P.K. GOEL AND ORS. versus U.P. MEDICAL COUNCIL AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] 3 S.C.R. 363 · Decided: 15-05-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
P.K. GOEL AND ORS. 
v. 
U.P. MEDICAL COUNCIL AND ORS. 
MAY 15, 1992 
[LALIT MOHAN SHARMA AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.] 
Education-Admission to Professional Colleges-Post-Graduate Medi~ 
cal Courses-Combined Entrance Examination conducted-Clause G(ii) of 
guidelines issued by Lucknow University-Merit list prepared college-wise out 
A 
B 
of institutional candidates-Combined merit list not prepared-Whether dis-
C 
criminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Consitution. 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 14-Post-Graduate Medical Courses-Combined entrance a-
amination conducted-Merit list prepared college-wise-Combined merit list D 
not prepared-Whether discriminatory and violative of. 
A combined Entrance Examination was held for admission to all the 
seven Medical Colleges in the State of Uttar Pradesh. However, the seats 
were filled as per admission rules on the basis of a merit list prepared for , E 
each Medical College out of the institutional candidates from that College. 
This has been done as per clause G(ii) of the guidelines issued by the 
Lucknow University. 
The petitioners, who appeared in the combined Entrace Examination 
have challenged in the present Writ Petition the validity of the rule as being F 
discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 
According to the petitioners, in view of the directions of this Court in Dr. 
Dinesh Kumar & Ors. v. Motilal Nehru Medical Collage, Allahabad & Ors., 
AIR 1986 SC 1877, in almost all the States in India, 75% seats for Post· 
Graduate Medical Courses were being filled up by holding one common G 
examination and a combined merit list prepared for all the Medical 
Colleges in the State and that in the State of Uttar Pradesh alone such a 
combined merit list has not been prepared despite conducting a c~mmon 
ex&mination. 
Allowing the Writ Petition, this Court, 
363 
H 
364 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1992) 3 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1. Rule (G)(ii) laying down the provision for preparing a 
merit list for each college out of the institutional candidates of that college, 
--1-
is struck down. The State Government is directed to make admissions for 
Post-Graduate Medical Courses in all the seven Medical Colleges on the· 
basis of a combined merit list. The State Government shall issue a 
B Notification in this regard and publish the same immediately in one Hindi 
and one English newspaper having wide circulation in the State as well as 
by putting the same on the notice board of all the seven Medical Colleges. 
It would state that the admissions shall be made in Post-Graduate Medical 
Courses on the basis of a combined merit list for the entire State and allow 
all the eligible condidates to mention their fresh choice of specialities in 
C the Post-Graduate Courses within 10 days of such publication in the 
newspaper and thereafter make selection on the basis of combined merit 
list for the whole State. In case any candidate does not submit his choice 
of, speciality within the aforesaid time, the choice already given by him shall 
D 
be taken into consideration in his case. [370 E-G] 
2. This Court had already struck down the rule of college-wise 
instittJtional preference as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution 
and all the States in India are following the rule of one combined merit 
list for the whole State except the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Medical 
Council of India also took the stand that one combined merit list should 
E 
be prepared when the entrace examination is conducted by one University 
for all the Medical Colleges in the State. There in no question of claiming 
any right by the candidates on the ground of having appeared in the 
examination on the basis of the impugned guidelines mentioned in the 
information brochure issued by the University, as no admissions in the 
F 
present case have been made so far in any of the colleges. No admission 
could be allowed on the basis of a rule which is clearly arbitrary and 
discriminatory and has already been declared as violative of Article 14 of 
the Constitution. [367 H; 368 A-DJ 
G 
Dr. Dinesh Kumar & Ors. v. Motilal Nehm Medical Co!lege, Allahabad 
& Ors., AIR 1986 SC 1877; State of Rajasthan & Anr. v. Dr. Ashok Kumar 
Gupta & Ors., [1989] 1 SCC 93; Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay 
& Ors. v. Thukral Anjali Deokumar & Ors., [1989] 2 SCC 249, relied on. 
3. There cannot be any right vested in the candidates in seeking 
H admission in a particular college. Merit as

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