ANIL MINHAS Vs. H P UNIVERSITY SIMLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgement will be read along with the interim orders made from time to time in the course of the present proceeding and, more particularly, the interim order passed on Oct. 30, 1985.

(2.) Three separate Committees of Experts, one each for the subject's of Chemistry. Physics and Biology, appointed pursuant to the interim order passed on Oct. 30, 1985, have duly submitted their reports. The question papers of the petitioners were re-examined/rechecked in light of those reports. The position that has emerged upon such re-examination/re-checking is set out in a statement filed in the Court under the signature of the Registrar of the respondent University on Dec. 17, 1985. The statement reveals that petitioner No. 8, Taruna Nayyar, is the only one to secure a benefit on account of such re-examination re-checking. She has secured 218 marks upon re-examination/re-checking against 217 marks which she had secured upon original evaluation. The last candidate admitted in the First Year M.B.B.S. Course in the academic session 1985-86 had also secured 218 marks. Both, the last candidate accordingly securing admission and the petitioner No. 8, have thus obtained equal marks. According to the relevant provision made in S.V of the Prospectus for Graduate (M.B.B.S.) Course 1985-86 of the Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, the inter se ranking of the candidates obtaining equal aggregate marks in the competitive examination shall be according to the aggregate marks obtained by such candidates in Physics, Chemistry and Biology of the qualifying examination (Pre-medical). The respondent-University has clarified that petitioner No. 8 has obtained higher aggregate marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology than the last candidate admitted on the strength of his having secured equal number of marks (218 marks) and that under those circumstances she becomes entitled to claim admission in the First Year M.B.B.S. Course in the academic session 1985-86 in preference to the said candidate.

(3.) On behalf of the Medical Council of India, upon whom notice was ordered to issue on Dec. 26, 1985, to show cause why the Court should not direct that one seat be increased in the First Year M.B.B.S. Course in the Indira Gandhi Medical College Shimla, in the academic session 1985-86 in order to give admission to petitioner No. 8 in light of the foregoing position, an affidavit-in-reply dated January 8, 1986, has been filed opposing the issue of the proposed direction on two grounds. First, that in the course of the inspection carried out in May/June 1983 by three Inspectors appointed by the Medical Council of India it was found that the available teaching facilities for undergraduate teaching at the Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, were not adequate even for the candidates admitted in the existing number of seats and that the several recommendations to bring about improvements made in the Report of the Inspectors have still not been implemented. by the competent authority and that if any increase in seats is ordered, the same would adversely affect the standard of medical education and, second, that according to the Regulation of the Medical Council of India, the Pre. Clinical Course for 18 months has to be undergone by a candidate who appears at the First Year M.B.B.S. examination and that it is not likely that petitioner No. 8 would be able to complete the said Course if admission is granted to her at the present stage. The Court has taken into consideration the objections raised by the Medical Council of India. The Court is, however, not inclined to deny to petitioner No. 8 the relief of grant of admission in the First Year M.B.B.S. Course in the academic session 1985-86 by the increase of one seat on the basis of these objections. The only other way of granting the relief due to petitioner No. 8 is to quash the admission of the last candidate who has been admitted in the said course before six months and to adopt such a course of action appears to the Court to be inexpedient in the interest of justice. The addition of one more seat to a course for which sixty five seats are already sanctioned by the Medical Council of India cannot possibly disturb the academic balance to such an extent that it can be regarded as adversely affecting the standard' of medical education. The Acting Director of the Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, who is present in the Court, states that even if the petitioner is granted admission in the First Year M.B.B.S. Course in the current academic session at this stage, she will be permitted to appear in the concerned examination only after she has undergone the pre-clinical Course for 18 months and that the relevant Regulation of the Medical Council of India will be accordingly complied with. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, it appears to the Court to be just and proper to direct that petitioner No. 8 be given admission in the said College in the First Year M.B.B.S. Course in the academic session 1985-86 by increasing one seat. Be it stated that in granting this relief the Court has been guided by the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Bhagwant Singh, AIR 1985 SC 981.