Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Jawahar Lal Gupta, Sarojnei Saksena, K.S.Kumaran, Iqbal Singh and R.L.Anand JJ.
Ravneet Kaur
Versus
Christian Medical College, Ludhiana
Civil Writ Petition No. 11299 of 1996,
Decided On : MAY 6, 1997
Whether a writ petition is maintainable against an un-aided private Medical College which is affiliated to a University? Held: Yes, a writ petition is maintainable against an un-aided private Medical College which is affiliated to a University.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Sikh, claimed to be a convert to Christianity and applied for admission to the MBBS course at the Christian Medical College, Ludhiana against a seat reserved for Christians. She was provisionally selected but her candidature was later cancelled as she failed to produce a letter of sponsorship from an authorised person of the Diocese of Amritsar. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of her candidature.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that a writ petition is maintainable against an un-aided private Medical College which is affiliated to a University. The court further held that the petitioner was not eligible to be considered for admission against a seat reserved for Christians as she failed to produce a letter of sponsorship from an authorised person of the Diocese of Amritsar.
Issues: 1. Whether a writ petition is maintainable against an un-aided private Medical College which is affiliated to a University? 2. Whether the petitioner was eligible to be considered for admission against a seat reserved for Christians?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that a writ petition is maintainable against an un-aided private Medical College which is affiliated to a University. The court relied on the following grounds: * The power of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution is wider than those of the Court of Kings Bench in England. * The power of the High Courts is not confined to the issue of prerogative writs as initially understood in England. The procedural restrictions which had been imposed on the Courts in England do not bind the High Courts in this country. * The High Courts are empowered to issue not only writs in the nature of certiorari, mandamus etc. but also orders and directions to enforce fundamental rights or for any other purpose. * The power under Article 226 of the Constitution is not confined to the enforcement of fundamental rights like the power under Article 32. Still further, the High Courts can issue writs, orders or directions even to any person or authority discharging a public duty for enforcement of the fundamental rights or for any other purpose. * The words "any person or authority" used in Article 226 do not mean only State as defined in Article 12 or statutory authorities. These cover any person or body performing a public duty. * In view of the importance of health to the Community, institutions providing medical education form a distinct class. These institutions perform a public duty and supplement the States effort. By their affiliation to a University or any other statutory examining body, they become partners with the State. They are, thus, subject to the restrictions contained in Part III. They are bound to act in conformity with the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the rules/regulations framed by the appropriate University/body. Whenever they act unfairly, arbitrarily or violate the prohibitions contained in Part III of the Constitution or the rules and regulations framed by the University etc., their actions can be corrected by issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order. Similarly, if it is found that an institution has failed to carry out an obligation under the Constitution or the rules/regulations framed by an appropriate body, it can be compelled to perform its duty by the issue of a writ of mandamus. This principle shall, however, not be attracted in case of every private school or college. 2. The court held that the petitioner was not eligible to be considered for admission against a seat reserved for Christians as she failed to produce a letter of sponsorship from an authorised person of the Diocese of Amritsar.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
JAWAHARLAL GUPTA, J.
1. Is a writ petition maintainable against an un-aided private Medical College which is affiliated to a University? A Full Bench of this Court considered this matter in Gurpreet Singh V/s. Panjab University, Chandigarh, AIR 1983 Punj and Har 70. It answered the question in the negative. The correctness of this view was doubted by V. K. Bali, J. while considering the case of Dr. Vandna Midha V/s. Panjab University, Chandigarh (Civil Writ Petition No. 6020 of 1993). The matter was referred to a larger Bench of five Judges. Before the reference could be answered, the present writ petition was listed for preliminary hearing before a Division Bench. It directed the issue of notice of motion to the respondents- the Christian Medical College, Ludhiana and its Principal. The respondents appeared and raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. The Bench, consequently, directed that "the matter be placed before Hon ble the Chief Justice for consituting a larger Bench at an early date." It was placed before a Bench of three Judges. Keeping in view the fact that the issue had been referred to a Full Bench of five Judges in Dr. Midhas case and the correctness of the view taken by the Full Bench in Gurpreet Singhs case was to be examined, it was directed that this matter be placed before a Bench of five Judges. Consequently, the case has been placed before this Bench. The facts may be briefly noticed.
2. The petitioner Miss Ravneet Kaur, ostensibly a Sikh, claims to be convert to Charistianity. She applied for admission to the MBBS course at the Christian Medical College, Ludhiana against one of the seats reserved for the "candidates who are Christians, Indian Nationals and officially sponsored by a Church or a Mission. . . . . . . . " It is alleged that the application was sponsored by the Bishop of Amritsar vide his letter dated June 12, 1996. A copy of this letter has been produced as Annexure P-1. The petitioner appeared in the written test. Vide letter dated July 17, 1996, the petitioner was informed that she had been "provisionally selected for the MBBS course, 1996. . . . . . . . ." She was asked to report to the office on July 29, 1996. She was also asked to produce various certificates including the "Baptism Certificate." On July 25, 1996, the petitioner was called upon to produce certain additional documents including the "sponsorship letter along with a photo copy of the sponsorship agreement/bond." Along with this letter, the respondents had forwarded a copy of the letter dated July 20, 1996 which indicated that "the petitioner had not enclosed her sponsorship letter from an authorised person of Diocese of Amritsar i.e. Rev. C. M. Khanna." It was also stated that the petitioners selection was provisional and subject to the production of relevant certificates in original. The petitioner avers that she met Rev. C. M. Khanna at Jammu on July 27, 1996. He informed her that his "power of sponsorship etc." had expired on May 13, 1996. When the petitioner reached Amritsar, she was informed that the Bishop had gone out of station and would not be available for a week or 10 days. The petitioner conveyed this information to the respondents through a telegram. On July 29, 1996, the petitioner appeared before a committee constituted by the respondents. She narrated the factual position and requested that the letter dated June 12, 1996 produced by her be treated as a valid sponsorship. The respondents did not accept her request. The petitioner alleges that the respondents are taking a hyper-technical view and have, thus, denied her admission to the MBBS Course. The petitioner prays that the respondents be directed to admit her to the MBBS Course for the year 1996.
3. The respondents contest the petitioners claim. They question the maintainability of the writ petition. It has been stated by way of a preliminary objection that the Christian Medical College is a privately manag
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
