Civil Appeal No 2324 of 1980
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 23rd April 1979 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc
Writ No 2228 of 1979
Dr L M Singhvi and section K Verma for the Appellant
Mrs Shobha Dikshit for Respondent Nos
I  2
section N Kacker and B R Agarwala  P G Gokhale for Respondent No 4
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD C J
 The question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant Dr R K 285 Khandelwal is entitled to be admitted to the M D Course in Paediatrics of the Agra University and whether in denying him that opportunity the State has violated any of his legal rights
The appellant passed his MBBS Examination from the section N Medical College Agra in December 1976 and completed his internship in December 1977
Being desirous of prosecuting post graduate studies in Paediatrics he took a year s house job in the Paediatrics Department of the section N Medical College Hospital which he completed in January 1979
He then applied for admission to the M D Course in Paediatrics for the academic year 1979 80
He was admitted to the DCH Course but he was refused admission to the MD Course on two grounds First that amongst the applicants for the M D Course in Paediatrics there were four students who had secured higher marks than him in the MBBS Examination and second that on the basis of the 11 ratio between teachers and students there were only four seats available for the post graduate course in Paediatrics
The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad challenging the decision of the College by which he was denied admission to MD Paediatrics
That petition was dismissed summarily by a Division Bench of the High Court on the ground that the relief of mandamus sought by the appellant could not be granted to him since he had failed to establish that any of his legal rights was violated
This appeal by special leave is directed against the High Court s order dated April 23 1979
The appellant as stated earlier was admitted to the DCH Course after he had finished his house job in Paediatrics
His case is that for many years in the past candidates who had passed the DCH Examination were preferred for admission to the M D Course but that the University suddenly discontinued that practice as a result of which he had to compete with others who had passed their MBBS Examination
There is no substance in this contention and in any case the appellant cannot make a grievance of a change in the practice for admission to the particular course
Admittedly there was no rule at any time requiring that an applicant seeking admission to the MD Course in Paediatrics had to pass his DCH Examination
All that is alleged is that such a practice was recognised over many years or at least that such was the under standing of all concerned
Both the practice and the understanding have been denied on behalf of the College
But apart from that 286 discontinuance of a mere practice cannot sustain a charge of injury to legal rights
The practice had not ripened into a rule and the University was under no obligation to admit only those who had passed their DCH Examination
We also feel some difficulty on the facts before us in accepting the contention of the appellant that passing the DCH Examination was a passport for admission to the MD Course
It may at the highest be said that it was easier for students to get admitted to the MD Course after passing the additional examination of DCH after the MBBS Examination
The appellant applied for admission to the MD Paediatrics Course for the academic year 1979 80
He had passed his MBBS Examination in December 1976
There were other students who had applied for admission to the MD Course in Paediatrics along with the appellant
Some of them had passed their MBBS Examination prior to December 1976 and had secured higher marks than the marks obtained by the appellant in the December 1976 Examination
The number of seats being limited admissions were given according to merit and the four students who had secured highest number of marks were given preference to others regardless of the year in which they had passed their MBBS Examination
No one was admitted to the 1979 80 academic year for the MD Course in Paediatrics who had secured lesser marks than the appellant
The four students who secured admission had obtained marks varying between 6006 to 6580 while the appellant had secured 5856 marks only
He was sixth in order of merit amongst the applicants and there were only four seats available bearing in mind the ratio of 11 between the teachers and the students
Dr Singhvi who appears on behalf of the appellant raised a further contention that the ratio 11 was relaxed from time to time by the University and that the appellant was discriminated against by the arbitrary refusal of the authorities to relax the ratio in his favour
We are prepared to accept that if there is a power to relax the ratio that power must be exercised reasonably and fairly
It cannot be exercised arbitrarily to favour some students and to disfavour some others
But the difficulty in the way of the learned counsel is that this point of discrimination was not taken in the Writ Petition which was filed in the High Court it was not argued in the High Court and is not even mentioned in the Special Leave Petition before us
The question as to whether the authorities have the power to relax the ratio and the further question as to whether that power has been exercised arbitrarily in this case raise new points 287 into which it is difficult for us to enquire for the first time
We are therefore unable to entertain the submission made by the counsel
The appellant has thus failed to make out a case of injury to any of his legal rights for which reason the appeal must fail
The appeal is accordingly dismissed
But considering that under interim orders passed by this Court from time to time the appellant has appeared for the MD Examination on the completion of the Course we hope that the University and the SN Medical College will take a sympathetic view of the appellant s case and have his result declared
It may be mentioned that because of the interim orders passed by this Court directing the College and the University to admit the appellant to the MD Course in Paediatrics the College cancelled the appellant s admission to the DCH Course
That may have been right because no student can do the DCH Course and the M D Course simultaneously
But the point of the matter is that if this Court were not to direct as an interim measure that the appellant should be allowed to prosecute his studies in MD Paediatrics subject to the result of this Appeal the appellant might have completed his DCH Course and subject to being admitted to the MD Course within a year or so from now he would have taken his MD Examination after passing the DCH Examination
The authorities concerned will bear in mind that the appellant should not be placed in a worse position than he would have been in had he not filed this appeal
Therefore if the appellant has passed the examination he should be declared to have passed it like any other student
He should not be subjected to any disadvantage for the reason that he was not entitled initially to be admitted to the MD Course in Paediatrics
If he has failed he should be permitted to take the examination again or again and again in accordance with the rules of the University
Since the result of the other students who had appeared for the MD Examination along with the appellant was declared in February 1981 we hope that the appellant s result would be declared forthwith
There will be no order as to costs
NVK Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellant applied for admission to the MD Paediatrics Course for the academic year 1979 80
He had passed his MBBS Examination in December 1976
There were other students who had applied for admission along with the appellant
Some of them had passed their MBBS Examination prior to December 1976 and had secured higher marks than the appellant
The number of seats being limited admissions were given according to merit and four students who had secured the highest number of marks were given preference to others regardless of the year in which they had passed their MBBS Examination
The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the E decision of the college by which he was denied admission
The petition was dismissed summarily by a Division Bench on the ground that the relief of mandamus could not be granted since the appellant had
failed to establish that any of his legal rights was violated
In the appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant that a For many years in the past candidates who had passed the DCH Examination were preferred for admission to the MD Course but that the University suddenly discontinued that practice as a result of which he had to compete with others who had passed their MBBS Examination and b the ratio 11 between teachers and students was relaxed from time to time by the University and that the appellant was discriminated against by the arbitrary refusal of the authorities to relax the ratio in his favour
Dismissing the appeal  HELD The appellant has failed to make out a case of injury to any of his legal rights
Because of interim orders passed by this Court directing the College and the University to admit the appellant to MD Course in Paediatrics the College cancelled the appellant s admission to the DCH Course
If the appellant has passed the MD Examination he should be declared to have passed it like any other student
He should not be subjected to any disadvantage for the 284 reason that he was not entitled initially to be admitted to the MD Course in Paediatrics
If he has failed he should be permitted to take the examination again or again and again in accordance with the rules of the University
Since the result of the other students who had appeared for the MD Examination along with the appellant was declared in February 1981 the appellant s result to be declared forthwith
287 B F a There was no rule at any time requiring that an applicant seeking admission to the MD Course in Paediatrics had to pass his DCH Examination
That such a practice was recognised over many years or that such was the understanding of all concerned has been denied on behalf of the College
Besides discontinuance of a mere practice cannot sustain a charge of injury to legal rights
The practice had not ripened into a rule and the University was under no obligation to admit only those who had passed their DCH Examination
The appellant therefore cannot make a grievance of a change in the practice for admission to the MD Course
285 G 286 B In the instant case no one was admitted to the MD Course who had secured lesser marks than the appellant
He was sixth in order of merit and there were only four seats available
286 E b If there is a power to relax the ratio that power must be exercised reasonably and fairly
It cannot be exercised arbitrarily to favour some students and to disfavour some others
286 G In the instant case this point of discrimination was not taken in the writ petition filed in the High Court not argued in the High Court and not even mentioned in the Special Leave Petition
The question as to whether the authorities have the power to relax the ratio and the further question as to whether that power has been exercised arbitrarily raise new points into which it is difficult to enquire for the first time
This plea cannot therefore be entertained
286 H 287 A