The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellant-University had the right to change or prescribe the criteria for making selection of the best for postgraduate courses. However, the changed criteria was not properly advertised, circulated, and conveyed to the concerned candidates, resulting in disadvantage to various students appearing under the Ex-KMC category.

Headnote:
MEDICAL COURSES - SELECTION CRITERIA - INDIAN MEDICAL COUNCIL ACT, 1956 - [MEDICAL COURSES] - [Section 19-A of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956] - The court considered the appellant's power to change the criteria for selection of candidates for postgraduate medical courses. The court held that the appellant-University had the right to change or prescribe the criteria for making selection of the best for postgraduate courses. However, the changed criteria was not properly advertised, circulated, and conveyed to the concerned candidates, resulting in disadvantage to various students appearing under the Ex-KMC category. The court found that the selection of the candidates was reportedly received with a shock and surprise by the affected Ex-KMC students. The court concluded that the selection made to the postgraduate courses in the general category of Ex-KMC students was contrary to law, the rules applicable, and the prospectus issued by the appellant-University. The court directed the appellant-University to notionally make fresh selection/admission on the basis of the ranking of the writ petitioners in All India MEDPET test conducted by them. The court further directed the appellant-University to call all such candidates who had appeared in the Ex-KMC category on the basis of their ranking determined in the All India MEDPET test for the purpose of counselling and during such counselling seek their options without making any change in the subjects already assigned to the admitted candidates. The court allowed the admitted candidates to continue their studies without changing their subjects. The court also directed the admission of successful writ petitioners to be according to the fee structures and any other conditions applicable as were prescribed for candidates admitted in the quota reserved for Ex-KMC graduates.
Fact of the Case:

The writ petitioners, who were separately considered in the K. M. C. Category, prayed for issuance of directions to the appellant to admit them to the postgraduate medical courses on the basis of their ranking in the All India Medical Postgraduate Entrance Test (MEDPET), conducted by the appellant. The writ petitioners alleged that the list of successful candidates published and the ranks allotted by the appellant was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. They claimed that the ranking given by the Registrar was not based on the merits of the students declared and accepted in the All India Entrance Test Examination. The writ petitioners alleged that the method prescribed and adopted while allotting seats to the 25% reserved for Ex-KMC students was neither notified nor published or authorised under the prospectus circulated.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the selection of the candidates was reportedly received with a shock and surprise by the affected Ex-KMC students. The court concluded that the selection made to the postgraduate courses in the general category of Ex-KMC students was contrary to law, the rules applicable, and the prospectus issued by the appellant-University. The court directed the appellant-University to notionally make fresh selection/admission on the basis of the ranking of the writ petitioners in All India MEDPET test conducted by them. The court further directed the appellant-University to call all such candidates who had appeared in the Ex-KMC category on the basis of their ranking determined in the All India MEDPET test for the purpose of counselling and during such counselling seek their options without making any change in the subjects already assigned to the admitted candidates. The court allowed the admitted candidates to continue their studies without changing their subjects. The court also directed the admission of successful writ petitioners to be according to the fee structures and any other conditions applicable as were prescribed for candidates admitted in the quota reserved for Ex-KMC graduates.
Issues: The issues raised in the case included the appellant's power to change, modify, or lay down the criteria of selection over and above the criteria prescribed for the purpose by the Medical council of India, and whether it was permissible to introduce such criteria unilaterally without mentioning the same in the prospectus. The court also considered the lack of proper publication of the changed criteria and its intimation to the concerned candidates, which adversely affected the interests of the writ petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant-University had the right to change or prescribe the criteria for making selection of the best for postgraduate courses. However, the changed criteria was not properly advertised, circulated, and conveyed to the concerned candidates, resulting in disadvantage to various students appearing under the Ex-KMC category. The court concluded that the selection of the candidates was reportedly received with a shock and surprise by the affected Ex-KMC students. The court directed the appellant-University to notionally make fresh selection/admission on the basis of the ranking of the writ petitioners in All India MEDPET test conducted by them. The court further directed the appellant-University to call all such candidates who had appeared in the Ex-KMC category on the basis of their ranking determined in the All India MEDPET test for the purpose of counselling and during such counselling seek their options without making any change in the subjects already assigned to the admitted candidates. The court allowed the admitted candidates to continue their studies without changing their subjects. The court also directed the admission of successful writ petitioners to be according to the fee structures and any other conditions applicable as were prescribed for candidates admitted in the quota reserved for Ex-KMC graduates.
Final Decision: The court concluded that the selection made to the postgraduate courses in the general category of Ex-KMC students was contrary to law, the rules applicable, and the prospectus issued by the appellant-University. The court directed the appellant-University to notionally make fresh selection/admission on the basis of the ranking of the writ petitioners in All India MEDPET test conducted by them. The court further directed the appellant-University to call all such candidates who had appeared in the Ex-KMC category on the basis of their ranking determined in the All India MEDPET test for the purpose of counselling and during such counselling seek their options without making any change in the subjects already assigned to the admitted candidates. The court allowed the admitted candidates to continue their studies without changing their subjects. The court also directed the admission of successful writ petitioners to be according to the fee structures and any other conditions applicable as were prescribed for candidates admitted in the quota reserved for Ex-KMC graduates.

R. P. SETHI, C. J.

( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the selection made to the Postgraduate Medical Courses in the appellant-institution, the writ petitioners who were separately considered in the K. M. C. Category, prayed for issuance of directions to the appellant to admit them to the postgraduate medical courses on the basis of their ranking in the All India Medical Postgraduate Entrance Test (MEDPET), conducted by the appellant. They prayed, as an interim measure, that effect be not given to the selection to the postgraduate courses made on 4th August, 1996 in respect of 25% quota earmarked for Ex-KMC graduates. Writ petitions were allowed by the learned Single judge vide his order dated 27-1-1997 directing the appellant to admit the writ petitioners in the coming academic session 1997-98 to the postgraduate courses from amongst 25% seats reserved in the NRI category subject to the condition that the fee structure and other conditions applicable to the writ petitioners shall be those prescribed for candidates admitted in the quota reserved for ex-KMC graduates. On an interim application filed by the writ petitioners the learned Single judge vide his order dated 9-4-1997 modified his earlier order to the extent. ". . . . . that the petitioners namely: (1) Shaji Sridharan, petitioner in W. P. No. 23794 of 1996; (2) sandeep Narayanaswamy, petitioner in W. P. No. 23795 of 1996; (3) Fahad, petitioner in W. P. No. 23797 of 1996; (4) Hariprasad Shetty, petitioner in W. P. No. 23798 of 1996; and (5) Deepak m. Shetty, petitioner in W. P. No. 26300 of 1996, shall be admitted to the Postgraduate courses in the subjects mentioned against the name of each one of them herein above during the academic session 1997-98 out of 25% seats reserved by the Management for itself in the N. R.. category. It is further directed that in case the seats so reserved do not include the courses mentioned above, the petitioners shall be admitted to the same out of the seats reserved for the Ex-KMC graduates. The admission of the petitioners shall however be on the same terms and conditions as regards the payment of fee etc. , as were prescribed for candidates admitted in the Ex-KMC graduates category".

( 2 ) IT has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the order of the learned Single Judge being contrary to facts and the settled position of law, is liable to be quashed. It is contended that the appellant had the right to change the criteria for the purpose of making the selection of the best for the postgraduate courses. It is submitted that the process of criteria and prospectus had commenced in March, 1996, and was neither an afterthought nor mala fide. The MCI guidelines did not prevent the appellant from supplementing the criteria in the interests of the students for making better selection and that no student could insist for a particular criteria for being selected to a specified course. The criteria is stated to have been altered with legal authority and in accordance with the bye-laws, rules and the Memorandum of Association governing the appellant-institution. It is further contended that the allegations of mala fides though only legal, the alleged strictures passed by the learned Single Judge were uncalled for. It is pleaded that the implementation of the directions of the learned Single Judge would result in substantial and huge monetary loss to the appellant-institution besides adversely affecting their proclaimed acknowledged reputation. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge ignored the fact that some of the writ petitioners had already voluntarily got admitted to postgraduate medical courses which were available to them in the appellant's college or otherwise as per their ranking. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge was not justified in ignoring the affidavit of the deputy Registrar of the appellant-University only on the ground that he had mentioned therein that the contents therein were correct "to the best of his kno

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1997 Supreme(Kar) 401

Cases Referred (1)

Login now and unlock premium legal research