Skip to content


Anand Kumar JaIn Vs. the Government of Madhya Pradesh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Misc. Petn. No. 69 of 1959
Judge
Reported inAIR1959MP265
ActsConstitution of India - Article 226; Madhya Pradesh Medical Colleges Admission Rules, 1958 - Rules 8, 9, 10 and 11
AppellantAnand Kumar Jain
RespondentThe Government of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Advocates:Devendra Kumar Jain, Adv.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
- - 9 were admitted when the petitioner was better qualified than all of these three respondents. (it does not relax the minimum requirement of second class). in other cases, relaxation may be made if the candidate failed in the first attempt because he fell ill during the examination. , is more capable and better qualified than a second class intermediate. the petitioner has not evenin the petition, precisely alleged that respondent no......of reserved seats, the unfilled seats shall be treated as general seats and will be filled under rule 8. rule 11 allows relaxation about passing the qualifying examination in the first attempt in the case of candidates for the reserved seats. (it does not relax the minimum requirement of second class). in other cases, relaxation may be made if the candidate failed in the first attempt because he fell ill during the examination.6. now it is not disputed that the petitioner does not come within any of the above rules nos. 8, 8(a), 9, 10 and 11. it is quite clear that respondents nos. 7, 8 and 9 also do not come under any of these rules. the question, therefore, is whether the said rules were in any way infringed or bye-passed when the authorities concerned picked up the three respondents.....
Judgment:

S.D. Shrivastava, J.

1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner was a candidate for admission to one of the Medical Colleges in the Madhya Pradesh for the academic year 1958-59 but admission was refused to him. He now prays that by a writ of mandamus, the authorities concerned be ordered to admit him.

2. The petitioner's case is that applications were invited for admission to the medical colleges in the Madhya Pradesh and rules were framed for admission to the M. B. B. Section, first year course for the Session 1958-59 by the Government of Madhya Pradesh. A printed copy of these rules has been filed with the petition. They are styled as 'Medical Colleges in Madhya Pradesh Rules for Admission 1958' (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). He fulfilled the minimum qualification having passed the Intermediate Examination in Physics, Chemistry and Biology.

The Rules provided for the order of preference in the selection of candidates. According to the petitioner, all those candidates who fulfilled the requirements under Rules 8, 9, 10 and 11 were admitted but the number of seats was larger than the number of candidates so admitted. On the unfilled seats Manohar Singh respondent No. 7, Kumari Mira Mukerji respondent No. 8 and Gyanchand respondent No. 9 were admitted when the petitioner was better qualified than all of these three respondents. With the petition has been filed a tabular statement showing the qualifications and other relevant particulars of the three respondents and the petitioner. The allegation of the petitioner is that justice was not done in rejecting his name and giving preference to the above named respondents.

3. As per the aforesaid tabular statement:

(a) Anand Kumar, the petitioner, passed his Intermediate Science (Biology) Examination in 1955 in the 'pass division' in the first attempt, B. Sc. Examination in 1957 in the third division in the first attempt and the LL. B. (Prev.) Examination in 1958 in the second division in the first attempt. ('Pass Division' presumably refers to a case where a candidate appears and passes in a supplementary examination in one or more subjects);

(b) Manohar Singh respondent No. 7 passed the Intermediate Science (Biology) Examination in the third division in the second attempt and belongs to a scheduled caste;

(c) Kumari Mukerji respondent No. 8 passed the Intermediate Science (Biology) Examination in the year 1957 in the 'pass' division in the first attempt; and-

(d) Gyanchand respondent No. 9 passed the Intermediate Science (Biology) Examination in the second division in the second attempt.

4. Now according to Rules 4 and 7, the minimum qualifications are Intermediate Science Examination with Physics, Chemistry and Biology and the minimum age must be seventeen years 'on the 1st December of the year of admission.' Then under Rule 8, it is provided that selection of candidates will be made on merits as disclosed by the marks obtained at the Intermediate Science Examination provided that the candidates have passed at least in the second division at the first attempt. Then there is a provision regarding the candidates who obtained a first class.

5. Rule 8(a) provides for the preference to be given on the basis of having served in the N. C. C. and on the basis of being in the college team for Hockey, Foot-ball etc., as between two candidates who acquired equal marks. Rule 9 reserves 15 per cent, seats for women candidates, 15 per cent, for scheduled caste and 3 per cent for wards of bona fide political sufferers provided the candidates passed the Intermediate Science Examination in second class.

Rule 10 lays down that if the required number of candidates possessing the required number of minimum qualifications as laid down are not forthcoming for the category of reserved seats, the unfilled seats shall be treated as general seats and will be filled under Rule 8. Rule 11 allows relaxation about passing the qualifying examination in the first attempt in the case of candidates for the reserved seats. (It does not relax the minimum requirement of second class). In other cases, relaxation may be made if the candidate failed in the first attempt because he fell ill during the examination.

6. Now it is not disputed that the petitioner does not come within any of the above Rules Nos. 8, 8(a), 9, 10 and 11. It is quite clear that respondents Nos. 7, 8 and 9 also do not come under any of these Rules. The question, therefore, is whether the said Rules were in any way infringed or bye-passed when the authorities concerned picked up the three respondents above named, rejecting the petitioner. The petitioner has not been able to tell us any Rule under which he was entitled to a preference over the three respondents.

His contention is that on a commonsense principle, he must be given preference because he is a graduate while none of the said respondents is. In proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, we cannot sit in judgment on the wisdom of the Selection Board who gave preference to the respondents. In the absence of any Rules as to how candidates ate to be selected for the unfilled sea's after exhausting Rules 8 to 11 it is not for this Court to lay down additional rules.

The matter was entirely in the discretion of the authorities who were in charge of the admission of the candidates. May be that the authorities concerned thought it advisable to give preference to respondent No. 7 because he belonged to a scheduled caste, to respondent No. 8 because the candidate was a girl and to respondent No. 9 because he passed the Intermediate Science Examination in the second division. That is a view which might have prevailed with the authorities but as we have said above, it is not within our jurisdiction to say whether that view was right or wrong.

If the petitioner had showed us any Rule according to which such preference was not permissible, we would have certainly held that there was a violation of that Rule. But it is conceded by the petitioner before us that there is no such Rule. Shri Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, says that it is the rule of natural justice which has been violatted. In our opinion, there is no such rule of natural justice. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that a third class B. Sc., is more capable and better qualified than a second class Intermediate. It is a debatable point and there could always be two views in the matter. It is beyond our province to adjudicate upon such an issue. That the petitioner has passed the LL. B. (Prev.) Examination is absolutely of no relevance.

7. The result of this discussion is that the petitioner completely fails to satisfy us that the administrative authorities are not doing what it is their duty to do because no rule has been placed before us which has been transgressed.

8. The learned petitioner has invited our attention to the fact that respondent No. 7 was not eligible for admission inasmuch as he was below the minimum age prescribed under Rule 7. According to the tabular statement filed with the petition, he was sixteen years eleven months and nineteen days on the 1st December 1958 (short by eleven days). The argument is that if respondent No. 7 is found to be ineligible, it would entail one vacancy and for filling that vacancy the petitioner's name along with the names of the candidates who may still be on the waiting list can be considered by the Selection Board,

But what we find is that that ground has not been taken in the petition nor has any affidavit been filed to that effect by the petitioner. It was very easy for the petitioner to have obtained a certified copy of the school or college register or of the High School Examination certificate. Nothing has been done. A statement in one of the annexures (the tabular statement) cannot be a ground for entertaining this petition. The petitioner has not evenin the petition, precisely alleged that respondent No. 7 did not fulfil the age qualification and that in violation of Rule 7 he was admitted.

9. There is yet another reason for which the petitioner has disentitled himself to any relief by this Court. We are not dismissing this petition on that ground alone, but it deserves to be mentioned. We are told that the academic session in the medical colleges commenced on the first of August 1958. For all these six months, the three respondents have been attending the medical colleges. It is too late now to ask any of them to quit. The petitioner should have come to this Court earlier but he filed this petition on December 9, 1958 after an inordinate delay. Ordinarily a delay in filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for invoking our jurisdiction, is of no consequence but in a case such as this, it is certainly a very important consideration.

10. For all these reasons this petition is dismissed in limine.

11. V. R. NEVASKAR, J. : I agree.


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