Holding

The eligibility conditions of the Ordinance, including clause (c), must be satisfied on the date of application, and the provisions must be applied uniformly to all candidates.

Summary

Dr. V.K. Agarwal, having completed his MBBS, one year of compulsory housemanship and three years as a Medical Officer, applied in October 1974 for admission to the M.D. (Physiology) course at King George's Medical College, Lucknow. The Principal rejected his application, contending that Agarwal had not satisfied the clause (c) qualification of the Lucknow University Ordinance on the date of application. The High Court, on a writ petition under Article 226, ordered the college to admit him and later to declare his examination result. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that all eligibility clauses of the Ordinance, including clause (c), must be satisfied on the date of application, not merely on the examination date, and that the provisions are to be applied uniformly without arbitrary relaxation. The Court noted that the college had relaxed the same requirement for two female candidates, constituting unfair differential treatment violating Article 14. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the writ relief upheld.

Issues considered

Whether the qualification prescribed by clause (c) of Ordinance I must be fulfilled on the date of application for admission or on the date of the examination.
Whether the provisions of the Lucknow University Ordinance governing post‑graduate admission are mandatory or directory and the scope for their relaxation.
Whether the differential treatment of candidates under the same clause violates the equality principle under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether the university can be compelled by a writ of mandamus to declare the result of the M.D. examination.

Subjects

post‑graduate medical admissioneligibility criteriainterpretation of university ordinanceArticle 14 equalitymandatory vs directory rulewrit petitionmandamusdiscriminatory relaxation

Judgment

503

PRINCIPAL, KING GEORGE'S MEDiCAL COLLEGE
A'
.LUCKNOW

v.

DR. VJSHAN KUMAR AGARWAL &. ANOTHER
B
October !25; 1983

[Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J. AND A.1'. SEN Ji.)

Lucknow University Ordinances, Chapter Ill Ordinance I Clause (c)
second proviso, Para (ii)-Requisile qualification for adndssion to ·rhe Degree of
Doctor o/Medici11e-Whether the 111aterial date/or det~rmination is the date of
c
examination or the date of application for_admission-Scope of the OrdinanCe
1-ConstituUon of India Articles 14 and 226-For receiving the benefit of the
relaxOtion of the rules," n~1· public authority can make any discri11iination between
individual and indjvidual. '

The Respondent Dr. Vishan Kumar Agarw~l passed the M·.B.B.S. D
Examination of the Lucknow University in July 1971, completed his one Year.'s
rotating compulsory internship and got his name ·registered as a .medical
. 'graduate by the.State Medical Council. In August 1972 he was appoiI~ted as a
Medical Officer in the Civil Z.lospit.al which is approved by ~he Medical Council
for compulsory internship. .In October 1974 he applied to the Principal, King
George's Medical Co1lege, Lucknow for admission to the 1\-1:.D. Course in •E
Physiology which was due to commence in January 1975 .. The Principal of the '
College, inspite or" the recommendation of the head of the Departinent, rejected
his. application on the ground that he ·did not fulfil .the qualifications prescribed
. in para· (i) of the second proviso to clause (c) of the Ordinance I Chapter II of
the Luckriow University. · - ,

On April 4, 1975, the responden.t filed a writ petition, and obtained' an F
illterim order under which he was· admitted to the course and continued his
;. studies. The respondent was due to appear for.his examination in December
. 1976 but he-Was refused an admission cilrd. The suit .filed by him against the
refu_sal to grant admission .card was admitted but the interim order obtained was
·_ got vacated by the collegc.authoriries. .~o he appeared for the December, '77
examination and by way of abundant caution got the writ petition amended G
so as to include a prayer for issuance of a Ina11danlus _tQ declare his result.
In the wdt p~tit'ion .ihe has also alleged discrimination shown by relaxing
- the rules in favour· of two ot!-.er women ·candidates. 'I he writ petition was
: allowed and hence the appeal by· the Principal after obtaining special leave.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court H
HELD : 1:1. The requirement of every one of the clauses in Ordinance
,J has to be f1,1lfil!ed b~ th~ ¥anclid~te on th~ 4ate on wl,th::h he applies fQf
504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
.(1984] I S.C.R.

admission to the M.D. or M.S. Course of studies. It is not sufficient that he
A fulfills the requirements of these clauses on the date of the examination.
[510 A-CJ

1:2. Though ordinance I begins with the words-"NO candidate shall
be eligible to api>ear at the examinatjon for the degree of the Doctor of Medi..
cine or Master or Surgery,'unless ......... : .. "-, it cannot. he said that.the.material
date for determining whether the conditions of eligibility are fulfilled is-the
B date of examination and not the date of application .. [509 B-C]
•
1:3. Clauses (a)<o (e) of Ordinance I are parts of an Integrated Scheme •
ind, therefore, it will be wrong to apply different criteria to the. interpretation
of those clauses, The verbs used in clauses (a) to (d) are: •'has obtained",
• "has completed", "has done", and has put in" respectively. Giving to those
words their natural ·meaning, the requirement Of everyone of these clauses bas
to be fulfilled by the candidate on the date on which he applied for admission
to the M.D. or M.S. courses of studies. It is not sufficient that he fulfills the
requirements of these clauses on the ·date of th~ examination. [509D, E-GJ
' '
1:4. There is no justification for applying to the interpretation of this
clause a different test than the one which has to be applied to the interpreta-
D tion of clauses (a) and (b). Neither· the language of clause (c) nor the require-
ment of justice and fairplay warrants such a course. Therefore, the condition ..
prescribed by clause (c) must also' be -shown to have been fulfilled by th•
·candidate on the date on which he applies for admission to the·M.D: Course of
studies and not later. [509 G-H, 510 A]

• 2. Whethe; the rules contained in the Ordinance governing admission
E to the post-graduate course of studies are mandatory or directory is a matter
which the University shall have to consider after taking aJI relevant factors into
account like the nature of the requirement, its purpose _and the consequences
·of its relaxation on educational excellence. ·However, if the University ·consi-
ders ·that any provision is not mandat_ory, its relaxation in particular cases bas
to be governed by objective considerations. No public authority, least of all
F . a University which is entrusted. with the futbre of the student community, can
• pick and choose Persons for .receiving the benefit of relaxation of the rules. In
the ~t ·pta·ce, the rigour of a rule can be relaxed provided such rela~ation is
permissible under tthe rules or if: the rule is directory and not mandatory.
secondly, even if it is permissible to relax a rUle, such relaxation must be
governed by defined guidelines. The University and the College· authorities
must apply the same yard-stick to all the students who apply for admission to
G . the post-graduate course of studies. [512 B-D

3:1. It is not o"pen to .the University, iii the absence of any ,countcr-
affidavit having been filed to the amended writ petition, to contend . that the
relaxation in form of the "two candidates ·was inadvertant or that it was made
under a mis~conception~ (511 G]
H
· 3:2. The University did. grant the concessioii to both the women candi-
dates, though under clause (c), no power is conferred upon it to relax the
MllDICAL COLLEGE V. v. K. AGARWAL (Chandrachud, C:J.) 505

proviso to c1ause (d). When the· requirement of clause (c) was not invariably
insiste<t Upon by the University or by the College and they did not regard that A
requirement as· mandatory. it is unfair that the respondent should be Picked
up for~ differential treatment,, though situated similarly in the matter ·or the
application of clause (cJ. If the requirement of clause (c} could be "relaxed.
in·t)J.e case of the other two candfda,tes in ri:gard to their admission to the
M.D. course of studies, it Would not be permissible tO the University to regard·
that requireiµent as mandatory in the case of th·e n:spondent when he applied
foi admission to the very same course of studies. Clause (c) does not apply B
differently to men and women. 15ll B-E]

Clv11 APPEtLATE JURISDICTION : Civil· Appeal No. 1351 of ·
1980.

Appeal by Special .leave from the Judgment and Order dated c
the 27th March, 1980 of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench)
in Writ Petition No .. 907 of 1975. " ·
•
S.N. Kacker, N.S: Pandey and Alta/ Ahmad for the Appellant.
D
K.B. Asthana, Shakeel Ahmed, M. Qamaruddin and Mrs.
· Qamaruddin for the.Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

- CHANORACHUD, c. J. This appeal, with its long and.
labyririthian history, sums up how .the process of law ca:n frustrate
ra_ther than fu'rther the cause of justice. The .appeal portrays the
resolute story of a medical graduate who has been trying o:ver the
past eight years to obtain a post·grad'!ate qualification. Law has
. both .helped and hindered him in that quest. Hi~ name is Vishan p
,.. Kumar Agarwal.

This appeal is filed by the principal, King George's Medical
College, . Lucknow, against the judgment of the Alla,habad High
Court dated March 27, 1980. Respondent No. I is Dr. Vishan
Kumar Agarwal, while respondent No. 2 who supports him is the
Head of the Department of Physiology of ·the Medical College. In
a writ petition filed by Dr. V.K. Agarwal unoer Article 226 ·of the
Constitution, the High Court issued a mandamus asking the ·appel- '
lant to declare the result of the examination for the degree 'of M.D.
(Physiology) for which the petitioner had appeared in July 1977. We
H
will refer to Dr, V.K. Agarwal as 'the resl?ondent' •.
\" - -

.. 506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS · i1984) 1 s.c.R.

. The qu~stion' which .arises· in. this appeal . is ·whether the
' A · respondent possessed the requisite qualification for being admitted .
' to the course of study the degree·. of Doctor of Medicine of the
Luckriow University. Having passed the M.B.B.S. Examinati.on of the
Lucknow Universityin July 1971 ,_ th~ .respondent completed. one
·' -. year's rotating compuisory internship, whereupon he was registerea
'. B . as a .medical graduate by the State Medical Council In August 1972,
·he was appointed as a Medical _Officer in the Civil -Hospital at
Lucknow wbii:h is approved by the Medical Council. for compulsory ·
, _internship. ' ·
k • • • Iii October 1974, the responde~t·appli~d t~ the P~incipal, King.
~ C , . George's Medjcal . College, Lucknow, for. admission to the M.D.
,i:ourse· in Physiology, which was. due' ·to commence on January ·
1;1975. The Head of the Physiology Department recommended the· 't
respondent's candidature, bu.t ihe principal rejected the respondent's
/ . application on the ground ·that he did not fulfil the qualification
prescribed in paragraph (i) of· the second proviso to clause (c) of
10 · ' OrdinanC:e 1 of Chapter III of the Lucknow University Ordinances. ·
. The -aforesaid Chapter ID is entitled'"Docior of Medicine -and
- . -<
• Ma.ster-of
.
Surgery".
• . •
.

·" . On April 4, 1975 the respondent filed a writ petition' in the
All~habad High Court,. out of. which. this appeal arises. The· High
Court.passed an interim orde( on the same date asking the University
. to admit the petitioner to the M.D. course'. in. Physiology subject to . ·
the availability of a seat. The University complied with that direction
.. by admitting the respondent to the M.D. course: .But, on February.
• ' . 3, l976: the Principal of the Col!ege file'd an application for vacating
:F the interim orde.t dated April 4, 1975 by which the respondent was _.
directed to be.admitted to the M.D .. course;· _The· application filed '\
by the Principal was rejected on November 12, 1976, with the result
that· the. respondent continued his studies · for M.D. aegree ·in .
. _ .. Physiology, uninterrupted. He submitted his thesis, which. was
G . · ilpproved ~ the University authorities. · ·
· -The respondent was .due to appear for the M.D. examination ~
which was scheduled to be held in December 1976 but, he was refused ·
an· admission card without which he could not . appear for the ·
H . examination.·. Undaunted, he filed a suit in which· the trial court ~
passed and interim order directing the University autlorities· not· to · ·
. ·obstruct the petitioner from appearing for the exa~iuation. The res•
pendent appeared for the written · examinatiOn · but, iitS if not to be ·
MEDICAL COLLEGE v. V.K. AOARWJ.L (Chartdrachud, C.J.) -50.?

outdone, the University filed 2n appeal against the interim order,
which came to be allowed. As a consequence of the appellate order, A
·the appearance of the respondent at the written examination of 1,976
b~come abortive since, it was as if he appeared 'for the examination
without an admission card. Inevitably, he was driven to wait until
the next ex_amination which was due to. be held in July 1977. He
. appeared for that examination but, apprehending that the University B
will not declare his result, he amended his writ' petition so as to ask
for a mandamus directing the University to declare his result. The
High Court _issued the mandamus which is the subject matter of this

.
appeal. ·
'
c
The contention of the respondent that he was duly qualified to
be admitted to the M.D. (l?hysiology) courses has to be examined
on ·the basis of paragraph (i) of the second proviso to clause (c) of
Ordinance 1. That Ordinance, to the extent material, reads thus :

"L No candidate shall· be eligible to appear at the D
examination for the degree of Docfor of Medicine or
Master of Surgery unless :

(a) he bas obtained the degree of M.B.B.S. of the.
University of Lucknow ........................ .
..

(b) he has, after passing the M.B.B.S. examination,

-
completed one year's compulsory rotating houseman•
ship ........... · ·

(c) he has, after full registration, done one ·year's ll'
housemanship or equivalent job :
> ,-'
Provii:led that for basic science, one year's demons-
tratorship or equivalent . jo_b in the subject will be
' considered equivalent to one year's housemanship.
G
Provided also that works -in the following capacities
will be considered as equivalent to one year's houseman-
ship; . 1

(i) Three years' work as a Medical Officer in a R
hospital approved by the Medical Council for
·compulsory internship.

•
sos SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1984] 1 s.q.R.

(ii) ..........
A
(iii) . ..., .....
(d) He has subsequent to l(c) put in two years' work in
· the subject in department concerned in the college." \·
8. (e) .......~
\
There is no dispute that the respondent satisfied the requirments
of clauses (a) and (b) of Ordinance I. He had obtained the degree
of M.B.B.S. or the University of Lucknow as requlred by clause (a)
and, after passing that examination, he had· completed one year's
compulsory rotating houseman ship as· required by clause (b). The
narrow dispute between the parties is whether, after full ·registration,
the respondent had done one year's housemanship or equivalent job
on the material date. Under paragraph (i) of the second proviso to
clause (c} of the Ordinance, three years' work as a Medical Officer in
D · a hospital approved by the Medical Council for compulsory intern-
ship, can oe considered as equivalent to one year's housemanship.
The respondent passed his M.B.B.S. examination in July 1971 and
after completing one year's compulsory rotating housemanship, he
obtained full registration with the State Medical· Council. In August
1972, he started working as a Medical Officer in the Civil Hospital,
Lucknow, wh,ich is approyed by the Medical Council for compulsory
internship .. He had. not done one year's housemanship after full

-
registration but, by virtue of paragraph.(i) of the second proviso to
clause (c) of the Ordinance, three years' work as a Medical Officer in
the Civil Hospital at Lucknow would b.e equivalent to one y'ear's
I. housemanship. ·

When the respondent appeared for the M.D. examination in
July 1977, he had evidently completed three years' work as a Medical
Officer in the Civil Hospital, Lucknow, which, as stated earlier, is
G approved by the Medical Council for' compulsory internship.
According to the Principal of the Lucknow M;edical. College, the
impediment in the way of the respondent was that on the date on
which he applied for admission to the M.D. course, that is to say, in
October 197 4, he had not completed three years' work as a Medical
H Officer in the Civil Hospital:having started working in that capacity
in August 1972 only. Thus, the qu.estion which arises for consi-
deration is whether the qulification prescribed by paragraph (i) of the
second proviso to clause (c) of Ordinance 1 i~ required to be fulfilled
MEDICAL CiJLLE<iE v. V.K. AGARWAL (ehandrachud, G.J.) ·so9
by the candidate. on the date on which he applies for admission to tlie
M.D. course of studies or whether, as contended· by the respondent, A
it is enough if that qualification is fulfilled on the date of the
examination.

Ordinance I begins with the· words. : "No candidate shall be ·
eligible to appear .at the .examination for the degree of Doctor of
Medicine or Master of Surgery, unless ......... "(emphasis· supplied). .:. B
The respondent derives sustenance to his contention from the words
which we have .underlined. It is argued on bis behalf that Ordinance
1 prescribes conditions of eligibility for appearing at the examination
and not for making an application for admission to the M.D. course
of studies. The~efore, the material date for. determining whether ·the c
conditions of eligibility are fulfilled is the date of examination and not
the date of application. This contention is difficult to. accept. Clauses
(a) to- (e) of Ordinance I are parts of an integrated scheme and there-
• fore it will be wrong to apply different criteria to the interpretation
of those clauses. Clause (a) of the Ordinance requires that .the. candi-
date "has·obtained" the degree of M.B.B.S. It is inarguable that a D
candidate who has not yet obtained the M.B.B.S. degree can apply
for admission to the M.D. course of studies in anticipation of or on
the supposition that he will pass that examination before the M.D.
examination is held. ·He must hold the M.B.B.S. degree on the date
on which he applies for admission to the course of studies. leading· to E'
the M:D. examination. Clause (b) requires that the candidate.
"has . . . ... ...... completed" one year's compulsory rotating house
manship after passing the M.B.B.S. examination. . As in the case of
clause (a); this qualification must also be possessed by the candidat~
on the date on which he applies for admission to the M.D. course of
studies. It i• not enough that the candidatt: has completed one year's F
· compulsory rotating housemanship after making the application and
before the date of the examination .. The language of clause (c) is, in
material respects, identical with the language of clauses (a) and (b).
Leaving aside for a moment the equivalence prescribed by paragraph
~.·
(i) of the second proviso to clause. (c). of the Ordinance, the substan~
live provision o-f clause (c) requires· that the candidate "has, after full G
registration, done. one year's housemanship or equivalent job".
There is no justification for applying to the interpretation of this
clause ·a different ·test than the one which has to be applied to the
interpretation of clauses (a) and (b). Neither the language of clause
(c) nor the requirement of justice and fairplay warrants such a course.
Iii
Therefore, the condition prescribed by clause (c) must also be shown
to have been fulfilled by ihe candidate on the date on which. he
·-

SUPREME COURt REPORTS [1984) ! S.C.R.

'applies· for admission to the M.D. course of studies and not later.
Clause (d) of.the Ordinance points in the same direction. It requires
that subsequent to obtaining the qualification prescribed by clause
l(c), the candidate "has ........... put in two years' work in the subject
in the department concerned in the college". The verbs used in clauses
{a) to (d) are: "has obtained", "has completed"; ':has done" and
"has put in" respectively. Giving to those wordstheir natural mean-
ing, we.are of the view that .the requirement of everyone of these
\
clauses has to be fulfilled 'by the candioate ·on the date on which he
'applies for admission to the M.D. or M.S. course of studies. it is not
sufficient that he fulfils the requirements of these clauses on the date
. of the examination. ··
C.
As a result of the interpretation which we have placed upon
clause (c) of Ordinance 1, the writ petition filed by the respondent in'
Allahabad High Court is liable to be dismissed. But, in view of the
circumstances which we will immediately mention, it would be unjust
. to deny the relief sought by the respondent. We have already men·
D tioned that after.appearing for.July 1977 examination, the respondent
amended his. writ petition and a.sJ<:ed for a writ of mandamus directing
the University .to declare. bis result. The respondent fl\ade a specific
·averment in the amended writ petition that two candidates, Dr. (Miss)
, Rashmi.Saxena and Dr. Mrs. Ratna Prabha Gupta, were admitted
E by the University to the same course of'. post-graduate studies, even
though they did not possess the requisite qualification on the date
. on which they applied for admission. Learned counsel who appeared
for the Principal of the Medical College in the High Court, produced
the necessary papers before it relating to the admission of the two
candidates. The High Court .has observed in its judgment that the
F ~apers relating to Dr~ (Miss) Saxen~ ~how that she had passed the
four-and~half-year Caurse M.B.B.S. examination in December 1972,
t\l.at she completed the pre-registration one year compulsory house-
manship on Junuary 11, 1974, that she did the post-registration house·
manship from' January 18, 1974. to August 8, 1974 and that on May
.9, 1974 she joined as a ·Demonstrator in Physiology. She applied for
G admission to. the M.D. (Physiology) course on October 18, 1974. That .
application was accepted on December 30, 1974. As held by the High
" Court it is clear from these dates that .on the date on which
Dr.' (Miss) Saxena applied for admission to the M.D. course, she had
complected a period of 9 months only in her House-job as a Demons•
H
trator, whereas she ought to have completed one year as prescribed by
clause (c). In fact, the requisite period of one year was not completed
even on December 30, 1974 when her application for admission was
MBhlCAJ, COL.LEGE.V. V.K. AGARWAL (Chandrachud, C.J.) SH

accepted by the University. She had songht admission to·the course
which was to commence on January 1, 1975 but she h~d started her A
post-registration housemanship on January'l8, 1974. Thus, she had
not completed the requisite period of oue year"s house·manship even
on the date on which the course commenced.
•
·The papers relating to the adm\ssi~n of Dr. (Mrs.) Ratna
Prabha Gupta to the doure of studies in M.D. · (Physiology) dicclose B
the same state of affairs. Though she was "not qualified under the
first proviso to.clause (c), she was admitted to the course by the
University. It has to be borne in ·mind that the University granted
·this concession though, under clause (c), no power is conferred' upon
it to relax the r~quirement of the period of one year which is c
permissible under the' thrid proviso
,. . to clause
. (d).

We agree with the High Court that the. papers relating to the
· admission of Dr·. (Miss) Saxena and Dr. (Mrs.) Gujlta show that the
requirement of clause (c), was not invariably insisted upon by the
. University or by the College. They did not regard that r~quirement D
as mandatory. We consider it unfair that the respondent should be
picked up for a differential treatment, thou_gh situated similarly in the
matter of the application of clause (c). If the requirement of clause
(c).could be relaxed in the case of the other two candidates in regard
to their admission to the M.D. course of studies, it would not be E
permissible to the University to regard that require;,,ent as mandatory
in the case of the respondent w.hen he applied for admission to the
very same course of studies. Clause (c) does .not apply differently to
men and women.

There is no. substance in the contention of the University or of
the Principal of the Medical College that the University. authorities
......... committed ·an error in the case of the two women-candidates. Neither
,. the University nor the ·Principal 'of the Medical College filed any
,._
. counter-affidavit to the amended writ petition, with the result that
.
the averments .made by the responden"t . in regard to the relaxation
made in favonr of those two candidates remained· uncontroverted.
G
It is therefore not open to the University authorities to contend that
the relaxation in favour of the two candidates was inadvertant or that
it was made.under a mi~conception.
B
.In all future cases the interpretation put by us on Ordinance I
must hold good. In so far.as the case of the respondent is concerned,
his writ petition succeeds on the ground that the University and the
•
512 suPREME COURT REPoRTS (1984) 1 s.c.a.

College authorities must apply the same ; yard-stick to all the
A students who apply for admission to ·the ·post-graduate course of
studies.

Whether the rules contained in the Ordinance govert\ing
admission to the post-graduate course of studies are mandatory or
B directory is a. matter which the University shall have to consider after ·
taking all relevant factors into account Uke the nature of the require·
·ment, its purpose and the consequences of its reiaxalion on
educational excellence. . We have not gone into that question because,
no contention in that behalf was made either before us or in the
High Court. One thing, however, must be made clear that if the •
c University considers that any provision is not mandatory, its relaxa-
tion in particular cases has to be governed by objective considerations.
·No public authority, least of all t University which is ·entrusted with
. the future of the student community, can pick and choose persons for
rece.iving the benefl.t of relaxation cif the rules. In the first place, the
rigour of a rule can be relaxed provided such relaxation is permissible
D
under the rules or if the rule is directory and not mandatory.
Secondly, even if it is permissible to rela/[ a rule, such relaxation, as
stated above, m~st be govc!ded by defined guidelines.

For. these reasons, we confirm the judgment of the High Court
E and dismiss. the appeal with costs in favour of respondent
Dr. Vishan Kumar Agarwal.

S.R. Appeal dismissed.

'

)J, -

J
'

,

•