LexAARTI GUPTA AND ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
AARTI GUPTA AND ORS.
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.
DECEMBER 9, 1987
B
[RANGANATH MISRA, G.L. OZA AND M.N.
VENKATACHALIAH, JJ.]
Competitive Entrance Examination for admis»1on to the M.8.8.S./
B.D.S. Courses-Lowering of percentage of pass marks for the )
scheduled castes and scheduled tribes candidates for admission thereto
c
challenged.
~
One hundred seats out of the total seats available in the
M.B.B.S./B.D.S. courses were reserved for the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes candidates, for whom the Indian Medical Council
D
had prescribed by its Regulation II a minimum of 40 per cent marks
for eligibility of admission. The Government of Punjab by a notifica-
tion (dated May 8, 1987) lowered the percentage of the pass marks for
the said candidates from 40 per cent to 35 per cent as against a
minimum of 50 per cent marks for the general category candidates.
E
On the basis of selection test held, only 32 qualified candidates of
l
the reserved category were available. The prospectus published by the
university for the competitive examinations provided that the seats left
vacant in any reserved category owing to the non-availability of the
eligible candidates may be filled np from the eligible candidates of the y
general category. Accordingly, the remaining seats (ont of 100) should
F
have reverted to the general pool of the eligible candidates. Bnt the
government issued an order (dated July 28, 1987) whereby the per-
1
centage of pass marks for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
candidates was lowered from 35 per cent to 25 per cent (for the 1987
session only).
G
"
The appellants challenged the above-said orders of the govern-
ment before the High Court which dismissed the Writ Petition filed hy
~
them. The appellants appealed this Court by special leave.
H
Dismissing the appeal, the Court,
244
AARTI GUPTA v. STATE OF PUNJAB
245
HELD: If the Regulation II of the Indian Medical Council is
found to be binding, then the impugned orders of the government
would be bad, but the Regulation is merely in the nature of a recom-
mendation and the language used in the Regulation is deliberate,
intended to indicate the intention of the Council, as inter alia held by a
three-Judge Bench of this Court in The State of M.P. and Anr. v.
Kumari Nivedita Jain and Ors., [1982) 1 SCR 759. That was a similar
case as this one, and the appellants are not entitled to make any grie-
vance on this score. [2490; 250G I
A
B
The State Government had intended that 100 seats should go to
1' the candidates of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. When that c
number of the candidates was not available, reduction in the qualify-
ing marks had to be effected, and the government's action cannot be
said to be arbitrary. [2510-EI
After the percentage in the qualifying standard was reduced, all
D
the remaining 68 seats have been filled up by the scheduled castes and
scheduled tribes candidates and teaching has begun. These 68 candi-
dates are not before the Court, not having been impleaded. It is not
open to the Court to cancel their admission behind their back, nor
would it be possible to require the State Government to create addi-
lr
tional seats to accommodate the appellants. [251F)
E
r
OBSERVATION: The standard of medical profession should not be
,
compromised in the national interest. There bas been a perceptible fall
in the national standards and general efficiency of the professional
'>,- men. While it is not necessary to say anything against reservation, the
) Court approves of the concern shown by the Indian Medical Council
F
i-
that high standards of efficiency should be maintained, and that can
only be possible if the State and the Council cooperate to maintain a
high standard. This aspect should be kept in view when the guidelines
are prescribed for the selection of the students for the medical courses.
l
The impugned notification of the State Government shows that the G
'
•
reduction is confined to one year 1987 only. It is hoped there would be
no necessity for a repetition of this action. [251G-H; 252A-BI
{!.
''Y
State of M.P. and Anr. v. Kumari Nivedita Jain and Ors., [19821
1 SCR 759; State of Kerala v. Kumari T.P. Roshana & Anr. (1979) 2
SCR 974 and Krishna Priya Ganguly etc. v. University of Lucknow &
H
246
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1988] 2 S.C.R.
A Ors. etc., [1984] 1SCR302, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3556
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.