GUJARAT UNIVERSITY versus RAJIV GOPINATH BHATT AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 184 · Decided: 01-05-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI, N.P. SINGH, B.N. KIRPAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
GUJARAT UNIVERSITY 
v. 
RAJIV GOPINATH BHATT AND ORS. 
MAY 1, 1996 
B 
[AM. AHMADI, CJ, N.P. SINGH AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.] 
Constillltio!l of llldia 195()--Artic/e l~Admissim,,~Super speciality 
courses-Rule framed by Ullive1:iity that out of merit list prepared, preference 
to be give11 for admission to the students of that Unive1:iityWhether can be 
C held to be arbillw); llllreasonable or violative of Alticle 14 of the Co!lstitu-
tio11-H eld No-Educatio11-Higher Educatioll-Admissioll to super 
speciality cow:1·es. 
For admission in the super speciality course oC M..Ch. (Master of 
D 
Chirurjee) in Onco surgery, considering the limited number of seats, the 
appellant University in its rules for selection of the candidates for admis-
sion provided that first preference would be given to the students of the 
appellant-university and though the students from other Universities were 
not denied admission they would rank next to the students of the appellant-
university. 
E 
The appellant invited applications for admission to two years' super 
speciality courses of D.M. and M.Ch. TI1e respondent was denied admission 
on the ground that he was not a student of the appellant-university. In the writ 
petition filed on his behalf, the High Court directed the appellant university to 
grant admission to the respondent in the super speciality courses of M.Ch. in 
F 
Onco surgery. It was held that students who passed M.DJM.S. examination 
either from appellant university or from any other university recognised by the 
appellant university were eligibile for being admitted to the super speciality 
courses in question and the clause saying that preference mll be given to the 
students of the appellant university was violative of Article 14 of the Constitu-
G lion of India. TI1e High Court observed Uiat the court cannot allow excellence 
to be compromised for any o!her considera!ion. This appeal had been filed 
against the order passed by the High Court. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
H 
HELD : .1.1. Object of any institution while selecting applicants for 
l84 
j
I
I
GUJARAT UNIVERSITY v. R.G. BHATT 
185 
admission is to select the best amongst the applicants, regional and other A 
consideration which do not satisfy the test of Article 14 of the Constitution 
should not affect the merit criteria. But from time to time, this Court taking 
into consideration the local regional compulsion has been making efforts to 
strike a balance so that the students who have pursued the studies in a 
particular State and have been admitted in the medical colleges of that State 
are not suddenly thrown on the street when question of their admission in B 
super speciality courses arises, in which the seats are limited in number. 
Therefore if a rule has been· framed that out of the merit list prepared, 
preference is to be given for admission in the super speciality courses to the 
students of the university in question per se it cannot be held to be arbitrary, 
unreasonable or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. [187-E-F; 188-D] C 
1.2. As the object and purpose of the part of the impugned rule which 
provides •any vacancy remaining after this shall remain unfilled" has not 
been explained, this part of the rule cannot be held rational. It is only just 
and proper that the university should examine and give a fresh look to the 
said rule making provision for filling up even such vacancies which are D · 
uot filled for one reason or the other : of course within the time schedule 
prescribed for the super speciality courses. [188-E-F] 
lagdish Saran v. Union of India, [1980) 2 SCC 768, distinguished .. 
E 
Pradeep lain v. Union of India, [1984] 3 SCC 654; Dinesh Kumar v. 
Motila/ Nehrn Medical College, [1986] 3 SCC 727 and Anant Madaan v. 
State of Haryana, [1995] 2 SCC 135, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7565 of 
1996. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.9.91 of the Gujarat High 
Court in S.CA. No. 4215 of 1991. 
R.R. Kumar aud P.H. Parekh for the Appellant. 
Ms. Kiran for Vineet Kumar for the Respondent No. 1. 
Y ashank Adhyaru for R. Sasiprabhu, for the Respondent No. 2. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
H 
186 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
N.P. SINGH, J. Leave granted. 
B 
This appeal has been filed on behalf of the Gujarat University 
(hereinafter referred to as the university) for setting aside an order dated 
30.9.1991, passed by the Court directing the appellant

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