Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

W.P No. 4609 of 1997 with Civil Appln. No. 239 of 1997

Advocates

S.C Bora
For State: A.M Kanade, Government Pleader

Judges

A.D Mane
R.G Deshpande, JJ.

Acts

justice.7. Rule 8.2.0 of the Admission Rules,
ARTICLE 21 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
Rule 8.2.0 of the Admission Rules.
Rule 8.2.0 of the said Rules,
V.K Barde, JJ.) Rule 8.2.0
Rules. Rule 6.0.2
Rule 4.1.2.3.2

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion (A.D. Mane, J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner passed the Higher Secondary Certificate Examination (March 1996) with 285/300 marks (95%) in the Medical Group and applied for admission to the M.B.B.S. course at the Dean, Government Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad on 15-7-1996. A Regional Final Merit List (displayed 18-7-1996) placed the petitioner at Sr. No. 180. The State Merit List (published 30-9-1996) also showed the petitioner at Sr. No. 180.

The applicable admission framework included provisions such as Rule 4.1.2.3.2 (70% seats from candidates of the concerned university area), Rule 6.0.2 (merit list descending order) and Rule 8.2.0 (wait-listing of certain candidates for Government college vacancies). The petitioner received admission to M.G.M. Medical College, Mumbai (a recognised college) on a free seat but contends he was entitled to be wait-listed for Government colleges and that his name did not appear on the wait list. Four other candidates with lower marks were admitted to Government Medical College free seats.

The petitioner filed a writ petition on 30-9-1996 seeking various reliefs, including directions to admit him to a free seat in a Government College. During pendency, the petitioner filed a Civil Application (No. 239 of 1997) noting that the four wait-listed candidates had been admitted under Rule 8.2.0, that the petitioner had completed the first year of M.B.B.S. in a private college on a free seat, and requesting admission to the Government Medical College for the second year to meet the ends of justice. The State acknowledged vacancies for second year seats and that Rule 8.2.0 should have been applied to the petitioner.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the petitioner was entitled to be considered and wait‑listed for admission to Government Medical Colleges under Rule 8.2.0 of the Admission Rules and whether failure to do so deprived him of a legitimate claim to a free seat.
Whether, given the petitioner completed first year in a private college and given present vacancies in the second year at the Government Medical College, the petitioner should be admitted to the second year M.B.B.S. course in a Government Medical College to remedy the prior failure to apply Rule 8.2.0.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments (as presented)

The petitioner contended he was entitled to be wait-listed for Government college seats under Rule 8.2.0 and that his claim was not considered, resulting in denial of admission despite having higher marks than four candidates who were admitted.
Counsel (Shri Bora) argued that if the petitioner had been considered under Rule 8.2.0 he would have been admitted to a Government Medical College for the first year and, since vacancies now exist for second year, he is entitled to admission to the second year in Government Medical College under the same rule.
Counsel relied on a prior decision in Writ Petition No. 4929 of 1996 (Sandeep Uttamrao Wankhede v. State) in which Rule 8.2.0 was applied to grant relief where the designated authority failed to follow that rule.

Respondents' Arguments (as presented)

The State (through Shri Kanade, Government Pleader) conceded that there are vacancies in the second year M.B.B.S. course at the Government Medical College, Mumbai, and further conceded that under Rule 8.2.0 the petitioner ought to have been selected for admission to the Government Medical College for the first year.
The State did not traverse (i.e., formally dispute) the factual averments in the Civil Application that four lower-ranked candidates had been admitted to Government College seats while the petitioner was not.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Sandeep Uttamrao Wankhede v. State (Writ Petition No. 4929/1996) — decision 9-12-1996 (Coram: N.P. Chapalgaonker and V.K. Barde, JJ.)	Interpretation and application of Rule 8.2.0: a candidate admitted in a private college on a payment seat is to be wait‑listed for Government college vacancies.	The court relied on this decision as directly analogous and supportive of granting relief where Rule 8.2.0 was not followed by the designated authority; it informed the conclusion that the petitioner should have been considered and may be admitted to the Government college for the second year.
Unni Krishnan (1993) 1 SCC 645 (Mohan, J. concurring) — cited	Principle that deprivation of livelihood except by just and fair procedure can be challenged under Article 21; right to education discussed in the report.	The court invoked the Unni Krishnan discussion to support that deprivation of educational opportunity affecting livelihood can be challenged under Article 21 and to frame the State's obligation to provide educational facilities.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225 — cited	Harmonious construction of Directive Principles with fundamental rights; Articles 14 and 16 advancing social justice.	The court used the Kesavananda Bharati reference (as cited in Unni Krishnan) to emphasize that directive principles and Articles 14 and 16 support ensuring equitable access to higher education on the basis of merit.
Dwarkanath v. I.T.O. AIR 1966 SC 81 (Subba Rao, J.) — cited	Scope of Article 226: High Courts have wide power to mould reliefs to meet peculiar circumstances.	The court invoked the explanation of Article 226 to justify moulding relief (admission to second year) to meet the specific facts and achieve justice.
Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India (1990) 1 SCC 613 (para 124) — Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. — cited	Observations on justice and the need to sometimes craft remedies that are contextually fair.	The court quoted the passage to support acceptance of equitable relief aimed at remedying the effects of non-observance of the rule, even if the remedy departs from a strict formula.
Bhoop Singh v. Union of India (1992) 3 SCC 136 — J.S. Verma, J. — cited	Observation that capitation fee renders education beyond reach; equity and non-discrimination in access to education.	The court cited this to underline the inequity of actions that render education inaccessible and to justify protecting the petitioner's right to a free seat.
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569 — K. Ramaswamy, J. — cited	Principle that appearance of injustice is denial of justice.	The court used this citation to reinforce the view that failure to apply Rule 8.2.0, producing an appearance of injustice, warranted remedial relief.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court's analysis proceeded by reference to the admission rules, the facts as alleged and not traversed by the State, prior judicial authority, constitutional principles and the remedial scope of the High Court's writ jurisdiction:

Rule-based entitlement: The court observed that Rule 8.2.0 clearly provides that candidates selected for private colleges on merit/payment seats are to be wait‑listed for filling vacancies in Government colleges. The petitioner contended he was entitled to such consideration and was not so considered.
Undisputed facts and resulting hardship: The respondents did not traverse the factual averments that four lower-ranked candidates were admitted to Government college free seats while the petitioner was not. The court treated the failure to consider the petitioner's claim under the rule as causing greater hardship to the petitioner.
Support from precedent: The court relied on the earlier decision in Writ Petition No. 4929/1996 (Sandeep Wankhede), where Rule 8.2.0 was enforced to remedy a similar failure. The court reasoned that, had the petitioner been considered under Rule 8.2.0 at the relevant time, he would likely have secured admission to a Government college.
Constitutional and equitable context: The court invoked Article 21 jurisprudence (as discussed in Unni Krishnan) to explain that deprivation of an opportunity to pursue a profession may be challenged when there is a failure of fair procedure. The court also referred to directive principles and Articles 14 and 16 to frame the State's obligation to provide and make higher education accessible on the basis of merit.
Scope of relief under Article 226: The court noted the High Court's broad power under Article 226 and the prerogative writ of mandamus to mould equitable reliefs in peculiar circumstances, citing Dwarkanath and related authorities. The court emphasized that equitable considerations can justify tailored remedial action where rules governing admission were not properly observed.
Practical remedy: Given (a) the conceded existence of vacancies in the second year at the Government Medical College, (b) the non-application of Rule 8.2.0 to the petitioner when it should have been applied, and (c) analogous relief in prior authority, the court concluded that admitting the petitioner to the second year in the Government Medical College was an appropriate and just remedy.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The court directed respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to admit the petitioner to the second year M.B.B.S. course in the Government Medical College at Mumbai. The court made the rule absolute, ordered no costs, and disposed of the Civil Application.

Implications:

Direct effect: The immediate and concrete effect is that the petitioner must be admitted to the second year M.B.B.S. course in the Government Medical College at Mumbai as directed by the court, and the Civil Application is disposed.
No costs: The court expressly ordered no costs.
Scope of precedent: The opinion relied upon and applied existing precedents and constitutional principles to grant relief; it did not announce a novel legal doctrine. The decision applies established principles (particularly enforcement of Rule 8.2.0 and equitable correction under Article 226) to the facts before the court.

Order accordingly.

Show full summary ...

Ramesh Kumar Rajaymohan v. State Of Maharashtra And Others

A.D Mane, J.:— The petitioner has passed his Higher Secondary Certificate Examination conducted by the Maharashtra State Secondary and Higher Secondary Board, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, in the month of March, 1996. The petitioner had secured 285 marks out of 300 in Medical Group. Total percentage comes to 95%. The petitioner submitted his application for admission to M.B.B.S course to the Dean, Government Medical College and Hospital, at Aurangabad on 15-7-1996.

2. On 18-7-1996, Regional Final Merit List was displayed by the designated authority under the rules framed by the State Government, vide Government Resolution dated 6-6-1996 for admission to Medical Course for Academic year 1996–97. The petitioner was shown at Sr. No. 180 in the said merit list. Rule 4.1.2.3.2 empowers designated authority to fill in 70% seats from amongst the candidates who have passed XII Standard Examination from the School/College situated in concerned University area, as per the Rules. Rule 6.0.2 requires the merit list to be prepared in descending order, either for the category of University or for the State.

3. On 29-9-1996, a notification was published in the local news paper informing that the process of admission would commence from 20-9-1996 and on 30-9-1996, State Merit List was published and name of the petitioner was shown at Sr. No. 180. As per the availability of the seats, the petitioner was likely to get seat at M.G.M Medical College Mumbai, which is a recognised Medical College, but the petitioner was required to pay tuition fees of Rs. 20,000, as against Rs. 6,000/- in the Government Medical College. The petitioner submits that the petitioner was given admission to M.G.M College at Mumbai on free seat.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was entitled to be wait-listed for selection to the admission of M.B.B.S course in Government Colleges on merit. The petitioner's name, however, did not appear in the wait list. It is further case of the petitioner that from amongst the wait listed candidates, four candidates were given admission to Government Medical College from free seats category, in total dis-regard to the claim of the petitioner. It is submitted that these four candidates were having less marks than the petitioner.

5. The petitioner, therefore, filed the writ petition No. 30-9-1996, inter alia seeking reliefs in various forms and one of the reliefs which is now asked, after amending the writ petition, is to issue directions to the respondents to admit the petitioner to the medical course from a free seat in Government College at Mumbai.

6. Before turning to the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner, it is relevant to state that during pendency of this petition, the petitioner has filed a Civil Application No. 239 of 1997 pointing out subsequent events. It is pointed out that four candidates, who were wait listed have been admitted to Medical course in the Government Medical Colleges in term of Rule 8.2.0 of the Admission Rules. The petitioner was, however, not given admission and he was singled out. The petitioner has further contended that during pendency of this petition, the petitioner has completed first year of his M.B.B.S course and the term of the second year has just began and therefore, the petitioner also prays that in the given set of circumstances, the respondents may be directed to admit the petitioner in the Government Medical College on a free seat for second year M.B.B.S course in order to meet the ends of justice.

7. Rule 8.2.0 of the Admission Rules, clearly provides that all the candidates selected for admission against merit/payment seat of Private Colleges be wait listed for filling in the seats in the Government colleges. The petitioner has categorically stated that if his case would have been considered he would have been admitted in the Government College even for the first year M.B.B.S course, however, the petitioner's legitimate claim has been denied. It is, therefore, submitted by Shri Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner that there are vacancies in second year M.B.B.S course in the Government Medical College at Mumbai. If the case of the petitioner is considered as if that he was admitted to Government Medical College under Rule 8.2.0 of the said Rules, the petitioner is entitled to be admitted in Government Medical College for II year M.B.B.S course.

8. In this context, Shri Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner invites our attention to the decision in Writ Petition No. 4929 of 1996, wherein directions were issued to the respondents to admit the candidate who was denied admission to the first year M.B.B.S course on account of failure by the designated authority to follow Rule 8.2.0 of the said Rules.

9. Shri Kanade, learned Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents-State authorities, at the out set submits, under instructions that there are vacant seats available to be filled in for second year of M.B.B.S course in Government Medical College at Mumbai. Shri Kanade, further fairly submits that under Rule 8.2.0 of the Admission Rules, the petitioner ought to have been selected for admission to the Government Medical College for first year M.B.B.S course.

10. It may be stated that had the petitioner been considered under Rule 8.2.0 for 30% quota, he would have been entitled for selection to the Government Medical College on a free seat. The respondents have considered, for selection to Government Medical College, four candidates who have admittedly lower in rank to the petitioner. That necessarily means that the petitioner, who was similarly situated, has been denied his legitimate claim for admission to Government Medical College on a free seat. These facts, which are averred in the Civil application, supporting the writ petition, have also not been traversed by the respondents.

11. Now in Writ Petition No. 4929/1996, Sandeep Uttamrao Wankhede v. State decided on 9-12-1996 (Coram: N.P Chapalgaonker and V.K Barde, JJ.) Rule 8.2.0 came to be considered and it was held that the petitioner who was admitted in a Private College on payment seat was entitled to be considered as wait listed candidate for filling upon the seat falling vacant in Government College. Accordingly, the petitioner in that petition was granted the relief. Had the claim of the present petitioner been considered under Rule 8.2.0 there is no quarrel that the petitioner would have been considered for admission to Government Medical College irrespective of the fact that he was admitted on a payment seat out of 30% quota in private Medical College.

12. Failure to consider the claim of the petitioner as per the rules governing his admission to a free seat in Government College, undoubtedly, put the petitioner to a greater hardship. It is true that the petitioner has by this time completed his first year M.B.B.S course in a Private Medical College on free seat, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in order to give justice in a case where there has not been proper observance of the rule, the petitioner's claim for admission to free seat in Government College even for second year course could be considered, when it is common ground that there are vacancies at present in Government College at Mumbai.

13. It is true that there is no fundamental right to education for a profession and degree that flows form Article 21 of the Constitution of India, but as observed by Mohan, J. (concurring) in Unni Krishnan's case, (1993) 1 SCC 645 any person who is deprived of his right to livelihood except according to just and fair procedure established by law, can challenge the deprivation as offending the right to life conferred by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The State Government is under an obligation to make endeavour to provide educational facilities at all levels to its Citizens. It is well settled that the Directive Principles form fundamental feature and constitution enjoins upon the State to implement these directive principles. The directive principles provide the policy, the guidelines and the end of socio-economic freedom under Articles 14 and 16 and the means of implementing the policy to achieve the end say it to be promoted by the directive principles. As observed in the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala's case reported in (1973) 4 SCC 225 which referred to in para No. 41 of the report in Unni Krishnan's case, referred to above, “So far as courts are concerned where there is no apparent inconsistency between the directive principles contained in part III, which in fact supplement each other, there is no difficulty in putting harmoneous construction, which advances, object of the Constitution. It is from the point of view, Article 14 and 16 play their role to advance social justice….” In para No. 45 of the Unni Krishnan's report, it is clearly stated that, “….Everyone has the right to education. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit….”

14. The prerogative writ of Mandamus is confined only to public authorities to compel performance of public duty. The scope of Article 226 as explained by Subba Rao, J. in Dwarkanath v. I.T.O, AIR 1966 SC 81 is that Article 226 is couched in comprehensive phraseology and it ex facie confers a wide power on the High Courts to mould the reliefs to meet the peculiar and complicated requirements of this Country. We may take advantage of the observations of Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. (as he then was) in case of Charan Lal Sahu v. Union Of India., (1990) 1 SCC 613 para 124 and to quote,

“ …..Justice is a psychological yearning, in which men of vindication of their view point before the forum or the authority enjoined or obliged to take a decision affecting their right. Yet, in the particular situations, one has to bear in mind how an infraction of that should be sought to be removed in accordance with justice…. To do a great right after all: it is permissible some time to do a little wrong….”.

15. It cannot be disputed that Article 14 or the principle of non-discrimination is an equitable principle and therefore, any relief claimed on that basis must itself be founded on equity and not be alien to that concept. As observed by J.S Verma, J. (as he then was) in case of Bhoop Singh v. Union of India, (1992) 3 SCC 136, 141 para 8, capitation fee makes the availability of education beyond the reach of the citizens. The action of the respondent in not considering the rightful claim of the petitioner for admission to free seat in Government College at the earliest opportunity is not in conformity with Rule 8.2.0 Therefore, it becomes necessary to protect the right of the petitioner to free seat in Government College. Appearance of injustice is denial of justice, K. Ramaswamy, J. in Kartar Singh v. State Of Punjab., (1994) 3 SCC 569.

16. It is in these premises, we have no hesitation to accept the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner which also could not be controverted by the learned Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents State authorities, to grant the relief on subsequent change in he circumstances.

17. In the circumstances we direct the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to admit the petitioner to the second year M.B.B.S course in the Government Medical College at Mumbai. Rule is accordingly made absolute. No order as to costs. Civil Application stands disposed of.

Order accordingly.

Ramesh Kumar Rajaymohan v. State Of Maharashtra And Others

Structured Summary of the Opinion (A.D. Mane, J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments (as presented)

Respondents' Arguments (as presented)

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Ramesh Kumar Rajaymohan v. State Of Maharashtra And Others

Comments