PRINCIPAL, MOTI LAL NEHRU MEDICAL COLLEGE AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus DR. VANDANA SINGH AND ORS. ETC ETC.

Citation: [1990] 3 S.C.R. 874 · Decided: 21-08-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RANGANATHAN · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
PRINCIPAL, MOTI LAL NEHRU MEDICAL COLLEGE 
AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
DR. VANDANA SINGH AND ORS. ETC ETC. 
AUGUST 21, 1990 
[S. RANGANATHAN AND K.N. SAIKIA, JJ.] 
Education-Admission to Professional Colleges: Postgraduate 
course in Obsterics and Gynaecology-Particular Medical College-
Filling up all seats with institutional candidates-Not considering exter-
nal candidates-Effect of-Directions issued. 
For the academic year 1989-90, the appellant College had 8 seats 
in the post-graduate course in Obsterics and Gynaecology. Of these, six 
were reserved for institutional candidates, and two for external candi-
dates. The Principal filled up all the eight seats by admitting institu-
tional candidates without considering the case of any external candi-
date. One of the external candidates approached the High Court by way 
of a Writ Petition. The High Court set aside the admission of two 
.institutional candidates who were admitted against the quota for exter-
nal candidates, and directed the Principal to consider the case of the 
petitioner and other external candidates who were eligible for admis-
si•m to the 'open' 25% seats on merits, in accordance with law. Ag-
grieved, the Principal and the two institutional candidates whose admis-
\.: 
sion was set aside by the High Court, have preferred these appeals, by 
special leave. 
Disposing of the appeals, 
HELD I. The appellant College, took the view that since no All-
India candidates were available on the basis postulated in the Residency 
Scheme it would be appropriate to throw open the entire 100% to 
institutional candidates. It is not suggested that this proposal was 
actuated by any ma/a fides. In that the State claims that this course of 
G 
action has been approved by the decision of the High Court in a case 
b~fore it. It may be that this is not the only view possible and that it is 
also possible to take the view that the college should have advertised 
these posts and filled them up by external candidates on the basis of 
merit. If this be so, such advertisement cannot be confined to persons 
who are residents of U.P. as was envisaged by the notification dated 
H 
26th April, 1986. That notification•gad been issued at a time when the 
874 
MEDICAL COLLEGE v. DR. VANDANA 
875 
concept of All-India reservation for 25% of the seats had not been 
J.- adumbrated by this Conrt. Even if it is assumed that the High Court 
was right in saying that external candidates were eligible for admission, 
that eligibility cannot be restricted only to those who had already 
applied but should be thrown open to all external candidates fulfilling 
the qualifications. This process cannot be completed within two weeks, 
as directed by the High Court. To call for applications from all external 
candidates and select them, either on the basis of an examination or 
• 
otherwise, will be a very lengthy and time-consuming process. The 
>' __ -State Government and the college cannot be faulted for having decided 
to fill up the vacancies by offering these seats also to institutional candi-
dates. This is a decision taken only for a transitional period, because, 
from 1990 onwards, admissions will be regulated on the basis of an 
All-India examination, and such an examination is conducted by the All 
India Institute of Medical Sciences every year for all medical colleges in 
India. The decision tali.en by the State Government and the college was 
.>-
a practical one to tide over a transitional difficulty and there is no 
justification to upset the same on the basis of a solitary application from 
an external candidate. [881A-F) 
2. On a proper interpretation of Para 5 of the Residency Scheme 
the eligibility for admission of institutional candidates is not confined to 
those who were on house jobs as on 22.8.89 but would also extend to 
..,, 
these institutional candidates who have been in house jobs since 1.8.87. 
The result of these two judgments read together will be that the entire 
100% of the institutional seats should be filled up from out of all such 
applicants, subject to their fulfilling any other qualifications and 
requirements that may be in force. Earlier, the admission of the six 
candidates to 75% of the seats as well as the admission of the two 
candidates to 25% of the seats had been made by excluding institutional 
candidates who had completed their house jobs between 1.8.87 and 
i-
22.8.89. This will need to be reviewed now. The entire process of admis-

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