Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal by Gujarat University against an order of the High Court dated 30.9.1991, which directed the university to grant admission to respondent No.1 in the M.Ch. (Onco surgery) super speciality course for the session commencing 1.7.1991. The university had invited applications and conducted an entrance examination for two-year super speciality courses D.M. and M.Ch. Due to limited seats, the university's rule O.M.S.-16 provided first preference to candidates from Gujarat University, second preference to candidates from other universities of Gujarat State, and stated that any vacancy remaining after this shall remain unfilled. The rule also required a postgraduate degree (M.D. or M.S.) and made the objective examination result the sole criterion for admission, with the Vice-Chancellor's decision final. Respondent No.1 was denied admission solely because he was not a student of Gujarat University, leading him to file a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court allowed the petition, holding that students from any recognised university were eligible and the preference clause violated Article 14 of the Constitution, relying on Jagdish Saran v. Union of India and Pradeep Jain v. Union of India. The university appealed to the Supreme Court. During pendency, the respondent completed the course based on the High Court order, making the appeal infructuous. However, the Supreme Court examined the rule. The university contended that admission was based on merit with only a preference for its own students. The Court reiterated that the object of selection is to choose the best candidates, and regional or other considerations that fail the test of Article 14 should not affect merit. Yet, acknowledging local and regional compulsions, the Court noted its previous decisions allowing institutional and residence reservations to equalise opportunities. It held that a rule giving preference to students of the university from a merit list is not per se arbitrary, unreasonable, or violative of Article 14. However, the clause requiring unfilled vacancies to remain vacant was held irrational, as no rational purpose was shown. The Court directed the university to re-examine the rule and make provision for filling vacancies within the prescribed time schedule. The appeal was allowed to the extent indicated above, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Equality and Non-Discrimination - Institutional Preference in Super Speciality Medical Admissions - Constitution of India, Article 14 - Gujarat University rule O.M.S.-16 gave first preference to its own students for M.Ch./D.M. seats, second preference to other Gujarat universities, and required vacancies to remain unfilled - High Court held preference clause violative of Article 14 - Supreme Court held that mere preference to university's own students from a merit list is not per se arbitrary or unreasonable; institutional and residence reservations permissible to equalise opportunities, relying on Pradeep Jain, Dinesh Kumar, Anant Madan - Held institutional preference does not violate Article 14 (Paras 1-3). B) Constitutional Law - Arbitrariness - Rule Leaving Vacancies Unfilled - Constitution of India, Article 14 - Clause in admission rule stating 'any vacancy remaining after this shall remain unfilled' challenged - University's counsel could not explain object of this part - Court held this part cannot be held rational; directed university to re-examine rule and make provision for filling vacancies within time schedule prescribed for super speciality courses - Held that unfilled vacancies must be filled and not left vacant (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether institutional preference in admission to super speciality medical courses violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India; whether a rule providing that any vacancy remaining after giving first and second preference shall remain unfilled is arbitrary and irrational.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed to extent indicated above; no orders as to costs. Supreme Court held that rule giving preference to students of Gujarat University in super speciality courses is not per se arbitrary, unreasonable or violative of Article 14. However, part of rule providing 'any vacancy remaining after this shall remain unfilled' cannot be held rational; university directed to examine and give fresh look to said rule making provision for filling up such vacancies within time schedule prescribed for super speciality courses.
Law Points
- Institutional preference in super speciality medical courses not per se arbitrary
- merit remains primary criterion
- regional and institutional reservations permissible to equalise opportunities
- rule leaving unfilled vacancies irrational
- Article 14 scrutiny of admission rules
- balance between merit and local compulsions.
