The court interpreted Rule 16(ix) of the rules for admission to Medical Colleges broadly and held that the benefit of the rule should not be denied merely because there was no formal compliance with the requirement of sterilization operation.

Headnote:
MEDICAL ADMISSION - RULES FOR ADMISSION TO MEDICAL COLLEGES - CHALLENGES TO RULES - ADDITION OF MARKS FOR PARTICIPATION IN SPORTS, PARENT'S SERVICE IN REGULAR FIGHTING FORCES, AND FAMILY PLANNING - INTERPRETATION OF RULES.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, who had secured 83.33% marks in her H.S.C. Examination, challenged her exclusion from admission to a Medical College. She contended that the rules for admission were not properly made and that she was entitled to additional marks for participation in sports, her father's service in the regular fighting forces, and family planning.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to additional marks for participation in sports or her father's service in the regular fighting forces as she had not met the qualifying criteria. However, the court interpreted Rule 16(ix), which provided for the addition of one mark if any of the parents of the students had undergone sterilization operation and the family had not more than two children living, broadly and held that the benefit of the rule should not be denied merely because there was no formal compliance with the requirement of sterilization operation.
Issues: 1. Whether the rules for admission to Medical Colleges were properly made. 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to additional marks for participation in sports. 3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to additional marks for her father's service in the regular fighting forces. 4. Whether the petitioner was entitled to additional marks for family planning.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the rules for admission to Medical Colleges were properly made and were intended to secure the larger interest of the people in general and not to benefit any individual. 2. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to additional marks for participation in sports as she had not represented her college and actually played in an inter-collegiate tournament at the University, State Government, or National Sports Authorised Organisation level. 3. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to additional marks for her father's service in the regular fighting forces as he had not completed 15 years of service, which was the qualifying period of service as defined in the rules. 4. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to additional marks for family planning as her family was planned and did not consist of more than two children, even though her parents had not undergone sterilization operation.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the petition and directed the Dean of the Medical College to consider the petitioner's case for admission in the light of the court's observations and grant her admission if she was otherwise found eligible.

JUDGMENT - Tulpule, J.-The petitioner passed her H. S. C. Examination in March 1982 and secured in the science subjects 250 marks out of 300, which is 83.33%. She applied for admission to the Medical College and for that purpose filled in the form which is prescribed giving therein the information as she thought was necessary and applied to her. The petitioner had secured a First Class at her H. S. C. level examination.

2. Admissions to the Medical Colleges run by the Government are regulated and are governed by rules framed by the State Government in that behalf in the year 1971. These rules provide for addition of marks obtained by a student at the qualifying H. S. C. Examination and also deduction. These are called the modified marks. Admissions are according to merit and a list of students who applied and their ranking in the order of merit after corrected or modified totals are made is published on the Notice Board. According to the rules, the petitioner was entitled to get an addition of 3 marks for having secured first class at the H. S. C. examination. Her total marks, therefore, came to 253.

3. The petitioner was not able to get admission even with these marks and was out of the admitted students or the category of students who were likely to be admitted. She then challenged her exclusion or denial of admis- sion to her by this petition on various grounds.

4. The grounds on which the rules framed by the State Government in the year 1971 are challenged can be classified in two ways or two classes. Some of the challenges did not directly enure to the benefit of the petitioner. They are general and question the correctness, legality and nexus of the rules and the preference vis-a-vis admissions to the Medical Colleges. The other class of rules which are challenged are those which directly enure to the benefit of the petitioner and would, if her contention is accepted, add to her total of marks, increasing or brightening the prospects of admission to the medical college.

5. Rule was issued on this petition and was made returnable on the 8th September 198Z. Return was duly filed by the Dean and submissions were made before us both on behalf of the State Government and the Director as well as the Dean of the Medical College, Nagpur.

6. At the hearing of the petition Mr. Aney, the learned counsel for the petitioner was satisfied if that present challenges to the rules which only directly enured to her benefit of capable of giving her additional marks in her total of marks so as to brighten her prospects for admission are only considered. The other challenges which are more or less of an academic nature and are general and would not have directly benefited the petitioner were not pressed before us. We will not, therefore, consider those other challenges to the rules and confine ourselves only to the ones which were pressed before us, which are only three in number, as we shall presently set out.

7. The respondents' contention in the return was that the rules are properly made and they need not be modified or “struck down. They are made with a view to secure the larger interest of the people in general and not to benefit any individual. The classification made was also sought to be defended. The other contention raised in the return was that the petitioner did not claim any particular advantage or basis which she is now claiming in the information or details which she had supplied in the pro forma appli- cation and, therefore, she was not granted weightage or addition of marks. Besides respondents also sought to defend the rules and the technical and formal requirement insisted upon in that behalf. In this context respondents contended that the petitioner had not claimed any addition of marks on the ground of Her having been eligible to the addition of those marks. For instance against the entry at S. No. 25 in the pro forma application which sought information regarding participation in the sports events, the petitioner had stated

Click Here to Read the rest of this document