Back
1980 Supreme(Goa) 3
Goa High Court
K. M. MISHRA, ADDL. J.C.
Mukul Madhukar Sinai Mahatme and etc. - Appellant
Versus
Dean, Goa Medical College, Panaji, etc. - Respondents
Spl. Civil Applns. (Writ Petns.) Nos. 106 and 164 of 1978
Decided On : 21 February 1980
A. Chinoy with A.P. Furtado, for Petitioners. J. Dias, Govt. Advocate, M.S. Usgaocar and G.D. Kamat, for Respondents.
Classification of candidates for admission to post-graduate courses in medical college on the basis of current batch only is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Headnote:
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - ARTICLE 14 - SELECTION OF CANDIDATES FOR ADMISSION TO POST-GRADUATE COURSES IN MEDICAL COLLEGE - CLASSIFICATION OF CANDIDATES ON THE BASIS OF CURRENT BATCH ONLY - VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 - PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL - NON-OBSERVANCE OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - CONFIRMATION OF PROVISIONAL REGISTRATION OF PETITIONERS.
Fact of the Case:
Two doctors, including a lady doctor, as applicants for admission into the post-graduate course in Obstetrics and Gynaecology and in Surgery of the Goa Medical College, challenged the legality of the selection made on 25-9-1978. The selection was made on the basis of a Government Order dated 16th September, 1978, which arbitrarily restricted selections for postgraduate courses to students of the current batch only and precluded the students of earlier batches from competing or being selected.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the impugned order was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as it discriminated against the petitioners. The Court also held that the Government could not go back on its representation on the principle of promissory estoppel. Further, the Court held that the impugned order was not disclosed to the petitioners on the tenuous ground that it was confidential and as the same has to date not been published it is not permissible to the Government to prejudice the petitioners on the basis of such order. This action of the Government is violative of the cardinal principles of natural justice which requires that before a law or order can become operative, it must be promulgated and published.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned order which excluded doctors of the previous batches is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the Government could go back on its representation on the principle of promissory estoppel? 3. Whether the impugned order was not disclosed to the petitioners on the tenuous ground that it was confidential and as the same has to date not been published it is not permissible to the Government to prejudice the petitioners on the basis of such order?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The classification of candidates on the basis of current batch only is not based on an intelligible differentia and does not bear a rational nexus with the object of selecting the best possible talent for admission to medical colleges. Therefore, the impugned order is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 2. Once the Government had laid down the rules and invited applications, they could not go back on their representation on the principle of promissory estoppel. 3. The impugned order was not disclosed to the petitioners on the tenuous ground that it was confidential and as the same has to date not been published it is not permissible to the Government to prejudice the petitioners on the basis of such order. This action of the Government is violative of the cardinal principles of natural justice which requires that before a law or order can become operative, it must be promulgated and published.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the impugned order. The Court also directed the Dean to confirm the provisional registration of the petitioners and to give them necessary house posts as required by the University Regulations.
ORDER :- In these two writ petitions analogously heard, two doctors including a lady doctor, as applicants for admission into the post-graduate course in Obstetrics and Gynaecology and in Surgery of the Goa Medical College, have challenged the legality of the selection made on 25-9-1978.
2. It appears that both the petitioners completed their M.B.B.S. at the first attempt in the year 1975 and secured very high percentage of marks. As per the Regulation prescribed by the Bombay University to which the Goa Medical College is affiliated, a candidate desirous of appearing for the M.S./M.D. Examination is required to put in a minimum of six months in a resident post in the subject subsequent to his/ her registration as a post-graduate student plus another six months in the same or allied subject. On 16th May, 1978 the first respondent (Dean, Goa Medical College) published a Circular inviting applications from residents/demonstrators for admission to the M.S./M.D. Course in the Goa Medical College. The said Circular provided that applications should be submitted on or before 15th June, 1978. The petitioners submitted their applications before the stipulated date. The date of submission of the list of selected candidates was extended to 9th September, 1978 by the Bombay University. No selection was completed or announced up to such extended date. On 25th September, 1978, the first respondent however published a notice giving the list of selected candidates in which reference was made to Government Order No. PHD/54/Misc/78/M dated 16th September, 1978. The said order arbitrarily restricted selections for postgraduate courses to students of the current batch only and precluded the students of earlier batches from competing or being selected.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that in December, 1977 fresh criteria/rules for selection of post-graduate courses/registrations were framed. The said Rules provided that selections would be based on an average of percentage of aggregate marks obtained in the M.B.B.S. Examination and on the percentage of marks obtained in the subject concerned. Rules 6 and 7 provided that :-
(a) Only those candidates who were working in the Institution as residents would be considered for selection; and
(b) Preference would be given to candidates who had completed/are completing six months terms of house-post in the relevant subject.
The said rules entitled residents of all batches/years to compete and did not preclude any of them from selection. As a consequence of the Government Order dated 16th September, 1978, the petitioners were precluded from competing and from being selected for the postgraduate courses in Obstetrics and Gynaecology and General Surgery respectively. There appears to be no legal justification whatsoever from excluding otherwise eligible doctors and confining the selection to the present batch only. The aforesaid order is thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The impugned selection list dated 25-9-1978 is inoperative in law in as much as the order under which it is made has no authority of law, the selections excluding the petitioners made on 25-9-1978 being thus illegal be set aside.
4. The stand taken by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in the returns filed by Shri Satish Chandra, Secretary to the Government of Goa, Daman and Diu, Public Health Department is that the petitioners do not fit in with the Rules framed by the Government for the purpose of admission. According to the said Rules, medical graduates who have passed and completed their internship during the year 1977/78 are only eligible for admission on the basis of merits. The petitioners being persons who passed their M.B.B.S. and completed the internship prior to 77-78 are not entitled to admission. Government have limited number of seats for post-graduate courses to be made available in a particular academic year to students who graduate in that particular year. The Government does not want that there should be any
