KRISHNA PRIYA GANGULY ETC. versus UNIVERSITY OF LUCKNOW & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1984] 1 S.C.R. 302 · Decided: 07-10-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

B 
c 
D 
E 
F' 
G 
H 
• 
302 
• 
:t.RISHNA PRIY A OANGUL Y ETC. 
'· 
UNIVBRSI'TY OF LUCKNOW & ORS. ETC. 
Octobe;· 'l, 1983 
[S. .. 
MURTAZA fAZAL ALI, A. VARADARAIAN, 
AND M. P. THAKKAR,,JJ.J 
AdmisSions to POfl-graduate cour'ses in medicine-Directions grantinf 
prOvisional admissions pending disposal of petitions-approach by Courts. 
Stille Government orders laying down criteria for admissions-Whether of 
statutory effect, when they are consistent with rules framed by Medical Council 
of India? 
•. 
This batch of ftppeal_s. arose out of admissions aoughf by several candi-
dates to post-graduate courses in the Medical Colleges of Uttar Pradesh. 
While in some of them the-candidates were the ·appellants and the State the 
respondent, in othera it was vice Versa. By an order dated 3-12-i980 the State 
Governmcnt·had laid d.own that admissions were to be mad'e purely Dn the 
basis of merit, the criterion being the total percentage of marks obtained by the 
candidate ·in-4he M:B.B.S. examination. Jn as many as· 9 out of the 20 appeals,· 
the candidate$ Who had been given provision~l admissions pursuant to "interim 
orders made by the Court had completed tQeir courSes and only their results 
were to be declared. 
IJ;J. all those cases, the State, realising the futility of 
forcing the candidates to complete the course all ove_r again, conceded that the 
resu1ts of such c11ndidates may be. declared and on passing the· same they would 
be admitted to the courses concerned t_hough the candidates in qµestion were 
lacking in merit and tl,leir original rcjectiori· was justified. 
I~ one of the appeals . 
-filed by the State, the can~idate in question had obtained only 43.,per cCnt 
marks at the M.B.B.S. examination and happened to be the last candidate in 
the list .of persons wh~ had applied for admissiGn to the post-graduate , course. 
Although the candidate had merely prayed for _a writ directing ·the State or the 
college to ,consider his case ·for admission, the High Court, relying mainly ·on 
· the fact that the.candidate had a diploma to his credit,. straightaway issued a 
writ of manda~us directing the colle8e to admit him to the course a·pplied for, 
therCby granting a relief which the candidate himself had not pra~cid for. 
HELD : The practice of forcing the authorities to grant provisional 
admissions has been evolved keeping in view the fact that on accouht of huge 
accumulati~n --0f arrears in courts it takes a long time for petitions to be dis~ 
posed Or. By the time the. cases come up for hearing, the rejected candidates 
mieht have completed their course and become Ctigible for admission to the 
higher course although the court may ultimately find th'at their initial rCjeCtion 
was justified and they did not deserve to be admitted to the course. Such a 
,ituation becol!les a sort of fall qccompll for those in charae of the institutions 
'
. it.fl. G~NGULY v. LUCKNOW uNJ\iERSITY (Fazal Ali, /.) 
so~ 
.. 
at a r1srilt or which the candidates are admitted in due deference to the desire 
of the court by increaSina: or creatini vacancies ~ven in the absence Or proper 
facilities to_ train the extra candidates. Unless the institutions can provide 
complete facilities for the training Or each candidate admitted 'in the various 
disciplines, the medical. education will be incomplete and.the universities would 
be turning out doctors not fully qualified which would adversely affect the 
' health' of the people in general. Therefore, the" practice of lightly granting 
Provisional admisSions should be discontinued in future. Whenever a writ 
petition is filed, provisional admission should not be given as a matter of 
course on the petition being admitted unleSs the coqrt is fully satisfied that the 
petitioner has a cast-iron case which, is bound to succeed or the error is so 
tross or apparent that no other conclusion iS: possible. In order .to test this 
fact, even a short notice may bo givCn to explore as to what the other side has 
to say and thereafter if the court is satisfied that there is a strong prima facie 
case and the matter needs thorough examination, provisional admissio-9 may 
be aivcn. 
The State Government order dated 3-12-1980 preSctibing the- criteria 
for admission to post-grad~atc couises in Medical Co:lleges made under s.28(5) 
of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973; is'fully consistent with the tenor and 
5pirit of the rules framed by the Medical Council Of India. The rules framed 
by the Medica

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