DR. MRS. SHEELA ASHOK PATWARDHAN versus DEAN, DR. V.M. MEDICAL COLLEGE, SOLAPUR, & ORS.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 959 · Decided: 24-11-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. DUTT · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

DR. MRS. SHEELA ASHOK PATWARDHAN 
' v. 
A 
DEAN, DR. V.M. MEDICAL COLLEGE, SOLAPUR, & ORS. 
NOVEMBER 24, 1988 
[MURARI MOHON DUTT AND S. NATARAJAN, JJ.] 
B 
Professional Colleges-Ru/es regulating appointment of House-
men and House-Surgeons at the hospitals attached to the Govt. Medical 
Colleges in State of Maharashtra-Rule X(2)-M.D. Course-Admis-
sion to-Eligibility of M.B.B.S. graduate from A.P. State. 
Rule X(2) of the Rules regulating the appointments of Housemen C 
and House-Surgeons at the hospitals attached to the Government Medi· 
cal Colleges in the State of Maharashtra provides that the Government 
may sanction supernumerary posts to allow spouses of Government 
servants on transfer to undertake studies, if standing high in merit, 
from another college. 
D 
The appellant married to a Government Medical Officer working 
in the State of Maharashtra after having passed M.B.B.S. examination 
and completing one year internship from a college situated in the State 
of Andhra Pradesh. On her application, the Government of 
Maharashtra in exercise of its power under rule X(2) created a House-
E 
post in Obstetrics and Gynaecology w.e.f. July 15, 1986 specifically and 
categorically stating that the supernumerary Housepost was created to 
enable the appellant to complete her post-graduate studies at Dr. V .M. 
Medical College, Solapur, respondent No. 2. The appellant joined the 
Housepost and duly completed the same. However, she was refused 
admission in the M.D. Course by respondent No. 2 inasmuch as she was F 
not even issued an application form. 
Being aggrieved, she filed a writ petition in the High Court chal· 
lenging the legality of the action of the respondent refusing to admit her 
in the said post-graduate M.D. Course. The High Court dismissed the 
writ petition holding, inter a/ia, that no inference could be drawn that G 
everybody who completed the house-job was entitled to get admission to 
the post-graduate cousre ipso facto and that granting of registration for 
~ house-job would not amount to admission to the post-graduate course in 
a Medical College. Hence this appeal by special leave. 
Allowing the appeal, 
959 
H 
\ 
A 
B 
c 
960 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 
HELD: (1) All the seats in the post-graduate degree course for 
Obstetrics and Gynaecology are not reserved for the candidates passing 
the M.B.B.S. examination from the said Dr. V.M. Medical College. It iS 
not disputed that certain percentage of seats are reserved for the 
students of the College. But, no application form was issued to the 
appellant and accordingly, the question of not admitting the appellant 
on the ground of institutional preference or institutional reservation of 
seats does not arise. [964F-G] 
(2) The State of Maharashtra is entitled to refuse to admit· any 
student passing the M.B.B.S. examination from any Medical College in 
the State of Andhra Pradesh as that State has not reciprocated in the 
matter of admission to post-graduate degree courses in Medical 
Colleges.ofthat State. [964G-H] 
· 
(3) The State of Maharashtra after considering all facts and 
circumstances including the high merit of the appellant specifically 
created a supernumerary Housepost for the appellant. After creating 
D 
the supernumerary Housepost specifically for the appellant so as to 
enable her to .become eligible for the post graduate degree course, the 
respondents are not at all justified in refusing her even an application 
form and in not considering her case for admission in the post-graduate 
degree course on the ground of failure of reciprocity by the Andhrs _ 
Pradesh State. It was, therefore, unreasonable and unjust for the re-
E 
spondents to refuse admiSsion to the appellant on a ground which is not 
at all tenable in the facts and circumstances of the case~. [965C-F] 
(4) Normally the Supreme Court does ot interfere in the matter of 
admission of students in an educational institution. ·Even if it interferes, 
it generally directs the authorities concerned to consider the question of 
F 
admission in accordance with the rules of the institution. But, in the 
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that 
the appellant had to lose two years of her academic career for no fault of 
hers, it is directed 'that the respondents shall issue to her an application 
form for admission in the post-graduate M.D. Course in Obstetrics and 
Gyo1Becology and that after the submission of the applic

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