KUMARI SUNEETA RAMCHANDRA versus STATE OP MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

Citation: [1986] 1 S.C.R. 697 · Decided: 13-03-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MADON · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
697 
KIJMARI SUNEETA RAMCllANDRA 
v. 
STATE OP MAHARASHTRA & ANR, 
MARCH 13, l986 
• 
[D.P. MADON AND G.L. OZA, JJ,] 
-· 
Professional colleges -
Admission to -
Reservation of 
seats for children of Central Government Servants transferred 
to State of Maharashtra from outside the State - "Shall not 
exceed two in all the Government medical colleges" in Rule C6 
(ii) of Medical Colleges of the Government of Maharashtra 
Rules for Admissions 1985-86 - Interpretation of, 
Interpretation of Statutes : 
Rules - Intention of the Government - To be judged from 
wordings of the provision and not from 
the manner of 
implementation. 
The appellant's father, a Central Government servant, 
was transferred rrom Hyderabad in the State of Andhra Pradesh 
to Nagpur in the State of Maharashtra. The appellant had 
passed SSC Examination from Andhra Pradesh. At Nagpur, she 
passed the RSC (XII Standard) -Examination, this being one of 
the qualifyinng ex.amtnationa for admission to the Medical 
•
Colleges in the State of Maharashtra. 
She applied for 
admission to the MBBS course to the Nagpur Medical College 
under Rule C6 (ii) of the Medical Colleges of the Government 
of Maharashtra Rules for Admissions, 1985-86, wich inter alia, 
provides that the total number of the children of Central 
Government Servants transferred to Maharashtra State from 
outside the State, to be admitted with certain concessions 
shall not exceed two 'in all Government Medical Colleges. 
Though the appellant was third in the CODlbined merit list, she 
was denied admission alleging that as only two seats were 
--·provided for candidat;es falling in the category under Rule 
C6(ii), she wassnot eligible for admission. 
The appellant filed a writ petition under Art.226 and 
the same was dismissed. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
G. 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
-698 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(19861 1 s.c.R. 
In the appeal to thi~ Court, on behalf of the appellant.-
it was contended that each Government Medical Colfoge will 
have a total number of .two seats for admission of the 
candidates falling in the category under Rule C-Q (ii). 
On behalf of the respondents it was contended t:hat the 
total number of seaj:s in all the Government Medical Colleges 
in the State taken together would be only two and that 
selection for admission of candidates falling in this c:ategory-
is made not by the Dean but by the Joint Director, Education 
and Reserch, Bombay, from the COllllll>n merit list. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD : 1. When the Rule C6 (ii) of the Medical Colleges 
of 
the Government 
of Maharashtra Rules for Admissions, 
• 
1985-86, states that "the total number of such children of 
Central 
Government 
servants 
to 
be 
admitted 
with 
this. 
concession shall not exceed two in all Government Medical r" 
Colleges", it does not mean that the total number of such 
children of Central Government servants to be admitted with 
this concession shall not exceed two in all Government Medical 
Colleges taken together. It means that all Government Medical 
Colleges, that is to say, each and every Government Medical 
College, will admit children of Central Government se:rvants 
falling in the category specified in Rule 
C6 
(ii) not 
exceeding two in number provided that they satisfy the 
qualifications 
prescribed 
by 
Rule 
,C(3). 
This 
is 
made 
. 
abundantly clear by the sentence which imediately follows.
"Only such candidates who are in the merit list of Highe.
Secondary 
Certificate, 
that 
is 
(lo+2) 
12th 
standard 
examination at the respective medical colleges will be 
considered for admissiOn against the two seats". The use of 
the phrase "at the respective medical colleges" would be 
meaningless if the two seats for this, category were to be for 
all the Government medical colleges taken together in the 
State of Maharashtra. (702 G-H; 703 A-C) 
2. Under Rule E(3), it is the Dean who is entrusted with'' 
the work of admission to his college. This rule cannot 
possibly be applied if only two candidates falling in the 
category specified in Rule C (6)(ii) are t be admitted in all 
the Government Medical Colleges of the State taken together. 
KUMAR! SUNEETA v, STATE 
699 
"I The Rules do not provide for any method of selection by the 
Joint Director, Education and Research. [ 703 C-E I 
3. The 1982-83 Rules and the 1983-84 Rules contained an 
identical provision. A change was made in the 1984-85 Rules 
and this provision occurred \n Rule 3(b) of those Rules. The 
High 
Court 
ado

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