No 1 IN CA No 4444 of 1990 etc
From the Judgment and Order dated 25590 of the Alla habad High Court in CWP No 5267 of 90
Yogeshwar Prasad Gopal Subramanium SK Mehta Dhruv Mehta Arvind Verma Aman Vachher Pradeep Misra and RB Misra for the appearing parties
The following order of the Court was delivered The dispute in these cases relates to admission in post graduate courses of the medical wing
There are seven medical colleges in the State of Uttar Pradesh
Sometime back in a fake writ petition the High Court of Allahabad made an order that admission could be effected on the basis of the MBBS results
That can counter to the decision of this Court and on being looked into it transpired that the proceedings before the High Court were totally fraudulent and no one by the name given in the petition as petitioner could really be identified
This Court at that stage had clearly indicated that the prescription by this Court has been that there should be a selection test for post graduate admission as admission has become very competitive and to have compliance of Article 14 of the Constitution a broad based arrangement should be made
On that account this Court had clearly indicated that no admission should be permitted on the basis of the MBBS results
In view of the fact that the Allahabad High Court s order has already been reversed nothing more need be done
387 SLP C   of 1990 This petition is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dated 2551990
UP Junior Doctors  Action Committee in their special leave petition which has not yet been numbered challenge the order referred to above where the petitioner could not be identified and challenge was to the decision of the High Court dated 2551990 which permitted admission on the basis of MBBS results
Since we have already clarified the position and reiterated the requirement of a selection test the order of the High Court must be taken to have already been vacated
11 is not necessary to entertain this special leave petition
CA in SLP 1535491 Special leave granted
In this appeal by special leave Principal of the Agra Medical college along with some others is the appellant
The High Court by the impugned order required provisional admis sion in MS Surgery and in MD Medicine to be given to respondents 1 and 2 respectively in the Medical College of Agra while the writ petition was yet to be heard
The con ten tion raised before us is that grading admission at an interlocutory stage in a pending proceeding even by styling it as provisonal create lot of adderse consequences and leads to indicipline in the system of imparting education Admission into post graduate degrees in the medical wing through out the country has become very competitive and it has become clear thatstrict regulation is necessary
This Court by its judgement in Dr Pradeep Jain  Ors
vs Union of India  Ors 1984 3 sec 654 indicated that admis sion for 25 percent of the seats in post graduate courses should be regulated on the basis of all India selection and in regard to the remainder 75 per cent of the States were left to decide the procedure for admission
Appropriate knowledge and expertise are a prerequisite for a person to be allowed to register himself as a medical practitioner
Very often health problems require expert treatment
If anyone is authorised in society to practise medicine or undertake medical care without the appropriate qualification society exposes itself to health hazards
The prescriptions by the Indian Medical Council and the attempts made by Government for regulating the medical study are for establishing basically uniform knowledge to be imparted to the students before they can be entrusted with the nation s medicare
Unless there is a sincere and thorough educational discipline to be gone through as a precondition to the grant of the requisite certificate the lives of citizens would be at peril
388 The Indian Medical Council has prescribed a reasonable period of study on expert advice and upon taking into con sideration the experience over the years as to how much study is necessary for the requisite qualification to be gathered
This Court has also indicated the dates of admis sion and commencement of the courses of study
These are prescriptions for a purpose and are not intended to be empty formalities to be violated
One of the prescriptions of the Medical Council is also the ratio between the teachers and the students
That again is a factor which cannot be brushed aside
It is a well known rule of practice and procedure that at interlocu 
tory stage a relief which is asked for and is available at the disposal of the matter is not granted
The writ petitioners wanted admission into postgraduate course as the main relief in the writ petition
To have it granted at the threshold creates a lot of difficulties
In a case where the petitioner ultimately loses in a case of this type a very embarrassing situation crops up
If he has by then read for two to three years there is a claim of equity raised on the plea that one cannot reverse the course of time
In a case of this type equities should not be claimed or grained Faking an overall picture of the matter we are of the view that unless there is any special reason to be indicated in clear terms in an interlocutory order as a rule no provisional admission should be granted and more so into technical courses
On the basis of what we have said the order of the High Court should be reversed but we are not doing so on account of the fact that nine similarly placed medical graduates have already been given admission pursuant to such interloc utory orders by the respondents without even raising a challenge
The order was made as early as in February 1991 and for all these nine months no steps have been taken by the appellants to comply with the order and they are in fact facing a contempt proceeding
While on principle we indicate that such provisional admission should not be granted
We dismiss this special leave petition and sustain the order not on merits but for the reason indicated
The interlocuto ry application in the civil appeal need not be further dealt with in view of what we have said above
We had issued notice to the Principals of the seven medical colleges
They have appeared and have given a writ ten undertaking to the Court by way of affidavit that there was some misunderstanding in regard to the requirement of a selection test for post graduate admission
There were two year and three year courses running simultaneously for some period and some confusion was there as to whether the two year course 389 students were covered by the direction of this Court
Though we are of the view that there was hardly any scope for being misled we are prepared to give the benefit of doubt to the Principals
The contempt proceedings are withdrawn but the undertaking are kept on record
GN Appeals dismissed


Summary:
The appellant ie the Central Government sanctioned primary school from classes I V to cater to the educational needs of children of persons employed in the ordance factory at Ambazari
The employees on their own in the same premises opened a secondary school with classes VI to X
The respondents are teachers in the Secondary School and are being paid out of fees and other donations received by the school They approached the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking regularisation of their service and demanded equal pay for equal work
The Tribunal allowed their claim with certain directions to the appellants including the Union of India ie directing the Central Government immediately to take up an assessment of the needs of the School to carry on its activities at the present level and to create a sufficient number of posts to be filled up on a regular basis
The Tribunal further directed the Central Government to take steps to fill up the newly created posts in accordance with recruitment rules to be framed for the purpose
Allowing Civil appeal No 233 of 1991 of the Union of India and setting aside the order of the Tribunal dismissing Civil Appeal No 480 of 1989 of the respondents who have not been recruited as per direction of the Tribunal the Court
HELD 1
There is no evidence in record that respondents were appointed as teachers on honorarium by or on behalf of the Central Government
There is no evidence that they were initially appointed in primary School and later shifted to the Secondary School
It is undisputed 686 that the Central Government has not sanctioned the Secondary School nor created any posts thereto
It had only sanctioned the Primary School and the posts connected therewith which are being occupied by regularly recruited teachers
688A B 2
The directions of the Tribunal are indeed amazing compelling the Central Government to sanction the Secondary School
The Central Government has taken a decision that it will not involve itself in sanctioning or running classes beyond the Primary School level
It is a policy matter involving financial burden
No court or the Tribunal could compel the Government to change its policy involving expenditure
688D E 3
The respondents are not paid by the Central Government
There is no relationship of master and servant between the Central Government and the respondents
The respondents are employed by the local officers so how the Central Government is accountable
688G 4
Even section 14 of the Administrative Tribunal Act 1985 confers no jurisdiction power or authority on the Tribunal to deal with the service matters of the employees like the respondents
the respondents cannot claim the pay scale admissible to the Government school teachers and much less regularisation of their services by the Central Government
688H 689A 5
The directions of the Tribunal are apparently unjustified and without authority of law so cannot be sustained
688F