DR. A. FRANKLIN JOSEPH versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 1 S.C.R. 924 · Decided: 14-02-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.N. VENKATACHALIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
DR. A. FRANKLIN JOSEPH 
v. 
STATE OF TAMILNADU AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 14, 1994 
[M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, CJ., AND S. MOHAN, J.) 
Education: Admission to Professional courses-Medical educa-
tion-Post-Graduate course in Diabetology-Seat allotted to All India Quota 
not filled and returned to State-Allotted to a service candidate with lesser 
>-
C marks than the candidate in waiting list-50:50 f ommla followed to bring 
about equality-Not followed in other courses-Matter of convenience-Held 
arbitrary-No rules in existence-Desirability of making rules to be followed 
from next academic year-Emphasised. 
D 
The appellant, a r~gistered Medical Practitioner was one of the 
E 
F 
candidates for admission to Diploma Course in Diabetology. He took the 
entrance examination, secured 76.75% marks and was placed at no.2 in the 
waiting list. There were four seats for the said course of which one was 
allotted to All India Quota, two were filled up in open quota on merit basis, 
and the remaining seat was filled up from out of service candidates. One 
of the candidates selected from the open quota did not join and the 
candidate wait-listed at No.I was accommodated. The seat allotted to All 
India quota was not filled and the seat was returned to the State Govern-
ment. Appellant made a representation that he might be admitted against 
that vacancy, as he was the next in the waiting list, as per the practice 
followed in the post. Since there was no reply to his representation, 
appellant tiled a Writ Petition before the High Court. Meanwhile, the said 
seat was filled up with a service candidate. Appellant contended that the 
said action of the respondents was arbitrary and was at variance from the 
past practice followed in other disciplines; and that even in that very 
G academic year for M.D. Pathology, the vacancy caused by non-filling up 
from All India Quota, was allotted to open quota candidate and not to 
service candidate, and 50:50 formula was not followed. 
Taking the view that reservation should be 50:50 between service and 
non-service categories, the High Court held that when a seat had been 
H allotted to a service candidate just to equalise the ratio, there was no 
924 
,. 
-'I-
I + 
DR. AF. JOSEPH v. STATE OFT.N. 
925 
arbitrariness on the part of the respondents. Thus the Writ Petition was A 
dismissed, against which the present appeal has been filed. 
The appellant contended that the allotment of the seat to a servicf' 
candidate who had secured lesser marks than the appellant in the entrance 
Examination was arbitrary. 
The respondents contended that in order to equalise the two non-
service candidates, the second service candidate was selected and it was in 
accordance with the practice followed in such selections. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. Admittedly, no rules in regard to allocation of seats in 
Post Graduate Medical Courses have been framed; yet allocation must be 
in the ratio of 50:50 as between service and non-service candidates, since 
according to the State, the High Court ruled on a prior occasion that such 
a ratio should be applied as it would be equitable. But it is equally 
admitted that such a principle was not adopted. As a matter of fact in the 
case of M.D. Pathology course 1992-93, the total number of seats were nine. 
Five seats were filled up by non-service candidates and four seats were 
given to service candidates. When the seat allotted to All India Quota was 
surrendered, that was allotted to a non-service candidate. There is no 
proper explanation as to why the' same principle was not adopted in the 
case of the course in question, namely, Diploma in Diabetology. This shows 
the State is taking umbrage under the ruling of the High Court whenever 
it suits it. Therefore, there is every justification for the appellant to 
complain that the principle is used more as convenience than to bring 
about equality between service and non-service candidates. This should 
never be so. (930-H; 931-A-C] 
1.2. A candidate with a lesser percentage of marks i.e. 71.50% has 
been preferred as against the appellant who had secured 76.75% marks. 
Equality is a laudable principle but not to be used by the State at its whimp 
and fancies. The appellant being the first in the waiting list having secured 
76.75% marks would be legally entitled to a~ission in preference to the 
service candidate whose selection is clearly arbitrary. The appellant should 
not be deprieved of his legitimate d

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