Holding

The Court ordered the creation of one extra seat in each specialty and the reallocation of 21 seats from the freshers' quota to seniors, making 42 seats available for seniors to be filled on inter‑se merit.

Summary

The petitioners challenged the University of Delhi's 1988 admission scheme for postgraduate medical courses, which, as a transitory measure, barred candidates who had completed a one‑year housemanship (seniors) from the new three‑year degree and two‑year diploma programmes and used a single common entrance test for both seniors and freshers. The Delhi High Court ordered admission on the basis of merit in the common test. The Supreme Court held that seniors and freshers constitute distinct categories and that the common test created an impasse, but emphasized that merit must guide selection. To resolve the dispute, the Court directed the University to create one additional seat in each of the 21 specialties and to reallocate 21 of the freshers' seats to seniors, resulting in 42 seats for seniors to be filled on inter‑se merit. The Court also instructed the Union Government to provide necessary funds and the Medical Council of India to relax requirements. The petitions were disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the University of Delhi's common selection test and reservation scheme for seniors and freshers violates the principle of merit in postgraduate medical admissions.
Whether seniors who have completed a housemanship can be treated as a separate category from freshers for admission purposes.
What appropriate remedial order should be issued to resolve the conflict between the two categories.

Subjects

postgraduate medical admissionmeritreservationcommon entrance testseniors vs fresherstransitory provisionUniversity of DelhiArticle 32

Judgment

MRIDULA AVASTHI & ORS. ETC.
A
v.
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.

APRIL 27, 1988

B [RANGANATH MISRA AND MURARI MOHON DUTT, JJ.]

Professional Colleges-Medical Colleges-Post Graduate
Medical courses-Admission to-Delhi University adopting three year
P. G. degree and two year diploma courses from 1988-As a transitory
measure old system continued for the 1988 academic session only-
Candidates with one year housemanship made ineligible-Common
C selection list for both seniors and freshers-Validity of-Directions
issued.

Pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court in Dr. Dinesh
Kumar & Ors v. Motilal Nehru Medical College Allahabad. & Ors.
D [1987] 4 SCC 459 regarding uniformity in post-graduate medJcal educa-
tion, respondent No. I-the University of Delhi, decided ro adopt the
three years course fo1· the post-graduate degree and a two years course
for the diploma commencing from the academic session of 1988.

However, with a view to mitigating hardship to candidates/
E students who had ah-eady completed the house job and had become
entitled to undergo tile post-graduate course in two years, as a transi-
tory provision, the 1·espondent-University decided to continue the
practice prevailing prior to 1988 for a year. It evolved a scheme where-
under, the number of seats for the post-graduate course and diploma
course available in th" previous year for a student who had completed
F one year's housemanship were left untouched. As a transitional provi-
sion, the University agreed to nx 75% quota, for the 1988 session only.
As per a Note in the scheme, candidates who had done house job/Junior
Residency for period of one year were not eligible for admission to 3
years post-graduate degree and 2 years post-graduate diploma course.

G The prospectus, however, prescribed one common selection test
for both the categories.

A set of writ petitions were r.Ied before the High Court challeng-
ing the scheme of the University mainly on the basis that when there was
one selection test, merit should prevail and classification in the manner
H indicated by the scheme was bad. The High Court made an interim
762
MR!DULA AV ASTHI v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI 763
·~;..
order requiring the University to have the selection completed on the
A
basis of merit adjudged in the common selection test.

Disposing of the Writ Petitions and some cases transferred from
the High Court,

HELD: The seniors who have already done one year's houseman- B
ship and freshers belong to two categories and cannot be said to be
equal. The question of test of comparative merit would not have arisen
if the University had not prescribed a common selection test for these
two categories. If the merit list of the selection. test is followed, more
seniors are entitled to admission and the scheme of reservation would
not.work. [765F-G]
c
While selection in the higher conrse should be on the basis of
merit in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, purely con-
fined to a transitory measnre, the situation has to be handled not by
first principles but by a somewhat informed pragmatic adhocism
especially because the situation would not reoccur. [766D] D

.. The impasse created on account of rival. claims by freshers and
seniors has to have a rough and ready solution-yet not ·arbitrary and
as acceptable and satisfying as possible. [766F]

-r With a view to providing some more seats for seniors, the respon-
dent University should create one seat in every speciality. Thus, 21
E.

additional seats will be available over and above the seats fixed by the
University representing 75%. From the reserved seats made for the
freshers, 21 seats, being one from every speciality, should be taken
I away and made available to the seniors. Thus,. 42 seats in .all will be
---{ available for the seniors in the Post-Graduate course to be filled up on F
' the basis of inter se merit, keeping the senior group apart. [766G-H; 767A-BI

The Celltral Government should make the necessary provisions
for funds. The Indian Medical Council may provide the necessary .
accommodation by relaxing the requirements. [767D]
G
I
Dr. Dinesh Kumar v. Motila/Nehru College,. Allahabad & Ors.,
I1987] 4 sec 459, referred to.
~.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
194 of 1988. etc etc.
H
764 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19881 3 S.C.R.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
A
D.D. Thakur, T.S. Krishnamurthi Iyer, Rajesh Mitra, Ms. San-
tosh Kalra, H.K. Puri, R.L. Roshan, S.S. Sabharwal, S.K. Sabharwal,
and M.K.D. Namboodiri for the Petitioners.

B P.P. Rao, S.N. Kacker, G. Rath, Mrs. A. Mathur, A. Marlar-
putham, C.M. Nayyar, D.S. Narula, Kailash Vasudt>v, Mrs. UmaJain A
and P .K. Mehta for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered:
~·
-
c
ORDER

The writ application under Article 32 and the transferred writ
1
petitions from the Delhi High Court relate to selection of medical
graduates for undertaking post graduate study for the year 1988 under
the Delhi University. In Dr. Dinesh Kumar v. Motilal Nehru College,
D Allahabad & Ors., this Court emphasised the desirability of post
graduate education in the Medical Faculty as far as possible to have
uniformity throughout the country. It, therefore, commended to the
educational institutions which followed the system of one year house
job followed by two years' post-graduate course to switch over to the
pattern of a three year post-graduate course with house job in the first
E year. On September 25, 1987, in the very same matter, when the Court
~\ -
made an order reported in 1987 4 SCC 459, it was pointed out that in
some States the post graduate course is for a term of two years with
one year housemanship while in the other States it is a full term of
three years. This Court, therefore, directed with a view to bringing
about uniformity on the basis of the principle accepted in the earlier y
F decision that for admission beginning from 1993, there would be only
one pattern, namely, a three year integrated course without any sepa-
rate housemanship. The University of Delhi decided to adopt the three
year course for the post-graduate degree and a two year course for the
diploma commencing from the academic Session of 1988. With a view
to mitigating hardship to candidates/students who had already comp-
G leted the house job and had become entitled to undergo the post-
graduate course in two years, as a transitory provision, the University
decided to continue the practice prevailing prior to 1988 for a year.
The University evolved a scheme where under the number of seats for ~·
., ....
'

the post-graduate course and diploma course available in the previous
year for a student who had completed one year's housemanship were
H left untouched. The number of such seats are 198 for the degree course
MRIDULA AVASTill v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI 765

and Ill for the· diploma course. Out of these 25% being placed at the
A
disposal of the Government of India to be filled-up on all India selec-
tion basis, the exact number .available to be filled-up by the University
worked out to 149 and 84 respectively. As a transitional provision
intended for the 1988 Session only the University agreed to fix 75%
quota (representing 139 seats in the three-year degree course and 66
seats in the two-year diploma course). The. following was specified a B
part of the Scheme:

- "Important Note

Candidates who have done house job/junior Resi-
dency for a period of one year are not eligible for admission
to 3 years Post-Graduate Degree and 2 years Post- c
Graduate Diploma Course."

The prospectus, however, prescribed one common selection test.
D
A set of writ petitions were filed before the Delhi High Court
challenging the scheme of the University mainly on the basis that when
there was one selection test, merit should prevail and classification in
the manner indicated by the scheme was bad. Reliance was placed
before the High Court on observations of this Court that for post
graduate degree the test of excellence should prevail and the level of E
high proficiency should be maintained. The High Court made an
interim order requiring the University to have the selection completed
on the basis of merit adjudged in the common selection test.

This is a dispute essentially between the University and the
freshers who have not done housemanship on one side and the seniors F
who have already completed housemanship for one year on the other.
There can be no dispute that the seniors and the freshers belong to two
separate categories and cannot be said to be equals. If the University
had not prescribed a common selection test for these two categories,
the question of test of comparative merit would not have arisen. If that
had not been done perhaps the High Court would not have made its· G
direction and the difficulty which has arisen would not have cropped
up.

The classification of freshers and those who have completed a
year's housemanship, though a perceptible one, loses its importance
in view of the traditional situation that in the system prevailing prior to H
766 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11988) 3 S.C.R.

A 1987, both the groups were treated as qualified for appearing at the
selection test for post graduate study. We are told by learned members
at the Bar that after transitory Note extracted above disappears in the
coming year, the old practice shall again revive. This is an unfortunate
situation. There being no limit to participation in the selection test for
post-graduate study candidates who become unsuccessful year after
B year, in the absence of any limit, keep on taking chances. This cer-
tainly is not a desirable feature and should be looked into by the
appropriate authorities quickly.

If the merit list of the selection examination is followed, more of
seniors are entitled to admission and the scheme of reservation would
not work. As we have already pointed out in the name of what counsel
C calls convenience (and how inconvenient it was is not known), the
Delhi University made an initial mistake of having a common selection
test for two categories of candidates. While we reiterate the view
expressed by this Court on more than one occasion that selection in the
higher courses should be on the basis of merit, in the peculiar facts and
D circumstances arising in this case purely confined to a transitory mea-
sure, the situation has to be handled not by first principles but by a
somewhat informed pragmatic adhocism. This has to be so because the
situation would not reoccur. Again the initial mistake of the Delhi
University had brought some amount of confusion and it has mounted
up following the intervention by the High Court. The time available is
E too short as under the Scheme intended to apply to the whole country
the course has to begin on the 2nd of May, 1988.

In this background we are of the view that the impasse created on
account of the rival claims advanced by the freshers and the seniors has
to have a rough and ready solution-yet not arbitrary and as acceptable
F 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 Bulletine of 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
G 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 University that the number of seats may be increased '
and he has on instructions agreed, provided the Union of India pro-
vides funds and the Medical Council agrees to accommodate. There
are 21 specialities as indicated above. We direct that the University
H shall create one seat in every speciality and thus 21 additional seats will
MRIDULA AVASTill v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI 767

be available over and above the 149 seats fixed by the University A
representing the 75% quota. To this enhanced numbeL of seats the
25% reservation of All India Selection shall not apply. From the re-
served 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 available for the seniors in the Post-Graduate
B
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

J
.. ,
~
provided by the Union of India. It will also. require. approval of the
Medical Council of India and there will perhaps also be necessity for
permitting the variation of guide-student ratio. Since it is·for one
year and there 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 hearing it with a sense of under-
c

standing and make the necessary provisions. We also suggest to the
Indian Medical Council to provide the necessary accommodation by
relaxing the requirements. Thes.e may be done quickly so that the time D
schedule may not be affected.

N.P.V. Petitions disposed of

-
I

~