1994 Supreme(Bom) 532

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
D.R. Dhanuka VIshnu Sahai, JJ.
Komal Kamlakar Chitnis and others.... Petitioners.
Versus
Director, Medical Education and Research, Bombay and others..Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 3867 of 1994 alongwith Writ Petition Nos. 3615, 3875, 3876, 3877, 3878, 3879 and 3995 of 1994, decided on 27-9-1994.
Advocates appeared :
S.C. Bora, for the petitioner in W.P. No. 3867 of 1994.
U.G. Kerkar, A.G.P., for respondents in W.P. No. 3867, 3615, 3875, 3876, 3877,3878, 3879 3995 of 1994.
Avinash Shivade, for the petitioner in W.P. No. 3615 of 1994.
V.M. Thorat, for the petitioner in W.P. No. 3875, 3876, 3877, 3878 3879 of 1994.
Mrs. Shobhana Patil, for the petitioner in W.P. No. 3995 of 1994.

Headnote:Article 14-Courses of MDDS and DDS-Admission to-Passing of resolution dt. 10.6.94, R. 3.3,1.

       Students passing qualifying examination irrespective of passing year eligible for the purposes of Rule 3.3.1. Applicant be only exception who passed in previous year but availed of seat lapsing and going waste if selected for current year.

       RULES FOR YEAR 1994-1995 FOR SELECTION TO M,B.B.S Course.

       Rules 3.3 0 & 3.3.1-Scope of.

       II is difficult to appreciate how the change in the rules for admission to the medical courses in different years would constitute or result into forming different classes of students passing the qualifying examinations in different years. If the rule for admission to the medical courses prescribes that the candidate must gases the qualifying examinations at one attempt, as is the does in the 1994-95 rules, in the extent irrespective of the fact as to in which year the applicant has passed the qualifying examination, if he does satisfy this condition, he would be ineligible.

       Whatever may be the year in which the candidates has passed the qualifying examination, his eligibility will have to be determined on the basis of the rules applicable for the particular academic year in which he makes application for admission to the medical courses. For example, when the rule for eligibility in the year 1994-95 prescribes that the candidate must have passed the qualifying examination in one attempt, every student irrespective of the fact whether he has passed the qualifying examinations in the year 1992 or in the year 1993 or in the year 1994 will have to satisfy this test and irrespective of the year in which the candidate has passed the examination, everyone who fails to satisfy the condition would obviously become in eligible.

       The particular examination of a particular Board or University, irrespective of the fact as to in which year the candidate has passed the same; is always treated on par for all purposes.

       However, so far as the students who have not only passed their qualifying examination in the previous years but also who have been selected for a seat for a medical course and who have availed of the said seat, and, in fact, completed such period of out on that if they abandoned the seat, the seat would lapse, such class of students would definitely from a separate and distinct class which cannot be permitted to be eligible for the admission to the medical courses again during the subsequent years.

       The students who have not passed the qualifying examinations in the previous years but also were allotted seats for medical courses in the previous years and who have availed of those seats; and in fact completed such period of course, that in the event of their abandoning or discontinuing that course the seats which they occupied in the previous years would be totally wasted for the entire remaining period of the course, as the same would form a distinct class by themselves. The main object of the rules for admission to the courses like medical courses, where availability of the seats is extremely meager in comparison to the number of a spirants; is not only that merit and merit alone should be considered but also that distribution of such scarce valuable and much sought after seats is made in an absolute just and fail manner. Treating equally; classes which are dissimilar or unequal in the context of the object to be achieved, also offends equality clause. Considered in this light, we have no manner of doubt that holding that any person belonging to this class as an eligible candidate under Rule 3.3.1 of the rules for admission to medical courses for the year 1994-95 would expose, the said rule to invalidity on the ground of breach of provisions of Article 14.

       When these students obtained the admission and accepted the seats allotted to them and when they has completed one year of their course, they have already deprived some other eligible students waiting ill the queue in the previous years. If such students discontinue the course by getting admission in the current year not only the waste their own one year of academic career but it results into huge loss ultimately to the society inasmuch as their seats lapse and are totally wasted. Such a student if hold eligible for the current year would additionally displace some other eligible candidate even during the current year. It is also relevant to notice that even under rules for admission to medical, Dental Ayurvedic Homeopathic, and Unani course for the academic year 1993-94, it was provided under Rule X Special Note that (i) no shift of student from one course to another or from one college to another college will not be entertained, and (ii) Candidates seeking admission to private colleges should indicate in the application from the choice for "Free Seats" and "Payment Seats".

       Choice once exercised will be considered as final and no change thereafter be entertained. Even under rules for the academic year 1994-95 Rule 6, Order 3 provides that having exercised his choice as per his merit order, one ceases to be an applicant and becomes a selected candidate. Such a selected candidate will not be considered for any free seat thereafter. In view of these rules, it is clear that no candidate who had exercised his choice and accepted the seat allotted to him in the year 1993 could have changed the course of the college. On the bount also, the candidates or the students or the students belonging to aforesaid class, as we have indicated, cannot be held to be eligible for admission to the medical course for the academic year 3994-95 inasmuch as they cannot be permitted to do indirectly what they could not have done directly. Looked from any angle, we are clearly of the opinion that holding any student who belongs to such class of students, eligible afresh for admission to the medical courses is not only extremely unfair and unjust to other eligible students who had completed with him and failed in the previous years but also to other eligible student for the current year.

       Rule 3 3.1 of the rules for admission to the medical, dental courses 1994-95 has to be read down by excluding any applicant who having passed the qualifying examination in the previous years has been allotted a seat in any course and who after availing of the scat has completed such period of course as would result into lapsing of the said seat; in the event of such applicant vacating or abandoning the said seats. Save and except this class, everyone who has passed the qualifying examination as provided in Rule 3.3.1 irrespective of the year in which he has passed the same shall be eligible for the purposes of Rule 3.3.1 of the aforesaid rules.