86 but
they submitted that for the applicability of the Judgment the post
graduate course should be deemed to commence from the time when
the students take up house job in any particular speciality so that
no injustice is done to them. H
56 SUPREME COURT REPoRTS (19$5] >llPPL. s.c.i!..
There is considerable force in this contention urged on behalf
A of the petitioners. We have directed by our order dated 26th July,
1984 that the Judgment delivered by us on 22nd June 1984 shall
become effective from the academic year 1985-86 and we do not
propose to postpone the operation of the Judgment beyond that
academic year. But the question is as to how the principle laid
down by us in tbe Judgment for regulating admissions to the post
B graduate courses is to be applied. So far as three year post graduate
courses arc concerned - and in most of the Universities in the
country we have three years post graduate courses-
there is no difficulty in giving effect to the Judgment from the
academic year 1985-86. Whatever admissions are made to the three
c year post graduate courses for the academic year 1985-86 will be
governed by the principle. laid down in the Judgment. But difficulty
of application arises in cases where, as in the State of Uttar Pradesh
and one or two other States, the students do house job for one year
and then seek admission to one or the other of the post graduate
courses which are of two years' duration. The admissions to the
D post graduate courses in such cases take place after the completion
of the house job. Now if the principle laid down by us in the
Judgment were to govern such admissions from the academic year
1985-86, it would cause considerable hardship to the students who
have selected house job in a particular speciality prior to the delivery
E of the Judgment on 22nd June, 1984, on the basis of reasonable
anticipation that, according to the old rules governing admissions
which prevailed prior to the date of the Judgment, they would be
able to secure admission to the post graduate course in the speciality
chosen by them but who may now, as pointed out in the paragraphs,
be unable to secure such admissions under the principle governing
F admissions laid down in the Judgment. Some of these students
may legitimately complain that if they know that admissions to the
post graduate courses for the academic year 1985-86 were going to
be made on the basis of the new principles laid down in the Judg-
ment and that only 50% of the seats were going to be available for
G institutional students, they would have selected for their house job a
speciality which would have brought them within the 50% quota of
seats reserved on the basis of institutional preference. Now having
chosen a particular speciality for the house job, they cannot obtained
admission to the post graduate course in any other speciality and
H consequ~ntly they can hope to get admission to the post graduate
conrse only if an entrance examination is held and they secure better
marks at the entrance examination then other students who have
done house job in the same speciality. It is quite possible that in
biNllSll KUMAR Ii. MEDiCAL COLLEGE (iJhagwatl, J.) S"I
the circumstances some less meritorious students might get admission
- . to the post graduate course because they have done house job in
some other speciality, while more meritorious students may be left
A
out on account of choice of the speciality. It would not therefore
be fair and just to hold that in case of students who have taken up
house job in a particular speciality prior to the delivery of the Judg·
ment dated 22nd June, 1984, their admissions to the two year post
graduate course during the academic year 1985-86 should be governed B
by the new principle laid down in the Judgment. We would
accordingly direct, in order to meet the demand of equality and
justice, that in case of Universities and Medical Colleges, where the
system in vogue is to have one year house job in a particular
speciality followed by admissions to a two year post graduate course c
in the same speciality, the admissions to the two year post graduate
courses for the academic year 1985-86 should be governed, not by
the new principle laid down in the judgment, but the old rules which
prevailed prior to the delivery of the Judgment, provided the students
seeking admissio'ns had commenced their house job prior to the
delivery of the Judgment on 22nd June 1984. If, however, the house D
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
principle laid down in the Judgment.
E
Now let us once again turn to the facts of the present case.
The academic year 1984-85 commenced in January 1984 and on the
basis of 75% seats being reserved for institutional candidates accord·
ing to the rules of admission then prevailing in the State of Uttar
Pradesh, the students who completed their house job before January
1984 were admitted to the post graduate courses for the academic F
year 1984-85, but since the number of students eligible for admission
in that academic year were few, some seats for the post graduate
,
courses for the academic year 1984·8 5 remained unfilled. Some of
the students belonging to the batch of the petitioners who completed
their house job in July 1984 there upon filed writ petition No. 8362
of 1984 in the High Court of Allahabad contending that a large
G
number of seats reserved for institutional students in the post
graduate courses for the academic year 1984-85 were lying vacant
and that they should be directed to be filled. The High Court by
an order dated 28th September, 1984 gave interim directio11 that
applications should be invited for the vacant seats for the academic
H
year 1984-85. Pursuant to this interim direction, applications were
invited in September, 1984. Thereafter another direction was given
SS SUJ'R.IWE COURt REPORTS (198$) SUPPL. s.c.R.
by the High Court on 13th November 1984 that the State Govern•
A ment shall "complete the admissions to the post graduate courses
for the academic year 1985-86 on or before 2nd January 1985 in
accordance with the rules" applicable to such admissions. It seems
that following upon the· earlier direction given by the High Court
on 28th September 1984, the State Government passed an order on
15th December 1984 directing that the admissions to the vacant seats
B
In the post graduate courses for the academic year 1984-85 be made
by 31st December 1984. This direction was carried out by the
Principal of the Motilal Nehru Medical College and on the basis of
75% of the seats being reserved for institutional candidates and 25%
being open to students from all medical colleges in the State of
c Uttar Pradesh subject to residence requirement, the Principal granted
admissions to the vacant seats in the post graduate courses for the
academic year 1984-85. Unfortunately, the petitioners could not
secure admission in these vacant seats since there were more meri-
torious students who had done better in the M.B.B.S. examination
than . the petitioners. The admissions to these vacant seats were
D completed by 31st December 1984 as directed by the State Govern-
ment by its order dated 15th December 1984. The petitioners do
not complain against these admissions. But their grievance is in
regard to the admi< sions made to the post graduate courses for the
academic year 1985-86. These admissions were purported to be
E made on the basis of the new principle laid down in the Judgment
dated 22nd June 1984 as understood by the Principal. What the
Principal did was to grant admissions to 50% of the seats reserved on
the basis of institutional preference by selecting iustitutional students
on the basis of merit and having regard to the speciality in which
they had done their house job and so far as the remaining 50% open
F non-reserved seats were concerned, the Principal admitted students
coming from different parts of the country on the basis of the marks
obtained by them at the different M.B.B.S. examinations in which
they had appeared and passed. The result was that the petitioners
could not secure admission to the seats in the post graduate courses
G even for the academic year 1985-86. It was under these circums-
tances that the petitioners filed the present writ petition challenging
the admissions made for the academic year 1985-86.
Now there can be no doubt that the grievance made by the
H 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
, blNESlt RUMAR v. Mlm!CAL COLLEGE (lJhagwati, J.)
•
I 985-86, that being the academic year for which they became due to
S9
be considered, should have been governed by the old rules which A
prevailed prior to the date of the Judgment and not by the new
principle laid do1> n 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 198'-86 in
accordance with the ·new principle laid do\\n by us in the Judgment, B
since we bad said in our order dated 26th July 1984 that the Judg-
ment 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 accordauce with the new principle laid down in the judgment. c
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 D
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 E
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, 7S% of the "ats in the post
graduate courses for the academic year I 985-86 should have been F
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
G
woul 1, save perhaps in a solitary case, have been able to get admis-
sion 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 H
50% non-reserved seats, the petitioners were denied an opportunity
of competing for them, because no entrance examination was held
iether by the Government of India or by the State Government or
StJPREMI! cotJat REPORTS (1985) SUPPL. s.c.a.
even by the concerned University for testing the relative merits of
A 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 un-
justified and the admissions were governed not by the new principle
laid down in the Judgment but by the old rules which prevailed prior
B 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
c was clearly wrong in granting admissions to 50% non-reserved seats
on the basis of the mar ks 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 tbe relative merits of the
candidates could be tested and a comparative evaluation could be
D 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.
E 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.
F But we are not inclined to strike down the admissions which
have already been made. There are two reasons why we do not wish
to disturb these admissions. In the first place, the students who have
already been admitted are not parties to the present writ petition
and it would not be right to make any order Striking down their ad·
G missions without giving them an opportunity of being heard. Seco-
ndly, the admissions have been made as far back as January 1985
pursuant to an order of the High Court and the students who have
been admitted have been prosecuting their studies since the last about
three months and it would cause them immense hardship if their ad-
H missions were none to be disturbed. We do not therefore propose to
strike down the admissions already made to the post graduate courses
for the academic year 1985-86. But at the same time we must not
allow any injustice to be perpetrated on the petitioners; It would in
DINESH KUMAR '·MEDICAL COLLEGE (Bhagwatl, J.) 61
our opinion be fair and just that the petitioners should be able to get
admission to the post graduate courses in the Motilal Nehru Medi- A
cal College being the institution in which they did their M.B.B.S.
course, the reason being that if the old rules bad been applied they
would have been able to secure such admission. The State of Uttar
Pradesh, however, contended that the number of students admitted
to the post graduate courses in the various syecialities was already in
excess of that permitted by the Indian Medical Council &nd apart B
from any objection which may be raised by the Indian Medical
Council, the interest of higher education would suffer if the peti-
tioners were directed to be admitted to the post graduate courses in
the specialities respectively chosen by them for their house job. Now
it is necessary to point out that the number of students admitted to c
the post graduate courses has turned out to be in excess of that
authorised by the Indian Mr_dical Council simply because the. students
admitted to the vacant seats in the post graduate courses for the
academic year 1984-85 pursuant to the order of the High Court
dated 28th September 1984 and the order of the State Government
dated 15th December 1984 could commence their post graduate D
study only from January 1985 and the students admitted to the post
. graduate courses for the academic year 1985-86 also commenced
their post graduate study at the same time with the result that both
sets of students, one admitted for the academic year 1984-85 and the
other admitted for the academic year I ~85-86 started and continued E
their post graduate study simultaneously and together and this
resulted in the total number of students being in excess of that autho·
rised by the Indian Medical Council. But if we take into account only
the number of students admitted for the academic year 1985-86, we
do not think that by admitting the petitioners, the teacher-student
ratio pre<cribed by the Indian Medical Council would be substantially F
breached. We may point out that even if the teacher-student ratio is
violated by granting admissions to the petitioners, we would direct
that this may be allowed to be done as an exceptional case, because
otherwise injustice would result to the petitioners and neither the
Court nor the Indian Medical Council can be so insensitive as to shut
its eyes to injustice. We would therefore direct that the petitioners G
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 Medical College or in any of the
other fiive medical colleges in the State of Uttar Pradesh, at the
option of the State Government. H
We are not finally disposing of the writ petition with this
Judgment since directions have yet to be given by us in regard to the
62 SUPllEMB COURT REPORTS [1985] SUPPL. s.c.11..
hOlding of entrance examination both for admission to the M.B.B.S.
A course as also for admissions to the post graduate courses. We
have already directed the Indian Medical Council to come forward
with a positive scheme in regard to the holding of both these entrance
examinations and we shall finally dispose of the writ petition after
considering the scheme put forward by the Indian Medical Council
and issuing ihe necessary directions to the Government of India
B
and the State Governments and/or Universities for holding the
necessary entrance examinations. -
A.P.1, Petitions Partly allowed.
·-
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "education"Sign in to search