Judgment

CHANDRACHUD, CJI.:- The question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant, Dr. R. K. Khandelwal, is entitled to be admitted to the M. D. Course in Paediatrics of the Agra University and whether in denying him that opportunity, the State has violated any of his legal rights.

2. The appellant passed his M.B.B.S. Examination from the S. N. Medical College, Agra, in December, 1976 and completed his internship in December, 1977. Being desirous of prosecuting postgraduate studies in Paediatrics, he took a years house-job in the Paediatrics Department of the S. N. Medical College Hospital, which he completed in January, 1976. 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 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 postgraduate course in Paediatrics.

3. The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of 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 the High Courts order dated April 23, 1979.

4. 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. 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 substance in this contention and in any case the appellant cannot make a grievance of a change in the practice for admission to the particular course, Admittedly, 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 understanding of all concerned. Both the practice and the understanding have been denied on behalf of the College. But apart from that, 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 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.

5. 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 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 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. N