PRINCIPAL, KING GEORGE'S MEDICAL COLLEGE LUCKNOW versus DR. VISHAN KUMAR AGARWAL &. ANOTHER

Citation: [1984] 1 S.C.R. 503 · Decided: 25-10-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

PRINCIPAL, KING GEORGE'S MEDiCAL COLLEGE 
.LUCKNOW 
v. 
DR. VJSHAN KUMAR AGARWAL &. ANOTHER 
October !25; 1983 
[Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J. AND A.1'. SEN Ji.) 
503 
Lucknow University Ordinances, Chapter Ill Ordinance I Clause (c) 
second proviso, Para (ii)-Requisile qualification for adndssion to ·rhe Degree of 
Doctor o/Medici11e-Whether the 111aterial date/or det~rmination is the date of 
examination or the date of application for_admission-Scope of the OrdinanCe 
1-ConstituUon of India Articles 14 and 226-For receiving the benefit of the 
relaxOtion of the rules," n~1· public authority can make any discri11iination between 
individual and indjvidual. ' 
The Respondent Dr. Vishan Kumar 
Agarw~l passed the M·.B.B.S. 
Examination of the Lucknow University in July 1971, completed his one Year.'s 
rotating compulsory internship and got his name ·registered as a .medical 
. 'graduate by the.State Medical Council. In August 1972 he was appoiI~ted as a 
Medical Officer in the Civil Z.lospit.al which is approved by ~he Medical Council 
for compulsory internship. .In October 1974 he applied to the Principal, King 
George's Medical Co1lege, Lucknow for admission to the 1\-1:.D. Course in 
Physiology which was due to commence in January 1975 .. The Principal of the ' 
College, inspite or" the recommendation of the head of the Departinent, rejected 
his. application on the ground that he ·did not fulfil .the qualifications prescribed 
. in para· (i) of the second proviso to clause (c) of the Ordinance I Chapter II of 
the Luckriow University. · 
-
, 
On April 4, 1975, the responden.t filed a writ petition, and obtained' an 
illterim order under which he was· admitted to the course and continued his 
;. studies. The respondent was due to appear for.his examination in December 
. 1976 but he-Was refused an admission cilrd. The suit .filed by him against the 
refu_sal to grant admission .card was admitted but the interim order obtained was 
·_ got vacated by the collegc.authoriries .. 
~o he appeared for the December, '77 
examination and by way of abundant caution got the writ petition amended 
so as to include a prayer for issuance of a Ina11danlus _tQ declare his result. 
In the wdt p~tit'ion .ihe has also alleged discrimination shown by relaxing 
- the rules in favour· of two ot!-.er women ·candidates. 'I he writ petition was 
: allowed and hence the appeal by· the Principal after obtaining special leave. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1:1. The requirement of every one of the clauses in Ordinance 
,J has to be f1,1lfil!ed 
b~ th~ ¥anclid~te on th~ 4ate on wl,th::h he applies fQf 
A' 
B 
c 
D 
• E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
• 
' 
D 
• 
E 
F 
G 
H 
504 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1984] I S.C.R. 
. 
admission to the M.D. or M.S. Course of studies. It is not sufficient that he 
fulfills the requirements of these clauses on the date of the examination. 
[510 A-CJ 
1:2. Though ordinance I begins with the words-"NO candidate shall 
be eligible to api>ear at the examinatjon for the degree of the Doctor of Medi .. 
cine or Master or Surgery,'unless ......... : .. "-, it cannot. he said that.the.material 
date for determining whether the conditions of eligibility are fulfilled is-the 
date of examination and not the date of application .. [509 B-C] 
• 
1:3. Clauses (a)<o (e) of Ordinance I are parts of an Integrated Scheme 
ind, therefore, it will be wrong to apply different criteria to the. interpretation 
of those clauses, The verbs used in clauses (a) to (d) are: •'has obtained", 
"has completed", "has done", and has put in" respectively. Giving to those 
words their natural ·meaning, the requirement Of everyone of these clauses bas 
to be fulfilled by the candidate on the date on which he applied for admission 
to the M.D. or M.S. courses of studies. It is not sufficient that he fulfills the 
requirements of these clauses on the ·date of th~ examination. [509D, E-GJ 
' 
1:4. There is no justification for applying to the interpretation of this 
clause a different test than the one which has to be applied to the interpreta-
tion of clauses (a) and (b). Neither· the language of clause (c) nor the require-
ment of justice and fairplay warrants such a course. Therefore, the condition .. 
prescribed by clause (c) must also' be -shown to have been fulfilled by th• 
·candidate on the date on which he applies for admission to the·M.D: Course of 
studies and not later. [509 G-H, 510 A] 
2. Whethe; the rules contained in the Ordinance governing adm

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