Skip to content


M. Mohan Reddy and ors. Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Petn. Nos. 4659 and 5046 of 1982
Judge
Reported inAIR1983AP163
ActsConstitution of India - Articles 4 and 14; Andhra Pradesh Admission Rules - Rule 5(4)
AppellantM. Mohan Reddy and ors.
RespondentGovernment of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and ors.
Appellant AdvocateL. Narasimha Reddy and ;K. Mangachari, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateGovernment Pleader
Excerpt:
.....in medical college as violative of article 14 - petitioners were admitted and registered for post graduate diploma course in one group - under rules they were not to be considered for admission to course in subject available in other group - petitioner claimed for admission to subject in other group - court observed that restriction imposed by rules were reasonable - purpose of rule was to increase efficiency of candidate in particular subject - it was outside domain of judicial power to go into question of grouping various courses of study - high court not to go into question of academic nature. - - the director of medical education may consider the request of the petitioners 1 and 3 if their request does not result in the violation of the rights of any candidate who has..........intended to provide temporary employment and therefore no discrimination is made in respect of the postgraduate degree courses r. 5 deals with the rules for admission to the degree course r. 5 (1) states that candidates who have passed, m.b.b.s examination of any one of hte universities of the state shall be eligible to apply subrules (2) (3) and (4) impose restriction on admission of certain applications. r. 5 92) stipulates that applicants who are already post graduate degree holders in a subject or admitted and registered for a post-graduate degree course in a subject shall not be considered for selection for post-graduate degree course in another subject. the intention of this rule is to see that a candidate specialises only in one subject. r. 5 (3) enjoins that applicants who are.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. These writ petitions raise the question relating to the constitutional validity of R. 5 (4) of the Rules for Admission to post Graduate courses in the Medical colleges in the state (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).

2. The petitioner have passed their MBBS examination They appeared for the entrace examination conducted by the Director of Medical Education in Sept. 1981 for the purpose of admission to the post Graduate medical courses. On the basis of the results of the entrame test, the first petitioner in W.P. No. 4650 of 1982 was admitted int he Diploma course in Opthalmology the second petitioner secured admission in the Diploma course in Medical Radiology and Diagnosis. The petitioner in W.P. No. 5046 of 1982 was admitted to the Diploma course in child health. They joined the said Diploma courses.

3. The state Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 436 M&H; dated 26-5-1982 in-corporating the rules for admission to post Graduate medical courses in the Medical colleges in the state for the year 1982. The Entrance test for admission to the course was held on 27-6-1982. The petitioners took the entrance examination. The results of the entrance test were declared on 26-7-1982. The petitioners in W.P. No. 4659 of 1982 secured 4th 3rd and 11th ranks respectively, while the petitioner in W.P. No. 5046 of 1982 secured 5th rank. The admission to the post Graduate courses of study will be made on the basis of the ranks which the candidates obtain in the entrance examination.

4. The choice of study of the first petitioner in W.P. No. 4659 of 1982 was M.D. paediatrics or M.D General Medicine. The petitioners 2 and 3 were interested in studying M.S. (General surgery) the petitioner in W.P. No. 5046 of 1982 was also interested in studying General surgery. But the petitioners were informed orally that in view of R. 5 (4) of the Rules they cannot seek admission in the courses chosen by them. Instead the first petitioner in W.P. No. 4659 of 1982 was selected for M.S. (General surgery) and the petitioners 2 and 3 were selected for M.D. (General Medicine) the petitioner in W.P. No. 5046 of 1982. Was given a seat in M.D. General medicine. The petitioners question the validity of R. 5 (4) of the Rules as violative of art. 14 of the Constitution.

5. Before proceeding to examine the soundness of the contention it would be useful to notice that there are 31 courses of study in the various subjects for which entrance test was held. These 31 courses are divied into 4 Groups, viz., (I) medicine Group; (ii) surgical Group (iii)_ obstetrics & Gynaecology; and (iv) Nonclinical group. There are 10 courses of study under the 1st group. It is unnecessary for us to go into the question whether the grouping of these courses is proper or not as It is not within the domain of judicial power and this grouping is purely within the domain of the Medical council of India.

Now R. 5 (4) says :

'Applicants who are admitted and registered for a post Graduate Diploma course in a subject in any particular group shall not be considered for admission to the P.G. degree course in the subjects available in any other groups'.

There is no dispute that the petitioners are admitted and registered for a post Graduate diploma course of study in one of the groups. Under the rule, they shall not be considered for admission to the post Graduate course in the subjects available in any other group. The petitioners are admitted in accordance with the Rule. They claimed for admission to subjects in other groups but were decided.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Narasimba Reddy submits that the Rule is arbitrary and is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution, he argues that there is no nexus between the object sought to be achieved viz., proficiency in a subject and the classification. While a candidate who is admitted and registered in a Diploma in any subject in any group is permitted to join a Diploma couse in any subject in any othere Group, a Candidate who is similarly situated is not permitted to join the degree course in a subject in other groups. If the object of prevention of candidates registered in diploma courses from getting admission in degree courses in other subjects is to avoid dublication of admission of a candidate. The same is permitted by allowing such a candidate to join doploma course in a subject in any group. The learned counsel in support of his submission also placed reliance a Division bench decision of this Court in W.A. No. 376 of 1982 dated 21-4-1982: (Reported in : AIR1982AP405 ). In that case, the interpretation of R. 5 (d) of the rules for admission to post Graduate courses in medical colleges of Andra prash issued in G.P. Ms. No. 624 M&H; Medical and health, dated 26th September 1979 fell for consideration. R. 5 (d) as it stood then reads:

'5 (d) Applicants who are already post-graduate diploma holders in a subject or admitted and registered for a post-graduate diploma courses in a subject may be considered bor admission to the post-Graduate degree course in the subjects available in the same group'.

In that case, the petitioner who had been admitted for Post Graduate course in Diploma in child Health which falls under the Medicine Group, wanted to be admitted for M.d. General surgery basis of R. 5 (d). The learned Judges held:

'Sub-rule (g) does not prohibit any applicant from being considered fo admission to the post-Graduate Degree course. It is merely an enabling provision. It permits applicants who are already post-graduate Diploma holders in a subject or those admitted and registered for a post-graduate Diploma course, such as the appellant to be considered for admission to the post-Graduate degree course in the subjects available in the same group'.

The learned judges proceeded to observe:

'That intention in respect of applicants who fall within the ambit of R. 5 (b) and (c) is clear by the wording of the said sub-rule. The very fact that the said prohibition is not incorporated in sub-rule (d) of R. 5 would emphasise that the same prohibition cannot be implied in same prohibition cannot be implied in respect of those candidates who fall within the ambit of R. 5 (d). When the rule-making authority has used different language in sub-rule (d) then the one used by it in sub-rules (b) and (c) of R. 5 it would be straining the language and defeating the purpose of the rule to imply the same porhibition or same disqualification as envisaged by sub-rules (b) and (c) in respect of candidates who are admittedly eligible under R. 5 (a)'.

7. Sub- rules (a), (b) and (c) of R. 5 are similar to sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 5. Only R. 5 (4) has been modified The learned Government pleader submits that R. 5 (4) has been modified. The learned Government pleader submits that R. 5 (4) has been recast to remedy the defect pointed out in the judgment of the learned judges referred to above. According to him, candidates who have already joined in Diploma course in any particular group, are allowed to join a degree course are paid stipend and if a student is allowed to study different subjects, the other students who had not obtained any admission would be deprived of the benefit. The Rule, according to him, was not intended to provide temporary employment and therefore no discrimination is made in respect of the postgraduate degree courses R. 5 deals with the rules for admission to the Degree course R. 5 (1) states that candidates who have passed, M.B.B.S examination of any one of hte Universities of the state shall be eligible to apply subrules (2) (3) and (4) impose restriction on admission of certain applications. R. 5 92) stipulates that applicants who are already post Graduate Degree holders in a subject or admitted and registered for a post-graduate Degree course in a subject shall not be considered for selection for post-graduate Degree course in another subject. The intention of this rule is to see that a candidate specialises only in one subject. R. 5 (3) enjoins that applicants who are already post-Graduate Diploma or degree in the subjects available in another group. Sub rules (2) & (3) of R. 5 impose restriction on the admission of applicants who are post-graduate Degree holders and Diploma holders in a subject for a course in another subject or group respectively. R. 5 (4) imposes a restriction on the admission of candidates who are admitted in post-Graduate diploma course in a subject. The rule enjoins that the applicants shall not be considered for admission to the post-Graduate Degree course in the subjects available in the group other than the one to which the subject of their choice is included. The restriction is reasonable because the purpose of the rule is to increase the proficiency and efficiency of a candidate in a particular subject. The subjects in the several groups are allied subjects. If a candidate after having studied a partucular subject in the Diploma course in one group for a considerable period is permitted to go to any subject in another group which is unconnected with the subject the entire study that he has made and the investment made by the Government on him will go a waste. Therefore we have no hesitation in holding that R. 5 (4) is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. We have already held that it is outside the domain of judicial power to go into the question of grouping the various courses of study into 4 groups it is only the Medical council or the University that is competent to change the group or the subjects. They are purely of an academic nature and the High Court will not go into the question of academic nature.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No. 4659 of 1982 submits that the petitioners Nos. 1 and 3 are willing for mutual exchange of their courses. The Director of medical Education may consider the request of the petitioners 1 and 3 if their request does not result in the violation of the rights of any candidate who has secured a better rank than these candidates.

9. In the result, the writ petitions fail and they are accordingly dismissed. No costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 150/- in each.

10. Petitions dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //