R.K. KHANDELWAL versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

Citation: [1982] 1 S.C.R. 283 · Decided: 11-08-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

, 
\ 
, 
• 
, 
R.K. KHANDELWAL 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS 
August 11, 1981 
[Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., A. VARADARAJAN AND 
AMARENDRA NATH SEN, JJ.] 
283 
Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 226 and 136-Admission to M.D. 
Course-Change in the practice of admission-Whether discontinuance of a mere 
practice will sustain a charge of injury to legal rights. 
Appeal 
by special leave-New Point-Discrimination not taken in writ 
petition-Not argued in High Court-Not mentioned in S.L.P.-P/ea not permitted. 
The appellant applied for admission to the M.D. (Paediatrics) Course for 
the academic year 1979-80. He had passed his M.B.B.S. Examination in 
December, 1976. There were other students who had applied for admission 
along with the appellant. Some of them had passed their M.B.B.S. Examination 
prior to December 1976 and had secured higher marks than the appellant. 
The number of seats being limited, admissions were given according to merit and 
four students who had secured the highest number of marks w~re given preference 
to others regardless of the year in which they had 
pa~sed their M.B.B.S. 
Examination. 
The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the 
decision of the college by which he was denied admission. The petition was 
dismissed summarily by a Division Bench on the ground that the relief of man-
damus could not be granted since the appellant had failed to establish that any 
of his legal rights was violated. 
In the appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant 
that : (a) For many years in the . past candidates who had passed the D.C.H. 
Examination were preferred for admission to the M.D. Course but that the Uni-
versity suddenly discontinued that practice, as a result of which he bad to com-
pete with others who had passed their M.B.B.S. Examination, and (b) the ratio 
1:1 between teachers and students was relaxed from time to time by the University 
and that the appellant was discriminated against by the arbitrary refusal of the 
authorities to relax the ratio in his favour. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : The appellant has failed to make out a case of injury to any of his 
legal rights. Because of interim orders passed by this Court directing the College 
and the University to admit the appellant to M.D. Course in Paediatrics, the 
College cancelled the appellant's admission to the D.C.H. Course. If the appel-
lant has passed the M.D. Examination, he should be declared to have passed it 
like any other student. He should not be subjected to any disadvantage for the 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
284 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1982] I S.C.R. 
reason that he was not entitled initially to be admitted to the M.D. Course in 
Paediatrics. If he has failed, he should be permitted to take the examination again 
(or again and again) in accordance with the rules of the University. Since the 
result of the other students, who had appeared for the M.D. Examination along 
with the appellant, was declared in February, 1981 the appellant's result to be 
declared forthwith. [287 B·F] 
(a) There was no rule at any time requ1nng that an applicant seeking 
admission to the M.D. Course in Paediatrics had to pass his D.C.H. Exarnina· 
tion. That such a practice was recognised over many years or that such was the 
understanding of a11 concerned has been denied on behalf of the College. Besides 
discontinuance of a mere practice cannot su~tain a charge of injury to legal 
rights. The practice had not ripened into a rule and the University was under 
no obligation to admit only those who had passed their D.C.H. Examination. 
The appellant therefore cannot make a grievance of a change in_the practice t'or 
admission to the M.D. Course. [285 G-286 B] 
In the instant case no one was admitted to the M.D. Course who had 
secured lesser marks than the appellant. He was sixth in order of merit and 
there were only four seats available. [286 E] 
D 
(b) If there is a power to relax the ratio, that power must b~ exercised 
E 
F 
G 
H 
reasonably and fairly. It cannot be exercised arbitrarily to favour some students 
and to disfavour some others. [286 G] 
Jn the instant case this point of discrimination was not taken in the writ 
petition filed in the High Court, not argued in the High Court, and not even men-
tioned in th~ Special Leave Petition. The question as to whether the authorities 
have the power to relax the ratio and the further question as to whether that 
power has been exercised arb

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