MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY & ORS. versus THUKRAL ANJALI DEOKUMAR & ORS.

Citation: [1989] 1 S.C.R. 919 · Decided: 07-03-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. DUTT · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREA1ER 
A 
BOMBAY & ORS. 
v. 
THUKRAL ANJALI DEOKUMAR & Ors. 
MARCH 7, 1989 
B 
f 
[M.M. DUTT AND T.K. THOMMEN, JJ.] 
-<'<. 
Constitution of India, 1950-Art. I4-Educational Institutions-
Medical Colleges-Admission to-Any preference other than the merit 
discriminatory-Not reasonable classification. 
Rules framed by Bombay Municipal Corporation-Admission to c 
!r 
Post Graduate and diploma courses in Medical Colleges. 
' 
Rules 4A and 5-College-wise Institutional preferences for admis-
sion to M.D. Courses-Held bad-Any preference other than merit-
Discriminatory and unreasonable classification. 
D 
There are four Medical Colleges in the City of Bombay, all 
affiliated to the University of Bombay. Out of four, three colleges are 
..,... 
run by the Municipal Corporation and one is run and conducted by the 
State of Maharashtra. Rule 4A framed by the .Municipal Corporation 
and Rule 5 framed by the State Govt. vide Govt. Resolution dated June 
E 
.18, 1971 govern the admissions of students to post-graduate degree and 
-. 
diploma course in the respective Medical Colleges. 
\ 
Both the aforesaid Rules provide for collegeate institutional pre-
~· 
ference for admission in the M.D. Course. In other words, in each 
college, candidates who passed their M.B.B.S. exam from that college F 
were to be preferred for purposes of admission to the Post-Graduate 
M.D. degree, no matter whether the candidates had secured less marks 
than those who secured higher marks, having passed the M.B.B.S. 
Exam. from other colleges. On this basis'some candidates who were not 
able to secure admission to the M.D. Course in the respective colleges 
from which they had passed their M.B.B.S. Examination were not also G 
admitted in the other medical colleges in the City of Bombay, in view of 
)< 
college wise institutional preferences as provided by Rule 4A and Rule 5 
referred to above. Those students/candidates challenged the validity 
of the afore-said Rule 4A and Rule 5 framed by the Municipal Corpn. 
and the State Govt. in the High Court, as being violative of Art. 14 of 
the Constitution. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition and struck H 
919 
A 
B 
,c 
920 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] 1 S.C.R. 
down the impugned Rule 4A in whole and Rule 5 in so far as it applies to 
the Govt. Medical College, as discriminatory and violative of Art. 14 of 
the Constitution and thus invalid. Hence these appeals by Special 
Leave. 
Dismissing the appeals with some directions, the Court, 
HELD: When the University is the same for all these colleges, the 
syllabus, the standard of examination and even the examiners are the 
same, any preference to candidates to the post-graduate degree course 
of the same University except in order of merit, will exclude merit to 
, a great extent affecting the standard of educational institutions. In 
such circumstances, college-wise institutional preference cannot 
be supported and, this Court has not approved of such preference at 
all. '[931F-G] 
So far as educational institutions are concerned unless there are 
strong reasons for exclusion of meritorious candidates, any preference 
D 
other than in order of merit, will not stand the test of Art. 14 of the 
Constitution. [932C-D I 
The Rules are discriminatory and do not satisfy the test of reason-
able classification and as such, cannot be sustained. The Court 
accordingly dismissed the appeals and directed that the students 
E 
who have been admitted to post-graduate M.D. Course pursuant to 
the impugned Rules, their admission shall not be interfered with or 
disturbed. [933E] 
The High Court has directed to the appellants to frame rules 
adopting certain alternative methods for admission in the Post-graduate -.J 
F 
M.D. Course for the next year. The said directions appear to be in the 
~ 
nature of suggestions by the High Court and the appellants will be free 
to frame the rules for admission in the Post-graduate M.D. Course in 
the said four colleges in the City of Bombay in conformity with the 
provision of Art. 14 of the Constitution and in the light of the Judgment 
of this Court and in framing the Rules, the appellants may take into 
G 
consideration the suggestions of the High Court. [934G-H; 93SA] 
Dr Pradeep Jain v. Union of India & Ors., [1984] 3 S.C.R. 942, 
°" 
distinguished. 
Nidamarti Mahesh Kumar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., [1986] 
H 
2 S.C.C. 534, not applicable. 
.• 
..... 
MUNICIPAL CORPN. OF BOMBAY v. T:A. DEOKUMAR [D
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.