Holding

Securing at least 50% marks in the postgraduate entrance examination is a condition precedent for eligibility, and admission after the course has commenced is illegal, rendering the High Court’s direction to admit the petitioners untenable.

Summary

The petitioners, three medical graduates, had completed their MBBS and appeared for the Post‑Graduate Medical Entrance Examination in 1990‑91 but were denied admission to postgraduate courses because they did not obtain the statutorily prescribed minimum of 50% marks in the entrance test. The Allahabad High Court entertained their writ petitions, held that the 50% requirement was valid but, because vacant seats existed, directed the State to admit them. The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed, contending that the 50% cut‑off was a condition precedent under Section 28(5) of the U.P. Universities Act, 1973, that the February 20, 1990 letter was an administrative instruction supplementing the statutory rules, and that admission after the course had already commenced (more than a year later) was impermissible. The Supreme Court examined the statutory notifications, the press notes, and the administrative instruction, and held that the 50% mark in the entrance examination is indeed a condition precedent for eligibility and that admission after the course start defeats the purpose of maintaining academic excellence. Consequently, the Court allowed the State’s appeals, set aside the High Court’s order and dismissed the writ petitions without costs.

Issues considered

The statutory validity of the 50% minimum marks in the PG entrance examination as a condition precedent for admission under Section 28(5) of the U.P. Universities Act, 1973.
Whether the February 20, 1990 letter constitutes a valid administrative instruction supplementing the statutory notification.
Whether admission to postgraduate courses after the commencement of the academic session (i.e., more than a year later) is permissible.
Whether the High Court could direct admission of candidates to vacant seats despite the above statutory and procedural requirements.

Legislation cited

U.P. Universities Act, 1973s. 28(5)

Subjects

postgraduate medical admissionminimum eligibility marksadministrative instructionSection 28(5)constitutional equalityvacant seatsdelay in admissionequity jurisdiction

Judgment

STATE QF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. A
v.
DR. ANUPAM GUPTA ETC.

FEBRUARY 13, 1992

[K. RAMASWAMY AND K. J. REDDY, JJ.] B
.
Professional Colleges-Admission to.
"' •

U.P. Universities Ac4 1973: Section 28(5) & G.O! 421$ dated August
22, 1989-Admission-Medical courses-PG Diplomtt-50% marks at C
entrance examination-Condition precedent.

Practice & Procedure ·

Professional Colleges-Atb11ission-Vacancies of seats-No ground for
High Court to direct admissio11 of students.
D
Section 28(5) of the U.P. Universities Act, 1973, as amended by the
Amendment Act of 1980, which came into force from January 1, 1979
empowered the State Government necessary with retrospective effect, to
regulate by a notification, the admission to medical and engineering col-
leges as well as to courses of instructions and the number of students E
therein •.

Exercising power under section 28(5) G.0.4215 dated August 22,
1989 was issued by the State Government to enforce junior residen-
cy/senior residency and dental residency scheme in all Government
Alopathic Medical Colleges and affiliated degree colleges and hospitals F
prescribing the eligibility for selection/examination and fixation of seats of
various degrees and diploma courses therein. The procedure for selection
of the candidates for the scheme was prescribed by clause 3 and sub-clause
(e) thereof provided that residents be selected departmentwise in tlte
colleges under the said scheme and registration shall take place on the G
basis of merit-cum-option, merit being ascertained on the basis of 50% of
marks obtained in the competitive examination and 50% of the total marks
obtained in M.B.B.S. examination. This scheme was further amended by a
notification No. 8390 dated October 9,1990.

In the Press Note issued inviting application for the entrance ex- H
643
644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) 1 S.C.R.

A of
aminali8" the ~r 1990, no mention was made that the candidate shall
secure tiie' dtlnlmuiit 50% ol' the marks in the entrance examination to be
held 011,,Me.'lf, t9ilo•.,,,u~, .~owever, in the ~ubsequent press note issued
before bohtllig1fllie11a~on on September 30, 1990, it was stated that
as per G.0.,' No. tast dated F~bruary 20, 1990, the eligibility criteria for
admission tti tl1.llgl'lldualc courses shall be for general candidates a
B minimum. orew. marks 11nd 'fflr the candidates of the reserved category
(Schedllleil.1Castes and Scheduled Tribes) a minimum of 40% marks
secured al P£·M.t.t. Candidates belonging to SC/ST shall also be given
welghtage of 1.65% of the maximum marks of the competitive entrance
examinatioJ (i.e. 50 mark.~) for ranking them in the merit list for admis·
C slon to the posi!ll'\lduate course.

The respondents in the appeals had completed their internship. They
appeared' ftw lhe Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination on Sep·
iember 30, 19911 f'or admission into the postgraduate degree and diploma
courses in opecialities. The respondents were denied admission in the
n· post-graduate course due to their failure to secure the minimum 50%
qualifying marks In the Entrance Examinations.

They filed writ petitions in the High Court assailing the denial
thereof, as offending Articles 14, 15(1) and 29(2) of the Constitution. The
High Court allowed the writ petili0n and directed the State Government
E
to grant admission in the Allahabad and Agra Medical Colleges in the
Gynaeeology and Obsterics degree courses to which they had given their
options. The High court upheld the validity of the prescription of 50% of
the minimum marks as eligibility criteria. But on the finding that there
are •vacant seals available for admission, directed those seats to be given
F to the respondents.

The State filed the appeals in this Court. On behalf of the respon·
dents it was contended that the initial press note inviting applications for
the entrances examination did not say that 50% minimum mark.' in the
G entrance examination as a condition for admission into the postgradua·
tion, and therefore denial of admission for non-securing 50% cut off in
entrance examination was illegal.

On behalf of the State it was contended that this contention was not
raised before the High Court, and should be disallowed. It was further -,..
H contended that the course started from October 30, 1990 and in terms of
STATE v. DR. GUPTA 645

the orders of this Court it would be deemed to have been commenced from A
May 2, 1990, the directions giv.en in the impugned judgments for admission
after more than a year, were illegal.

Allowing the appeals, this Court,
•.
HELD : 1. Though the first press note omitted, before conducting B
examination the second press note specifically stated that securing mini·
mum of 50% of the marks in the entrance examination was a condition as
eligibility for admission. What paragraph 3(e) of the first notification
postulates in the computation of 50% of the marks secured in the entrance
examination and 50% of the marks secured at the M.B.B.S qualifying C
examination to determine the eligibility for admission i.e. 50% total and
also in the order of merit among the candidates that appeared in the
examination. The lett~r dated February 20, 1990 does not appear to have
been published in the gazette. [654C-D]

2. Undoubtedly, the letter dated February 20, 1990 and the prescrip· D
tion of qualifications laid down therein are not notified in terms of Section
28(5) of the Act. So they may be considered to be administrative instruc·
lions. The second press note, in pursuance of which the entrance examina·
lions were conducted, did mention them, which came into force from
August 1, 1987. [654G·H) E

3. It is settled law that administrative instructions would fill in the
yawning gaps in the statutory rules. [654H)

4. The statutory rules in paragraph 8(f) of the notification dated
October 9, 1990 which was given retrospective effect from August I, 1987 F
envisages 50% cut off marks, Para 3(e) of first notification dated August
22, 1989 merely provides the procedure for calculating the marks to
determine the inter-se order of merit among all the candidates and nothing
more. The instructions issued in the letter dated February 20, 1990,
therefore amplifies prescribing the eligibility criteria among the can· G
didates who have taken entrance examination. The prescription of the
minimum of 50% marks as eligibility criteria would be applicable to the
respondents. [654H; 655A-B]

5. The instructions dated Fubruary 20, 1990 are legal, valid and they
would supplement the statutory rules. The candidates who fulfilled that H
;1c•
¥;,,,
--
)
646 SWPREME COURT REPORTS (1992) 1 S.C.R.

A
~·~·i
qilalificatlon alone would become eligible for admission. [655C]
;~~
6. The prescription of 40% to SCs and STs candidates obviously was
done under Articles 14, 15(1) and (4) and 46 together with 1.65% of total
entrance marks i.e. 50 as weightage to them as a measure of social justice
to accord them equality of opportunity of admission in post·graduate
B courses. It is neither a source, nor an anology to fall back upon or to rely,
as wrongly applied by the High Court, as a criteria to select gener~I
candidates that secured below 50% of the marks. [655D·EJ .

7. Securing 50% marks at the entrance examination is one of the
C conditions precedent to become eligible for admission into the
postgraduate degree and diploma courses. [655E-F)

. 8. Admission after more than a year, is illegal. To maintain excel-
lence in the academic courses, the delay defeats the claim for admission,
though posts are vacant. [655H]
D
9. Exercise of equity jurisdiction and preS'Cription of minimum cut
off are mutually incotnpatible and counter productive. It would frustrate
the excellence. (6560)

10. To maintain excellence the course have to be commenced on
E schedule and to be completed within the schedule, so that the students
· would have full opportunity to study full course to meet their excellence
and come at par excellence. Adtnisslon in the midstream would disturb the
courses and also works as handicap to the candidates themselves. to
. '
achieve excellence. Considering from this pragmatic point of view vacan-
cies of the seals would not be taken as a ground to give admission and
F directions b~ the High Court to admit the candidates into those vacant
. seats cannot be sustained. [656E·F]

Pradeep .Hiin & Ors. v. Union of llldia. & Ors., (1984) 3 SCC 654; Dr.
Dinesh Kumar & Ors. v. Motilal Nehrn Medical College, Allahabad & Ors.,
G [1987} 4 SCC 459; Dr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.,
(1991} 1 SCC 636; [)r. Ambesh Kumar v. Principal, LL!IJJ Medical College, '
Meernt & Ors., (1987) 1 SCR 661 and Jeevak A/mast v. Union of India &
Ors,, AIR 1988 SC 1812, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATI:': JURISIJ:C:TION : Civil Appeal Nos. 782-83 . ·~
H and 781 of 1992.
STATE v. DR. GUPTA (RAMASWAMY, J.] 647
l;_,.-1
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.8.1991 and 26.8.1991 of the A
Allahabad High Court in W.P. Nos. 2970 and 3893 of 1991 and C.M.W.P.
No. 11812 of 1991.

Yogeshwar Prasad and R.B. Misra for the Appellants.

B
Satish Chandra, Atul Sharma, E.C. Agrawala, Ananat Palli, Ms. Rina
Aggarwal, Ms. P. Kak, Rajiv Dhawan and Ms. Kamini Jaiswal for the
Respondents.
_.,,;
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
K. RAMASWAMY, J. Special leave granted.

As common questions of facts and law arise for decision, these appeals
are disposed of by a common judgment. Dr. Anupam Gupta, Dr. (Km.) Renu
Agarwal and Dr. Sanjay Agarwal passed their M.B.B.S. course and also
D
completed internship. The first two appeared for the Post Graduate Medical
Entrance Examination (P.G.M.E.E.) held by Lucknow University on Sep-
!ember 30, 1990 for admission into postgraduate degree and diploma courses
in specialities. Dr. Sanjay Agarwal had appeared for the year 1991. Dr.
Anupam Gupta secured in his qualifying M.B.B.S. examination 61.8% and
41.6% in Entrance examination. Dr. (Km.) Renu Agarwal secured 65% in E
the M.B.B.S qualifymg examination and 49.1% in Entrance examination. Dr.
Sanjay Agarwal secured 53.60 in qualifying M.B.B.S examination and 46.6%
in Entrance examination. They were denied admission in postgraduate cour-
ses due to their failure to secure minimum 50% qualifying marks in the
'f"

-· Entrance examination. Assailing the deniaf thereof, offending Articles 14,
15(1) and 29(2) of the Constitution they filed the writ petitions. In the case
of first two Doctors, by a common judgment dated August 24, 1991, the High
F

Court allowed the writ petitions and directed to give them adrni5sion in
Allahabad and Agra Medical College in the Gyneacology and Obstristics
degree course to which they had given their options. The· High Court upheld
the validity of the prescription of 50% of the minimum marks as eligibility G
criteria. But on the finding that there are two vacant seats available for
admission, directed those seats be given them. Following tliis ratio Dr. Sanjay
Agarwal was directed to be admitted in the Post Graduate Degree Course
"" in Anesthesia in Gorakhpur Medical College in his writ petition. The State
filed the appeals against these judgments. H
648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] 1 S.C.R.

A (Section 28(5) of the U.P. Universities Act 10 of 1973, as amended
by the Act 15 of 1980, the later came into force from January 1, 1979,] for
short 'the Act' provides that:

"Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of
this Act, admission to medical and engineering colleges and to
B
course of instruction for degrees in education or Ayurvedic and
Unani Systems of medicine (including the number of students
to be admitted), shall be regulated by such orders (which' if
necessary may be with retrospective effect, but not effective
prior to January 1, 1979) as the State Government may, by
c notification, make in that behalf:

Provided that no order regulating admissions under this sub-
section shall be inconsistent with the rights of miniorities in the
matter of establishing and administering educational institu-
tions of their choice.''
D
The 11011-obstenti clause diffuses the effect of any inconsistent law in
the Act and empowers the State Govt., if necessary with retrospective effect,
to regulate by a notification, the admission to medical and engineering
colleges as well as to courses of instructions and the number of students
E therein.

In exercise of the power under Sub-S. 5 of S. 28, G.0.4215 dated
August 22, 1989 was issued by the State Govt. to enforce junior residen-
cy/senior residency and dental residency scheme in all Govt. Alopathic
F Medical Colleges and affiliated degree colleges and hospitals prescribing
the eligibility for selection/examination and fixation of seats of various
degrees and diploma courses therein. Clause 3 prescribes the procedure
for selection of the candidates for the aforesaid scheme. Clause 3 (e) is
relevant which reads thus :

G 'The residents shall be selected departmentwise in the colleges
under the said scheme and their registration shall take place
on the basis of merit-cum-option. The merit shall be ascer-
tained on the basis of 50% of marks obtained in the competitive
examination and 50% of the total marks obtained in M.B.B.S.
H examination (50:50)."
STATE v. DR. GUPTA (RAMASWAMY. J.]
. 649

- The competitive examination shall start with new batch for 75% seats A
in the institutions and the eligibility criteria was prescribed in paragraph 4.
The details whereof are not relevant for the purpose of this case. This was
further amended by a notification No. 8390 dated October 9, 1990. It was
stated therein that rulings of this court; rules of Indian Medical Council
and the recommendation of the Committee constituted to reform P.G.
B
Educationffraining in All Govt. Alopathic Medical Colleges and Dental
College of the State necessitated to pres~ribe the procedure for fixation of
the seats in various degrees and diploma cours<i eligibility and the marks.
The scheme came into effect from August 1, 1987. In Paragraph 8 (f) it
has been stated that the residents shall be selected departmentwise in the
colleges under such scheme and the registration shall take place on the c
basis of merit-cum.option. The merit shall be ascertained on the basis of
the marks obtained in the "competitive examination". The minimum
qualifications for admission were prescribed in clause (g), the details of
which are not material for the purpose of this case. In the Press Note issued
inviting applications for the entrance examination of the year 1990, no D
mention was made that the candidate shall secure the minimum 50% of
the marks in.the entrance examination to be held on May 27, 1990. But,
however, in the subsequent press note issued obviously before holding of
the examination on September 30, 1990, it was stated that as per G.O. No.
1259 (it is only a letter) dated February 20, 1990, the eligibility criteria for
admission to the above postgraduate courses shall be for general can- E
didates a minimum of 50% marks and for the candidates of the reserved
category (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) a minimum of 40%
marks secured at P.G.M.E.E. Candidates belonging to SC/ST shall also be
given weightagc of 1.65% of the maximum marks of the competitive
entrance examination, (i.e. 50 marks) for ranking therri in the merit lisrfor F
admission to the postgraduate courses. Therein it was further stated that:

"l. For admission to postgraduate courses, the competitive
examination shall be organised on the pattern of All India
Institute of Medical Science or University College of Medical
Science. G

2. This examination shall have 100% objective type questions.
The eligibility criteria for admission to postgraduate courses
shall be 50% minimum qualifying marks for candidates of
general category and 40% minimum qualifying marks for can- H
650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 1 S.C.R ..

A didates of reserved categories (SC/ST).

3. Candidates belonging to scheduled caste and scheduled tribe
shall he given an additional weightage of 1.65% of the total
-
marks.

B 4. This examination shall be held in the month of April 1990
on one and the same day for all the medical colleges but with
different sets of question papers. For institutional seats of
college, candidates of the same college shall be eligible. ·')..__..
5. Candidates who shall be completing their internship by
c December 1990 shall be eligible to appear in this examination."

It is, thus, clear that the Govt. by statutory notifications dated August
20, 1989 and October 9, 1990 prescribed entrance examination and
prescription of 50% marks therein as a criteria for admission into P.G.
D degree and diploma courses in medicine and in the later notification 50%
as a condition precedent. In the letter dated Feb. 20, 1990 prescribed as
minimum 50% to the general candidates and 40% to SCs/STs together with
weightage of 1.65% of the maximum marks i.e. 50 in total.

In Pradeep Jain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1984] 3 SCC 654.
E This court laid emphasis for admission of the candidates into medical
colleges on merit to meet excellence in the medical services thus :

" Anyone anywhere, humble or high, agrestic or urban:, man or
'woman, whatever be his language or religion, place of birth or
residence, is entitled to be afforded equal chance for admission
F
to any secular educational course for cultural growth, training
facility, speciality or employment. It would run counter to the
basic principle of equality before the law and equal protection
of. the law if a citizen by reason of his residence in State A,
which ordinarily in the commonality of cases, would be the
G result of his birth in a place situate within that State, should
have opportunity for education or advancement which is
denied to another citizen because he happens to be resident in
State B. It is axiomatic that talent is not the monopoly of the
residents of any particular State; it is more or l~sssvenly
H distributed and given proper opportunity and en~;~~inent,
STATE v. DR. GUPTA [RAMASWAMY, J.] 651
,...
of
everyone has a prospect rising to the peak. What is necessary A

-- is equality of opportunity and that cannot be made dependent
upon where a citizen resides. If every citizen is afforded equal
opportunity, genetically and environmentally, to develop his
potential, he will be able in his own way to manifest his faculties
fully leading to all· round improvement in excellence. The
B
philosophy and pragmatism of universal excellence through
equality of opportunity for education and advancement across
the nation in part of our founding faith and constitutional creed.
The effort must, therefore, always be to select the best and most
....,
~

meritorious students for admission to technical institutions and
medical colleges by providing equal opportunity to all citizens c
in the country and no citizen can legitimately, without serious
detriment to the unity and integrity of the nation, be regarded
as an outsider in our constitutional set-up. Moreover, it would
be against national interest to admit in medical colleges or
other institutioins giving instruction in specialities, less D
meritorious students when more meritorious students are avail-
able, simply because the former are permanent residents or
residents for a certain number of years in the State while the
latter are not, though both categories are citizens of India.
Exclusion of more meritorious students on the ground that they E
are not resident within the State would be likely to promote
substandard candidates and bring about fall in medical com-
petence, injurious in the long run to the very region. "It is no
blessing to inflict quacks and medical midgets on people by
wholesale sacrifice of talent at the threshold. Nor can the very
y best be rejected from admission because that will be a national F
.... loss and the interests of no region can be higher than those of
the nation." The primary consideration in selection of can-
didates for admission to the medical colleges must, therefore,
be merit. The object of any rules which admissions to the
medical colleges must be to secure the best and most G
meritorious students."

In Dr. Dinesh .Kumar & Ors. v. Motilal Nehm Medical College, Al-
lahabad & Ors., [1937) 4 SCC 459 at page 462 paragraph 6 this court laid
time table for conducting entrance examination in P.G. courses for All H
652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 1 S.C.R. ·
A India Quota of 25%. The court held thus :

"What remains now to be dealt with is the finalisation of
programme relating lo the selection examination. As already
decided the selection examination shall be conducted by the
All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. The an-
B
nouncement for holding of the selection examination shall be
made on October 1 of every year and a full four weeks' time
would be made available to candidates for making their ap-
plications. After the applications are received not later than six
weeks from October 1, the same would be scrutinised and duly
c processed and admit· cards would be issued. Examination shall
be held on the second Sunday of January. The results of the
examination shall be announced within four we·eks from holding
of the examination. Admission shall commence two weeks after
the declaration of results. The last date for taking admission
shall be six weeks from the date of the announcement of results
D but the Head of every institution shall be entitled to condone
delay up to seven days for reasons shown and grounds recorded
in special cases. The courses of study shall commence in every
institution providing such study throughout the country from
May 2. Notification announcing examination, publication of
E results and allotment of place of admission (keeping preference
in view and our directions regarding preference of candidates)
shall be published in two successive issues of one national paper
in English having large circulation in every State and at least
in two local papers in the language of the State as· quickly as
possible."
F
In Dr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., [1991] 1
SCC 636 while approving the procedure laid down in Dr. Dinesh Kumar's
case this court held that technicality in the issuance of the notification and
non-compliance of statutory notification in terms of s.28(5) of the Act
G would not stand in the way, stating thus, "There may be some force in the
submission of the learned counsel, but we do not think in the present facts
and setting of events and in particular for meeting the problem which has
arisen we need approve a technical stand. " In paragraph 11 this court
further stated, "It is not disputed that in U.P. the prevailing practice was
H 50% test for allowing postgraduate studies to Doctors with M.B.B.S.
STATE"· DR. GUPTA [RAMASWAMY, J.] 653

qualification ...... We are of the view that it is in general interest that the A
50% cut off base as has been adopted should be sustained." It is, therefore,
clear that technicality of non-compliance of s.28(5) in issuing the letter
dated February 20, 1990 was nailed·past and approved the prescription of
50% cut off minimum marks as eligibility for admission into P.G. course in
medicine for 1990, though plausible to countenance the contention ap-
peared to be of securing 50% in qualifying examinations in M.B.B.S course.
B
But the fact is that U.P. Go,t., in fact, conducted entrance examination in
1990 and adopted 50% cut off as minimum marks.

_ °"" In Dr. Ambesh Kumar v. Principal, LLRM Medical College, Meen1t &
' upheld the Government's power under
Ors., [1987] 1 SCR 661 this court C
Art. 162 and held that where the number of seats for admission to various
postgraduate courses both degree and diploma are limited and large
number of candidates undoubtedly apply for admission to those courses of
study, an order laying down qualifications for candidates to be eligible for
being considered for selection for admission to the said courses on the D
basis of merit specified by regulation cannot be said to be in conflict with
the regulations of All India Medical Council Act. It does not encroach
upon the standard prescribed by the statutory regulations. Laying down
further qualifications of eligibility promotes and farthers the standard in
the institutions. Thus it could be seen that this court consistently laid down
the criteria for conducting entrance examination to the postgraduate de- E
gree and diploma courses in Medicine and the best among the talented
candidates would be eligible for admission. 50% cut off marks was also
held to be valid to achieve excellence in postgraduate speciality. Accord-
ingly we uphold the prescription of 50% cut off marks to general can-
didates and 40% to SCs and STs together with 1.65% weightagc of total
F
marks i.e. 50 marks in total iri entrance examination as constitutional and
valid.

Dr. Rajiv Dhavan and Sri Satish Chandra, learned senior counsel for
the Doctors, in fairness, also did not dispute that prescription of 50'7o
minimum marks as eligibility criteria to seek admission into the G
postgraduate courses to be in any way arbitrary. However, Dr. Dhawan
contended that the initial press note inviting applications for the entrance
examination did not say that 50~1' minimum marks in the entrance examina~
... tion as a condition for admission into the postgraduation. G.O. 4215 only
mentions 50% of qualifying M.B.B.S. marks and not 50% in entrance as H
654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992j 1 S.C.R.

A eligibility. Therefore, denial of admission for non-securing 50% cut off in
entrance examination is illegal. The doctrine 9f promissory estoppel was
also pressed into service. It is further contended that the Doctors satisfied
the criteria laid in G.O. 4215. The High Court's order was justified on this
base. Shri Yogeshwar Prasad, learned senior counsel for the State
B countered that this contention was not raised in the High Court and for
the first time it cannot be raised. We find no force in the contention of the
State. Though it was never raised, nor argued, since it is a pure question
of law arises from record, it can be gone into. But on careful consideration
of the record, we find no force in the Doctor's contention. Though the first ;....___ -
C press note omitted, before conducting examination the second press note
specifically stated that s~curing minimum of 50% of the marks in the
entrance examination ',Vas a condition as eligibility for admission. What
paragraph 3(e) of the first notification postulates is the computation of
50% of the marks secured in the entrance examination of 50% of the marks
secured at the M.B.B.S. qualifying examination to determine the eligibility
D for admission i.e. 50% total and also in the order of merit among the
candidates that appeared in the examination. The letter dated Feb. 20, 1990
does not. appear to have been published in the gazette. we.refrain to give
acceP.tance to the respondents' contentions, as was laid in Dr. Sanjay
Kumar's case, for the scheme and procedure laid by this court was adopted
E to have uniformity of institutional 75% candidates too. The technicality
would not be permitted to outweigh the salutory scheme in the larger
public interest. The contention of Shri Salish Chandra that merit-cum-op-
tion is the criteria and no criteria to determine 50% of the minimum marks
was prescribed in paragraph 8 (f) of the second G.O. Therefore, procedure
F prescribed in paragraph 3(e) of the first G,O. 4215 should be followed and
in calculating the candidates securing 50% cut off the marks would be
eligible for admission is also devoid of force. The second G.O. expressly
mentions that 50% minimum in entrance examination is a must for admis-
sion in postgraduate courses. Undoubtedly, the letter dated February 20,
G 1990 and the prescription of qualification laid down therein are not notified
in terms of s. 28(5) of the Act. So they may be considered to be adrninistra·
live instructions. The second press note, in pursuance of which the
entrance examinations were conducted, did mention them, which came into
force from August 1, 1987. It is settled law ·that administrative instructions
H would fill in the yawning gaps in the statutory rules. The statutory rules in
STATE v. DR. GUPTA [RAMASWAMY, J.] 655

paragraph 8(f) of the notification dated Oct. 9, 1990 which was given A
retrospective effect from August 1, 1987 envisages 50% cut off marks. Para
3(e) of first notification dated August 22, 1989 merely provides the proce-
dure for calculating the marks to determine the inter-se order of merit
among all the candidates and nothing more. The Instructions issued in the
letter dated February 20, 1990, therefore amplifies prescribing the B
eligibility criteria among the candidates who have taken entrance examina-
tion. The prescription of the minimum of 50% marks as eligibility criteria
would be applicable to the respondents. Fairly, the respondents had not
. _,..( disputed before us that the instructions in the letter dated Feb. 20, 1990
were issued much earlier to the date of holding of the examination and as . C
notified in the second press note. Therefore, the instructions dated Feb.
20, 1990 are legal, valid and they would supplement the statutory rules. We
hold that the candidates who fulfilled that qualification alone would be-
come eligible for admission. The learned counsel in fairness conceded that
. the prescription of minimum marks is valid. The prescription of 40% to
SCs and STs candidates obviously was done under Arts. 14, 15 (1) and (4) D
and 46 together with 1.65% of total entrance marks i.e. 50 as weightagc to
them as a measure of social justice to accord them equality of opportunity
of admission in postgraduate courses. It is neither a source, nor an anology
to fall back. upon or to rely, as wrongly applied by the High Court, as a
criteria to select general candidates that secured below 50% of the marks. E

Accordingly we hold that securing 50% marks at the entrance ex-
amination is one of the conditions precedent to become eligible for admis-
sion into the postgraduate degree and diploma courses. This is also
consistent with the view expressed by this court in Dr. Ajay Kumar F
Agarwal's case. In the view we refrain to go into whether there actually exist

-
vacant seats (if need be we would decide/get decided and suitable direc-
tions would follow).

It is next contended by Shri Yogeshwar Prasad that the courses were
started from October 30, 1990 and in terms of the orders of this court it G
shall be deemed to have been commenced from May 2, 1990, the direction
as given in the impugned judgments for admission after more than a year,
is illegal. To maintain excellence in the academic courses, the delay defeats
the claim for admission, though posts are vacant. In Pramod Kumar Joshi
v. Medical Council of India, Writ Petition No. 1154 of 1990 dated February H
656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 1 S.C.R.

A 19, 1991 this court held that the course for the year 1991 is almost
completed and it would be proper to allow admission belatedly. In Dr.
Subodh Nautial v. State of U.P., (Writ Petition No. 1215 of 1990 dated
January 10, 1991) there is a delay of four months in giving admission, and
this court held that, "even according to Mr. Pandey the course has started
in September for the session. This is technical course and "to admit a
B student four months after the commencement would not at all be correct."

Dr. Dhawan placed reliance onJeevakAlmast v. Union of India & Ors.,
AIR 1988 SC 1812 wherein there was flux in selection of the candidates for
M.B.B.S. course on all India basis and large number of vacancies left unfilled. :...__ -
C Under these circumstances this court, instead of allowing them to go waste,
directed to maintain A list and B list and the direction was given to admit
the candidates in A list who secured on merit and thereafter to admit in the
order of merit from less meritorious candidates in the B list. That peculiar
situation would not help to the respondents herein in postgraduate
specialised courses. That was for M.B.B.S. course arose in the peculiar
D situation and does not afford as a precedent. Exercise of equity jurisdiction
and prescription of minimum cut of are mutually incompatible and counter
productive. It would frustrate the excellence.

Considering from this point of view, to maintain excellence the
courses have to be commenced on schedule and to be completed within
E
the schedule, so that the students would have full opportunity to study full
course to reach their excellence and come at par excellence. Admission in
the midstream would disturb the courses and also works as handicap to
the candidates'themselves to achieve excellence. Considering from this
pragmatic point of view we are of the considered opinon that vacancies of
F the seats would not be taken as a ground to give admission and direction
by the High Court to admit the candidates into those vacant seats cannot
be sustained.

Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and writ petitions stand dis-
missed, but in the circumstances without costs.
-
S.B. Appeals allowed.

'