Case: Krishna Priya Ganguly Etc Vs. University of Lucknow

filed by Dr. Rachna Saxena it appears that she had obtained an aggregate of 53.7% but the main obstacle in her way was that two candidates with a higher aggregate had been admitted and therefore her case did not merit any consideration. Even from amongst those who did not secure admission there ware four others who had secured higher marks than her viz., Dr. Ganguly (59.23)%, Dr. Agarwal (57.40%), Dr. Jain (56.9%) and Dr. Upadhyaya (55.33%). She could not therefore have secured admission in any event. She cannot therefore complain of discrimination. For these reasons, therefore, we affirm the decision of the High Court and dismiss C.A. 144/82 without any order as to costs.C.A. No. 145/82 has been filed by Dr. V.K. Kohli. After going through the judgment of the High Court and hearing counsel for the parties we entirely agree wit h the view taken by the High Court which seems to us to be unexceptionable on merits and must be confirmed. The appeal is therefore dismissed without any order as to costs.Coming now to C.A. No. 595/82 which has been filed by the St ate it seems to us after hearing counsel for the parties that the stand taken by the State is absolutely correct and for the reasons that we will give hereafter we find it impossible to support the judgment of the High Court.10. To beg in with, Dr. Vijay Narain Sinha who was being considered for admission to the M.S. course in Orthopaedic surgery had obtained only 43% marks in the aggregate and happened to be the last candidate in the list of persons who had applied for admission to the M.D./M.S. course. This important handicap relating to Dr. Sinha seems to have been completely glossed over by the High Court by saying that though he has not secured very high marks but he could be almost equal in all respects to the candidates who had been granted admission. This, however, was not so. The main argument of the High Court was that in determining the six admissions which were made in consonance with the prescribed instructions indicated that the ratio of admission should be with respect to the strength of the staff in the concerned department. The main complaint of the respondent (Dr.Sinha) was that while there were six teachers in the Department of Orthopaedic surgery, nine admissions were made in that particular session. The State had clearly explained that the usual number of candidates to be admitted was six and as a special case due to fortuitous circumstances an exception was made only in one session for good reasons which had been given by the State. Thereafter no such departure had been made in any other session. What the High Court completely over-looked was that even if nine students were admitted Dr. Sinha could not have secured admission as he was on the very bottom of the list in view of the very low percentage secured by him. The stand taken by the State has not been refuted by the counsel for the respondent who submitted that since the State had agreed to declare the results of all the candidates the respondent may also be given the same facility. We are, however, unable to agree with this argument because to grant admission to a person who is appreciably below the required merit would be to play with the lives of the people whom the candidate would have to treat after getting the M S. degree. The High Court seems to have relied mainly on the fact that in view of the increase in population and orthopaedic cases the college must have persons with special qualifications and as the respondent had a diploma that should be treated to be a special qualification. A mere diploma however cannot override the consideration regarding the merit as disclosed in the low aggregate obtained by him in the last MBBS examination. If the college authorities went by the pure test of merit, the diploma could not be a good substitute for admitting the lowest and the last candidate in the list.The High Court could not devise its own criterion for admission. Since the academic body has made the marks obtained in MBBS examination the criterion, admission had to be made by such a criterion. The High Court could not have introduced its own notions in such an academic matter. The High Court was not competent to do so and had no jurisdiction to import its own ideology.11. The High Court further observed that the respondent appears to be a very dedicated worker having acquired a diploma and would have proved an invaluable asset to the Institution. We do not see any proper material for this conclusion to which the High Court has suddenly jumped apart from the fact that admissions were not to be given by the High Court according to its own notions. Finally, in his own petition in the High Court, the respondent had merely prayed for a writ directing the State or the college to consider his case for admission yet the High Court went a step further and straightaway issued a writ of mandamus directing the college to admit him to the M.S. course and thus granted a relief to the respondent which he himself never prayed for and could not have prayed for. Such a gross discrimination made in the case of a person who had obtained lowest aggregate and lowest position seems to u s to be extremely shocking. Although much could be said against the view taken by the High Court yet we would not like to say more than this that the High Court had made a very arbitrary, casual and laconic approach to the case and based its judgment purely on speculation and conjectures swept away by the consideration that Dr. Sinha possessed a diploma when in fact other candidates also had obtained diploma but that could not be taken into consideration, because the rules did not so provide.12.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]The High Court further observed that the respondent appears to be a very dedicated worker having acquired a diploma and would have proved an invaluable asset to the Institution. We do not see any proper material for this conclusion to which the High Court has suddenly jumped apart from the fact that admissions were not to be given by the High Court according to its own notions. Finally, in his own petition in the High Court, the respondent had merely prayed for a writ directing the State or the college to consider his case for admission yet the High Court went a step further and straightaway issued a writ of mandamus directing the college to admit him to the M.S. course and thus granted a relief to the respondent which he himself never prayed for and could not have prayed for. Such a gross discrimination made in the case of a person who had obtained lowest aggregate and lowest position seems to u s to be extremely shocking. Although much could be said against the view taken by the High Court yet we would not like to say more than this that the High Court had made a very arbitrary, casual and laconic approach to the case and based its judgment purely on speculation and conjectures swept away by the consideration that Dr. Sinha possessed a diploma when in fact other candidates also had obtained diploma but that could not be taken into consideration, because the rules did not soHigh Court seems to have relied mainly on the fact that in view of the increase in population and orthopaedic cases the college must have persons with special qualifications and as the respondent had a diploma that should be treated to be a special qualification. A mere diploma however cannot override the consideration regarding the merit as disclosed in the low aggregate obtained by him in the last MBBS examination. If the college authorities went by the pure test of merit, the diploma could not be a good substitute for admitting the lowest and the last candidate in the list.The High Court could not devise its own criterion for admission. Since the academic body has made the marks obtained in MBBS examination the criterion, admission had to be made by such a criterion. The High Court could not have introduced its own notions in such an academic matter. The High Court was not competent to do so and had no jurisdiction to import its ownHigh Court further observed that the respondent appears to be a very dedicated worker having acquired a diploma and would have proved an invaluable asset to the Institution. We do not see any proper material for this conclusion to which the High Court has suddenly jumped apart from the fact that admissions were not to be given by the High Court according to its own notions. Finally, in his own petition in the High Court, the respondent had merely prayed for a writ directing the State or the college to consider his case for admission yet the High Court went a step further and straightaway issued a writ of mandamus directing the college to admit him to the M.S. course and thus granted a relief to the respondent which he himself never prayed for and could not have prayed for. Such a gross discrimination made in the case of a person who had obtained lowest aggregate and lowest position seems to u s to be extremely shocking. Although much could be said against the view taken by the High Court yet we would not like to say more than this that the High Court had made a very arbitrary, casual and laconic approach to the case and based its judgment purely on speculation and conjectures swept away by the consideration that Dr. Sinha possessed a diploma when in fact other candidates also had obtained diploma but that could not be taken into consideration, because the rules did not so