MRIDULA AVASTHI Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ application under Article 32 and the transferred writ petitions from the Delhi High Court relate to selection of medical graduates for undertaking postgraduate study for the year 1988 under the Delhi University. In Dr. Dinesh Kumar v. Motilal Nehru College, Allahabad and Ors., this Court emphasised the desirability of postgraduate education in the Medical Faculty as far as possible to have uniformity throughout the country. It, therefore, commended to the educational institutions which followed the system of one year house job followed by two years' post-graduate course to switch over to the pattern of a three year post-graduate course with house job in the first year. On September 25,1987, in the very same matter, when the Court made an order reported in (1987) 4 SCC 459, it was pointed out that in some States the post-graduate course is for a term of two years with one year housemanship while in the other States it is a full term of three years. This Court, therefore, directed with a view to bringing about uniformity on the basis of the principle accepted in the earlier decision that for admission beginning from 1993, there would be only one pattern, namely, a three year integrated course without any separate housemanship. The University of Delhi decided to adopt the three year course for the post-graduate degree and a two year course for the diploma commencing from the academic session of 1988. With a view to mitigating hardship to candidates/ students who, had already completed the house job and had become entitled to undergo the post-graduate course in two years, as a transitory provision, the University decided to continue the practice prevailing prior to 1988 for a year. The University evolved a scheme whereunder the number of seats for the post-graduate course and diploma course available in the previous year for a student who had completed one year's housemanship were left untouched. The number of such seats are 198 for the degree course and 111 for the diploma course. Out of these 25% being placed at the disposal of the Government of India to be filled-up on all India selection basis, the exact number available to be filled up by the University worked out to 149 and 84 respectively. As a transitional provision intended for the 1988 Session only the University agreed to fix 75% quota (representing 139 seats in the three-year degree course and 66 seats in the two-year diploma course.) The following was specified a part of the scheme:

(2.) A set of writ petitions was filed before the Delhi High Court challenging the scheme of the University mainly on the basis that when there was one selection test, merit should prevail and classification in the manner indicated by the scheme was bad. Reliance .was placed before the High Court on observations of this Court that for postgraduate degree the test of excellence should prevail and the level of high proficiency should be maintained. The High Court made an interim order requiring the University to have the selection completed on the basis of merit adjudged in the common selection test.

(3.) This is a dispute essentially between the University and the freshers who have not done housemanship on one side and the seniors who have already completed housemanship for one year on the other. There can be no dispute that the seniors and the freshers belong to two separate categories and cannot be said to be equals. If the University had not prescribed a common selection test for these two categories, the question of test of comparative merit would not have arisen. If that had not been done perhaps the High Court would not have made its direction and the difficulty which has arisen would not have cropped up.