DR. (MRS.) KIRTI DESHMANKAR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 355 · Decided: 06-09-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.H. KANIA · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

DR. (MRS.) KIRT! DESHMANKAR 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 6, 1990 
[M.H. KANIA AND LAUT MOHAN SHARMA, JJ.] 
B 
Professional Colleges-Admission of Medical College-Foreign 
national-Admission of-No objection certificate by Ministry of Exter-
nal Affairs no substitute for certificate of no objection by Ministry of 
Health & Family Planning. 
· 
Natural Justice-Regrettable that rules of natural justice not C 
heeded even by highly.educated persons. 
The appellant and respondent No. S along with others were candi-
dates for admission to the post-graduate course in Obstetrics and 
Gynaecology in the G.M. Medical 'College, Gwalior. Respondent No. S D 
was selected as the last candidate in the list of the successful applicants. 
The appellant was placed on the top of the waiting list. 
The appellant challenged the admission· of respondent no~ ~ on the 
gronnd that the latter was a foreign national and was not entitled to be 
considered for admission in absence of prior clearance certificate by the 
E 
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Central Government, which 
she could not file along with her application nor could she produce it 
~ 
before she was imaliy selected. 
The respondent had however produced a no objection letter from 
the Ministry of External Affairs. Later, she was also able to obtain the F 
necessary certificate from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. 
The writ application nuder Article 226 of the Constitution filed by 
the appellant was dismissed by a Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh 
High Court. 
Before this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant that 
(i) the selection of resj>0ndent no. S was vitiated on account of partici-
pation of the respondent's mother-in-law (a former Professor and Head 
of Department) as a member of the College and Hospital Council; and 
G 
(ii) under the Government of India Instructions it was necessary for 
respondent no. S to have produced before the College and Hospital 
H 
355 
356 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] Supp. I S.C.R. 
A 
Council the necessary certificate from the Ministry of Health and 
Family Welfare-before her final selection, and the certificate issued by 
the Ministry of External Affairs could not be a substitute. 
B 
c 
D.ismissing the appeal on merits, this Court, 
HELD: (1) The mother-in-law of respondent Iio. 5 was, without 
any doubt, vitally interested in the admission of her daughter-in-law 
and her presence in the meeting of the Council most be held to have 
vitiated the selection of respondent no. 5 for admission. 
A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India, [1970] 1 SCR 457; Aihok 
Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, [1985] 4 SCC 417, referred to. 
(2) It is regrettable that in spite of repeated reminders by the 
Courts of law, the College and Hospital Council constituted by a 
number of highly educated persons and headed by the Dean himself did 
o not pay any heed to the principles of natural justice. 
(3) The State has to spend a large sum of money in running 
institutions of higher technical education and the seats are limited. In 
such a situation a seat can be allotted to a foreign national only at 
the cost of a citizen of this Country. The College and Hospital Council 
E 
was, therefore, not right in deciding to admit the respondent no. 5 
on the strength of no objection certificate by the Ministry of External 
Affairs. · 
F 
(4) A certificate of no objection by one Department cannot be a 
substitute for the clearance by the other. 
(5) The purpose of the Instructions is to ensure that no foreign 
national is allowed to occupy a seat ordinarily meant for the citizen of 
the country without the permission of the Ministry of Health and 
Family Welfare, Government of India, and once that hurdle is cleared, 
the purpose is fully satisfied. After the production of the necessary 
G 
clearance, there does not remain any reason for rejecting the rlaim of 
respondent No. 5 who was a more meritorious candidate, who had 
secured higher percentage of marks than the appellant in the M.B.B.S. 
examination. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4479 
H 
of 1990. 
KIRT! DESHMANKAR v. U.0.I. [SHARMA, J.l 
357 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.4.1989 of the Madhya 
Pradesh High Court in M.P. No. 1378of1989. 
S.K. Dholakia.and D. Bhandari for the Appellant. 
Kapil Sibal, Additional Solicitor General, G.L. Sanghi, B.R. 
A 
Agarwala, Ms. Sushma Manchanda, S.K. Agnihotri, Mahender Singh, Ii 
Ms. Sushma Suri, Ujjwal A. Rana and Ashok
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.