Holding

Clause 5 of the Residency Scheme applies to all house‑officers who have been working since 1 August 1987, and a candidate already in a diploma course may seek admission to the second‑year degree course.

Summary

The appellants, junior doctors who were on house‑job on 22‑Aug‑1989, had been admitted to the second year of a postgraduate degree course under the Uttar Pradesh "Residency Scheme" which was given retrospective effect from 1‑Aug‑1987. The High Court, hearing writ petitions by other doctors, held that clause 5 of the scheme allowed admission to the second year for all house‑officers who had been working since 1‑Aug‑1987, causing the appellants to lose their seats. The Supreme Court examined whether clause 5 was limited to house‑officers as on 22‑Aug‑1989 and whether a candidate already enrolled in a diploma course could seek admission to the degree course. It held that the scheme’s language (including the phrase “us samay”) refers to the period since 1‑Aug‑1987, thus covering all eligible house‑officers, and that there is no rule barring a diploma‑course student from applying for the second‑year degree seat. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court’s interpretation and dismissed the appeals.

Issues considered

The scope of clause 5 of the Residency Scheme: whether admission to the second‑year degree course is limited to house‑officers as on 22‑Aug‑1989 or to all house‑officers who have been working since 1‑Aug‑1987.
Whether a candidate already admitted to a postgraduate diploma course is eligible to seek admission to the second‑year of the degree course under the scheme.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 348
Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 (as amended by Act 29 of 1974)s. 28(5)

Subjects

Residency Schemepost‑graduate medical admissioninterpretation of statutory schemeeligibility criteriahouse officerjunior residentretroactive effectArticle 14discriminationmedical education

Judgment

DR. HARIHAR PRASAD SINGH AND ORS.
A
v.
PRINCIPAL, M.L.N. MEDICAL COLLEGE ALLAHABAD
AND OTHERS.

AUGUST 21, 1990
B
[S. RANGANATHAN AND K.N. SAIKIA, JJ.]

Professional Colleges-Admission to: Residency Scheme-Clause
"- . 5-Motila/ Nehru Medical College-Admission to P. G. Course-'Us
samav' interpretation. ·

The appellants are junior doctors who were in a house job on c
22.8.1989. They had been admitted to post-graduate degree course
(second year) in the M.L.N. Medical College under the "Residency
Scheme" for junior doctors, which was notified on 22.8.1989 hut was
given retrospective effect from 1.8.1987. They, however, lost their_ seats as
a result of the High Court's decision allowiiig the writ petitions filed by D
the respondent-doctors whose applications for admission to the same
course had been rejected.

The modifications introduced by the Residency Scheme needed
certain transitory provisions being made for two purposes. The fll'St
was to devise a formula of equating between the old and the new E
./systems. This was done by redesignating all students, junior doctors,
house officers and others in position in the manner set out in para 5 of
the scheme. The second provision necessary was in regard to their
admission to the post-graduate courses. This was done by the second
sub-para of para 5.
F
The respondent-doctors who had done their M.B.B.S., internship
l and house-job by April 1988 and who had even obtained admission, in
~March 1989, into a diploma course, sought admission in the M.L.N.
College into the second year of a degree course by taking advantage of
clause 5 of the Residency Scheme. Their applications were rejected on
the ground that the clause 5 of the scheme was a transitory provision G
intended to benefit only persons who were on a house job as on 22.8.1989;
they alone could take advantage of the scheme as soon as they completed
the house job; and not persons who had completed their house-job
I much earlier to that date. Thereupon, these doctors filed writ petitions
~.in the High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court allowed the
petitions and held that clause 5 extended the privilege of admission to H

895
896 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 3 S.C.R.

the second year of the degree conrse to all persons who were working as
A
house-officers on or after 1st Angnst, 1987.
-\
The State as well as certain doctors who were in house-jobs as on
22.8.1989 and who had been admitted to post graduate degree courses
on the basis of the State's interpretation of the scheme but lost their
B seats as a resnlt of the High Court's decision, have preferred these
appeals.

So far as the present appeals are concerned, all parties have pro- _ _._,
ceeded on the footing that the residency scheme is a valid one and that it
envisaged that a person who had completed house-job for one year
could get admission into the second year of the course (whether degree
c or diploma). The only controversy is whether this admission was open
only to those persons who were in a house-job as on 22.8.1989 and had
completed it before 30.10.1989.

Dismissing the appeals, this Court,
D
HELD: (1) There is no role which prohibits a person (even though
he may already be a student in a post-graduate course) from seeking
admission to the second year of junior residency, the eligibility clauses
for admission to which he fulfills. The High Court was, therefore, right
in holding that they could not he excluded from consideration for
E admission to the second year of the degree course merely because they'.-
were already students in a diploma course. [90IH; 902A-B]

F
(2) To ask persons, who had already completed a one year house
job, to undergo the three year degree/two year diploma course would be
a severe handicap to them as, earlier, they could have got their post- _ . . .
graduate degree/diploma course after two years/one year. In order to
-
adjust them into the new scheme the State designated holders of house
jobs as "junior residents (first year)" under the new scheme. ThiS'lli
enabled the holders of house-jobs to get into the second year course
under the residency scheme. [902H; 903A]

G (3) The scheme, however, could not be stretched and converted
into a limitless provision making it possible for all persons who had
completed their house jobs at some distant past to compete for admis-
sion to the second year of the degree course. That is why para 5 limited
the scope of the redesignation and admission. The first part of it limited >-
the equation only to persons who were working on house-jobs since
H 1.8.1987. [903B-C]
H.P. SINGH v. PRINCIPAL, MEDICAL COLLEGE 897

(4) The date material for the purpose of their admission was A
;. 30.9.1989, the last date by which the applications had to be sent in.
That being so, the words "us samay" used in the second sub-para of
para S are the operative words. ]'hey clearly embody a reference to an
anterior point of time and this can only be a reference to the period
· siiice 1.8.-f981 which finds specific mention in the lirSt sull-para and which
is the period subsequent to the scheme coming into operation. [90SD-E] B

(5) All persons doing house jobs after I.8.1987 are covered by the
>---second sub-para of para S. The words "after completion of the tenure"
had to be used here because the class of persons referred to also
included those who were in house jobs as on 22.8.1989. [90SF]
c
(6) It is clear that the words "House Officer", "Junior Resi-
dents" and "Senior Residents" used against serial Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in
para S of the scheme redesignate all such officers working since i .8.1987
-•- as "junior residents-1st, 2nd and 3rd year" respectively. That being
so, both the writ petitioners as well as the appellants are all "junior
residents (1st year)" and should be eligible for admission to the second D
year of the residency scheme course. [903D-E]

(7) It is clear from the judgments of the High Court on the subject
that the interpretation of the clauses on the scheme is by no means an
. easy task. In this state of affairs, it is upto the State to find out a
-I' practical solution to ensure that the student community is not preju- E
diced by the ambiguities in the scheme. [909H; 9IOA]

Mridula Avasthi and Others v. University of Delhi and Others,
[1988] 3 S.C.R. 762, referred to.
~ .. --.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4329- F
i. 38 of 1990.

From the Judgment and Order dated 30.5.1990 of the Allahahad
High Court in C.M.W.P. Nos. 18102, 18036, 22161, 22836 and 22877
of 1989.
G
Kapil Sibal, Additional Solicitor General, Salish Chandra, Ms.
Shobha Dixit, Pradeep Mishra, R.K. Virmani, Gopal Subramaniam.
Harish N. Salve and D.K. Garg for the appearing parties.
j
The Judgment Of the Court was delivered by
H
898 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 3 S.C.R.

RANGANATHAN, J. We have come to the conclusion that the
A
High Court's decision under appeal has to be upheld. But, as the
question raised is one of importance and difficulty, we have heard the \
counsel at length. We grant leave in all the petitions and proceed to
give the reasons for our conclusion in detail.

B Both sets of appeals are the off-shoots of a "Residency Scheme"
for junior doctors introduced in the State of U.P. and they can be
conveniently disposed of by a common order.

In the State of U.P., post-graduate courses in medicine were of
two types: degree and diploma. The duration of the degree course was
two years and that of the diploma course, one year. The minimum
c requirement for admission to a post-graduate course (whether degree
or diploma) was that the candidate should have passed the M.B.B.S.
-
degree examination, then done one year's internship and then done a
house job for one year.

D The "Residency Scheme" was notified on 22.8.89. This was the
culmination of a long period of agitation by junior doctors in the State
for better emoluments and conditions of service. This scheme was
given retrospective effect from 1.8.1987, for para 8 of the scheme says:
"The above residency scheme shall be deemed to have been enforced
from 1st August, 1987". Under the scheme, every candidate selected
E for a post-graduate degree course would have a tenure of three years \:·
which would also be the tenure of the course itself. AU such candidates
were to be called Junior Residents-1st year, 2nd year and 3rd year
respectively during their tenure. Each candidate selected for post-
graduate diploma course would have a tenure of two years which
would also be the tenure of the course and all such candidates were to / -
F be called Junior Residents-!st year and 2nd year respectively. In
other words, the duration of the degree course was raised to three
years and that of the diploma course to two years. However, s1mul- ...r
taneously, the eligibility requirement of one year's experience in a
house-job was dispensed with, the net result being that the total period
needed, after taking a M.B.B.S. degree, to acquire a post-graduate
G degree/diploma remained the s.ame as before.

The modifications introduced by the new scheme needed certain
transitory provisions being made for two purposes. The first was to
devise a formula of equation between the old and the new systems. )._.
This was done by redesignating all students, junior doctors, house
H officers and others in position in the manner set out in para 5 of the
H.P. SINGH v. PRINCIPAL, MEDICAL COLLEGE [RANGANA1HAN, J.] 899

sclteme. The original notification is in Hindi but a free translation.of
the first part of the above para, as set out in the judgment of the High
A
). Court, reads thus:

"Upon enforcement of the above Residency Scheme,
all the House Officers, Junior Residents 1st year working
since !st August; 1987 and similarly working all Junil)rs• B
Doctors ("all junior doctors similarly workirig" is perhaps
a better translatiou) shall stand converted to the following
>------ new designation propose in the residency:

S. No. President designation Designation upori
enforcement of c
residency scheme.

1. House Officer/Demonstrator, Junior Resident
1st year. 1st year.
D
2. Junior Resident/RMO 1st year/ Junior Resident
RSO 1st year/RGO 1st year/ 2nd year.
Demonstrator 2nd year/P. G.
degree student 1st year/
P.G. Diploma student 1st year.
·f
E
3. Senior Resident/RMO 2nd year/ Junior Resident
RSO 2nd year/RGO 2nd year/ 3rd year.
Demonstrator 3rd year/
Registrar/P.G. Degree
students 2nd year.
F
The second provision necessary was in regard to their admission to the
1
• post-graduate courses. This was done by the second sub-para or para 5
which ran thus:

"At the same time ("Iske sath hi sath") the admission
and registration of the House Officers," working at the time G
("us samay") to post graduate courses (degree/diploma
course) shall be done after completion of their tenure and
on the basis of their merit at M.B.B.S. and house-job".

[Words in brackets give the original Hindi expressions
used; emphasis added by us.] H
900 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1990] 3 S.C.R.

The provisions of the scheme do not explicitly say that the categ-
A
ory of persons dealt with under the second sub-para above will be
admitted to the second year of the degree course (junior resident-2nd
year) of the residency scheme on the basis of inter-se merit. A some-
what different line of thinking seems to have been adopted by the High
Court in Dr. Sandeepa Srivastava's case (to which we will be referring
'
B later). But, so far as the present appeals are concerned, all parties
have proceeded on the footing that the scheme is a valid one and that it
envisaged that a person who had completed house-job for one year
could get admission into the second year of the course (whether degree
or diploma). The only controversy is whether this admission is open -"
only to those persons who were in a house-job as on 22.8.89 and
completed it before 30.10.1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the appel-
c !ants') or to all persons who had been in a house job on or after 1.8.87.
The question arose when a number of doctors (hereinafter referred to
-
as. 'the writ petitioners) who had done their M.B.B.S., internship and
house-job by Apnl, 1988 and who (save for one) had even obtained .~

admission, in March i989, into a diploma course sought admission in
D the Motilal Nehru Medical College at Allahabad ('M.L.N. College',
for short) into the second year of a degree course in the same or a
different speciality by taking advantage of clause 5 of the residency
scheme. Their applications were rejected on the ground that the rele-
vant clause of the scheme was a transitory provision intended to
benefit only persons who were on a house job as on 22.8.1989. They
alone could take advantage of the scheme as soon as they completed '·
E
the house job; not persons who had completed their house-job much "
earlier to that date. The writ petitioners went to Court and this time
they were successful. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court
held, interpreting rule 5, that rule 5 extended the privilege of admis- .~

sion to the second year of the degree course to all persons who were
.F working as house-officers on or after 1st August, 1987. The State, as
well as certain doctors who were in house-jobs as on 22.8.89 and who
had been admitted to i)ost graduate degree courses on the basis of the
State's interpretation of the scheme but lost their seats as a result of
...
the High Court's decision, have preferred these appeals.

G Four questions arose for the consideration of the High Court-

( 1) Is the concession contemplated by rule 5 of the scheme
limited only to doctors in house jobs as on 22.8.89 or available to
all those who were in house jobs as on 1.8.87 and later? 'h

H (2) Is a candidate who has already been admitted to, and is
H.P. SINGH v. PRINCIPAL, MEDICAL COLLEGE IRANGANATHAN, J .] 901

undergoing a diploma course eligible to seek admission to a
A
degree course under rule 5?

(3) Is it open to a candidate who is a student in a post-graduate
diploma course in one speciality to seek admission to the post-
graduate degree course in any particular speciality?
B
. ( 4) Is it permissible for a candidate who is undergoing a diploma
course to abandon it in the middle and join a degree course?
>------ The High Court expressed no opinion on the latter two questions
leaving it to the Principal of the College to decide the same in due
course but answered the first two questions in favour of the writ C
petitioners. We are concerned here only with these two questions.

We may take the second of these questions first. The writ petitio-
.-'-- ners say that a direct answer to this question is provided by a notifica-
tion issued on 13.8.87 by the Governor of the State in pursuance of the
provisions of Article 348 of the Constitution read with S. 28(5) of the D
Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act (Act X of 1973), as amended Act
29 of 1974. This notification effects an amendment to an earlier notifi-
cation dated 15.12.1982 (as subsequently amended) by adding a new
para thereto. The new para provides:

"(7A) If any candidate has been admitted in post graduate E
Diploma or Degree Course in one speciality he shall not be
eligible for admission in Post Graduate Diploma or Degree
Course in any other speciality. For removal of doubts it is
clarified that if a candidate has been admitted in Post
Graduate Diploma Course in one speciality he may be
allowed admission in Post Graduate Degree Course in that F
very speciality. " ·

If this is correct, there can be no doubt that none of the writ petitioners
can be denied registration and consideration for admission to the
degree course merely on the ground that he has earlier been admitted
to a diploma course in some speciality. It is urged on behalf of the G
appellants that this rule has lost its force on the promulgation of the
new scheme. It is difficult to see why this should' be so because its
principle could be applied, mutatis mutandis, to the residency scheme
as well. But even if this is correct and this para is kept out of considera-
tion altogether, there is no rule which prohibits a person (even though
he may already be a student in a post-graduate course) from seeking !-I
902 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 3 S.C.R.

admission to the second year of junior residency, the eligibility clauses
A
for admission to which he fulfills. The High Court was, therefore right,
while expressing no view on the question whether any of the writ
petitioners are eligible to be admitted to any particular speciality, in
holding that they could not be excluded from consideration for
'
admission to the second year of the degree course merely because they
B are already students in a diploma course.

The first question, however, is a more difficult one. We have
considered the contentions of both sides carefully and we have com• to
the conclusion that there is no reason to disturb the High Court's -"
conclusion. Prior to the enforcement of the scheme, all candidates who
had completed their M .B .B .S. together with one year of internship
c and one year of house job were eligible for admission to a post-
graduate degree or diploma course and a particular candidate could
make repeated attempts for being considered for admission to a
-
particular post graduate speciality, irrespective of the batch to which ·--'-
he belonged or the particular year in which he was admitted to the
D M.B.B.S. course or the particular year in which he passed the final
M.B.B.S. examination. That liberty is available after the introduction
of the new scheme also to all M.B.B.S. graduates who have completed
one year of internship. Irrespective of the year in which they qualified
in the M.B.B.S. degree examination, it is open to all such candidates to
seek admission to the first year of the new three-year degree/two year
E diploma course. That is not in dipsute. The question only is whether any ,.
of them are entitled to claim admission in the second year of that
course on the ground that they had also completed their house-job

-
earlier. The answer to this question must depend on the interpretation
of-the none too clear-para 5 of the Residency Scheme.

F In interpreting the scheme, it is first necessary to point out that
the preamble to the notification sets out a two-fold objective of pre-
scribing a policy/procedure (a) for the conversion of the existing desi-
gnations in the departments to equivalent designations and (b) for
....
specification of the number of seats for various degree/diploma
courses and for "eligibility examination for selection thereon". [sic:
G apparently, this should read: "eligibility, examination or selection
thereto".] One further important factor to be borne in mind is that the
scheme was given effect to from 1.8.87. To ask persons, who had
already completed a one-ye.ar house job, to undergo the three year
degree/two year diploma course would be a severe handicap to them l
as, earlier, they could have got their post-graduate degree/diploma
H after two years/one year. In order to adjust them into the new scheme
H.P. SINGH v. PRINCIPAL, MEDICAL COLLEGE (RANG ANATHAN, J .1 903

the State designated holders of house jobs as "junior residents (first
A
) year)" under the new scheme. This enabled the holders of house-jobs
I to get into the second year course under the residency scheme. It has
been stated, in the appellants' rejoinder, that a large number of candi-
t dates who had completed their M .B .B .S. even ten years earlier and
~ some candidates who were even on the verge of completing a post-
graduate degree course had applied for registration as junior residents B.
(2nd year) along with the appellants and the writ petitioners. This kind
. of situation would be impractical. Obviously, the scheme could not be
('---- stretched and converted into a limitless provision making it possible
for all persons who had completed their house jobs at some distant
past to compete for admission to the second year of the degree course.
That is why para 5 limited the scope of the redesignation and admis-
sion. The first part of it limited the equation above referred to only to
c
persons who were working on house-jobs since 1.8.1987. The High
_...__. Cqurt was clearly right in saying that the words "1st year" used in
column of the table in para 5 against serial No. 1 govern only "demon-
strator". It is clear that the words "House Officer", "Junior Resident"
and "Senior Resident" used against serial Nos. 1, 2 and 3 redesignate D
all such officers working since 1.8 .87 as "junior residents- ls! , 2nd
and 3rd year" respectively. That being so, both the writ petitioners as
well as the appellants before us are all "junior residents (1st year)"
and should be eligible for admission to the second year of the resi-
'/. dency scheme course.
E
But, it is said, this cannot be, .for two reasons. One is that the
second sub-para of para 5 is restricted only to those who were House
Officers on 22.8.89. We think that this contention has been rightly
"' . repelled by the High Court. To accept this construction would mean a
~ segregation of the two parts of para 5 and the substitution of the words
"on 22nd August 1989" for the words "since 1st August 1987" used in F
.... the first para of para 5. The words "us samay" clearly establish a nexus
between the two parts of para 5 and can only refer. to the period
referred to in the first part,viz. "since Ist August 1987". It is difficult to
see how a reference to two different periods could have been intended
by the two parts of para 5. That this could not be so is also clear for the
scheme, though announced on 22.8.89, was to be effective from G
1.8.1987. That is why a line is drawn as on that date and all persons
who are working as house officers, junior resident doctors or senior
_.( resident doctors since that date are all assimilated into the new
scheme. There is no justification to read such assimilation as partial>as
c.ontended for by the State. It was contended that the scheme was the
outcome of negotiations with junior doctors in the. State'· who were H
904 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990) 3 S.C.R.

agitating for better conditions of service and higher emoluments and
A
that the settlement with them was only that higher emoluments will be \
paid w.e.f. 1.8.87. Necessary material to substantiate this plea was not
placed before· the High Court or before us. But even assuming that the
negotiations and agreement had a limited scope, we have to interpret
the scope of para 5 on its language. The reference to the period since
B 1.8.1987 in para 5 fits in with the declaration in para 8 that the scheme
should be deemed to have come into force on 1.8.87. In this context, it
is of significance that the scheme notified on 22.8.89 states that the
scheme has been introduced in pursuance of proposals submitted to
the State Govymment "for the desired improvement in under
graduate/post graduate 't~aining" in all colleges and hospitals but
makes no reference to the revision of the scales of pay of the junior
c doctors. It is, therefore, difficult to accept the plea that the date 1.8.87
has significance only in the matter of pay scales and nothing else. This
objection is not, therefore, sustainable.

The second point made by the State and the appellants is that the
D writ petitioners, under the scheme, are already "junior residents-2nd
year" as they are already in the first year of a post graduate diploma
course and they cannot, therefore, be eligible for admission to the
second year of the degree course where also they will be designated as
"junior residents-2nd year". In our view, the objection is untenable.,
In the first place, it is only a variation of the argument that a person \
E already undergoing a diploma course cannot be admitted to a degree
course, which we have rejected already. But that apart, there is
nothing wrong in the writ petitioners being admitted to the second
year degree course and being called "junior residents-2nd year"
there instead of in the diploma course. In this context, it is necessary to · .,
point out that they have been admitted into the diploma course only in
F March 1989 and that they are not seeking any credit for the period of
education they have undergone in the diploma course. ....

It is then argued that the words "us samay" occurring in the
second part of para 5 of the scheme is really a mistake for "at this
time" or "is samaj" or "vartman mein". In support of this conten-
G tion, it is pointed out that the Director of Medical Education had
written to the secretary to the Government on 2.11.1989 requesting
that the word "vartman" be substituted in place of "us samay" in the
notification of 22.8.89 "so that the meaning of the above lines shall be )...
clear". It is also submitted that the reference to such persons being
eligible for admission "after the completion of the tenure" in the
H house-job also makes it clear that persons who had already completed
H.P. SINGH v. PRINCIPAL, MEDICAL COLLEGE [RANGANATIIAN, J.] 905

their house jobs in 1987 or 1988 are not within contemplation. We are A
unable to agree. When the notification talks of "us samay", we cannot
read it differently. The letter of Director of Medical Education dated
2.11.1989 finds a reference only in the appellants' rejoinder affidavit
and the writ petitioners have had no opportunity to meet it. The State
has not referred to this letter, or the action taken on it, anywhere.
B
These difficulties apart, the letter patently seeks to bring about a
change in the contents of the notification and is not a simple request
for clarification as it purports to be. At best, it only reflects the
Director's understanding of the notification and cannot bind the writ
petitioners or the Court. Also, no information has been furnished by
the appellants or the State as to whether the request of the Director
has been accepted and an amendment published by the Government c
for the amendment suggested can become effective only on such publi-
cation. It may be pointed out apropos this contention that the notifica-
tion of 22.8.89 itself had been published in the Gazette only on
25.11.89, much subsequent to the Director's letter. Even assuming
that her suggestion has since been accepted and the words "at that
D
time" stand replaced by the words "at the present time" by a proper
notification later, that amendment cannot affect the parties before us.
The date material for the purposes of their admission was 30.9.89, the
last date by which the applications had to be sent in. That being so, the
words "us samay" used in the second sub-para of para 5 are the opera-
tive words. They clearly embody a reference to an anterior point of
time and this can only be a reference to the period since 1.8.87 which E
finds specific mention in the first sub-para and which is the period
subsequent to the scheme coming into operation. Thus, all persons
doing house jobs after 1.8.87 are covered by the second sub para of
para 5. The words "after completion of the tenure" had to be used
here because the class of persons referred to also included those who
were in house jobs as on 22.8.89. Indeed this was how the scheme was F
understood by the Principal of the M.L.N. College and, perhaps, by
the other principals too. We find that the terms of the advertisement
issued by the Principal, M.L.N. College, to which the writ petitioners
had responded said this:

"Candidates must have passed M.B.B.S. Degree G
from a University recognised by M.C.l., should have com-
pleted one year compulsory rotatory internship training
and should have completed/will be completing one year
housemanship in the subject concerned by 30th October,
1989 ...... "
H
906 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 3 S.C.R.

This was the understanding of the scheme by the College Principal
A
and, admittedly, the writ petitioners fulfilled these requirements.
There is, therefore, no substance in the second contention either.

Ms. Sobba Dixit, appearing for the State, submitted that the
interpretation placed by the High Court creates two types of major
B difficulties. The first is that though the High Court's decision related
only to M.L.N. College at Allahabad, similar claims have also been
made for admissions into post-graduate courses all over the State and,
in some cases, the High Court, following the present case, has issued
directions to a like effect with the result that a large number of candi-
dates who have secured admissions are now facing the loss of their seats
and of the benefit of almost one year of study which they have already
c undergone by now. This argument, in our opinion, has no force. It
does not appear to be correct to say that the High Court's decision in
the present case will affect admissions all over the State. The respon-
dents have stated thus in para 13 of their counter-affidavit:

D "XXX xxx xxx
The admission in other Medical Colleges of U.P.
have been done on the basis of old rules i.e. on the basis of
Govt. Notification dated 15.12.1982 and 13.8.1987 and
the students who have completed their house job much
E earlier prior to 22.8.89 were given admission in 2 year
degree and 1 year diploma course according to their respec-
tive merits after the introduction of residency scheme dated
22.8.89."
(underlining ours)

F This remains uncontroverted. Further, the validity of the admissions
made to the other colleges would depend on those who had applied for
admission there. If earlier batches of house-officers had also applied .....
for admission to those colleges and been refused admission, as in the
M.L.N. College, the position may be similar to that in the present
case. If, however, such persons had not at all applied or had been duly
G considered, no question can arise now for their consideration. No
unjustified revision of completed admissions is, therefore, likely to
result. The plea that the appellants have already completed about a
year in the course and should not lose the benefit thereof cannot also ·~
be given much weight becuase, by interim orders passed in the writ
petitions, the High Court had made it clear that they were being
H allowed to continue in the course only on the specific understanding
H.P. SINGH v. PRINCIPAL, MEDICAL COLLEGE IRANGANATHAN,J.J 907

that their admissions will be subject to the result of the writ petitions.
A
f~
The second point made by the State counsel is that it compels the
batch of students working in a house-job as on 22.8.89 to face competi-
ti on from earlier batches and this according to her, is contrary to law.
In support of this contention, she referred to certain observations
made by this Court that it would not be correct to compare the merits B
of candidates in different examinations and different States. We see no
force in this contention. As pointed out earlier, before and after the
?~
introduction of the scheme, admission to the first year of the scheme
was and will by open competition between medical graduates who had
completed house-jobs or internships irrespective of the batch to which
they belong. It is stated in an affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants
that, though the writ petitioners, while getting admission to the post- c
graduate diploma course earlier had to compe.te with earlier batches of
students, they were given some preference. We do not know on what
basis such preference was given and it is too late now to examine that
aspect. But the fact remains that they were considered along with
candidates of earlier batches. We, therefore, see no justification for D
contending that great injustice will be caused to the appellants because
it has become necessary for them to face competition from two earlier
batches of students.

On the contrary, as pointed out by the High Court, it is the
71
interpretation pleaded for by the State that may offend article 14 of the E
Constitution. We have held earlier that the scheme, though introduced
in 1989 is effective from 1.8.87. If that be so, to place house-officers
working on 22.8.89 alone in a better position than those who had
completed house jobs in 1987, 1988 or earlier in 1989 would result in a
~ - discrimination in their favour and against the writ petitioners unre-
lated to-indeed, contrary to-the very object and purpose of giving F
the scheme retrospective effect from 1.8.87.
~
One further contention raised on behalf of the state and the
appellants is based on a decision of the High Court in the case of one
Dr. Sandeepa Srivastava (Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.
13419/89), a petition for special leave against which was dismissed by G
this Court (SLP 1380/89 dismissed on 6.4.90). Dr. Srivastava had com-
pleted M.B.B.S. in 1987 and one year internship in June 1988 and had
I applied for admission to a house job but before the admission could be
-(, decided upon, the Residency Scheme had been introduced. She chal-
lenged the admission to the first year of the degree course granted by
the M.L.N. College, in preference to her, to one Dr. Surabhi Rai who H

'
908 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 3 S.C.R.

A had completed her M.B.B.S. in 1987, completed her internship in 1988
and was in a house job as on 22.8.89. A very peculiar situation seems \
to have arisen in that case. Dr. Surabhi Rai had applied for admission
to the first year and not the second year of the new residency course
though she was on a house job as on 22.8.89. It appears she could not
apply for the 2nd year like the writ petitioners here as her house job
B could not be completed by 30.10.89, the date mentioned in the
advertisement with which we are concerned. Dr. Srivastava contended
before the High Court (a) that only the 1983 batch of students who had
passed M.B.B.S. in 1988 were eligible for admission to the degree
course and not those who had passed out earlier; and (b) that Dr.
Surabhi Rai should have sought admission to the second, and not the
first, year of the Junior Residency course. The court rejected the first
c contention which was patently untenable and this was sufficient to
dispose of the writ petition. The court, however, also proceeded to
consider the second contention and dealt with it as follows:

"The second contention of the petitioner has also no force.
D
For this proposition, the petitioner has relied on the last
part of para 5 of the Government order dated 22.8.89. Para
5 of the Government Order has laid down that house offi-
cers and Junior doctors working since August 1, 1987 will
be converted into Junior Residents of First Year. Second \:
year etc. in accordance with the chart given in this para.
E
Last part of this para lays down about these house officers,
who were working since 1.8.87. This para does not provide
for the criteria or deal with the admission of those candi-
dates, who have joined the First Year House Job and have
not yet completed even first year. The cases of those, who -.
have joined the course of house job but could not complete
F
till the introduction of the new scheme of the residency, has
been considered in the meeting of the Principals of all the 4
Medical Colleges of U.P. and Director of Medical Educa-
tion and Training on 16.9.1989. Para 6 of this resolution
laid down that as the course of house job has been abolished
after the enforcement of the residency scheme and the
G candidates, who are undergoing training of house job can-
not pursue their studies and training any more and as such.
all those candidates, who are undergoing training of house
·job should be admitted in the first year course of Junior ~
Residency on the basis of merit. This resolution of the
Principals of all the Medical Colleges appears to be fair and
H
H.P. SINGH v. PRINCIPAL, MEDICAL COLLEGE IRANGANATHAN, J. I 909

most reasonable. As the course of house job has been
A
abolished and the candidates undergoing this course cannot
possibly pursue their studies and if they are not admitted in
the first year of the Junior Residency, they will suffer great
hardship and irreparable loss, because they have been
deprived of their right to persue their course of house job
in the middle of the sessi~n. B

When the course of house job has been abolished, it
is impossible for the persons undergoing the course of
house job to persue their studies any more. In fact respon-
dent No. 3 would have been happy, if she was permitted to
continue and conclude the one year course of house job, C
because in that case after few months she would have got
admission in the second year of Junior Residency and
would have become senior to the petitioner and all others,
who will be joining the first year of Junior Residency
course now, but on account of the abolition of the system of
house job it became impossible for the Respondent No: 3 D
to continue with the course and as such, she had to be
contended with the admission in the first year of Junior
Resi~ency course."

·:1 We do not wish to say anything about this part of the judgment as
we are not aware whether any appeal has been sought therefrom. It is E
sufficient to point out that all the appellants before us are persons who
were in a house job on 22.8.89 and are claiming admission to the
second year of the degree course. We shall, therefore, simply content
ourselves by saying that, since all the parties before us have proceeded
_on the footing that persons in the position of the appellants are eligible
for admission as Junior Residents-2nd year, we are not called upon to F
consider the correctness of the judgment in Dr. Sandeepa Srivastava's
case on this point. That was a case which dealt with an admission to the
first year of the degree course and, since there is nothing in the scheme
which prohibits any person in the position of the appellants or Dr.
Surabhi Rai from applying for admission as junior resident-Is! year,
the decision of the High Court was clearly correct. The dismissal of the G ·
SLP in that case does not, therefore, affect our present discussion.

The Judgment of the High Court in appeal before us, the judg-
ment In Dr. Sandeepa Srivastava's case and the other judgments to
which Ms. Sobba DiXit made a reference, however, make it clear that
the int~rpretation of the clauses of the scheme is, by no means, an easy H
910 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990) 3 S.C.R.

task. In practice also, the basis on which the principals-at least the
A principal of the M.L.N. College-proceeded does not appear consis- .....
tent with the letter of the Director of Medical Education dated
2 .11.89. In this state of affairs, we think that it is upto the State to find
out a practical solution to ensure that the student conununity is not
prejudiced by the ambiguities in the scheme. In this context, our atten-
B tion was drawn to the directions of this Court in the case of Mridula
A vasthi and Others v. University of Delhi and Others, [1988) 3 SCR
762:
.- ~
"In this background we are of the view that the irn-
passe created on account of the rival claims advanced by
c the freshers and the seniors has to have a rough and ready
solution-yet not arbitrary and as acceptable and satisfying -
as possible. We find that the two-year degree course
speciality-wise has 149 seats while the three-year degree --~

course has 139 seats. For convenience we extract the
particulars made available at page 4 of the Bulletin of
D Information. It may be pointed out that there are 1003
candidates as against total 270 vacancies (degree and
diploma courses together) for the seniors; and there are
331 candidates as against 205 vacancies for the two courses
for the freshers. With a view to providing some more seats
for seniors we suggested to Mr. Rao appearing for the Uni- \
E versity that the number of seats may be increased and he
has on instructions agreed, provided the Union of India

-
provides funds and the Medical Council agrees to accom-
modate. There are 21 specialities as indicated above. We
direct that the University shall create one seat in every -,
speciality and thus 21 additional seats will be available over
F and above the 149 seats fixed by the University represent-
ing the 75% quota. To this enhanced number of seats the
25% reservation of All India Selection shall not apply.
From the reserved seats made for the freshers, 21 seats
•
being one from every speciality shall be taken away and
made available to the seniors. Thus 42 seats in all will be
G available for the seniors in the Post-Graduate course to be
filled up on the basis of inter se merit keeping the senior
group apart.
>--
The creation of the 21 seats will involve additional
funds to be provided by the Union of India. It will also
l-l require approval of the Medical Council of India and there
H.P. SINGH v. PRINCIPAL, MEDICAL COLLEGE !RANGANATHAN,J.] 911

will perhaps also be necessity for permitting the variation A
of guide-student ratio. Since it is for one year and then~
) would be no scope for recurrence and this has arisen in
peculiar circumstances explained above, we direct the
Government of India to take our order made without near-
ing it with a sense of understanding and make the necessary
B
provisions. We also suggest to the Indian Medical Council
to provide the necessary accommodation by relaxing the
requirements. These may be done quickly so that the time
,> - · schedule may not be affected."

Based on the above observations, an application has been filed before
us praying that directions may be issued to the State of create, with the c
approval of the Medical Council of India, an adequate number of
additional seats to accommodate all the applicants in the second year
of the degree course in some speciality subject to the other rules in
force in the State in this behalf. We do not know how far this will be
. feasible having regard to the position prevalent not only in the M.L.N.
D
Medical College but also elsewhere in the State. We do not know how
many additional seats will have to be created on this footing and
whether it is at all possible to do so. We. therefore. give no specific
directions but leave it to the State Government to review the situation
in the entire State and see if any solution that will accommodate all the
contestants, who qualify on merit, can be found out. However, any
y such review should not stand in the way of the immediate considera- E
lion-subject to other rules in force-of the writ petitioners for admis-
sion as "junior residents-2nd year". They have already lost ahnost

-- •• one year of the degree course though, presumably, (except perhaps for
one) they have been continuing their studies in the post-graduate
courses where they had been earlier admitted. This should be set right
F
and such of those as are admitted should be enabled to make up for
lost time and to complete their post graduate course, if possible, by the
l.. end of 1991.
With the above observations, these appeals are dismissed. We,
however, make no order as to costs.

R.S.S. Appeals dismissed.