HARISH VERMA AND ORS. versus AJAY SRIVASTAVA AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 833 · Decided: 16-09-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

HARJSH VERMA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
AJAY SRJV AST AV A AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] 
B 
Education : 
Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000: Regulation 9. 
Medical Admission-Post Graduate Medical Courses-Minimum percentage C 
of marks-Fixing of for in-service doctors-First proviso to Regulation 9 
prescribed a certain minimum percentage of marks for admission to Post 
Graduate medical courses-In-service doctors i.e., the graduate doctors 
serving in the State filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the 
validity of Regulation 9-Full Bench of High Court held that Regulation D 
9 did not have any binding force, that the State had power to prescribe 
a lower percentage of marks for in-service candidates and that Regulation 
9 did not apply to them--Correctness of-Held : The requirement of 
minimum qualifj;ing marks for in-service candidates could neither be 
lowered nor relaxed contrary to Medical Council of India Regulations-
Decision of High Court set aside-Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. 
E 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
Article I41-Law laid down by Supreme Court-Decision rendered 
by Full Bench of High Court ignoring the majority view of Constitution F 
Bench and relying on the minority view-Validity of-Held: Invalid-The 
Full Bench could not have relied on minority view overlooking the majority 
view which was the law laid down by the Constitution Bench and which 
had binding force. 
The respondents-in-service-doctors (i.e. the graduate doctors who G 
were serving under the State) filed a writ petition in the High Court 
challenging the validity of the first proviso to Regulation 9 of the Post 
Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 that prescribed a 
certain minimum percentage of marks for admission to the post 
graduate medical courses. 
H 
833 
834 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
The Full Bench of the High Court held that the Regulations 
framed by the Medical Council of India had only a persuasive value 
and did not have any binding force insofar as the State Government 
was concerned. The State had the power to prescribe a lower percentage 
of marks for in-service candidates and that Regulation 9 did not apply 
B to in-service candidates. Hence this appeal by the appellants-general 
category candidates. 
On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that the Full Bench 
of the High Court erred in ignoring the majority view of the decision 
of this Court in Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P., (1999) 7 SCC 120 
C and relying on the minority view. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The Full Bench of the High Court could not have relied 
on the dissenting opinion of one Judge, overlooking the majority 
D opinion, which is the law laid down by the Constitution Bench and has 
binding force. (841-D) 
Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P., [1999) 7 SCC 120, followed. 
E 
2. There can be only one common entrance test for determining 
the eligibility for post graduation for in-service candidates and those 
not in service. The requirement of minimum qualifying marks cannot 
be lowered or relaxed contrary to the Medical Council of India 
Regulations framed in this behalf. [842-G-H) 
F 
State of M.P. v. Gopal D. Tirthani, JT (2003) 6 SC 204, relied on. 
3. The decision of the Full Bench of the High Court, having been 
rendered in ignorance of the binding law laid down by the majority 
opinion in the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Dr. Preeti 
G Srivastatva v. State of M.P., (1999) 7 sec 120 and also being inconsistent 
with the decision of this Court in State of M.P. v. Gopal D. Tirthani, JT 
(2003) 6 SC 204, is liable to be set aside. (843-C) 
Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State ofM.P., (1999) 7 SCC 120, followed. 
H 
State of M.P. v. Gopal D. Tirthani, JT (2003) 6 SC 204, relied on. 
HARISH VERMA v. AJAY SRIVASTAVA [LAHOTI, J.] 
835 
Ajay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, [I 994) 4 SCC 401, referred to. A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1807 of 
2003 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.2.2003 of the Rajasthan High B 
Court in D.B.C.S.A. (W) No. 503 of 2002. 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 1808, 7405, 7406-7430 of 2003. 
Ms. lndu Malhotra, Mrs. Pooja Chandra, Maninder Singh, 
Mrs. Pratibha M. Singh, Ankul Talwar, Angad Mirdha, Salman Khursheed, 
Ajay Choudhary, Ranji Thomas, Mrs. Bharati Upadhyaya, A.K. Shukla, 
V.N. Raghupathy, Manoj Swarup, Ms. talita Kohli and Anubhav Kumar 
for the Appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the 

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