JEEVAK ALMAST Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution arises out of implementation of the decision rendered by this Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain's case (1984) 3 SCR 942 : (AIR 1984 SC 1420).

(2.) The petitioner is an unsuccessful candidate for admission to the Post Graduate Medical courses in the All India Entrance Examination held by the all India Institute of Medical Sciences, Respondent No. 2. In this application he has asked for a declaration that clauses 11 and 15(g) of the Bulletin of Information published by respondent No. 2 in regard to the Post Graduate Medical. courses are illegal, unconstitutional and incompetent. He has also asked for a writ of certiorari to quash the list of successful candidates for admission in the Post Graduate Medical colleges within the 25 per cent reserved quota and for a writ of mandamus to the respondents to admit the petitioner and similarly placed other candidates against the 1500 and odd seats left out due to the arbitrary decision/action of the respondents. In Dr. Pradeep Jain's case (supra) this court decided that admission to 25 per cent of the seats in the different Post Graduate courses in the medical colleges located in the States and Union Territories as also those run by public authorities should be filled up by an All India Entrance examination. Under the Court's directions made from time to time, a scheme was evolved by the Union of India in co-ordination with the Indian Medical Council and the States Governments, universities and medical institutions. This Court approved the scheme and directed that the same should be implemented from the Academic Year 1988-89 by holding an All India Entrance Examination by the respondent No. 2. The scheme contained the provision that the cut-off base for selection for admission shall be 50 per cent marks. The bulletin prepared by the respondent No. 2 is on the basis of the scheme. Since the bulletin is in accordance with the scheme approved by this Court, and the examination has been held following the terms thereof the petitioner is not entitled to the first two reliefs claimed by him, namely, quashing of a part of the bulletin and quashing of the list of selected candidates. We would like to make it clear that there is no tenable challenge against the examination. It is well settled that judicial determination is not to be tested by the touch stone of Article 14 of the Constitution.

(3.) Since the matter has come before this Court and from the facts disclosed in the petition we find that in the very first year of implementing the scheme, a stalemate has arisen, we think it appropriate to give certain directions which may, in the facts and circumstances, be appropriate and adequate to meet the situation to the extent possible.