MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY & ORS. v. THUKRAL ANJALI DEOKUMAR & ORS

Citation: [1989] 1 S.C.R. 919

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: M.M. DUTT, T.K. THOMMEN

Case summary

The question of collegewise }institutional preference or reservation of seats did not at all arise, nor was it argued or sought to be decided in la! By the impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the writ petitions out of which these appeals arise, and struck down the...

Judgment text

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ..... DUTT, J. The principal point involved in these appeals relates to the constitutional validity of rule 4(A) of the Rules framed by the Bombay Municipal Corporation for admission to post-graduate degree and diploma courses in its medical colleges framed on June 18, 1988 and rule 5 framed under the Government Resolution dated June 18, 1971 for admission to the Government Medical College, both the rules providing for collegewise institutional preference for admission in the M. D. Course. By the impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the writ petitions out of which these appeals arise, and struck down the impugned rule 4(A) in whole and rule 5 (wrongly stated as rule 6 in the High Court judgment), in so far as it applies to the Government Medical College in the city of Bombay, as discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and, accordingly, invalid. Rule 4(A) is as follows,__ "4.

PREFERENCE: (A) While selecting candidates for admission to the postgraduate courses preference will be given in the following order:- (a) Candidates applying for admission at the parent insti- it tution. (Note: Parent institution means the medical college at which the candidate has passed his qualifying examination). (b) Candidates who have graduated from other Municipal Medical Colleges in Brihan Mumbai. " Relevant portion of rule 5 framed under the Government Resolution dated June 18, 1971 reads as follows: "5. . ............................... '. .............. . While selecting from amongst eligible candidates preference will be given to the students of that college i. e. who passed their final M. B. B. S. Examination from that college in Broad specialities and their ancillary discipline. " There are four medical colleges in the city of Bombay, and affiliated to the University of Bombay.

Of these four medical colleges, three are run and conducted by the Bombay Municipal Corporation, namely, Lokmanya Tilak Memorial Medical Collegee (LTMMC), Seth G. S. Medical College (GSMC) and Topiwalla National Medical College (TNMC). The only college that is being run by the Maharashtra Government in the city of Bombay is Grant Medical College (GMC). It is not necessary to state in details the facts leading, to the filing of the writ petitions before the High Court out of which these appeals arise. Suffice it to say that some candidates who were not admitted in the M. D. Course in the respective colleges from which they had passed their MBBS Examination, were not also admitted in the other medical colleges in the city of Bombay, in view of collegewise institutional preference as provided by rule 4(A) in respect of three Municipal Colleges and by rule 5 relating to GMC, the Maharashtra Government College.

The High Court, as stated already, ' struck down rule 4(A) and rule 5 in part and allowed the writ petitions. Hence these appeals by special leave. It is urged by Mr. G. Ramaswamy, the learned Additional Solicitor General, that this Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union ofIndia & Ors. , [1984] 3 SCR 942 has given sufficient indication of its approval . / MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF BOMBAY v. T. A. DEOKUMAR [DUTT, J. J 923 of collegewise institutional preference. While the learned Additional Solicitor General frankly concedes that be is not in a position to support cent percent institutional preference or reservation of seats for admission in the M. D. Course in the Municipal Colleges and the Government College in the city of Bombay, such preference or reservation in respect of certain percentage of seats is quite permissible and will not be hit by the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution. In Pradeep Jain's case, the question that has been considered by this Court as noted by Bhagwati, J.

(as he then was) is whether, consistently with the constitutional values, admissions to a medical college or any other institution of higher learning situate in a State can be confined to those who have their domicile within the State or who are resident within the State for a specified number of years or can any reservation in admissions be made for them so as to give them precedence over those who do not possess domicile or residential qualification within the State, irrespective of merit. The question that has been formulated and considered does not show, on the face of it, that collegwise institutional preference was also involved as a part of the question.

It has been ruled in Pradeep Jain's case that effort must always be to select the best and most meritorious students for admis- ·Sion to technical institutions and medical colleges by providing equal opportunity to all citizens in the country, and that it would be ai:jainst national interest to admit in medical colleges or other institutions giving instruction in specialities, less meritorious students when more me. ritorious students are available. So, wholesale reservation on the basis of domicile or residential requirement within the State or on the basis of institutional preference for students who have passed the qualifying examination held by the University or the State excluding all students not satisfying this·requirement, regardless of merit, bas been condemned.

The Court took the view that reservation of seats based on residential requirement within the State or on institutional preference should, in no event, exceed the outer limit of 70 per cent of the total number of open seats after taking into account other kinds of reservation validly made, the 70 per cent reservations needs to be reduced if the Indian Medical Council determines a shorter outer limit. The institutional preference that has been referred to in the observation of Bhagwati, J. does not at all relate to collegewise institutional preference, with which we are concerned. The learned Additional Solicitor General has, however, placed strong reliance on the following observation made by Bhagwati, J. in Pradeep Jain's case which is extracted below:- ,. "We are therefore of the view that so far as admissions to ")( post-graduate courses, such as M. S. , M. D.

and the like are concerned, it would be eminently desirable not to provide for any reservation based on residence requirement within the State or on institutional preference. But, having regard to broader. considerations of equalit)' of opportunity and institutional continuity in education which has its own importance and value, we would direct that though resi- f dence requirement within the State shall not be a ground for reservation in admissions to post-graduate courses, a ~certain percentage of seats may in the present circumst- ' ">ances, be reserved on the basis of institutional preference in the sense that a student who has passed M. B. B. S.

course from a medical college or university may be given preference for admission to the post-graduate course in the same 'f medical colleges or university but such reservation on the basis of institutional preference should not in any event exceed 50 per cent of the total number of open seats avail· able for admission to the post-graduate course. This outer limit which we are fixing will also be subject to revision on the lower side by the Indian Medical Council in the same manner as directed by us in the case of admissions to the M. B. B. S. course. But, even in regard to admissions to th" j. post-graduate course, we would direct that so far as super specialities such as neuro-surgery and cardiology are con·· cerned, there should be no reservation at all even on the basis of institutional preference and admissions should be ~ granted purely on merit on all India basis.

" It is urged by the learned Additional Solicitor General that in Pradeep Jain's case collegewise institutional preference has been i recognised and upheld, as is apparent from the above observation, particularly from the observation "a certain percentage of seats may, in the present circumstances, be reserved on the basis of institutional preference in the sense that a student who has passed MBBS Course from a medical college or University may be given preference for admission to the post-graduate course in the same medical colleges or university, but such reservation on the basis of institutional preference should not in any event exceed 50 per cent of the total number of open ~ seats available for admission to the post-graduate course. " It is true the expression "institutional preference" has been used in the said observation in respect of a medical college or a university, but we do not think that in making that observation Bhagwati, J. had in his mind :~ MUNICIPAL CORPN.

OF BOMBAY v. TA DEOKUMAR [DUTT, J. ] 925 ~ collegewise institutional preference. Any observation in a judgment has to be read and understood in the context of facts of that particular case in respect of which such observation has been made. As has been pointed out, the question that has been considered in Pradeep Jain's case relates to reservation of seats in medical colleges on the ground of domicile or residential qualification within the State irrespective of merit. It was not the case of anybody that reservation of seats. should be made on the ground of collegewise institutional preference. The institutional preference that was considered in the case was universitywise institutional preference and not collegewise institutional prefer- - . : preference dependant on the particular medical college at which the concerned candidate has passed his final MBBS Exan1ination.

This collegewise institutional preference has been disapproved by this Court in that case and the impugned Ordinance has been struck down. The learned Additional Solicitor General sought to distinguish Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta's case from the instant case. We do not think that the said case is distinguishable from the case with which we are con- 'I cerned, inasmuch as in both the cases the question of collegewise or college-based institutional preference is involved. It is stated that mode or method adopted for giving collegewise institutional prefer" >---~ ence in Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta's case is different from the instant case put, in our opiqion, nothing turns out of that. So far as educational institutions are concerned, unless there are strong reasons for exclusion of meritorious candidates, any preference other than in y order of merit, will not stand the test of Article 14 of the Constitution.

So, the impugned rules are discriminatory and do not satisfy the tests of resonable classification and, as much, cannot be sustained. It is next contended on behalf of the appellants that as the Bombay Municipal Corporation has to spend a lot of money for the running of the ·three colleges sponsored by it, seats for the postgraduate course should be reserved in these three colleges for the students passing the MBBS Examination from any of these colleges. If " such reservation is allowed, the students of the Maharashtra Governmen! College, namely, the Grant Medical College, will not get any admission in any of the three Municipal Colleges, even if the students ~ or some of them passing the MBBS Course from the Government College are more meritorious than the students for whom the seats will be kept reserved in the Municipal Colleges. It is urged that it will not 1-.

J I be acase of collegewise institutional preference so far as the Municipal t Colleges are concerned and there should be no objection for the Bombay Municipal Corporation to give preference to the students of the Municipal Colleges, of course, to the exclusion of the students of the Government College. This contention, in our opinion, is without any substance. It may be that the Bombay Municipal Corporation has to spend a lot of money for the colleges run by it, but that will be no ground for making a discrimination between the students of the Municipal Colleges and those of the Government College affiliated to the same university, for the purpose of admission in the post-graduate " degree course. Such discrimination Will not serve any object which can be justified on any rational basis. Such reservation or preference also cannot be allowed, for if allowed, rule 5 of the Rules framed under the MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF BOMBAY v. T. A. DEOKUMAR (DUTI, J.

) 933 Government Resolution dated June 18, 1971 will survive inasmuch as the students of the Grant Medical College will only be admitted in the M. D. Course. But, those students who could not be admitted in that College, will not be eligible for admission in the Municipal Colleges. We are unable to permit such discrimination in the matter of admission in the M. D. Course. · Another ground on which collegewise institutional preference has been sought to be justified by the learned Additional Solicitor General is on the basis of institutional continuity. In support of this ground of institutional continuity, the le_arned Additional Solicitor General has placed much reliance on the observations of Pathak, J. in Jagdish Saran's case, which has already been el(tracted above.

It was not a case of collegewise institutional preference or institutional continuity, and the said observations should not be understood in that sense, but in the sense of institutional continuity in the same university. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the question of collegewise institutional preference, we are of the view that such preference or reservation of seats is not permissible and the High Court has rightly struck down both the impugned rule 4(A) framed by the Bombay Municipal Corporation and part of rule 5 framed under the Government Resolution, that is to say, only in respect of its application to the Grant Medical College in the city of Bombay relating to admission to post-graduate M. D. Course. We, however, make it clear that the students who have been admitted to post-graduate M. D. Course pursuant to the impugned rules, their admission shall not be interfered with or disturbed. At this state, we may consider the submission of Mr.

Lalit, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants in C. M. P. No. 20748 of 1988 praying for their impleadment as party-respondents to Civil Appeal No. 2792 of 1988. We do not think that any useful purpose will be served by impleading them as party-respondents to the appeal. The only prayer that has been made by Mr. Lalit is that the applicants who have passed the diploma course ·from the Municipal Colleges should be held to be eligible for admission iri the . M. D. Course with credit for the diploma course in any of the Municipal Colleges. We are told by the learned Counsel appearing for the State Government and the Bombay Municipal Corporation that if the impugned rules are struck down, they will have to frame fresh rules consistent with the judgment of this Court and, as we have directed not to disturb admission of the candidates in the post-graduate M. D.

Course pursuant to the impugned rules, we consider the prayer made by the applicants as quite reasonable and, accordingly, direct that the applicants who have passed the diploma course in the Municipal Colleges after passing the MBBS Examination, will be eligible for admission in the post-graduate M. D. Course in any one of the Municipal Colleges with credit for the diploma course. Mr. Tarkunde, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-writ petitioners, submits that the cases of admission of \-· .. some of the respondents, who have not been admitted to the posti ')Ill graduate degree course in certain specialities of their choice in view of the impugned rules, may be considered by the State of Maharashtra and the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, in case sea(s are available, either in the Municipal Colleges or in the Grant Medical College, which is a Government College.

In our opinion, the prayer is quite reasonable and the State of Maharashtra and the Bombay Municipal Corporation are directed to consider the question of their admission, provided seats are available. The names of the said respondents and the respective disciplines of their choice are given below: 1. Dr. Anjali Deokumar Thukral M. D. Gynaecology and Obstetrics I. 2. Dr. Atul Jaywant Gaitonde M. S. Orthopaedics 3. Dr. Naresh Kanayalal Navani M. S. General Surgery 4. Dr. Anna Koshy Joseph M. D. General Medicine '... - I 5. Dr. Vaishali Ramnik Doshi M. D. General Medicine t Before we part with these cases, we may dispose of one submission made on behalf of the appellants. Our attention has been drawn to the fact that while striking down the impugned rule 4(A) and impugned rule 5 in part, the High Court has directed the appellants to frame rules adopting certain alternative methods for dismission in the post-graduate M. D. Course for the next year, as stated in the judgment.

The said directions appear to be in the nature of suggestions by -. the High Court, and the appellants will be free to frame rules for admission in the post-graduate M. D. Course in the said four colleges in the city of Bombay in conformity with the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution and in the light of the judgment of this Court and in MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF BOMBAY v. T. A. DEOKUMAR {DUTI, J. ] 935 framing the rules, the appellants may take into consideration the suggestions of the High Court. l In the result, subject to the directions given above, the appeals are dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 8883 OF 1988 AND WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1253OF1988 For the reasons aforesaid, Special Leave Petition and Writ Petition fail and are dismissed without any order as to costs. Y. L. Appeals dismissed.