Holding

The appellant failed to establish any injury to a legal right; the change in practice and the alleged ratio discrimination do not confer enforceable rights, and the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Dr. R.K. Khandelwal, who had passed his MBBS in 1976, applied for admission to the MD (Paediatrics) course for 1979-80 but was denied admission on the basis of merit and the 1:1 teacher‑student ratio, being placed sixth when only four seats were available. He contended that a long‑standing practice of preferring candidates who had passed the DCH examination had been abruptly discontinued, and that the university’s refusal to relax the ratio amounted to arbitrary discrimination. The Supreme Court held that the alleged practice had never been a rule or legal right and its discontinuance could not give rise to injury; moreover, the claim of discrimination was not raised in the original writ petition or the special leave petition and therefore could not be entertained. Consequently, the appellant failed to establish any violation of his legal rights under Articles 226 or 136 of the Constitution. The Court dismissed the appeal, directing that the appellant’s MD examination result be declared in accordance with university rules.

Issues considered

Whether the discontinuation of a long‑standing practice of preferring DCH passers for MD admission constitutes injury to a legal right.
Whether the university’s power to relax the 1:1 teacher‑student ratio was exercised arbitrarily, amounting to discrimination.
Whether the appellant is entitled to admission to the MD course under Articles 226 and 136 of the Constitution.
Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition for lack of injury.

Subjects

MD admissionmedical educationdiscriminationratio of teachers to studentslegal rightsmandamusspecial leave petitionmerit based admission

Judgment

283

R.K. KHANDELWAL
v.
STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

August 11, 1981

[Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., A. VARADARAJAN AND
8
, AMARENDRA NATH SEN, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 226 and 136-Admission to M.D.
Course-Change in the practice of admission-Whether discontinuance of a mere
practice will sustain a charge of injury to legal rights.

Appeal by special leave-New Point-Discrimination not taken in writ
c
petition-Not argued in High Court-Not mentioned in S.L.P.-P/ea not permitted.

The appellant applied for admission to the M.D. (Paediatrics) Course for
\ the academic year 1979-80. He had passed his M.B.B.S. Examination in
December, 1976. There were other students who had applied for admission
along with the appellant. Some of them had passed their M.B.B.S. Examination D
prior to December 1976 and had secured higher marks than the appellant.
The number of seats being limited, admissions were given according to merit and
, four students who had secured the highest number of marks w~re given preference
to others regardless of the year in which they had pa~sed their M.B.B.S.
Examination.

The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the E
decision of the college by which he was denied admission. The petition was
dismissed summarily by a Division Bench on the ground that the relief of man-
damus could not be granted since the appellant had failed to establish that any
of his legal rights was violated.

• In the appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant
, that : (a) For many years in the .past candidates who had passed the D.C.H. F
Examination were preferred for admission to the M.D. Course but that the Uni-
versity suddenly discontinued that practice, as a result of which he bad to com-
pete with others who had passed their M.B.B.S. Examination, and (b) the ratio
1:1 between teachers and students was relaxed from time to time by the University
and that the appellant was discriminated against by the arbitrary refusal of the
authorities to relax the ratio in his favour.
G
Dismissing the appeal,

HELD : The appellant has failed to make out a case of injury to any of his
legal rights. Because of interim orders passed by this Court directing the College
and the University to admit the appellant to M.D. Course in Paediatrics, the
College cancelled the appellant's admission to the D.C.H. Course. If the appel- H
lant has passed the M.D. Examination, he should be declared to have passed it
like any other student. He should not be subjected to any disadvantage for the
284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1982] I S.C.R.

A reason that he was not entitled initially to be admitted to the M.D. Course in
Paediatrics. If he has failed, he should be permitted to take the examination again
(or again and again) in accordance with the rules of the University. Since the
result of the other students, who had appeared for the M.D. Examination along
with the appellant, was declared in February, 1981 the appellant's result to be
declared forthwith. [287 B·F]

B (a) There was no rule at any time requ1nng that an applicant seeking
admission to the M.D. Course in Paediatrics had to pass his D.C.H. Exarnina·
tion. That such a practice was recognised over many years or that such was the
understanding of a11 concerned has been denied on behalf of the College. Besides
discontinuance of a mere practice cannot su~tain a charge of injury to legal
rights. The practice had not ripened into a rule and the University was under
no obligation to admit only those who had passed their D.C.H. Examination.
c The appellant therefore cannot make a grievance of a change in_the practice t'or •
admission to the M.D. Course. [285 G-286 B]

In the instant case no one was admitted to the M.D. Course who had
secured lesser marks than the appellant. He was sixth in order of merit and
there were only four seats available. [286 E] )
D (b) If there is a power to relax the ratio, that power must b~ exercised
reasonably and fairly. It cannot be exercised arbitrarily to favour some students
and to disfavour some others. [286 G]

Jn the instant case this point of discrimination was not taken in the writ
•
petition filed in the High Court, not argued in the High Court, and not even men-
tioned in th~ Special Leave Petition. The question as to whether the authorities
E have the power to relax the ratio and the further question as to whether that
power has been exercised arbitrarily raise new points into which it is difficult to
enquire for the first time. This plea cannot therefore be entertained. [286 H-287 A]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2324 of 1980.

Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated •
F the 23rd April, 1979 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. •
Writ No. 2228 of 1979.

Dr. L. M. Singhvi, and S. K. Verma for the Appellant. ,
Mrs. Shobha Dikshit for Respendent Nos. I & 2.
G
S. N. Kacker and B. R. Agarwa/a & P. G. Gokhale for
Respondent No. 4.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
CHANDRACHUD, c.
J. : The question which arises for con-
sideration in this appeal is whether the appellant, Dr. R. K.
-
•

R.K. KHANDELWAL v. U.P. (Chandrachud c. J.) 285

Khandelwal, is entitled to be admitted to the M. D. Course in A
Paediatrics of the Agra University and whether in denying him that
opportunity, the State has violated any of his legal rights.

The appellant passed his M.B.B.S. Examination from the S. N.
Medical College, Agra, in December 1976 and completed his intern-
ship in December 1977. Being desirous of prosecuting post-graduate
studies in Paediatrics, he took a year's house.job in the Paediatrics B
.... \ Department of the S. N. Medical College Hospital, which he com·
leted in January 1979. He then applied for admission to the M. D.
Course in Paediatrics for the academic year 1979-80. He was
admitted to the D.C.H. Course but he was refused admission to the
M.D. Course on two grounds : First, that amongst the applicants
for the M. D. Course in Paediatrics there were four students who c
had secured higher marks than him in the M.B.B.S. Examination,
and second, that on the basis of the 1:1 ratio between teachers and
students, there were only four seats available for the post-graduate
' course in Paediatrics.

The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of D
Allahabad challenging the decision of the College by which he was
denied admission to M.D. (Paediatrics). That petition was dismissed
summarily by a Division Bench of the High Court on the ground
that the relief of mandamus sought by the appellant could not be
granted to him since he had failed to establish that any of his legal
rights was violated. This appeal by special leave is directed against E
the High Court's order dated April 23, 1979.

The appellant, as stated earlier, was admitted to the D.C.H.
Course after he had finished his house-job in Paediatrics. His case
• is that for many years in the past, candidates who had passed the
D.C.H. Examination were preferred for admission to the M.D.
F
Course but that the University suddenly discontinued that practice,
' as a result of which he had to compete with others who had passed
their M.B.B.S. Examination. There is no snbstance in this conten-
tion and in any case the appellant cannot make a grievance of a
change in the practice for admission to the particular course. Ad-
G
mittedly, there was no rule at any time requiring that an applicant
seeking admission to the M.D. Course in Paediatrics had to pass his
D.C.H. Examination. All that is alleged is that such a practice was
recognised over many years or at least, that such was the under-
H
standing of all concerned. Both the practice and the understanding
have been denied on behalf of the College. But apart from that,
-
286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1982] l S.C.R.

A discontinuance of a mere practice cannot sustain a charge of injury ! .. _
to legal rights. The practice had not ripened into a rule and the
University was under no obligation to admit only those who had
passed their D.C.H. Examination. We also feel some difficulty on
the facts before us in accepting the contention of the appellant that
passing the D.C.H. Examination was a passport for admission to
B the M.D. Course. It may, at the highest, be said that it was easier
for students to get admitted to the M.D. Course after passing the
additional examination of D.C.H. after the M.B. B.S. Examination. ' ...
The appellant applied for admission to the M.D. (Paediatrics
Course for the academic year 1979-80. He had passed his M.B.B.S.
c Examination in December 1976. There were other students who
had applied for admission to the M.D. Course in Paediatrics along
with the appellant. Some of them had passed their M.B.B.S.
Examination prior to December 1976 and had secured higher marks
than the marks obtained by the appellant in the December 1976 )
Examination. The number of seats being limited, admissions were
D given according to merit and the four students who had secured
highest number of marks were given preference to others regardless
of the year in which they had passed their M.B.B.S. Examination. -
No one was admitted to the 1979-80 academic year for the M.D.
Course in Paediatrics, who had secured lesser marks than the appe-
llant. The four students who secured admission had obtained marks
E varying between 60.06% to 65.80% while the appellant had secured
58.56% marks only. He was sixth in order of merit amongst
the applicants and there were only four seats available, bearing in
mind the ratio of 1: 1 between the teachers and the students.

F
Dr. Singhvi, who appears on behalf of the appellant, raised a
further contention that the ratio 1:1 was relaxed from time to time
by the University and that the appellant was discriminated against
--
by the arbitrary refusal of the authorities to relax the ratio in his
favour. We are prepared to accept that if there is a power to relax , .
the ratio, that power must be exercised reasonably and fairly. It
cannot be exercised arbitrarily to favour some students and to dis-
G
favour some others. But the difficulty in the way of the learned
counsel is that this point of discrimination was not taken in the
Writ Petition which was filed in the High Court, it was not argued
in the High Court and is not even mentioned in the Special Leave
Petition before us. The question as to whether the authorities have
H the power to relax the ratio and the further question as to whether
that power has been exercised arbitrarily in this case raise new points
R.K. KHANDELWAL v. U.P. (Chandrachud, c. J.) 287

into which it is difficult for us to~ enquire for the first time. We are A
therefore unable to entertain the submission made by the counsel.

The appellant has thus failed to make out a case of injury to
any of his legal rights, for which reason the appeal must fail. The
appeal is accordingly dismissed. But considering that under interim
orders passed by this Court from time to time the appellant has B

. \
appeared for the M.D. Examination on the completion of the Course,
we hope th.at the University and the S.N. Medical College will take
a sympathetic view of the ·appellant's case and have his result

- declared. It may be mentiond that because of the interim orders
passed by this Court directing the College and the University to
admit the appellant to the M.D. Course in Paediatrics, the College
cancelled the appellant's admission to the D.C.H. Course. That
may have been right because no student can do the D.C.H. Course
c

and the M.D. Course simultaneously. But the point of the matter
is that if this Court were not to direct as an interim measure that
the appellant should be allowed to prosecute his studies in M.D.
Paediatrics (subject to the result of this Appeal), the appellant might D
have completed his D.C.H. Course and, subject to being admitted
to the M.D. Course within a year or so from now he would have
taken his M.D. Examination after passing the D.C.H. Examination.
The authorities concerned will bear in mind that the appellant
should not be placed in a worse position than he would have been
in, had he not filed this appeal. Therefore, if the appellant has E
passed the examination, he should be declared to have passed it
like any other student. He should not be subjected to any disad-
vantage for the reason that he was not entitled initially to be ad-
mitted to the M.D. Course in Paediatrics. If he has failed, he
should be permitted to take the examination again (or again and
again) in accordance with the rules of the University. Since the F
•
result of the other students, who had appeared for the M.D.
Examination along with the appellant, was declared in February
' 1981, we hope that the appellant's result would be declared
forthwith.

There will be no order as to costs.

N.V.K. Appeal dismissed.