Case Note & Summary
By way of a civil appeal, the Supreme Court examined the validity of two orders passed by the Allahabad High Court in a writ petition concerning inter-state transfer of a medical student. The respondent had obtained admission in a private medical college in Karnataka in July 1990, specifically J.J.M. Medical College, Devangera, and in early 1992 applied to the Government of Uttar Pradesh for transfer to a medical college at Allahabad. The State rejected the request under its policy that no student from outside the State shall be permitted to transfer to a medical college within the State. The respondent challenged the rejection by filing Writ Petition No. 11612 of 1992 before the Allahabad High Court. On 2 April 1992, the Standing Counsel for Uttar Pradesh was asked to obtain instructions. Within five days, on 7 April 1992, a Single Judge granted the Standing Counsel three more weeks to file a counter-affidavit but simultaneously directed the provisional admission of the respondent to the second professional MBBS course on five percent vacancies in accordance with the Regulations framed under the Indian Medical Council Act. The Judge made no prima facie finding that the State policy was bad and made no comparison with other similarly placed applicants. Later, on 12 November 1992, another Single Judge allowed the writ petition, primarily relying on the fact that the State Government had subsequently permitted the respondent to continue her studies after the interim order. The Supreme Court found both orders legally unsustainable. It reiterated that mandatory interim orders are neither a matter of course nor of charity; the power to grant interim orders is coupled with a duty to consider all relevant facts and legal principles. Admissions to educational institutions should not be granted by interim orders without fully hearing the respondents. The Court also held that the final order failed to apply the principles governing judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, as it did not refer to the Government's policy or examine comparative merit. The respondent's plea that she had been admitted since April 1992 and was about to complete her course was rejected; the Court observed that the respondent had invited the invalid orders and had to face the consequences of their invalidation. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside both the interim order dated 7 April 1992 and the final order dated 12 November 1992, and remitted the writ petition to the Allahabad High Court for disposal on merits in accordance with law. Appellants' costs were assessed at Rs. 5,000 consolidated.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Exercise of power under Article 226 must follow legal principles and not be a matter of course - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - High Court allowed writ petition without referring to State Government's transfer policy and without examining comparative merit of other applicants, treating the matter as routine; Supreme Court held that such order was unsustainable and set it aside (Paras 79-B, 79-D). B) Practice and Procedure - Interim Orders - Mandatory interim orders require consideration of all relevant facts and legal principles and cannot be passed without hearing respondents - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - Single Judge directed provisional admission to second professional MBBS course only five days after asking Standing Counsel to obtain instructions, without indicating why State policy was bad; Supreme Court held that admissions to educational institutions should not be granted by interim orders without fully hearing respondents and set aside the interim order (Paras 78-C-D). C) Education Law - Admission to Professional Courses - State policy on inter-state transfer of medical students must be considered; no routine displacement from one college to another - Indian Medical Council Act, Regulations - The order of provisional admission directed on 5 percent vacancies in accordance with Regulations framed under Indian Medical Council Act was passed without determining policy legality or relative merit; the Court held respondent invited the invalid orders and must face consequences, remitted matter to High Court for decision on merits (Paras 79-D).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court could validly issue a mandatory interim order directing provisional admission and subsequently allow the writ petition without considering the Uttar Pradesh Government's transfer policy and relevant legal principles governing judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; interim order dated 7 April 1992 and final order dated 12 November 1992 of Allahabad High Court set aside; writ petition remitted to Allahabad High Court for decision on merits in accordance with law; appellants' costs assessed at Rs. 5,000 consolidated.
Law Points
- Interim orders
- especially mandatory ones
- are neither a matter of course nor a matter of charity
- power to grant interim orders is coupled with duty to consider all relevant facts and legal principles
- admissions to educational institutions should not be granted by interim orders without fully hearing respondents
- High Court judicial review under Article 226 must not be exercised as a matter of course
- final order based on permission obtained under invalid interim order is unsustainable
- State policy on inter-state transfer of medical students must be considered
