- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sanjay Ahlawat v. Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
Sanjay Ahlawat, an aspirant to postgraduate medical courses for the 1993 session of Maharishi Dayanand University (MDU), Rohtak, challenged clause 3(i) of Chapter IV of the University’s prospectus. Under that clause the merit for admission was computed out of 100 marks: 90 marks for the written entrance test and an additional 10-mark weightage for graduates of the State’s lone medical college at Rohtak (or 5 marks for Haryana-domiciled graduates of other recognised colleges). Of 94 total postgraduate seats, 24 were filled on an all-India basis and 70 on the basis of this examination.
The appellant obtained 33 marks in the written test and was placed 76th in the merit list, eventually accepting a DOMS seat. He alleged that three higher-ranked candidates received the benefit of the 10-mark weightage and, without it, would have scored fewer than his 33 marks. After dismissal of similar challenges before the Punjab & Haryana High Court and dismissal of a special-leave petition in Manoj Kumar, the present special-leave petition was filed and leave was granted, leading to this appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether awarding an additional 10 marks to graduates of the Rohtak Medical College (and 5 marks to Haryana-domiciled graduates of other colleges) for admission to postgraduate medical courses violates Article 14 of the Constitution by being arbitrary or discriminatory.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments
- The 10-mark weightage effectively shuts the door on non-Rohtak graduates, rendering the admission process arbitrary and discriminatory.
- After subtracting the weightage, higher-ranked candidates would have scored less than the appellant, demonstrating the distortion of merit.
- Reliance on Nidamarti Maheshkumar v. State of Maharashtra, where region-wise reservation in medical admissions was struck down.
Respondents’ Arguments
- Admissions are strictly merit-based; the impugned clause merely gives limited preference, not reservation.
- Haryana has only one medical college and suffers an acute shortage of doctors—especially specialists—making it necessary to encourage local graduates to remain and serve in the State.
- Statistical data for 1992-1994 showed that candidates from outside Rohtak Medical College had in fact secured admissions, disproving the allegation of de-facto 100% reservation.
- The clause had already been upheld by the High Court in Sanjeev Gaur and Manoj Kumar, and the latter challenge was rejected by the Supreme Court at the SLP stage.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Sanjeev Gaur (Dr) v. M.D. University, Rohtak (CWP No. 10818/1992) | Upheld validity of clause 3(i) granting extra marks to Rohtak graduates. | Cited as an earlier decision sustaining the same clause; used to support the current dismissal. |
| Manoj Kumar (Dr) v. M.D. University, Rohtak (CWP No. 8503/1993) and SLP No. 14185/1993 (dismissed) | Same clause upheld; Supreme Court refused special leave. | Relied on to show consistent judicial approval of the weightage system. |
| Nidamarti Maheshkumar v. State of Maharashtra (1986) 2 SCC 534 | Struck down region-wise exclusion in admissions; recognised limited grounds for departure from merit. | Distinguished: Unlike the complete exclusion in Maheshkumar, the present clause only gives marginal preference without creating absolute barriers. |
| Pradeep Jain (Dr) v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 654 | Laid down that deviation from merit may be justified to ensure adequate State medical services or to remedy regional backwardness. | Used to justify the 10-mark preference as linked to the State interest in retaining doctors. |
Court’s Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted that Haryana has a single medical college and a documented shortage of doctors: 1606 doctors in service against a sanctioned strength of 1961, with only 342 of 588 specialist posts filled. The impugned weightage was designed to encourage graduates likely to remain in the State, thereby serving its healthcare needs.
Distinguishing Nidamarti Maheshkumar, the Court emphasised that no seat-wise or college-wise reservation operated here; out-of-State and non-Rohtak graduates could—and did—secure admission. The additional marks constituted a limited preference with a rational nexus to a legitimate State objective, falling within the permissible departures from absolute merit recognised in Pradeep Jain.
Because the appellant failed to demonstrate that clause 3(i) amounted to hostile discrimination or arbitrary classification under Article 14, the Court found no constitutional infirmity. Prior High Court decisions upholding the same clause, and the Supreme Court’s own earlier refusal to grant leave in Manoj Kumar, reinforced this conclusion.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED. No order as to costs.
Immediate Effect: Clause 3(i) of the 1993 Prospectus remains valid; the 10-mark and 5-mark weightages continue to operate. The appellant’s admission stands confined to the DOMS course he had accepted. The judgment reaffirms earlier High Court decisions but does not create new constitutional doctrine beyond applying established principles of permissible preferential treatment in professional admissions.
C. Sen, J.— Special leave granted.
2. Sanjay Ahlawat, the appellant herein, has challenged the validity of clause 3(i) of Chapter IV of the Prospectus for MD/MS/PG Diploma Entrance Examination, 1993 of Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak, on the allegation that the procedure for selection and admission of students to the Postgraduate Medical Course is arbitrary and discriminatory.
3. A written examination is held for the purpose of selection of candidates to the Postgraduate Medical Course. The merit list of the candidates is prepared in the following manner:
“3. Determination merit.
(i) Weightage for Graduate of Medical College, Rohtak. 10 Marks Or Candidates who are residents/domicile of Haryana but have passed their MBBS from medical colleges outside Haryana provided the medical college is recognised by the M.C.I and where admission was secured on the basis of open competitive test 5 Marks (ii) Written Examination 90 Marks”
4. Apart from the institute at Rohtak, there is no other Medical college in the State of Haryana. Out of the total number of 94 seats available for admission to the Postgraduate Courses, 24 seats are reserved for students selected on all-India basis. The remaining 70 seats are allotted on the basis of the examination conducted for this purpose. Maharishi Dayanand University allows 10 extra marks to the candidates who have graduated from the Medical College at Rohtak. The medical graduates of other universities are at a disadvantage because of this rule.
5. Sanjay Ahlawat appeared in the entrance test conducted by the Maharishi Dayanand University for admission to MD/MS/PG Diploma/MDS course for the year 1993. He was placed at Sr. No. 76 in the merit list. He was asked to exercise his choice regarding the courses and subjects available on the basis of his position in the merit list. He was given admission to DOMS course on the basis of the option exercised by him at the time of interview.
6. The appellant's grievance is that Anupma Huda, Ashwani Kumar and Rajnish Gupta, being Respondents 3, 4 and 5, were placed in the merit list at Sl. Nos. 16, 17 and 38 respectively. The appellant was given 33 marks and placed at Sl. No. 76 in the merit list. Respondent 3 secured 41 marks, Respondent 4 secured 42.75 marks and Respondent 5 secured 40.75 marks, after being given weightage of 10 marks. If the weightage is taken away, the marks secured by them would come to less than 33. The grant of 10 marks to the locally qualified students virtually amounts to shutting the doors of admission to Postgraduate Medical Courses to the students who have qualified from other universities. There is no chance of getting admission to Maharishi Dayanand Medical College in MS/MD course.
7. It has been stated by the Registrar of Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak, in his counter-affidavit to the special leave petition, that the admissions are made strictly on the basis of merit. There is a rule for granting weightage of 10 marks to the candidates, who are graduates of Medical College, Rohtak. The main reason for this rule is that there is only one medical college in the entire State of Haryana. There is shortage of doctors, in particular specialist doctors in Haryana. The number of doctors employed in the Government Health Services is 1606 even though the sanctioned strength is 1961. Out of total strength of 588 specialist doctors, only 342 posts have been filled up. Therefore, some preference has to be given to the local graduates, so that they may qualify and serve the State. The weightage, that is given to the products of the local college, is mainly for the reasons stated hereinabove.
8. It has been most emphatically denied that granting 10 additional marks to the local graduates has, in fact, ensured 100% reservation for the State. A list of successful candidates who have graduated from institutions other than Rohtak Medical College, has been given for the sessions commencing in 1992, 1993 and 1994. A list has also been given of candidates, who had graduated from other institutions and had qualified for admission on the basis of the test held, but did not opt for any P.G course and did not appear in the interview for the session commencing in 1994 for reasons of their own.
9. The validity of clause 3(i) of Chapter IV of the Prospectus for Admission to MD/MS/PG Diploma Entrance Examination, 1993 had been challenged earlier in the cases of Sanjeev Gaur (Dr) v. M.D University, Rohtak CWP No. 10818 of 1992 and also in the case of Manoj Kumar (Dr) v. M.D University, Rohtak CWP No. 8503 of 1993. In both these cases, the validity of clause 3(i) was upheld. Manoj Kumar had approached the Supreme Court by filing SLP No. (C) 14185 of 1993, which was dismissed by a Bench comprising Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India and Mr Justice S. Mohan on 26-10-1993.
10. The appellant has been unable to establish that the system of awarding 10 extra marks to the graduates of the only local medical college for admission to the Postgraduate Medical Courses in the State of Haryana, is in any way discriminatory and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It has been explained on behalf of the respondents that the extra marks are awarded to the local medical graduates for the purpose of ensuring that medical facility in the State is not impaired in any way because of dearth of doctors. It is expected that the residents of Haryana, after obtaining Medical Degrees, will remain in Haryana and their services will be available to the people of the State. This distinction, in our view, cannot be regarded as arbitrary and discriminatory having regard to the object stated in the counter-affidavit.
11. Strong reliance was placed by the appellant on the case of Nidamarti Maheshkumar v. State of Maharashtra (1986) 2 SCC 534. In that case, Rule B(2) framed by the State Government on 21-12-1984 for admission of students to the MBBS course was under challenge. Rule B(2) provided:
“Students who have passed HSC (10+2) 12th standard examination of the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education from schools/colleges situated within the jurisdiction of one university are not eligible for admission to medical college or colleges situated in the jurisdiction of another university. The seats at the Government Medical Colleges in Maharashtra State except those earmarked for nominees of the Government of India and nominees of Miraj Medical Centre and those mentioned in Rule D(4) below are reserved for the students of the respective university area.”
12. As a result of this rule, medical colleges were classified region-wise and a student of a school or college situated within the jurisdiction of a particular university could not seek admission to a medical college situated within the jurisdiction of any other university. It was held on the basis of the judgment of this Court in the case of Pradeep Jain (Dr) v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 654 that the State could depart from the principle of selection based on merit on the basis of two grounds: (1) State interest in providing adequate medical service to the people of the State by imparting medical education to students who by reason of their residence in the State would be likely to settle down and serve the people of the State as doctors. (2) Backwardness of a particular region. The Court held that it was not possible to categorise the region within the jurisdiction of the various universities as backward and, in any event, no material was placed before the Court which could persuade the Court to reach that conclusion. As a result of the region-wise classification, a student from one region could not get admission to the medical colleges of another region, though he might have done much better than the students of the other region. In that view of this, Rule B(2) framed by the State Government for admission into medical colleges in the State, was struck down.
13. But, in the instant case, no reservation has been made for the boys graduating from Maharishi Dayanand Medical College at all. The students from other universities may apply for admission. This rule is that local boys graduating from medical colleges outside Haryana will be allotted 5 additional marks and the graduates of Medical College, Rohtak, will be allotted 10 additional marks in the selection test. There is no reservation of seats college-wise or university-wise. But some preference is given to candidates, based on domicile in Haryana or education at the only medical college in Haryana. This does not have the effect of shutting the doors of admission to the outstation boys. In fact, a number of candidates who have graduated from other medical colleges have been admitted to the postgraduate medical course of the Maharishi Dayanand University on the basis of the selection test conducted by the University. The appellant himself has been admitted in the DOMS course according to the option exercised by him.
14. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
Alert