Back
1997 Supreme(P&H) 1337
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Amarjeet Chaudhary, H.S.Bedi, Sarojnei Saksena, K.S.Kumaran and V.S.Aggarwal JJ.
Kavita
Versus
Daya Nand Medical College And Hospital
Civil Writ Petition No. 8890 of 1989,
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 3, 1997
The central legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of private medical colleges in Writ Petitions and the court's authority to direct the regularization of a petitioner's result.
Headnote:
Writ Petition - Jurisdiction of Private Medical College - The court held that a Writ Petition lies against a Private Medical College affiliated to a University, reversing the previous decision and directing the college to regularize the result of the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was initially denied admission to the M.D. Course Radio Diagnosis at Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana based on a previous court judgment. The Supreme Court reversed the order and directed the petitioner to be admitted. The Full Bench reconsidered the jurisdiction of private medical colleges in a similar case and held that a Writ Petition lies against them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the previous judgment denying the maintainability of a writ petition against the medical college was not approved by the Supreme Court and was open for reconsideration. The petitioner was provisionally admitted to the M.B.B.S. Course, and the court directed the college to regularize the petitioner's result.
Issues: Jurisdiction of private medical colleges in Writ Petitions, Regularization of petitioner's result
Ratio Decidendi: The Full Bench held that a Writ Petition lies against a Private Medical College affiliated to a University, and directed the college to regularize the result of the petitioner who had been provisionally admitted to the M.B.B.S. Course.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was disposed of with the direction to the respondents to regularize the result of the petitioner.
Amarjeet Chaudhary, J.
1. A Full Bench of this Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Panjab University, A.I.R. 1983 Punjab and Haryana 70, had taken the view that no writ petition is maintainable against. Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana. In view of this judgment, Civil Writ Petition No. 5391 of 1989, Dr. Vandana Setia v. The Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana was dismissed. Against the said judgment of this court, Dr. Vandana Setia went to the Supreme Court where the order of this Court was reversed and the petitioner was directed to be admitted to the M.D. Course Radio Diagnosis. When the Writ Petition came up for motion hearing on July 24, 1989, the Division Bench found that the Full Bench decision of this court was not approved by the Supreme Court, though formally, in so many words, it has not been upset. The Motion Bench observed that in view of Dr. Vandana Setias case the matter was open. Therefore, the petition was admitted to a Full Bench to reconsider Gurpreet Singhs case (supra). The manning of the Full Bench and its size was left to the pleasure of the Chief Justice.
2. When this writ petition came up before Full Bench, it was ordered to be heard by a larger Bench of five Judges alongwith other connected cases. Somehow, this writ petition could not be tagged with the other connected cases. However, the correctness of Gurpreet Singhs case (supra) was reconsidered by a Full Bench of this Court in Miss Ravneet Kaur v. The Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, (1997-2)116 Punjab Law Reporter Page 320. The controversy before the Full Bench was whether a Writ Petition lies against a Private Medical College affiliated to a University or not. The Full Bench held that a Writ Petition lies against it. Since the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the ratio of Full Bench in Miss Ravneet Kaurs case, it is held that Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana is amenable to writ jurisdiction.
3. At the time of motion hearing, the petitioner was admitted in M.B.B.S. Course provisionally. We have been told that the petitioner has successfully completed the course and her result has been declared provisionally. In this view of the matter, we direct the respondents to regularise the result of the petitioner. Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
