U.P. JUNIOR DOCTORS' ACTION COMMITTEE AND ORS. ETC. versus DR. B. SHEETAL NANDWANI AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1991] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 384 · Decided: 22-11-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA, G.N. RAY, A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
U.P. JUNIOR DOCTORS' ACTION COMMITTEE 
AND ORS. ETC. 
v. 
DR. B. SHEET AL NANDW ANI AND ORS. ETC. 
NOVEMBER 22, 1991 
[RANGANATH MISRA, CJ., G.N. RAY 
AND A.S. ANAND, JJ.] 
Admission to Professional Courses-Post-graduate courses in Medical 
Colleges-Reasonable period of study-Prescription by the Medical 
C 
Council-Dates of admission· and commencement of courses-Directions 
of Court-To be followed strictly--Interlocutory orders for provisional 
admission--Not to be granted unless for special reason to be indicated in 
clear terms. 
D 
E 
Practice & Procedure: 
Main relief prayed for--As a rule not to be granted at the interlocu-
tory stage. 
These matters relate to admission in post-graduate .courses in 
the Medical Colleges in Uttar Pradesh. 
On a Writ Petition, which later turned out to be fake, the High 
Court had ordered that admission could be effected on the basis of 
the MBBS Examination. This has been disputed in appeal before 
this Court. 
F 
In another Writ Petition, pending hearing, the High Court 
G 
H 
directed that provisional admission be given to two candidates, one 
in MS (Surgery) and another in MD (Medicine). The Principal of 
the Medical college and others preferred an appeal against the High 
Court's order. 
It was contended that granting admission, though provisional, 
at an interlocutory stage in a pending proceeding creates a lot of 
adverse consequences and indiscipline in the system of imparting 
education. 
Dismissing the matters, this. Court, 
384 
'1 
\ 
f 
~· 
-· 
JR. DOCTORS' COMMITTEE v. DR. NANDWANI 
385 
HELD : 1.1 It transpires that the proceedings before the High 
A 
Court were totally fraudulent and no one by the name given in the 
petition ~ petitioner could really be identified. This Court had clearly 
indicated that no admission should be permitted on the basis of the 
MBBS results. Nothing survives now, as the High Court's order has 
already been reversed. (386 F,G] 
2.1 It is already' settled that admission for 25 per cent of the 
seats in post-graduate courses should be regulated on the basis of 
all-India selection and in regard to the remainder of 75 per cent the 
States were left to decide the procedure for admission. (387-E] 
B 
2.2 Unless there is a sincere and thorough educational disci-
C 
pline to be gone through as a precondition to the grant of the requi-
site certificate the lives of citizens would be at peril. The Indian 
Medical Council has prescribed a reasonable period of study, on 
expert advice, and upon taking into consideration the experience 
over th~ears as to how much study is necessary for the requisite 
qualification to be gathered. This Court has also indicated the dates 
D 
of admission and commencement of the courses of str1dy. These are 
prescriptions for a purpose and are not intended to be empty for-
malities to be .violated. [387 G, H; 388-A) 
. 
Dr. Pradeep Jain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (1984) 3 
' S.C.C. 654, relied on. 
E 
3. It is a well-known rule of practice and procedure that at 
an interlocutory stage, a relief which is asked for and is available at 
the disposal of the matter, is not (generally) granted. To have it 
granted at the threshold creates a lot of difficulties. In a case where 
the petitioner ultimately loses in a case of this type a very embar-
F 
rassing situation crops up. If he has by then read for two to three 
years, there is a claim of equity raised on the plea· that one cannot 
reverse the course of time. In a case of this type, equities should not 
be claimed or granted. Unless there is any special reason to be 
indicated in clear terms in an interlocutory order, as a rule no 
provisional admission should be granted and more so into technical G 
courses. [388 C, DJ 
4.1 The order of the High Court in the instant case should be 
reversed but this is not being done so, on account of the fact that 
nine similarly placed medical graduates have already been given 
admission pursuant to such interlocutory orders by the respondents H 
386 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1991) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
wjthout even raising a challenge. The order was made as early as in 
February, 1991 and for nine months no steps have been taken by the 
appellants to comply with the order and they are in fact facing a 
contempt proceeding. (388-F) 
4.2 Notice had been issued to the Principals of the seven medi-
B 
cal colleges who have appeared ·and given written undertakings to 
the Court by way of affidavit that there was some misunderstandin

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