Civil Appeal No 1351 of 1980
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 27th March 1980 of the Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench in Writ Petition No 907 of 1975
SN Kacker NS Pandey and Altaf Ahmad for the Appellant
KB Asthana Shakeel Ahmed M Qamaruddin and Mrs Qamaruddin for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD C J
This appeal with its long and labyrinthian history sums up how the process of law can frustrate rather than further the cause of justice
The appeal portrays the resolute story of a medical graduate who has been trying over the past eight years to obtain a post graduate qualification
Law has both helped and hindered him in that quest
His name is Vishan Kumar Agarwal
This appeal is filed by the principal King George s Medical College Lucknow against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated March 27 1980
Respondent No 1 is Dr Vishan Kumar Agarwal while respondent No 2 who supports him is the Head of the Department of Physiology of the Medical College
In a writ petition filed by Dr VK Agarwal under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court issued a mandamus asking the appellant to declare the result of the examination for the degree of MD Physiology for which the petitioner had appeared in July 1977
We will refer to Dr VK Agarwal as the respondent 
506 The question which arises in this appeal is whether the respondent possessed the requisite qualification for being admitted to the course of study the degree of Doctor of Medicine of the Lucknow University
Having passed the MBBS Examination of the Lucknow University in July 1971 the respondent completed one year s rotating compulsory internship whereupon he was registered as a medical graduate by the State Medical Council
In August 1972 he was appointed as a Medical Officer in the Civil Hospital at Lucknow which is approved by the Medical Council for compulsory internship
In October 1974 the respondent applied to the Principal King George s Medical College Lucknow for admission to the MD course in Physiology which was due to commence on January 1 1975
The Head of the Physiology Department recommended the respondent s candidature but the principal rejected the respondent s application on the ground that he did not fulfil the qualification prescribed in paragraph i of the second proviso to clause c of Ordinance 1 of Chapter III of the Lucknow University Ordinances
The aforesaid Chapter III is entitled Doctor of Medicine and Master of Surgery
On April 4 1975 the respondent filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court out of which this appeal arises
The High Court passed an interim order on the same date asking the University to admit the petitioner to the MD course in Physiology subject to the availability of a seat
The University complied with that direction by admitting the respondent to the MD course
But on February 3 1976 the Principal of the College filed an application for vacating the interim order dated April 4 1975 by which the respondent was directed to be admitted to the MD course
The application filed by the Principal was rejected on November 12 1976 with the result that the respondent continued his studies for MD degree in Physiology uninterrupted
He submitted his thesis which was approved by the University authorities
The respondent was due to appear for the MD examination which was scheduled to be held in December 1976 but he was refused an admission card without which he could not appear for the examination
Undaunted he filed a suit in which the trial court passed and interim order directing the University authorities not to obstruct the petitioner from appearing for the examination
The respondent appeared for the written examination but as if not to be 507 outdone the University filed an appeal against the interim order which came to be allowed
As a consequence of the appellate order the appearance of the respondent at the written examination of 1976 become abortive since it was as if he appeared for the examination without an admission card
Inevitably he was driven to wait until the next examination which was due to be held in July 1977
He appeared for that examination but apprehending that the University will not declare his result he amended his writ petition so as to ask for a mandamus directing the University to declare his result
The High Court issued the mandamus which is the subject matter of this appeal
The contention of the respondent that he was duly qualified to be admitted to the MD Physiology courses has to be examined on the basis of paragraph i of the second proviso to clause c of Ordinance 1
That Ordinance to the extent material reads thus 1
No candidate shall be eligible to appear at the examination for the degree of Doctor of Medicine or Master of Surgery unless a he has obtained the degree of MBBS of the University of Lucknow       b he has after passing the MBBS examination completed one year s compulsory rotating housemanship    c he has after full registration done one year s housemanship or equivalent job Provided that for basic science one year s demonstratorship or equivalent job in the subject will be considered equivalent to one year s housemanship
Provided also that works in the following capacities will be considered as equivalent to one year s housemanship i Three years  work as a Medical Officer in a hospital approved by the Medical Council for compulsory internship
508 ii     iii     d He has subsequent to 1c put in two years  work in the subject in department concerned in the college e     
There is no dispute that the respondent satisfied the requirements of clauses a and b of Ordinance 1
He had obtained the degree of MBBS or the University of Lucknow as required by clause a and after passing that examination he had completed one year s compulsory rotating housemanship as required by clause b
The narrow dispute between the parties is whether after full registration the respondent had done one year s housemanship or equivalent job on the material date
Under paragraph i of the second proviso to clause c of the Ordinance three years  work as a Medical Officer in a hospital approved by the Medical Council for compulsory internship can be considered as equivalent to one year s housemanship
The respondent passed his MBBS examination in July 1971 and after completing one year s compulsory rotating housemanship he obtained full registration with the State Medical Council
In August 1972 he started working as a Medical Officer in the Civil Hospital Lucknow which is approved by the Medical Council for compulsory internship
He had not done one year s housemanship after full registration but by virtue of paragraph i of the second proviso to clause c of the Ordinance three years  work as a Medical Officer in the Civil Hospital at Lucknow would be equivalent to one year s housemanship
When the respondent appeared for the MD examination in July 1977 he had evidently completed three years  work as a Medical Officer in the Civil Hospital Lucknow which as stated earlier is approved by the Medical Council for compulsory internship
According to the Principal of the Lucknow Medical College the impediment in the way of the respondent was that on the date on which he applied for admission to the MD course that is to say in October 1974 he had not completed three years  work as a Medical Officer in the Civil Hospital having started working in that capacity in August 1972 only
Thus the question which arises for consideration is whether the qualification prescribed by paragraph i of the second proviso to clause c of Ordinance 1 is required to be fulfilled 509 by the candidate on the date on which he applies for admission to the MD course of studies or whether as contended by the respondent it is enough if that qualification is fulfilled on the date of the examination
Ordinance 1 begins with the words No candidate shall be eligible to appear at the examination for the degree of Doctor of Medicine or Master of Surgery unless   emphasis supplied
The respondent derives sustenance to his contention from the words which we have underlined
It is argued on his behalf that Ordinance 1 prescribes conditions of eligibility for appearing at the examination and not for making an application for admission to the MD course of studies
Therefore the material date for determining whether the conditions of eligibility are fulfilled is the date of examination and not the date of application
This contention is difficult to accept
Clauses a to e of Ordinance 1 are parts of an integrated scheme and therefore it will be wrong to apply different criteria to the interpretation of those clauses
Clause a of the Ordinance requires that the candidate has obtained the degree of MBBS
It is inarguable that a candidate who has not yet obtained the MBBS degree can apply for admission to the MD course of studies in anticipation of or on the supposition that he will pass that examination before the MD examination is held
He must hold the MBBS degree on the date on which he applies for admission to the course of studies leading to the MD examination
Clause b requires that the candidate has    completed one year s compulsory rotating housemanship after passing the MBBS examination
As in the case of clause a this qualification must also be possessed by the candidate on the date on which he applies for admission to the MD course of studies
It is not enough that the candidate has completed one year s compulsory rotating housemanship after making the application and before the date of the examination
The language of clause c is in material respects identical with the language of clauses a and b
Leaving aside for a moment the equivalence prescribed by paragraph i of the second proviso to clause c of the Ordinance the substantive provision of clause c requires that the candidate has after full registration done one year s housemanship or equivalent job
There is no justification for applying to the interpretation of this clause a different test than the one which has to be applied to the interpretation of clauses a and b
Neither the language of clause c nor the requirement of justice and fairplay warrants such a course
Therefore the condition prescribed by clause c must also be shown to have been fulfilled by the candidate on the date on which he 510 applies for admission to the MD course of studies and not later
Clause d of the Ordinance points in the same direction
It requires that subsequent to obtaining the qualification prescribed by clause 1c the candidate has   put in two years  work in the subject in the department concerned in the college
The verbs used in clauses a to d are has obtained has completed has done and has put in respectively
Giving to those words their natural meaning we are of the view that the requirement of everyone of these clauses has to be fulfilled by the candidate on the date on which he applies for admission to the MD or MS course of studies
It is not sufficient that he fulfils the requirements of these clauses on the date of the examination
As a result of the interpretation which we have placed upon clause c of Ordinance 1 the writ petition filed by the respondent in Allahabad High Court is liable to be dismissed
But in view of the circumstances which we will immediately mention it would be unjust to deny the relief sought by the respondent
We have already mentioned that after appearing for July 1977 examination the respondent amended his writ petition and asked for a writ of mandamus directing the University to declare his result
The respondent made a specific averment in the amended writ petition that two candidates Dr Miss Rashmi Saxena and Dr Mrs Ratna Prabha Gupta were admitted by the University to the same course of post graduate studies even though they did not possess the requisite qualification on the date on which they applied for admission
Learned counsel who appeared for the Principal of the Medical College in the High Court produced the necessary papers before it relating to the admission of the two candidates
The High Court has observed in its judgment that the papers relating to Dr Miss Saxena show that she had passed the four and half year Course MBBS examination in December 1972 that she completed the pre registration one year compulsory housemanship on January 11 1974 that she did the post registration housemanship from January 18 1974 to August 8 1974 and that on May 9 1974 she joined as a Demonstrator in Physiology
She applied for admission to the MD Physiology course on October 18 1974
That application was accepted on December 30 1974
As held by the High Court it is clear from these dates that on the date on which Dr Miss Saxena applied for admission to the MD course she had complected a period of 9 months only in her House job as a Demonstrator whereas she ought to have completed one year as prescribed by clause c
In fact the requisite period of one year was not completed even on December 30 1974 when her application for admission was 511 accepted by the University
She had sought admission to the course which was to commence on January 1 1975 but she had started her post registration housemanship on January 18 1974
Thus she had not completed the requisite period of one year s housemanship even on the date on which the course commenced
The papers relating to the admission of Dr Mrs Ratna Prabha Gupta to the course of studies in MD Physiology disclose the same state of affairs
Though she was not qualified under the first proviso to clause c she was admitted to the course by the University
It has to be borne in mind that the University granted this concession though under clause c no power is conferred upon it to relax the requirement of the period of one year which is permissible under the third proviso to clause d
We agree with the High Court that the papers relating to the admission of Dr Miss Saxena and Dr Mrs Gupta show that the requirement of clause c was not invariably insisted upon by the University or by the College
They did not regard that requirement as mandatory
We consider it unfair that the respondent should be picked up for a differential treatment though situated similarly in the matter of the application of clause c
If the requirement of clause c could be relaxed in the case of the other two candidates in regard to their admission to the MD course of studies it would not be permissible to the University to regard that requirement as mandatory in the case of the respondent when he applied for admission to the very same course of studies
Clause c does not apply differently to men and women
There is no substance in the contention of the University or of the Principal of the Medical College that the University authorities committed an error in the case of the two women candidates
Neither the University nor the Principal of the Medical College filed any counter affidavit to the amended writ petition with the result that the averments made by the respondent in regard to the relaxation made in favour of those two candidates remained uncontroverted
It is therefore not open to the University authorities to contend that the relaxation in favour of the two candidates was inadvertent or that it was made under a misconception
In all future cases the interpretation put by us on Ordinance 1 must hold good
In so far as the case of the respondent is concerned his writ petition succeeds on the ground that the University and the 512 College authorities must apply the same yard stick to all the students who apply for admission to the post graduate course of studies
Whether the rules contained in the Ordinance governing admission to the post graduate course of studies are mandatory or directory is a matter which the University shall have to consider after taking all relevant factors into account like the nature of the requirement its purpose and the consequences of its relaxation on educational excellence
We have not gone into that question because no contention in that behalf was made either before us or in the High Court
One thing however must be made clear that if the University considers that any provision is not mandatory its relaxation in particular cases has to be governed by objective considerations
No public authority least of all a University which is entrusted with the future of the student community can pick and choose persons for receiving the benefit of relaxation of the rules
In the first place the rigour of a rule can be relaxed provided such relaxation is permissible under the rules or if the rule is directory and not mandatory
Secondly even if it is permissible to relax a rule such relaxation as stated above must be goverded by defined guidelines
For these reasons we confirm the judgment of the High Court and dismiss the appeal with costs in favour of respondent Dr Vishan Kumar Agarwal
SR Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The Respondent Dr Vishan Kumar Agarwal passed the MBBS Examination of the Lucknow University in July 1971 completed his one Year s rotating compulsory internship and got his name registered as a medical graduate by the State Medical Council
In August 1972 he was appointed as a Medical Officer in the Civil Hospital which is approved by the Medical Council for compulsory internship
In October 1974 he applied to the Principal King George s Medical College Lucknow for admission to the MD Course in Physiology which was due to commence in January 1975
The Principal of the College inspite of the recommendation of the head of the Department rejected his application on the ground that he did not fulfil the qualifications prescribed in para i of the second proviso to clause c of the Ordinance I Chapter II of the Lucknow University
On April 4 1975 the respondent filed a writ petition and obtained an interim order under which he was admitted to the course and continued his studies
The respondent was due to appear for his examination in December 1976 but he was refused an admission card
The suit filed by him against the refusal to grant admission card was admitted but the interim order obtained was got vacated by the college authorities
So he appeared for the December 77 examination and by way of abundant caution got the writ petition amended so as to include a prayer for issuance of a mandamus to declare his result
In the writ petition he has also alleged discrimination shown by relaxing the rules in favour of two other women candidates
The writ petition was allowed and hence the appeal by the Principal after obtaining special leave
Dismissing the appeal the Court  HELD 11
The requirement of every one of the clauses in Ordinance I has to be fulfilled by the candidate on the date on which he applies for 504 admission to the MD or MS Course of studies
It is not sufficient that he fulfills the requirements of these clauses on the date of the examination
510 A C 12
Though ordinance I begins with the words No candidate shall be eligible to appear at the examination for the degree of the Doctor of Medicine or Master or Surgery unless   it cannot he said that the material date for determining whether the conditions of eligibility are fulfilled is the date of examination and not the date of application
509 B C 13
Clauses a to e of Ordinance I are parts of an Integrated Scheme and therefore it will be wrong to apply different criteria to the interpretation of those clauses
The verbs used in clauses a to d are has obtained has completed has done and has put in respectively
Giving to those words their natural meaning the requirement of everyone of these clauses has to be fulfilled by the candidate on the date on which he applied for admission to the MD or MS courses of studies
It is not sufficient that he fulfills the requirements of these clauses on the date of the examination
509D E G 14
There is no justification for applying to the interpretation of this clause a different test that the one which has to be applied to the interpretation of clauses a and b
Neither the language of clause c nor the requirement of justice and fairplay warrants such a course
Therefore the condition prescribed by clause c must also be shown to have been fulfilled by the candidate on the date on which he applies for admission to the MD Course of studies and not later
509 G H 510 A 2
Whether the rules contained in the Ordinance governing admission to the post graduate course of studies are mandatory or directory is a matter which the University shall have to consider after taking all relevant factors into account like the nature of the requirement its purpose and the consequences of its relaxation on educational excellence
However if the University considers that any provision is not mandatory its relaxation in particular cases has to be governed by objective considerations
No public authority least of all a University which is entrusted with the future of the student community can pick and choose persons for receiving the benefit of relaxation of the rules
In the first place the rigour of a rule can be relaxed provided such relaxation is permissible under the rules or if the rule is directory and not mandatory
Secondly even if it is permissible to relax a rule such relaxation must be governed by defined guidelines
The University and the College authorities must apply the same yard stick to all the students who apply for admission to the post graduate course of studies
512 B D 31
It is not open to the University in the absence of any counter affidavit having been filed to the amended writ petition to contend that the relaxation in form of the two candidates was inadvertent or that it was made under a mis conception
511 G 32
The University did grant the concession to both the women candidates though under clause c no power is conferred upon it to relax the requirement of the period of one year which is permissible under the third 505 proviso to clause d
When the requirement of clause c was not invariably insisted upon by the University or by the College and they did not regard that requirement as mandatory it is unfair that the respondent should be picked up for differential treatment though situated similarly in the matter of the application of clause c
If the requirement of clause c could be relaxed in the case of the other two candidates in regard to their admission to the MD course of studies it would not be permissible to the University to regard that requirement as mandatory in the case of the respondent when he applied for admission to the very same course of studies
Clause c does not apply differently to men and women
511 B E