STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. versus DR. ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA & ORS.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 493 · Decided: 11-10-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.P. THAKKAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
i 
I 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. 
A 
v. 
DR. ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA & ORS. 
OCTOBER 11, 1988 
(M.P. THAKKAR AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 14--'Equality doctrine'-
Ordinance No. 278-E(d)(ii)-Of University of Rajasthan Ordinunce-
Held void-Admission to P.G. Course in Medical Colleges in 
Rajasthan-5% marks addition to aggregate marks obtained in com-
petitive examination in case of students who obtain MBBS degree of C 
Rajasthan University-Offends 'equality doctrine'. 
Professional Colleges-Admission to: Ordinance of University 
of Rajasthan Ordinance No. 278-E(d)(ii)-Admission to P.G. Course 
in the five Medical Colleges in State of Rajasthan-Aadition of 5% 
marks to aggregate marks in the competitive examination by way of D 
institutional preference if candidate has obtained MBBS degree from 
the same Medical College for which selection sought-Held offends 
'equality doctrine' and Constitutionally void. 
The respondents had songht admission to post-gradnate courses· 
in the five medical colleges affiliated to the Rajasthan University 
E 
through a competitive examination which was common for all these five 
colleges. They were not able to secure admission in any discipline even 
though they had secured more marks as compared to the successful 
candidates who had been granted additional marks on the basis of 
Ordinance 278-E(d)(ii) of the Ordinance of University of Rajasthan. 
U oder this proviso the successful candidates were entitled to a uniform 
F 
addition of 5% marks in the percentage of aggregate marks if they had 
passed the final M.B.B.S. examination from the same institution for 
which selection was hiing made. The respondents challenged this provi-
sion.as violative of the equality principle enshrined in Article 14 of the 
Constitution. The High Court struck down as unconstitutional the 
impugned provision embodied in note (d)(ii) of Ordinance 278-E. 
G 
Dismissing the appeal, it was, 
HELD: (l) The aggregate marks for all subjects put together is 
2750. 5% of these makrs would work out to 137.5 marks. In the result, a 
candidate from the same college will have an advantage of 137 .5 marks H 
493 
• 
494 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988) Supp. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
over candidates from other colleges. In medical courses where there is 
intense competition and candidates run neck to neck so often with a 
differe'lce of a mark or two, a difference of 137 .S marks by way of 
college-wise institutional preference would virtually make a mockery of 
the merit criteria. [498C-D) 
B 
(2) This factor coupled with other factors leave no room for doubt 
that while on the face of it the impugned rule appears to extend or 
accord equal treatment of 5% welghtage to the students of each of the 
five Medical College, In actual operation It brings about oppressive and 
obnoxious Inequality. Once the veil of apparent equality is pierced, the 
ugly inequality stares one in the eyes which are opened to the offensive 
C 
'reality'. [502B·Cl 
(3) Admission to post-graduate courses at SMS College at Jaipur 
b.!ng considered as most advantageous, a candidate from Jaipur 
College will get admission in P.G. Course at Jaipur In preference to the 
other more meritorious candldntes merely because he pl!llscd the 
D M.B.B.S. examination at Jaipur even though all of them secured their 
marks at the lndentical competitive examination to all the Colleges. It 
needs no argument that Article 14 ls seriously shattered. [4980) 
( 4) What may 'appear' to be equal treatment accorded in 
obeisance to the equality doctrine embodied in Article 14 of the Con· 
E 
stitution in its application In 'reality' may result In denial of equality 
and may accordingly be liable to be condemned for defying the equality 
doctrine. [495B] 
' 
(5) Such being the position tbe constitutional vlllldlty of the 
impugned rule cannot be sustained. It has to be buried uncere-
F 
moniously as uncons.tltutional being violate of Art, 14 of the Constltu· 
tion of India. [S02C-D] 
Nidamarti Mahesh Kumar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 80 SC 
1362-(1980) 3 SCR 1302, referred to. 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 
2461·2463 of 1987. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 7 .8.1987 of the Rajasthan · 
High Court in D.B.C. Writ Petition Nos. 1374, 1387 and 1453of1987. 
H 
Badri Das Sharma for the Appellants. 
• 
---'t-
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. A.K. GUPTA [THAKKAR, J.] 
495 
;"
Tapas Ray "and S.K. Jain for the Respondents. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was de
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.