DR. KU. NILOFAR INSAF versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: [1991] 3 S.C.R. 429 · Decided: 08-08-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RANGANATHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

DR. KU. NILOF AR INSAF 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. 
AUGUST 8, 1991 
A 
[S. RANGANATHAN, M. FATHIMA BEEVI AND 
B 
N.D. OJHA, JJ.) 
Medical College, admission to M.D. Course in Radiology--
Validity of-Rules for transfer of students from other medical colleges 
to Madhya Pradesh Medical College-Validity of order of transfer and 
its relevance/assailment. 
The appellant and Dr. Jain, respondent No. 4, completed their 
M.B.B.S. course in the years 1983-87. from Gandhi Medical College, 
Bhopal. While Dr. Jain had been admitted into that course in the 
Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal after he had passed the entrance test, 
the appellant first sought admission to M.B.B.S. course in the M.S. 
Ramayya Medical College, Bangalore, after paying the capitation fee 
and after completing the first year of the course in that College she got 
herself transferred in 1984 to the Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal, with 
the approval of the State Government and with no objection from the 
Ramayya College, Bangalore. After passing M.B.B.S. both of them 
cleared their internship of one year and also joined a house job in 
Radiology in the same college and completed the same in August 1989. 
Both of them then app!ied for a single seat in the Master's Degree 
(M.D.) course in Radiology at Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal. The 
appellant having secured higher marks got admission to this seat in 
preference to Dr. Jain. Dr. Jain, thereupon, challenged the admission of 
the appellant by means of a writ petition before the High Court on the 
ground inter alia that the transfer of the appellant from the Bangalore 
Medical College to the Bhopal Medical College was itself invalid and 
since the very admission of the appellant to the M.B.B.S. course degree 
in the Bhopal College was invalid, she could not at all have been con-
sidered for admission to the M.D. course which was available only to 
the institutional candidates. The High Court allowed the writ petition, 
quashed the admission of the appellant and directed that Dr. Jain, be 
admitted to that seat. Hence this appeal by the appellant. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
c 
D 
F 
G 
HELD: The validity of an order for transfer may be challenged 
H 
429 
A 
430 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1991] 3 S.C.R. 
contemperaneously by a third party whose claim for admission or 
transfer is superseded by such order but cannot be allowed to be 
challenged by a third party because he finds,. in retrospect, at a 
future point ef time, that it has affected his interests as a result of 
subsequent events. [4371E] 
B 
The order of the State of Madhya Pradesh permitting the transfer 
c 
D 
E 
of the appellant caunot be struck down aS void. There has been some 
irregularity but, in the drcumstances in which it was passed, it was one 
· within the competence of the State Government. [437F J 
There is the need to avoid disturbing settled issues which affect 
the life and career of an individual after a lapse of time or after the 
interposition of furthe1r events, as a result of which he has rightly 
developed a sense of sec10rlty. [44 lB J 
In the instant case, the merit list of 1989 is nothing but a rep-
roduction of the merit list of 1988 confined to a narrower group of 
students of the same b11tch. The latter did show the appellant to have 
obtained more marks tl~an Dr. Jain and, in this sense, was adverse to 
his interests. The omission of Dr. Jain to challenge the correctness of 
the list then lulled the appellant into a sense of security that the merit 
list was acceptable to all. Dr. Jain, should therefore be barred, on 
equitable consideration from challenging the order of merit at the pre-
sent stage. [441GJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3447 
of 1990. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.4.1990 of the Madhya 
F 
Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No. 4059 of 1989. 
Rajinder Sachar, Vijay Gupta, Vivek Gambhir, S.K. Gambhir 
and Surinder Kamail for the Appellant. 
B.S. Banthia, S.S. Khanduja and S.K. Agnihotri for the 
G 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RANGANATHAN, J. Getting an admission into a professional 
course has become so difficult and competitive of late that litigation 
H 
instituted by disappointed candidates has become a regular feature. 
.. 
1
NILOFAR v. STATE OF M.P. [RANGANATIIAN, J.) 
431 
This appeal, arising out of such a context, throws up for consideration 
certain aspects which call for a difficult exercise in balancing equities. 
We, the

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