LexMRIDULA AVASTHI & ORS. ETC. versus UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
MRIDULA A VASTHI & ORS. ETC.
v.
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.
APRIL 27, 1988
[RANGANATH MISRA AND MURARI MOHON DUTT, JJ.]
Professional
Colleges-Medical
Colleges-Post
Graduate
Medical courses-Admission to-Delhi University adopting three year
P. G. degree and two year diploma courses from 1988-As a transitory
measure old system continued for the 1988 academic session only-
Candidates with one year housemanship made ineligible-Common
C selection list for both seniors and freshers-Validity of-Directions
issued.
Pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court in Dr. Dinesh
Kumar & Ors v. Motilal Nehru Medical College Allahabad. & Ors.
D
[1987] 4 SCC 459 regarding uniformity in post-graduate medJcal educa-
tion, respondent No. I-the University of Delhi, decided ro adopt the
three years course fo1· the post-graduate degree and a two years course
for the diploma commencing from the academic session of 1988.
However, with a view to mitigating hardship to candidates/
E students who had ah-eady completed the house job and had become
entitled to undergo tile post-graduate course in two years, as a transi-
tory provision, the 1·espondent-University decided to continue the
practice prevailing prior to 1988 for a year. It evolved a scheme where-
under, the number of seats for the post-graduate course and diploma
course available in th" previous year for a student who had completed
F one year's housemanship were left untouched. As a transitional provi-
sion, the University agreed to nx 75% quota, for the 1988 session only.
As per a Note in the scheme, candidates who had done house job/Junior
Residency for period of one year were not eligible for admission to 3
years post-graduate degree and 2 years post-graduate diploma course.
G
The prospectus, however, prescribed one common selection test
for both the categories.
A set of writ petitions were r.Ied before the High Court challeng-
ing the scheme of the University mainly on the basis that when there was
one selection test, merit should prevail and classification in the manner
H indicated by the scheme was bad. The High Court made an interim
762
·~;..
-r
I
---{
'
I
~.
MR!DULA AV ASTHI v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
763
order requiring the University to have the selection completed on the
basis of merit adjudged in the common selection test.
Disposing of the Writ Petitions and some cases transferred from
the High Court,
HELD: The seniors who have already done one year's houseman-
ship and freshers belong to two categories and cannot be said to be
equal. The question of test of comparative merit would not have arisen
if the University had not prescribed a common selection test for these
two categories. If the merit list of the selection. test is followed, more
seniors are entitled to admission and the scheme of reservation would
not.work. [765F-G]
While selection in the higher conrse should be on the basis of
merit in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, purely con-
fined to a transitory measnre, the situation has to be handled not by
first principles but by a somewhat informed pragmatic adhocism
especially because the situation would not reoccur. [766D]
.. The impasse created on account of rival. claims by freshers and
seniors has to have a rough and ready solution-yet not ·arbitrary and
as acceptable and satisfying as possible. [766F]
A
B
c
D
With a view to providing some more seats for seniors, the respon-
E .
dent University should create one seat in every speciality. Thus, 21
additional seats will be available over and above the seats fixed by the
University representing 75%. From the reserved seats made for the
freshers, 21 seats, being one from every speciality, should be taken
away and made available to the seniors. Thus,. 42 seats in .all will be
available for the seniors in the Post-Graduate course to be filled up on
F
the basis of inter se merit, keeping the senior group apart. [766G-H; 767 A-BI
The Celltral Government should make the necessary provisions
for funds. The Indian Medical Council may provide the necessary .
accommodation by relaxing the requirements. [767D]
Dr. Dinesh Kumar v. Motila/Nehru College,. Allahabad & Ors.,
I 1987] 4 sec 459, referred to.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
194 of 1988. etc etc.
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
764
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19881 3 S.C.R.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
D.D. Thakur, T.S. KrishnamuExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.