Civil Appeal No 2598 of 1987
370 From the Judgment and order dated 2651987 of the Karnataka A High Court in WA No 615 of 1987
Dr YS Chitale and KJ John for the Appellant
SS Javali Ranjit Kumar and Dev Dass for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dutt J
Special leave is granted
As elaborate submissions have been made at the preliminary hearing of the special leave petition on the merits of the case by both the parties we proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits
This appeal involves the question as to the eligibility of the appellant for admission in the First Year MBBS Course of the Mysore University
The appellant passed the BSc
Examination of the Mysore University with Botany Chemistry and Zoology securing 547 marks in the aggregate
She also passed the PUC in the year 1979 with Physics Chemistry and Biology as optional subjects and obtained 431 marks in the aggregate
She sought for admission in a private Medical College or Institute
On her query the second respondent who is the Principal of the Institute by his latter dated February 26 1986 con firmed that the appellant was eligible for admission to MBBS Course
The relevant portion of the letter as quoted in the special leave petition is extracted below With reference to your telegram I wish to write that candidates passing BSc
degree examination with Physics Chemistry and Biology or Chemistry Biology and Zoology as optional subjects are eligible provided such of these candidates who have passed with Chemistry Biology and Zoology should have passed Physics as optional subject in II year PUC or equivalent examination Pre degree or Intermediate or the additional Physics examination of any University or Institution recognised by the State Government
The candidate should have obtained 50 marks in the optional subjects in the BSc
degree examination
 It is the case of the appellant that on the basis of the said letter she joined the Institute in February 1986
However by Memo dated 371 September 19 1986 the second respondent intimated the appellant that her admission had not been approved by the University of Mysore
The relevant portion of the letter of the Registrar of the University of Mysore as quoted in the said Memo is given below She has secured 54 in BSc but secured 43 in PUC
Hence she is not eligible
Her admission may be cancelled
 The appellant moved the Karnataka High Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the cancellation of her admission in the First Year MBBS Course and praying for an order directing the respondents to allow her to continue as a student of the First Year MBBS Course
A learned Single Judge of the High Court by his judgment dated April 8 1987 rejected the writ petition on the ground that the appellant not having obtained 50 marks in the aggregate in Physics Chemistry and Biology in the PUC examination was not eligible for admission to the MBBS Course
On appeal by the appellant the Division Bench of the High Court also took the same view and dismissed the appeal
Hence the present appeal by special leave
The Mysore University to which the Institute or College is affiliated has framed regulations regarding admission to MBBS Course for the academic year 1985 86
The relevant provisions of the said regulations are extracted below  1 ADMlSSlONS ELIGIBIL1TY a The candidate shall have passed the Two Year PUC Examination conducted by the PUC Board Karnataka State with Physics Chemistry and Biology as optional subjects or any other examinations recognised as equivalent by the Mysore University andor shall have passed the competitive examination conducted by the Karnataka Government for this purpose
or BSc
Examination of an Indian University provided that 372 he has passed the BSc
Examination with not less than two of the following subjects Physics Chemistry Biology Botany Zoology and further that he has passed the earlier qualifying examinations with the following subjects Physics Chemistry Biology and English
Provided that the candidate should have secured not less than 50 of the total marks in Physics Chemistry Biology subjects taken together at the qualifying andor competitive examination
Provided further that in respect of candidates belonging to Scheduled CasteScheduled Tribe the minimum marks required for admission shall be 40 in lieu of 50 for general candidats
b The candidate should have completed 17 years on the 31st December of the year of admission  Under Regulation la a candidate having passed the Two Year PUC or equivalent examination with Physics Chemistry and Biology as optional subjects or BSc
Examination of an Indian University with Physics Chemistry Biology will be eligible for admission in the First Year MBBS Course subject to this that the candidate should have secured not less than 50 of the total marks in Physics Chemistry and Biology taken together at the qualifying andor competitive examination
It follows therefore that a candidate has to secure 50 of the total marks in Physics Chemistry and Biology taken together in the PUC or an equivalent examination which is a condition precedent to her eligibility for admission in the First Year MBBS Course
The High Court has rightly observed that as the appellant did not secure 50 of the total marks in Physics Chemistry and Biology in the PUC Examination she was not eligible for admission in the First Year MBBS Course also rightly overruling the contention of the appellant that the marks obtained by her in Physics in the PUC Course should be added to the marks obtained by her in the BSc
Examination so that it would work out to 50 of the tot
marks in Physics Chemistry and Biology
Under Regulation 1a a candidate after passing BSc
Exami 373 nation and seeking admission in the seats reserved for BSc
candidates has to secure 50 of the total marks in Physics Chemistry and Biology in the PUC Examination
It is true that the appellant has obtained 54 marks in the BSc
Examination but she had failed to obtain 50 marks in the aggregate in the PUC Examination in Physics Chemistry and Biology
In the circumstances she was not eligible for admission ill the First Year MBBS Course
We are afraid the Karnataka Medical Colleges Selection of Candidates for Admission to 1 MBBS Rules 1985 hereinafter referred to as the said Rules  are not applicable to seats in Private Colleges other than Government seats which is apparent from Sub rule 2 of rule 1
Sub rule 2 of rule 1 provides as follows R12 These rules shall be applicable to the selection of candidates made on or after the date of commencement of these rules for admission to the I year MBBS Course in the State of Karnataka in respect of all the seats in Government Colleges and the Government seats in the Private Colleges as indicated in the Schedule to these Rules
 Dr Chitale learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has placed much reliance upon the Government Order dated August 1 1984 annexing a copy of the said Rules
The relevant portion of the Government Order is as follows O R D E R Accordingly after considering the matter Government of Karnataka hereby direct that Rules for selection of candidates for admission on to I MBBS Course in the Government and Private Medical Colleges for the academic year 1985 86 and onwards shall be as in Annexure to this order In the Government order no doubt Private Medical Colleges have been mentioned but it does not follow that the said Rules would apply to all candidates in the Private Medical Colleges
Sub rule 2 of rule 1 of the said Rules which has been extracted above clearly shows that the said Rules would apply to only Government seats in the Private Colleges and as such in the Government order Private Colleges have been mentioned
There is therefore no substance in the contention made on behalf of the appellant that the said Rules would also be applicable to the appellant
374 Even assuming that the said Rules are applicable to the case of A the appellant still the appellant will not be eligible for admission in the First Year MBBS Course in view of sub rule 5 of rule 3 of the said Rules which provides inter alia that a person who does not belong to any of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes he has to obtain 50 of marks in PUC or equivalent examination in Physics Chemistry and Biology as optional subjects
Thus the appellant was not eligible for admission in the First Year MBBS Course of Mysore University
The High Court was therefore right in overruling the contention of the appellant that she was eligible for admission in the First Year MBBS Course
Now the question is whether the appellant should be allowed to continue her studies in the MBBS Course
By virtue of the interim order of the High Court the appellant completed the First Year MBBS Course and by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court the appellant appeared in the First Year MBBS Examination
It has been strenuously urged by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the University that as the appellant was not eligible for admission and was illegally admitted by the Institute in violation of the eligibility rules of the University the appellant should not be allowed to continue her studies in the MBBS Course under the University
In support of that contention much reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel on a decision of this Court in AP Christians Medical Educational Society vs Government of Andhra Pradesh  What happened in that case was that the appellant Society without being affiliated to the University and despite strong protests and warnings of the University admitted students to the Medical College in the First Year MBBS Course in total disregard of the provisions of the AP Education Act the Osmania University Act and the regulations of the Osmania University
Some students who were admitted to the Medical College filed a writ petition before this Court
While dismissing the writ petition of the students this Court observed as follows Shri Venugopal suggested that we might issue appropriate directions to the University to protect the interest of the students
We do not think that we can possibly accede to the request made by Shri Venugopal on behalf of the student
Any direction of the nature sought by Shri Venu gopal would be in clear transgression of the provisions of the University Act and the regulations of the University
We cannot by our fiat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations 375 made by the University itself
We cannot imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than a direction by the court to disobey the laws
 It was further observed by this Court as follows We regret that the students who have been admitted into the college have not only lost the money which they must have spent to gain admission into the college but have also lost one or two years of precious time virtually jeopardising their future careers
But that is a situation which they have brought upon themselves as they sought and obtained admission in the college despite the warnings issued by the University from time to time
 It appears from the observations extracted above that the students were themselves to blame for they had clear knowledge that the College was not affiliated to the University and in spite of the warning of the University they sought for the admission in the College in the First Year MBBS Course and were admitted
In that context this Court made the above observations
We may refer to a later decision of this Court in Rajendra Prasad Mathur vs Karnataka University  In that case the condition for eligibility for admission to BE Degree Course of the Karnataka University was that the students seeking admission should have passed the two year pre University Examination of the pre University Education Board Bangalore or an examination held by any other Board or University recognised as equivalent to it
The appellants in that case were admitted to certain private Engineering Colleges for the BE Degree Course upon payment of capitation fees although they were not eligible for admission as the Higher Secondary Examination held by the Secondary Education Board Rajasthan passed by some of the appellants and the first BSc
Examination of Rajasthan and Udaipur University passed by the remaining appellants were not recognised as equivalent to the two year pre University Education Board Bangalore
While dismissing the appeals of the students on the ground that they were not eligible for admission in the engineering colleges Bhagwati CJ who delivered the judgment of the Court observed as follows We accordingly endorse the view taken by the learned Judge and affirmed by the Division Bench of the High 376 Court
But the question still remains whether we should allow the appellants to continue their studies in the respective Engineering Colleges in which they were admitted
It was strenuously pressed upon us on behalf of the appellants that under the orders initially of the learned Judge and thereafter of this Court they have been pursuing their course of study in the respective Engineering Colleges and their admissions should not now be disturbed because if they are now thrown out after a period of almost four years since their admission their whole future will be blighted
Now it is true that the appellants were not eligible for admission to the Engineering Degree Course and they had no legitimate claim to such admission
But it must be noted that the blame for their wrongful admission must lie more upon the Engineering Colleges which granted admission than upon the appellants
It is quite possible that the appellants did not know that neither the Higher Secondary Examination of the Secondary Education Board Rajasthan nor the first year BSc
examination of the Rajasthan and Udaipur Universities was recognised as equivalent to the Pre University Examination of the Pre University Education Board Bangalore
The appellants being young students from Rajasthan might have presumed that since they had passed the first year BSc
examination of the Rajasthan or Udaipur University or in any event the Higher Secondary Examination of the Secondary Education Board Rajasthan they were eligible for admission
The fault lies with the Engineering Colleges which admitted the appellants because the Principal of these Engineering Colleges must have known that the appellants were not eligible for admission and yet for the sake of capitation fee in some of the cases they granted admission to the appellants
We do not see why the appellants should suffer for the sins of the managements of these Engineering Colleges
We would therefore notwithstanding the view taken by us in this judgment allow the appellants to continue their studies in the respective Engineering Colleges in which they were granted admission
But we do feel that against the erring Engineering Colleges the Karnataka University should take appropriate action because the managements of these Engineering Colleges have not only admitted students ineligible for admission but thereby deprived an equal number of eligible students from getting admission to the 377 Engineering Degree Course
We also endorse the directions given by the learned Judge in the penultimate paragraph of his judgment with a view to preventing admission of ineligible students
 This Court was therefore of the view that as the students were innocent and were admitted to the Colleges for the sake of capitation fee in some cases they should not be penalised and should be allowed to continue their studies in the respective Engineering Colleges in which they were granted admission
The facts of the instant case are more or less similar to the Rajendra Prasad Mathur s case supra
It has been already noticed that on the appellant s query  the Principal of the Institute by his letter dated February 26 1986 informed her that she was eligible for admission in the First Year MBBS Course
It was inter alia stated in the letter that the candidate should have obtained 5 marks in the optional subjects in the BSc
Examination
There is no dispute that the appellant had obtained 50 marks in those subjects in the BSc
Examination
The appellant was therefore
quite innocent and she was quite justified in relying upon the information supplied to her by none else than the Principal of the Institute in the said letter in regard to the eligibility of the admission in the First Year MBBS Course
In the circumstances we do not think that we shall be justified in penalising the appellant by not allowing her to continue her studies in the MBBS Course
Prima facie it was the fault of the Principal of the Institute but in our view the statement that was made by him in his said letter to the appellant as to the eligibility of the appellant for admission in the MBBS Course was on a bona fide interpretation of the regulations framed by the Mysore University for admission to MBBS Course for the academic year 1985 86 which to some extent suffer from ambiguity
The regulations should have been more clear and specific
Be that as it may following the decision of this Court in Rajendra Prasad Mathur s case supra while we dismiss the appeal
we direct that the appellant shall be allowed to prosecute her studies in the MBBS Course and that her result for the First Year MBBS Examination be declared within two weeks from date
There will however be no order as to costs
HLC Appeal allowed


Summary:
The appellant who had passed BSc
Examination with Botany
Chemistry and zoology securing 547 marks in the aggregate and who had passed earlier the PUC examination with Physics Chemistry and Biology securing 431 marks in the aggregate joined a private medical college after its principal had confirmed in writing that she was eligible for admission to the MBBS Course
After six months in the college she was informed by the principal that her admission had not been approved by the University as she had secured only 43 marks in the PUC examination while the required minimum was 50 according to the Regulations framed by the University
The appellant s writ petition challenging the validity of the cancellation of her admission to the medical college having been dismissed by a Single Judge and her appeal against the same having been rejected by the Division Bench of the High Court she approached the Court by special leave
Counsel for the appellant contended inter alia that she was eligible for admission in terms of the Karnataka Medical Colleges Selection of Candidates for Admission to MBBS Rules 1985 and that in any case since the appellant had completed the first year MBBS Course by virtue of interim orders passed by the High Court and this Court she should be allowed to continue her studies in the MBBS Course
Allowing the appeal  HELD Under Regulation la of the Regulations of the University regarding admission to MBBS Course for the Academic year 198586 a candidate after passing BSc
Examination and seeking admission in the seats reserved for BSc
candidates should have secured 50 of the total marks in Physics Chemistry and Biology in the PUC Exami 369 nation
It is true that the appellant has obtained 54 marks in the BSc
Examination but she had failed to obtain 50 marks in the aggregate in the PUC Examination in Physics Chemistry and Biology
In the circumstances she was not eligible for admission in the First Year MBBS Course
372H 373A B There is no substance in the contention made on behalf of the appellant that the Karnataka Medical Colleges Selection of Candidates for admission to I MBBS Rules 1985 would also be applicable to the appellant
Even assuming that the said Rules are applicable to the case of the appellant still the appellant will not be eligible for admission in the First Year MBBS Course in view of sub r 5 of r 3 of the said Rules which provides inter alia that a person who does not belong to any of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes has to obtain 50 of marks in PUC Or equivalent examination in Physics Chemistry and Biology as optional subjects
Thus the appellant was not eligible for admission
373H 374A B On the appellant s query the Principal of the Institute by his letter dated February 26 1986 informed her that she was eligible for admission in the First Year MBBS Course
lt was inter alia stated in the letter that the candidate should have obtained 50 marks in the optional subjects in the BSc
Examination
There is no dispute that the appellant had obtained 54 marks in those subjects in the BSc
Examination
The appellant was therefore quite innocent and she was quite justified in relying upon the information supplied to her by none else than the Principal of the Institute
In the circumstances we do not think that we shall be justified in penalising the appellant by not allowing her to continue her studies in the MBBS Course
Prima facie it was the fault of the Principal of the Institute but in our view the statement that was made by him in his said letter to the appellant as to the eligibility of the appellant for admission in the MBBS Course was on a bona fide interpretation of the Regulations framed by the University which to some extent suffer from ambiguity
The Regulations should have been more clear and specific
377C F AP Christians Medical Education Society vs Government of Andhra Pradesh 19861 2 SCC 667 distinguished
G Rajendra Prasad Mathur vs Karnataka University AIR  relied on