A. SUDHA versus UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE & ANR.

Citation: [1988] 1 S.C.R. 368 · Decided: 06-10-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
A. SUDHA 
v. 
UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE & ANR. 
OCTOBER 6, 1987 
B 
[RANGANATH MISRA AND MURARI MOHON DUTT, JJ.] 
Admission to Medical College-Where a student has obtained 
T' 
admission relying upon information supplied by the head of the institu-
tion and later on it turns out that the admission was not in conformity 
with the University Regulations, the student being innocent, cannot be 
c penalised by not allowing to continue studies. 
~ 
The appellant, who bad passed B.Sc. Examination with Botany. 
Chemistry and zoology securing 54. 7% marks in the aggregate, and, 
who had passed earlier the P.U.C. examination with Physics, Chemis-
try and Biology securing 43.1% marks in the aggregate, joined a private 
D medical college after its principal had confirmed in writing that she was 
eligible for admission to the M.B.B.S. Course. After six months in the 
college, she was informed by the principal that her admission had not 
been approved by the University as she had secured only 43% marks in 
the P.U.C. examination while the required minimum was 50% accord· 
ing to the Regulations framed by the University. The appellant's writ 
E petition challenging the validity of the cancellation of her admission to 
the medical college having been dismissed by a Single Judge and her 
appeal against the same having been rejected by the Division Bench of 
the High Court, she approached the Court by special leave. 
-
Counsel for the appellant contended inter alia that she was eligible 
F for admission in terms of the Karnataka Medical Colleges (Selection of >-
Candidates for Admission to M.B.B.S.) Rules, 1985, and that iu any 
case, since the appellant had completed the first year M.B.B.S. Course 
by virtue of interim orders passed by the High Court and this Court, 
she should be allowed to continue her studies in the M.B.B.S. Course. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD: Under Regulation l(a) of the Regulations of the University 
>..-. 
regarding admission to M.B.B.S. Course for the Academic year 1985-
86, a candidate after passing B.Sc. Examination and seeking admission 
in the seats reserved for B.Sc. candidates should have secured 50% of 
H the total marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology in the P. U. C. Exami-
368 
A. SUDHA v. UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE 
369 
~ nation. It is true that the appellant has obtained 54% marks in the B.Sc. 
A 
Examination, but she had failed to obtain 50% marks in the aggregate 
in the PUC Examination in Physics, Chemistry and Biology. In the 
circumstances, she was not eligible for admission in the First Year 
MBBS Course. !J72H; 373A-B] 
There is no substance in the contention made on behalf of the 
B 
-,..· 
appellant that the Karnataka Medical Colleges (Selection of Candidates 
tor admission to I MBBS) Rules, 1985 would also he applicable to the 
appellant. Even assuming that the said Rules are applicable to the case 
of the appellant, still the appellant will not be eligible for admission in 
the First Year M.B.B.S. Course in view of sub-r. (5) of r. 3 of the said 
Rules, .which provides, inter alia, that a person who does not belong to c 
-~ 
any of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, has to obtain 50% of 
marks In P.U.C. or equivalent examination in Physics, Chemistry and 
Biology as optional subjects. Thus, the appellant was not eligible for 
admission. 13738; 374A-BI 
On the appellant's query, the Principal of the Institute by his D 
letter dated February 26, 1986 informed her that she was eligible for 
admission in the First Year M.B.B.S. Course. It was, inter alia, stated 
in the letter that the candidate should have obtained 50% marks in the 
optional subjects in the B.Sc. Examination. There is no dispute that 
the appellant had obtained 54% marks in those subjects in the B.Sc. 
. -1 
Examination. The appellant was, therefore, quite innocent and she 
E 
was quite justified in relying upon the information supplied to her by 
none else than the Principal of the Institute. In the circumstances, we 
do not think that we shall be justified in penalising the appellant by not 
-
allowing her to continue her studies in the M.B.B.S. Course. Prima 
facie it was the fault of the Principal of the Institute but, in our view, the 
statement that was made by him in his said letter to the appellant as to F 
...i: 
the eligibility of the appellant for admission In the M. B.B.S. Course, 
was on a bona fide interpretation of the Regulations framed by the 
University, which to some extent suffer from ambiguity. The

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.