DR. DINESH KUMAR & ORS. versus MOTILAL NEHRU MEDICAL COLLEGE ALLAHABAD & ORS.

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 41 · Decided: 01-05-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

--
DR. DINESH KUMAR & ORS. 
v. 
MOTILAL NEHRU MEDICAL COLLEGE 
ALLAHABAD & ORS. 
May I, 1985 
[P.N. BHAGWATI, A~ARENDRA NATH SEN 
AND RANvANA1H MISRA, JJ.] 
41 
Constitution of India, Articles 14, 15 and 32-Education-Admission to 
MBBS and Post Graduate Courses in Medical Faculty-Reservation-Open 
seats-Guidelines given in Pradeep Jain's case-True import explained-All 
India Entrance Examination common to all medical colleges with centres in 
diff~rent States to be conducted by Central Government or Indian Medical 
Counl'il-Necessity o/-Admis~ion to various medical colleges in the country on 
the basis of cornparative evaluation of marks obtained at entrance examination 
havinp regard to the preference expressed by students/or any particular State or 
Unil•ersity and speciality or specialities needed-Admission made by some States 
or Universities on the basis of marks obtained at qualifying examinations he~d 
hv States or Universities in ca~e of MBBS course and on the basis of marks 
obtained at different MBBS examination in the case of Post Graduate Courses-
Whether unjust and invalid being violative of Article 14-0ld rules regarding 
rPservation of seats must govern admission of students, who started house job 
prior to the decision in Pradeep Jain's case, to two years Post Graduate course 
for !985-86 arademic y,· ar-Switch over to three years post graduate course 
with house job in the first year throughout the country in order to keep unifor-
mity recommended. 
Prior to this Judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain's case 
delivered on 22nd June, 1984, admissions to the post graduate medical courses 
in the State of Uttar Pradesh were governed by the oid rules which provided 
for reservation of 75% seats for students passing the MBBS examination from 
the same institution in which admission is sought, that is on tJ1e basis of insti· 
tutional preference with the remaining 25% seats open for students who had 
passed the MBBS examination from any medical college in the State of Uttar 
Pradesh and who s~tisfied the residential requirements in that State. 
In Dr. Pradeep Jain•s case the Supreme Court held that admission to 
post graduate course, sueh as MD, MS and the like, should be entirely on the 
basis of all-India merit, subject only to Constitutional reservations in favour 
of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. However, keeping in view equality 
of opportunity and institutional continuity in education a certain percentage 
of seats may be reserved on the basis of institutional preference ''in the sense 
that a student who has passed MBBS course from a medical college may be 
given preference for admission to post graduate couse ii:l the same medical 
college or University but such reservation should not in any event exceed 50°/o 
of the total number of open seats available for admissions to the post graduate 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
42 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
fl985j SUPPL, S.C.R. 
course". Subsequently, on 26th July, 1984 it was directed that the aforesaid 
A 
judgment shall be implemented with effect from the academic year 1985-86. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
According to the rules prevailing in all the medical colleges in the State 
of Uttar Pradesh, a student has to do house job for one year and then seek 
admission to the two year post graduate course, barring some exceptions, only 
in the speciality in which he has done his house job. The petitioners passed 
their MBBS examination in July 1982 fro1n Motilal Nehru Medical College 
and completed obligatory internship of one year in July 1983. At that time 
admission to the post graduate n1ed1cal courses were governed by the old 
rules. The petitioners could not secure admission to the post graduate 
medical courses for the academic year 1984-85 on the basis of the old rules. 
For the acadamic year 1985-86, the Principal ·of the College granted admissions 
to 50% of the seats reserved on the basis of institutional preference by selecting 
institutional students on the tasis of mer it and having regard to the speciality 
in which they had done their house job and so far as the remaining 50% open 
non-reserved seats were concerned, he admitted students coming from different 
parts of the country on the basis of the marks obtained by them at the different 
MBBS examinations. 
Thus the petitioners could not secure admissions in the 
post graduate courses even for the acaden1ic year 1985-86. Therefore, they 
filed the present Writ Petitions challenging the

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