ivil Appeal Nos
4339 4341 of 1990
From the Judgment and Order dated 30590 of the Allaha bad High Court in WP No 1841 of 1990
Kapil Sibbal Satish Chandra Ms Shobha Dikshit RK Virmani and ND Garg for the appearing parties
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATHAN J
These three petitions can be disposed of by a common order
Since we have heard counsel at some length we grant special leave in these petitions and proceed to dispose of the appeals
In the Moti Lal Nehru Medical College MLN College at Allahabad there are 8 seats for a post graduate course in Obstetrics and Gynecology
Of these 6 seats are reserved for institutional candidates and two are reserved for exter nal candidates
The principal of the college has filled up all the 8 seats by admitting institutional candidates and without considering the cases of any external candidate
Among the institutional candidates Dr Juhi Jain and Dr Padma Panjwani who had obtained the highest percentage of marks have been admitted and Dr Vandana Singh who had applied for admission as an external candidate was not considered
Dr Vandana Singh therefore approached the Allahabad High Court which upheld her contention and held that the two seats in question should have been filled up in accordance with a notification published by the State Gov ernment on 26th April 1986 amending a previous notifica tion dated 1512
1982 which provided as follows In every speciality seventy five percent seats in a par ticular medical college shall be reserved for the candidates who have passed the MBBS examination from that college and against the remaining twenty five percent seats candi dates who have passed MBBS examination from other Medi cal Colleges and are bona fide resident of Uttar Pradesh
shall be eligible for admission on the basis of merit along with the candidates who have passed the MBB S examina tion from that very college
The court therefore set aside the admission of Dr Juhi Jain and 877 Dr Padma Panjwani and directed the principal of the Medical College to consider the cases of Dr Vandana Singh and other external candidates who were eligible for admission to the open twenty five per cent seats on merits and in accord ance with law
The Principal of the Medical College Dr Juhi Jain and Dr Padma Panjwani have preferred these appeals
It has been submitted that the High Court has overlooked that the admis sions in question were to the second year or the post gradu ate degree course and were being considered under the terms of a residency scheme dated 22889
As per the terms of this scheme 25 of the seats in the course here two seats were to be filled in by candidates on the basis of an examination conducted by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences
However no such examination had been conducted by All India Institute and the college instead of leaving the seats vacant decided to fill them up by internal candidates on the basis of merit
In doing this the principal of the college was only complying with the terms of a decision rendered by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Dr RP Pandey Writ Petition No 8181 of 1989 and a precedent approved by the Directorate General of Health Services Medical Examination Cell Nirman Bhavan New Delhi which in a letter to the principal of an Agra College had when unable to recommend candidates on the basis of an All India examination for a particular course released these seats in favour of internal candidates
It has been submitted on behalf of Dr Juhi Jain that even assuming that the appli cation of Dr Vandana Singh had to be considered the High Court should have restricted itself to quashing the admis sion to one of the two seats and upheld the admission of Dr Juhi Jain who had secured higher marks than Dr Padma Panjwani
It is submitted on behalf of Dr Padma Panjwani that even assuming that Dr Vandana Singh s application merited consideration the interests of all the three candi dates could have been safeguarded by directing the State Government to create one additional seat and accommodate all the three candidates
Reliance is placed in this respect on certain observations made by this Court in the case of one Mridula Avasthi  Finally it has also been submitted on behalf of the appellants that Dr Vanda na Singh was not eligible for admission even on the terms of the notification dated 26486 since she was not a bona fide resident of Uttar Pradesh
It is stated that she had passed her MBBS examination from the State of Bihar and had also taken admission in a post Graduate Diploma Course in Gynecology and Obstetrics at Darbhanga Medical College Laneriasarai Bihar a fact which she had concealed from her writ petition
878 We have today passed a detailed judgment in regard to certain admissions made pending implementation of the resi dency scheme introduced by the State of UP in our judgment in a batch of appeals preferred by Dr Harihar Prasad Singh  Ors
as well as the State of Uttar Pradesh 1990 3 SCR 895 Civil Appeal Nos
and for reasons that will be appar ent later the judgment in the present appeals will have to be read along with the judgment in the said appeals for a full and proper understanding of the issues involved
That other decision turned on the interpretation of paragraph 5 of the residency scheme and also pertained to admissions to the second year of the post graduate degree course
The scheme contained a transitory provision in para 5 in respect of certain persons who were house officers between 1987 and 1989
the related batch of appeals raised a controversy pertaining to 75 of the seats in the second year of the post graduate courses which were reserved for institutional candidates
Here the question arises in respect of the remaining 25 of the seats reserved for external candi dates
To understand the point at issue we shall briefly touch upon those aspects of the residency scheme which we had no occasion to consider in the batches of appeals above referred to but which are material for the purposes of these appeals
By the notification dated 22889 a scheme called the residency scheme was introduced which dealt inter alia with the question of admission to post graduate specialities in medicinal courses
These cases like the other batches have proceeded on the assumption that so far as institu tional candidates are concerned admissions to the second year of a degree course could be granted to persons like Dr Juhi Jain and Dr Padma Panjwani who had completed the MBBS degree examination done one year of internship and had been working as house officers in the State of UP on 22889
There was a further controversy in those cases as to whether even persons who had been working as house offi cers since 181987 would be eligible for admission to this course and we have by our judgment in the connected ap peals answered this question in the affirmative
That question would become relevant here only if we do not agree with the view taken by the High Court here
We shall there fore keep that issue aside for the time being and shall deal with it later
To continue the narration regarding the scheme it provided for admission to the three year post graduate course of candidates who had passed the MBBS examina tion and completed one year s internship
Seventy five per cent of the admission to these courses was 879 to be available to institutional candidates on the basis of an entrance examination the balance of twenty five per cent of the seats was to be filled up on the basis of an all India entrance examination
This provision was in tune with certain directions given by this Court from time to time for regulating admission to medical colleges in various parts of the country
This Court had in particular directed that while 75 seats in each medical college all over the country could be filled in by local or institutional candidates the balance of 25 should be filled up on an all India basis
Elaborate directions were also given by this Court to enable the All India Medical Institute AIIMS to conduct a competitive test for selecting the candidates for these seats reserved on an all India basis
The scheme obviously referred to the all India competitive entrance examination to be conducted by the AIIMS every year
Indeed such an examination had been held by he AIIMS in January Febru ary 1989 and the candidates recommended had been taken into the medical colleges in UP as per the regulations then existing
However since the new scheme came into being in the middle of the year there was no possibility of either a local entrance examination nor an all India examination being held to regulate the admissions to the new course
C13f however provided that for the 75  institutional seats competitive entrance examination shall be enforced from the fresh batch and that before its enforcement the admission to institutional seats in residency shall be done on the basis of the merit of the MBBS examination
It was however silent in regard to the balance 25 seats
The question arose therefore as to what was to be done in respect of the remaining 25 seats
To meet the situation the Direction of Medical Education issued directions on 31089 to the following effect Since there will be no admission of external students this year against 25  open seats therefore after merging these open seats with 75 additional seats the admission of students of 1982 supplementary batch and 1983 regular batch should be done against the entire 100 seats by making their combined merit
 Accordingly it seems admissions to 100 seats in the first year of the three year post graduate scheme was thrown open fully to internal candidates the admissions being decided on the basis of their merit in the MBBS examination
We are however not concerned with that issue here
We are here concerned with admissions to the second year of the 880 residency scheme
The scheme made a provision in the second sub para of para 5 for the adjustment of persons serving in UP as house officers by absorbing them into the second year of the residency scheme
The provision has been set out and its implications discussed elaborately in our judgment in the allied batches of appeals and need not be repeated here
It is not quite clear whether the second sub para of para 5 of the scheme covers all the seats in the second year of the course or only 75 thereof
However it is apparently understood only as pertaining to the 75 seats reserved for institutional candidates and as there was no other provi sion in regard to the balance of 25 of the seats it was decided that those seats should also be filled in only by institutional candidates
However in the meanwhile an advertisement had been issued by the Principal of MLN Medical College Allahabad on 21989
This advertisement pertained only to the filling up of the seats comprising the 75 reserved for institutional candidates
There was no advertisement regarding the rest Dr Vandana Singh applied for admission to the second year of the degree course
In this state of affairs it is perhaps possible to dispose of the matter before us by holding that the application of Dr Vandana Singh can only be treated as one in response to the advertisement of 21st September 1989 and so could not have been entertained as she was not an institutional candidate and that she has no locus standi on the basis of that application to challenge the admission of other institu tional candidates
It is also possible to interpret the second sub para of para 5 of the scheme as covering the entirety of the seats for the second year of the course and not merely 75 of them
In this view also the application of Dr Vandana Singh would have to be rejected
It could however be argued that as the High Court has proceeded on the footing that para 5 pertains only to 75 of the seats quite irrespective of the basis of her applica tion Dr Vandana Singh has a right to insist that under the scheme 25 of the seats should be thrown open for all India competition and that the admissions based on a different basis were rightly quashed
If we assume this postulate to be correct and go strictly by the terms of the notification admissions should be on the basis of an all India examina tion
There was however no immediate possibility of any such examination being held for admission to the course for 1989 90
In this state of affairs one possible view which the High Court has taken is that these seats must be kept reserved for external candidates and the college must now take steps to invite external candidates in accordance with the terms contained in the notification dated 26486 if that notification were applicable and select them in the order of merit
The college however 881 took the view that since no all India candidates were avail able on the basis postulated in the scheme it would be appropriate to throw open the entire 100 to institutional candidates
It is not suggested that this proposal was actuated by any mala fides
In fact the State claims that this course of action has been approved by the decision of the High Court in the case of Dr RP Pandey
It may be that this is not the only view possible and that it is also possible to take the view that the college should have advertised these posts and filled them up by external candi dates on the basis of merit
If this be so such advertise ment cannot be continued to persons who are residents of UP as was envisaged by the notification dated 26th April 1986
That notification had been issued at a time when the concept of all India reservation for 25 Of the seats had not been adumbrated by this Court
Even if we assume that the High Court was right in saying that external candidates were eligible for admission that eligibility cannot be restricted only to those who had already applied indeed Dr Vandana Singh appears to have been the only one who had applied to the course in the MLN College but should be thrown open to all external candidates fulfilling the quali fications
This process cannot be completed within two weeks as directed by the High Court
To call for applica tion from all external candidates and select them either on the basis of an examination or otherwise will be a very lengthy and time consuming process
In our opinion the State Government and the college cannot be faulted for having decided to fill up the vacancies by offering these seats also to institutional candidates
This is a decision taken only for a transitional period because from 1990 onwards admissions will be regulated on the basis of an all India examination and such an examination is conducted by All India Institute of Medical Sciences every year for all medical colleges in India
In our opinion the decision taken by the State Government and the college was a practi cal one to tide over a transitional difficulty and there is no justification to upset the same on the basis of a soli tary application from an external candidate
For the reasons stated above we are of the opinion that the High Court erred in quashing the admissions made on the grounds given by it We uphold the rejection of Dr Vandana Singh s application
In the view we have taken it is not necessary to express any opinion as to whether even on the basis of the notification dated 26486 Dr Vandana Singh is eligible for consideration for admission to the course or she disqualified from such consideration for the reasons urged on behalf of the State Dr Juhi Jain and Dr Padma Panjwani
882 For the reasons mentioned above we set aside the order of the High Court and hold that the application of Dr Vandana Singh was rightly rejected by the college
We should however like to point out that in the connected batch of appeals we have upheld that interpretation by the High Court of Para 5 of the scheme and held that the eligi bility for admission of institutional candidates is not confined to those who were on house jobs as on 22889 but would also extend to those institutional candidates who have been in house jobs since 1887
The result of these two judgments read together will be that the entire 100 of the institutional seats should be filled up from out of all such applicants subject to their fulfilling any other qualifica tions and requirements that may be in force
Earlier the admission of the six candidates to 75 of the seats as well as of Dr Juhi Jain and Dr Padma Panjwani to 25 of the seats had been made by excluding institutional candidates who had completed their house jobs between 1887 and 22889
This will need to be reviewed now
The entire process of admission will now have to be redone in the light of these decisions
The selections of Dr Juhi Jain and Dr Padma Panjwani will be valid only if they come through successfully on merits on such reconsideration
We have therefore to agree with the High Court that the admissions of Dr Juhi Jain and Dr Padma Panjwani should also be set aside but direct that the admissions be redone in the light of our observations in these two judgments
These appeals are disposed of accordingly
We however make no order as to costs


Summary:
The respondent a bus conductor in the appellant State Road Transport Corporation was dismissed on the charge that he had erased the way bills and resold some already sold tickets
He filed a suit challenging the dismissal order on the ground that carbon copies of certain important documents were not made available to him during the enquiry and this had caused serious prejudice to him
The trial court dis missed the suit and the first appellate court also dismissed his appeal
However the High Court allowed his second appeal and held that the important documents had been purposely withheld which had resulted prejudice to the employee
The appellant Corporation filed a Special Leave Petition before this Court contending that the High Court had gross ly erred in interfering in second appeal with the concurrent findings and that the failure to produce the carbon copies of some of the documents did not cause any prejudice and
at any rate it was a question of fact
Disposing of the appeal by special leave this Court HELD 1
The High Court has not committed any error which warrants interference
1780E The respondent s plea has been that from the carbon copies he would have shown that he could not have carried on the erasures or made false entries and therefore non supply of these carbon copies had caused great prejudice to him
However the trial court and the first appellate court held that no prejudice was caused since he was 778 shown the originals
The High Court no doubt has considered this aspect in detail and in doing so referred to the con tents of various documents
From this alone it cannot be said that the High Court has not kept in view the scope of second appeal
779G H 780A B Since the employee has been throughout pleading that he did not make the erasures or any other false entry it naturally became necessary to see whether they were also found in carbon copies
Therefore the High Court considered the various figures and entries in the originals in which such erasures were alleged to have been made by the employee and eventually observed that the entire enquiry was based on some of these documents and if a carbon copy of the docu ments had been shown the authority may well have been convinced that the charge levelled against him was not correct and that therefore the non supply of these docu ments had caused prejudice
780 D E 2
The litigation is going on for the last 25 years and the respondent has already reached the age of superannua tion
Hence the parties need not be driven to go through the indefinite execution proceedings again for backwages and allowances and ends of justice require that a lump sum compensation should be granted
Accordingly a lump sum amount of Rs35000 is awarded and the amount should be paid to the respondent without deducting the income tax
The respondent may make an application under Section 89 of the Income Tax Act 1961 for spreading over this amount and the concerned Income Tax Officers should also give the necessary relief without any further enquiry
780F 781C E Sohan Singh vs Union of India  Anr and Sundaram Motors Pvt Ltd vs Ameerjan  Ant  relied on