RAVINDRA KUMAR RAI versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1146 · Decided: 27-02-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RA VIND RA KUMAR RAI 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 27, 1998 
B 
[S.C. AGRA WAL, M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.] 
Education- Admission to Professional Courses-Medical: 
Regulations on Graduate A1edical Education, 1997: Regulations 5(2) 
c & (3). 
Admission -A1edical Colleges-Selection-Mode of-Common Entrance 
Examination-Admission to several AJedical Colleges to different Universities 
in the State was made on the basis of qualifying examination conducted by 
D more than one Board-Held: The State fell under Regn. 5(2) and not under 
Regn. 5(3)-Hence, admission to A1edical College in such a State must be 
made on the basis of Common Entrance Examination- Number of students 
passing out from one Board being very small, immaterial-Also State's plea 
that Common Entrance Examination being extreme~y difficult would prolong 
E the admission process, rejected-Assuming that medical education falls within 
Article 3 71 (2)(c) the said admission process would not come in the way of 
implementation of the provisions of that Artic/e-Afedical Council Act, 1956, 
S.33. Constitution of India, 1950; Article 371(2)(c). 
F 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 371(2)(c). 
Scope-,\fedical education-Covering of-Conclusive opinion not 
given. 
The respondent-State made admissions to Medical Colleges affiliated 
G to various Universities in the State solely on the basis of marks obtained at 
the qualifying examinations conducted by three different Boards. The 
petitioner filed a writ before this Court for the issue of a writ or direction 
commanding the respondent-State to hold a Common Entrance Examination 
for admission to the Medical Colleges in the State as required under 
H Regulation 5(2) of the Regulations on Graduate Medical Educ?.tion, 1997 
1146 
R .K. RAI v. STATE 
1147 
made by the Medical Council of India. 
A 
On behalf of the respondent-State it was contended that the State did 
not fall under Regulation 5(2) but fell under Regulation 5(3); that the 
students who passed from CBSE represented only 0.5% or 0.8% of the 
students who passed the qualifying examination; that it would be difficult to B 
implement the directions of the Governor issued under Article 371(2)(c) of 
the Constitution requiring the admissions made Development-region wise by 
Development Boards constituted for different regions if a Common Entrance 
Examination were held; and that a Common Entrance Examination would be 
an extremely arduous task which would prolong the admission process. 
Allowing the petition, this Court 
c 
HELD: 1. There are three Boards in the State which conduct the 
qualifying examination and inasmuch as there are several Universities, the 
State would clearly fall under Regulation 5(2) if the Regulations on Graduate D 
Medical Education, 1997 made by the Medical Council oflndia and not under 
Regulations 5(3). The contention of the State that candidates from CBSE 
Board are small in number is not an appealing one. It is also not possible 
for the State to say that conducting a Common Entrance Examination would 
the examination. In fact the statement in the counter affidavit to the effect 
delay the admission process or that it would be extremely difficult to conduct E 
that the State has been conducting a common examination for 1,80,000 at 
the 10+2 level in the 7 Divisional Boards would itself show -that the State 
is capable of conducting a Common Entrance Examination for admission to 
Medical Colleges, even if the number of students is large. Moreover, in 
several States, Common Entrance Examination is being conducted even before F 
1997 when these Regulations made by the Medical Council of India came 
into force. In fact in some States, entrance examination is conducted jointly 
for Engineering and Medical students also. ll 150~H; 1151-A-C] 
Shri Chander Chinar Bada Akhara Udasin Society v. State of J. & K., G 
[1996] 5 sec 732, relied on. 
2. Even assuming that medical education falls within the scope of 
Article 371(2)(c), the compliance with Regulation 5(2) of the Regulations 
made by the Medical Council of India will not in any manner come in the way 
of giving effect to the provisions of Article 371(2)(c). [1152-A] 
H 
1148 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1998] l S.C. R. 
A 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 649 of 
1997. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) 
B 
Vikas Singh, Yunus Malik and Ms. Reena Sharma for the Petitioner. 
Navin Prakash and D.M. Nargolkar for the Respond

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