PRINCIPAL, KING GEORGE'S MEDICAL COLLEGE LUCKNOW v. DR. VISHAN KUMAR AGARWAL &. ANOTHER

Citation: [1984] 1 S.C.R. 503

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, A.P. SEN

Case summary

There is no dispute that the respondent satisfied the requirments of clauses (a) and (b) of Ordinance I. outdone, the University filed 2n appeal against the interim order, which came to be allowed.

Judgment text

PRINCIPAL, KING GEORGE'S MEDiCAL COLLEGE A' . LUCKNOW v. DR. VJSHAN KUMAR AGARWAL &. ANOTHER October ! 25; 1983 [Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C. J. AND A. 1'. SEN Ji. ) Lucknow University Ordinances, Chapter Ill Ordinance I Clause (c) second proviso, Para (ii)-Requisile qualification for adndssion to ·rhe Degree of Doctor o/Medici11e-Whether the 111aterial date/or det~rmination is the date of examination or the date of application for_admission-Scope of the OrdinanCe 1-ConstituUon of India Articles 14 and 226-For receiving the benefit of the relaxOtion of the rules," n~1·public authority can make any discri11iination between individual and indjvidual. ' The Respondent Dr. Vishan Kumar Agarw~l passed the M·. B. B. S. Examination of the Lucknow University in July 1971, completed his one Year. 's rotating compulsory internship and got his name ·registered as a . medical . 'graduate by the. State Medical Council. In August 1972 he was appoiI~ted as Medical Officer in the Civil Z. lospit.

al which is approved by ~he Medical Council for compulsory internship. . In October 1974 he applied to the Principal, King George's Medical Co1lege, Lucknow for admission to the 1\-1:. D. Course in • Physiology which was due to commence in January 1975.. The Principal of the ' College, inspite or" the recommendation of the head of the Departinent, rejected his. application on the ground that he ·did not fulfil . the qualifications prescribed . in para· (i) of the second proviso to clause (c) of the Ordinance I Chapter II of the Luckriow University. · - , On April 4, 1975, the responden. t filed a writ petition, and obtained' an illterim order under which he was· admitted to the course and continued his ;. studies. The respondent was due to appear for. his examination in December . 1976 but he-Was refused an admission cilrd. The suit . filed by him against the refu_sal to grant admission . card was admitted but the interim order obtained was ·_ got vacated by the collegc. authoriries..

~o he appeared for the December, '77 examination and by way of abundant caution got the writ petition amended so as to include a prayer for issuance of a Ina11danlus _tQ declare his result. In the wdt p~tit'ion . ihe has also alleged discrimination shown by relaxing - the rules in favour· of two ot! -. er women ·candidates. 'I he writ petition was : allowed and hence the appeal by· the Principal after obtaining special leave. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1:1. The requirement of every one of the clauses in Ordinance ,J has to be f1,1lfil! ed b~ th~ ¥anclid~te on th~ 4ate on wl,th::h he applies fQf 504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1984] I S. C. R. . admission to the M. D. or M. S. Course of studies. It is not sufficient that he fulfills the requirements of these clauses on the date of the examination. [510 A-CJ 1:2. Though ordinance I begins with the words-"NO candidate shall be eligible to api>ear at the examinatjon for the degree of the Doctor of Medi..

cine or Master or Surgery,'unless......... :.. "-, it cannot. he said that. the. material date for determining whether the conditions of eligibility are fulfilled is-the date of examination and not the date of application.. [509 B-C] • 1:3. Clauses (a) ,-' Provii:led that for basic science, one year's demonstratorship or equivalent . jo_b in the subject will be ' considered equivalent to one year's housemanship. Provided also that works -in the following capacities will be considered as equivalent to one year's housemanship; . 1 R (i) Three years' work as a Medical Officer in a hospital approved by the Medical Council for ·compulsory internship. • (ii) .......... (iii) . ... ,..... (d) He has subsequent to l(c) put in two years' work in · the subject in department concerned in the college. " \· \ 8. (e) ....... ~ There is no dispute that the respondent satisfied the requirments of clauses (a) and (b) of Ordinance I. He had obtained the degree of M. B. B. S.

or the University of Lucknow as requlred by clause (a) and, after passing that examination, he had· completed one year's compulsory rotating houseman ship as· required by clause (b). The narrow dispute between the parties is whether, after full ·registration, the respondent had done one year's housemanship or equivalent job on the material date. Under paragraph (i) of the second proviso to clause (c} of the Ordinance, three years' work as a Medical Officer in · hospital approved by the Medical Council for compulsory internship, can oe considered as equivalent to one year's housemanship. The respondent passed his M. B. B. S. examination in July 1971 and after completing one year's compulsory rotating housemanship, he obtained full registration with the State Medical· Council. In August 1972, he started working as a Medical Officer in the Civil Hospital, Lucknow, wh,ich is approyed by the Medical Council for compulsory internship.. He had.

not done one year's housemanship after full registration but, by virtue of paragraph. (i) of the second proviso to clause (c) of the Ordinance, three years' work as a Medical Officer in the Civil Hospital at Lucknow would b. e equivalent to one y'ear's - I. housemanship. · When the respondent appeared for the M. D. examination in July 1977, he had evidently completed three years' work as a Medical Officer in the Civil Hospital, Lucknow, which, as stated earlier, is approved by the Medical Council for' compulsory internship. According to the Principal of the Lucknow M;edical. College, the impediment in the way of the respondent was that on the date on which he applied for admission to the M. D. course, that is to say, in October 1974, he had not completed three years' work as a Medical Officer in the Civil Hospital:having started working in that capacity in August 1972 only. Thus, the qu.

estion which arises for consideration is whether the qulification prescribed by paragraph (i) of the second proviso to clause (c) of Ordinance 1 i~ required to be fulfilled MEDICAL CiJLLE<iE v. V. K. AGARWAL (ehandrachud, G. J. ) ·so9 by the candidate. on the date on which he applies for admission to tlie M. D. course of studies or whether, as contended· by the respondent, it is enough if that qualification is fulfilled on the date of the examination. Ordinance I begins with the· words. : "No candidate shall be · eligible to appear . at the . examination for the degree of Doctor of . :. Medicine or Master of Surgery, unless ......... "(emphasis· supplied). The respondent derives sustenance to his contention from the words which we have . underlined. It is argued on bis behalf that Ordinance 1 prescribes conditions of eligibility for appearing at the examination and not for making an application for admission to the M. D. course of studies. The~efore, the material datefor.

determining whether ·the conditions of eligibility are fulfilled is the date of examination and not the date of application. This contention is difficult to. accept. Clauses (a) to- (e) of Ordinance I are parts of an integrated scheme and there- • fore it will be wrong to apply different criteria to the interpretation of those clauses. Clause (a) of the Ordinance requires that . the. candidate "has·obtained" the degree of M. B. B. S. It is inarguable that candidate who has not yet obtained the M. B. B. S. degree can apply for admission to the M. D. course of studies in anticipation of or on the supposition that he will pass that examination before the M. D. examination is held. ·He must hold the M. B. B. S. degree on the date on which he applies for admission to the course of studies. leading· to ' the M:D. examination. Clause (b) requires that the candidate. "has ...... ...... completed" one year's compulsory rotating house manship after passing the M. B. B. S. examination..

As in the case of clause (a); this qualification must also be possessed by the candidat~ on the date on which he applies for admission to the M. D. course of studies. It i• not enough that the candidatt: has completed one year's · compulsory rotating housemanship after making the application and before the date of the examination.. The language of clause (c) is, in material respects, identical with the language of clauses (a) and (b). Leaving aside for a moment the equivalence prescribed by paragraph ~. · (i) of the second proviso to clause. (c). of the Ordinance, the substan~ live provision o-f clause (c) requires· that the candidate "has, after full registration, done. one year's housemanship or equivalent job". There is no justification for applying to the interpretation of this clause ·a different·test than the one which has to be applied to the interpretation of clauses (a) and (b).

Neither the language of clause Iii (c) nor the requirement of justice and fairplay warrants such a course. Therefore, the condition prescribed by clause (c) must also be shown to have been fulfilled by ihe candidate on the date on which. he ·- 'applies· for admission to the M. D. course of studies and not later. Clause (d) of. the Ordinance points in the same direction. It requires that subsequent to obtaining the qualification prescribed by clause l(c), the candidate "has ........... put in two years' work in the subject in the department concerned in the college". The verbs used in clauses {a) to (d) are: "has obtained", "has completed"; ':has done" and "has put in" respectively. Giving to those wordstheir natural mean- \ ing, we. are of the view that . the requirement of everyone of these clauses has to be fulfilled 'by the candioate ·on the date on which he 'applies for admission to the M. D. or M. S. course of studies.

it is not sufficient that he fulfils the requirements of these clauses on the date . of the examination. ·· C. As a result of the interpretation which we have placed upon clause (c) of Ordinance 1, the writ petition filed by the respondent in' Allahabad High Court is liable to be dismissed. But, in view of the circumstances which we will immediately mention, it would be unjust . to deny the relief sought by the respondent. We have already men· tioned that after. appearing for. July 1977 examination, the respondent amended his. writ petition and a. sJ<:ed for a writ of mandamus directing the University . to declare. bis result. The respondent fl\ade a specific ·averment in the amended writ petition that two candidates, Dr. (Miss) Rashmi. Saxena and Dr. Mrs. Ratna Prabha Gupta, were admitted , by the University to the same course of'. post-graduate studies, even though they did not possess the requisite qualification on the date . on which they applied for admission.

Learned counsel who appeared for the Principal of the Medical College in the High Court, produced the necessary papers before it relating to the admission of the two candidates. The High Court . has observed in its judgment that the ~apers relating to Dr~ (Miss) Saxen~ ~how that she had passed the four-and~half-year Caurse M. B. B. S. examination in December 1972, t\l. at she completed the pre-registration one year compulsory housemanship on Junuary 11, 1974, that she did the post-registration house· manship from' January 18, 1974. to August 8, 1974 and that on May . 9, 1974 she joined as a ·Demonstrator in Physiology. She applied for admission to. the M. D. (Physiology) course on October 18, 1974. That . application was accepted on December 30, 1974. As held by the High " Court it is clear from these dates that . on the date on which Dr. ' (Miss) Saxena applied for admission to the M. D.

course, she had complected a period of 9 months only in her House-job as a Demons• trator, whereas she ought to have completed one year as prescribed by clause (c). In fact, the requisite period of one year was not completed even on December 30, 1974 when her application for admission was MBhlCAJ, COL. LEGE. V. V. K. AGARWAL (Chandrachud, C. J. ) SH accepted by the University. She had songht admission to·the course which was to commence on January 1, 1975 but she h~d started her post-registration housemanship on January'l8, 1974. Thus, she had not completed the requisite period of oue year"s house·manship even on the date on which the course commenced. • ·The papers relating to the adm\ssi~n of Dr. (Mrs. ) Ratna Prabha Gupta to the doure of studies in M. D. · (Physiology) dicclose the same state of affairs. Though she was "not qualified under the first proviso to. clause (c), she was admitted to the course by the University.

It has to be borne in ·mind that the University granted ·this concession though, under clause (c), no power is conferred' upon it to relax the r~quirement of the period of one year which is permissible under the thrid proviso to clause (d). ' ,. . . We agree with the High Court that the. papers relating to the · admission of Dr·. (Miss) Saxena and Dr. (Mrs. ) Gujlta show that the requirement of clause (c), was not invariably insisted upon by the . University or by the College. They did not regard that r~quirement as mandatory. We consider it unfair that the respondent should be picked up for a differential treatment, thou_gh situated similarly in the matter of the application of clause (c). If the requirement of clause (c). could be relaxed in the case of the other two candidates in regard to their admission to the M. D. course of studies, it would not be permissible to the University to regard that require;,,ent as mandatory in the case of the respondent w.

hen he applied for admission to the very same course of studies. Clause (c) does . not apply differently to men and women. There is no. substance in the contention of the University or of the Principal of the Medical College that the University. authorities ........ committed ·an error in the case of the two women-candidates. Neither ,. the University nor the ·Principal 'of the Medical College filed any ,. _ counter-affidavit to the amended writ petition, with the result that the averments made by the responden"t . in regard to the relaxation . . . made in favonr of those two candidates remained· uncontroverted. It is therefore not open to the University authorities to contend that the relaxation in favour of the two candidates was inadvertant or that it was made. under a mi~conception. . In all future cases the interpretation put by us on Ordinance I must hold good. In so far.

as the case of the respondent is concerned, his writ petition succeeds on the ground that the University and the • College authorities must apply the same ;yard-stick to all the students who apply for admission to ·the ·post-graduate course of studies. Whether the rules contained in the Ordinance govert\ing admission to the post-graduate course of studies are mandatory or directory is a. matter which the University shall have to consider after · taking all relevant factors into account Uke the nature of the require· ·ment, its purpose and the consequences of its reiaxalion on educational excellence. . We have not gone into that question because, no contention in that behalf was made either before us or in the High Court. One thing, however, must be made clear that if the • University considers that any provision is not mandatory, its relaxation in particular cases has to be governed by objective considerations. ·No public authority, least of all t University which is ·entrusted with .

the future of the student community, can pick and choose persons for rece. iving the benefl. t of relaxation cif the rules. In the first place, the rigour of a rule can be relaxed provided such relaxation is permissible under the rules or if the rule is directory and not mandatory. Secondly, even if it is permissible to rela/[ a rule, such relaxation, as stated above, m~st be govc! ded by defined guidelines. For. these reasons, we confirm the judgment of the High Court and dismiss. the appeal with costs in favour of respondent Dr. Vishan Kumar Agarwal. S. R. Appeal dismissed. ' )J, - J ' , •