Back
1991 Supreme(SC) 784
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. Ranganathan, M. Fathima Beevi & N.D. Ojha, JJ.
Dr. Ku. Nilofar Insaf - Applicant.
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 3447 of 1991
Decided On : 08-09-1991
Headnote:
Circumstances evidence - Challenging the order – Quash of order - Appellant got admission to this seat in preference to because she had obtained average marks per cent in examinations of M.B.B.S. course whereas Dr. Jain has obtained successfully challenged admission granted to the appellant in preference to himself in a writ petition in Madhya Pradesh High Court who has forfeited her admission in consequence of the judgment of High Court has filed present appeal – Held, Another important consideration which prevents us from giving any relief to - Even if we accept all his contentions is this – Course admission to which is bone of controversy started in and is coming to a close shortly - Though appellant lost in High Court, she was permitted by this Court - though, obviously, subject to the result of this appeal- to continue attending classes for Radiology - Now she has almost completed her course and, to deprive her of her seat at this stage, apart from irretrievably harming her, will not benefit who cannot now be admitted against seat - This again is a development which militates against grant of any relief - Before Court conclude Court should like to touch upon one more aspect. The course of events narrated above will show that has been victim partly of a lapse on part of the Medical College authorities in properly applying the rules governing transfer and, partly of courts delay in disposing of his writ petition and the present appeal. In the course of the hearing, therefore, we were tempted to consider whether Court should give some relief to by directing the authorities to consider his case for admission to the M.D. course at least this year - On careful thought however Court find it difficult to make any specific directions or recommendations for a number of reasons - In the first place, we are told that Dr. Jain has, in meantime, undergone and completed a diploma course in Radiology and in terms of a rule recently promulgated, is not eligible to apply for course for another even if is interested to do so. Secondly as noted already, the rules permit admission in M.D. in any year only to candidates who have finished their house jobs in that year and having completed his house job in may not be eligible to be considered for admission this year - Thirdly, if any direction of the above nature is given by us, it will operate to the prejudice of some other candidate who is eligible for admission to that course in the normal course. Fourthly, it would not also have been possible for us - even if we had come to the conclusion and not the appellant should have been admitted in 1989 - To direct University to carry forward that vacancy and grant him admission to it now - Court therefore, refrain from giving any directions to authorities in the matter as had been mooted in the course of the hearing – Appeal allowed
JUDGEMENT :
Ranganathan, J.
1. Getting an admission into a professional course has become so difficult and competitive of late that litigation instituted by disappointed candidates has become a regular feature. This appeal, arising out of such a context, throws up for consideration certain aspects which call for a difficult exercise in balancing equities. We, therefore, proceed to discuss the facts and issues at some length.
2. The appellant Dr. Km. Nilofar Insaf and respondent No. 4 Dr. Devraj Jain, were competitors for a single seat in the Master's Degree (M.D.) course in Radiology at Gandhi Medical College. Bhopal. The appellant got admission to this seat in preference to Dr. Jain because she had obtained average marks of 59.60 per cent in the examinations of the M.B.B.S. course whereas Dr. Jain has obtained only 58.50 per cent. Dr. Jain successfully challenged the admission granted to the appellant in preference to himself in a writ petition in the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Dr. Insaf, who has forfeited her admission in consequence of the judgment of the High Court, has filed the present appeal.
3. In order to appreciate the circumstances in which the admission granted to the appellant was quashed by the High Court, though she had admittedly got a higher percentage of marks than Dr. Jain, it is necessary to seet out a few further facts. Dr. Jain and Dr. Insaf both completed their M.B.B.S. course in the years 1983-87. However, while Dr. Jain had been admitted into and completed that course in the Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal, the appellant had initially joined her M.B.B.S. course in the M.S. Ramayya Medical College, Bangalore, wrot thee first examination and completed the first year of the M.B.B.S. course there. Thereafter, in August 1984, she made an application for her transfer to the Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal. Her request was granted by the Gandhi Medical College with the approval of the State of Madhya Pradesh and with "no objection" from the Ramayya Medical College. Thereafter she sat in the second and third examinations pertaining to the M.B.B.S. course along with Dr. Jain and completed her M.B.B.S. course alongwith Dr. Jain in 1987 from the Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal. Thereafter, both of them cleared their internship of one year and also joined a house job in Radiology in the same college and completed the same in August 1989. It was at this stage that both of them applied for being admitted to the M.D. course with the result already set out.
4. As already mentioned, it is not in dispute that, if the total number of marks obtained by the two contestants in all the examinations of the M.B.B.S. degree are taken and educed to an "effective" percentage and a common maximum as per the rules, Dr. Nilofar does get a higher percentage of marks than the respondent. In fact, we find from the papers filed before us that another candidate, Dr. Km. Indu Fotedar, had obtained a percentage of 59.04 which was also higher than the percentage obtained by Dr. Jain. However, she is no longer in the race for a seat in M.D. (Radiology) as she appears to have joined the M.D. course in medicine that was offered to her. Thus it was that the Radiology seat went to Dr. Insaf.
5. Dr. Jain's challenge to the admission granted to the appellant cannot be a direct one as the latter had clearly secured higher percentage of marks than himself in the M.B.B.S. examinations. He therefore, attacks her candidate for the M.D. course on other grounds which may be described as collateral or indirect. According to him, the transfer of the appellant from the Bangalore Medical College to the Bhopal Medical College was itself invalid and he urges that, since the very admission of the appellant to thee M.B.B.S. degree in the Bhopal College was invalid, she could not at all have been considered for admission to the M.D. course which was available only to the institutional candidates. The grounds on which the transfer of the appellant from Bangalore to Bhopal
