LexAMITABH SHRIVASTAVA versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A 8 c 186 AMITABH SHRIVASTAVA v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. February 4, 1982 (D.A: DESAI AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.J Ru/ts relating to admission to medical colleges in Madhya Pradesh dated 17-4-1979-Reservation of seats to certain categories-Minimum marks reduced from 50 per c~nt in the aggregate to 43 per cent, by an ~xecutive order dated 10th March, 1980-Stage at which the benefit ari'sing from the said executive order is to be applied, explained-Ru/es 2, 7, 9 and 20, scope of. There are six medical colleges in Madhya Pradesh. Admission to the first year of M.B.B.S Course is on the basis of the qualifying examination. There D were 720 seats in t~ose six colleges in the year 1979-80, E F G H Under Rule 7 reservations are made for certain categories. One such is for the sons and daughters of military personnel of Madhya Pradesh and 21 seats in all were reserved for that category. Under Rule 20, the qualifying marks to be obtained by Candidates other than Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, shall be 50 per cent in the aggre- gate and 33 per cent in each of the subjects. In case the required number of candidates for a·dmission are not available, according to the above percentage of qualifying marks, the Board conducting the· pre-medical examinations under Rule 2 shall have power to lower the marks up to 5 per cent in the aggregate for all categories of candidates. Under Rule 9, in case sufficient number of candidates do not qualify for admission under any reserved category and any seats remain vacant, such vacant seats shall be filled by· preparing a combined merit list •of all the remaining categories of candidates on the waiting list and the candidates shall be admitted according to merit in the list so prepared. The appellant who was a son of a military personnel got only 43.6 per cent of marks in the aggregate, and he could not get a seat under the reserved category even after the marks were lowered to 45 per cent under Note 1 to Rule 20 by the Board. Even after that was done, 7 seats remained vacant out of 21 seats reserved for the sons and daughters of military personnel. On 10-3-1980, the Governmeiit by an executive Order reduced the minimum aggregate to 43 per cent. The Board, prepared a combined list under Rule 9 and applying the minimum of 43 per cent granted admission, as per that list, and refused admission to the appellant. The question arose whether the selection should be based on the combined list prepared under Rule 9 or on taking 43 per cent as the quali- fying marks in the aggregate. · AMITABH v. M. P. STATH (Varadarajan, J.) 187 ·Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court, HELD : Since the minimum qualifying marks were reduced to 43 per cent by an executive order without any provision therefor in the statutory rules, Rule 9 of the statutory rules could not be applied at that stage, and the appellant who bad secured 43.6 per cent of marks in the aggregate shou1d have been ad- mitted in the category to which he belonged. The difference between 45 per cent in the aggregate, to -which the minimum qualifying marks were reduced uuder Note (1) to Rule 20 and 43.6 per cent of marks in the aggregate secured by the appellant is so little that it could not be a valid or sufficient reason for giving a go-bye, on the gro'und of merit, to the reservation provided for in Rule 7 of the Rules. [194 G-H, 195 A-Bl CIVIL APPELLAlE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 853 of 1981. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 4.11.1980 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Case Misc. Petition No. 167 of 1980. Shh- Dayal, P.S. Das Gupta and J.B. Dadachanji for the Appellant. Gopal Subramaniam and S.A. Shroff for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VARADARAJAN, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of K.K. Du~e. J. of the Madhya· Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 167 of 1980, with whom the learned Chief Justice of that High Court had agreed· on a difference of opinion between the learned Judge and A. R. Navkar, J. The petition filed .under Article 226 of the Constitution was for the issue of a writ, order or direction for the writ petitioner's admission into one of the medical colleges in Madhya Pradesh for the M .B.B.S. course, commencing in the academic year 1979-80. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we allowed the appeal by a brief order on 14.1.1982 witho
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.