DR. AJAY PRADHAN & ANR. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 281 · Decided: 09-08-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

/ 
DR. AJAY PRADHAN & ANR. 
';) 
' 
-· 
-v. 
' 
' 
; .". 
'. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS: 
:. 1' 
AUGUST 9, 1988 
. [A.P. SEN AND L.M. SHARMA, JJ.] 
Madhya Pradesh Selection for Post Graduation Courses (Clini-, 
cal, Para Clinical and Non-Clinical Courses) in Medical Colleges of 
Madhya Pradesh Rules, 1964-Rule_JO-Seat in P.G. Course-Falling 
vacant 'in the midst of 'towards the. end of an academic year-Right to 
admission. 
A seat in the P.G. course in M.D. in the G.N. Medical College,. 
Gwalior, fell vacant due to the death of a student. The appellant, Dr. 
Sanjay Pradhan, staked a claim io this seat under rule 10 or the Madhya 
Pradesh Selection for Post-Graduation Courses (Clinical, Para-clinical 
A 
B 
c 
and Non-clinical Coutses) in Medical Colleges of Madhya Pradesh· D 
Rules, 1984. Inasmuch as the vacancy arose towards the end or the . 
academic year' the authorities took no steps to fill it up. The appellant's. 
writ petition was dismissed by the M.P. High Court. The High Court 
construed the words 'filled up In that year' In r. 10 as meaning that a 
vacancy in any particular academic year must be filed up in that year; 
One seat in the P .G. Course i~ M.s., which was occuJ,ied by Dr, 
Smt. Dhurupkar, was transferred from Medical College, Jabalpur, to 
Medical College, Bhopal, with a view to accommodate her. The appeJ .. 
E 
· Iant, Dr. Sanjay Kumar, moved the authorities seeking admission 
against that seat contending that the seat had become available in terms 
of r. 10. The authorities disallowed his claim. His writ petition was 
dismissed by the High Court in limine holding that the seat occupied by 
Dr. Smt. Dhurupkar had been transferred with her and hence the seat, 
F 
in fact, was not available. 
( 
It was submitted before this Court that the High Court has consis-
tently been taking a view that it has the power as well as the duty to 
issue an appropriate writ, direction or order for the 'backlog' or seats 
to be filled up whenever it rmds that the authorities have acted in 
violation of the norms prescribed by the relevant rules and a deserving 
candidate has been wrongly denied .admission to such a professional . 
course ofstudies. 
281 
G 
H 
B 
c 
282 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
Dismissing the appeals, it was, 
HELD: (1) Rule 10 must he interpreted by the written text. If the 
precise words used are plain and un-ambiguous, the Court is bound to 
construe them in their ordinary sense and give them full effect. The 
argument of inconvenience and hardship is a dangerous one and is only 
admissible in construction where the meaning of the statute is obscure 
and there are alternative methods of consctruction. Where the language 
is explicit its consequences are for parliament, and not for the Courts, 
to consider. [287C-D] 
(2) On a plain constructilin, rule 10 stipulates that if a seat falls 
vacant for any reason, and due to inaction on the part of the authorities 
the seat is not filled up in the academic year to which it pertains, there is 
no question of the vacancy being carried forward to the next academic 
.year. [288A-BJ 
0 
(3) 1'ormally, the question of a seat being filled up must arise at 
the commencement of the academic year or soon thereafter. When a 
seat falls vacant in any particular academic year lhere is a correspond-
ing duty cast on the authorities to. take immediate steps to fill up the 
same. There is uo question of a right of admission to a seat falling 
vacal)t in the midst of or towards the end of, the academic year. l288C] 
E 
(4) It is conceded by learned counsel appearing for the State 
Government that there is no provision which empowered the State 
Government to transfer a seat in the M.S. course in MD/MS reserved 
for a medical college to another medical college. It must therefore 
follow that the High Court ·was obviously wrong in holding that the seat 
F 
occupied by Dr. Smt. Dhurupkar had been transferred with her when 
the seat was, in fact, available. [28SC-D] 
(5) On the construction placed on r. 10 of the Rules, the appel-
lants are not entitled to any relief. Obviously, the seat that became 
vacant in the academic year 1986-87 cannot now be fded in terms of 
G 
s. 10. [29SB] 
( 6) It is impressed upon the State Government the desirability of 
taking immediate steps under rule 10 of the Rules to fill up the vacancy 
in the P.G. Course in MD/MS or the Diploma course of studies -in a 
particular discipline, the moment the seat in that disci

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