Case: State of Madhya Pradesh and Another Vs. Kumari Nivedita Jain and Others

the Council, the Central Government will forward the same to the Government of the State in which the University or medical institution is situated, the State Government shall forward it along with such remarks as it may m ake to the University or Medical Institution, with an intimation of the period within which, the University or medical institution may submit its explanation to the State Government;, on receipt of the explanation, if any within the s tipulated period the State Government on the expiry of the period shall make its recommendations to the Central Government, the Central Government after making such further enquiries, if any, as it may think fit, proceed to act in the manne r laid down in sub-sec. (4) of S. 19 of the Act. S. 19A of the Act which is important for our purposes in this appeal reads as follows:, Provided that a candidate who has appeared in a qualifying examination the result of which has not been a declared, may be provisionally allowed to take up the competitive examination, i n case of his selection for admission to a medical college, he shall not be admitted thereto unless in the meanwhile he has passed the qualifying examination. 15. It cannot be disputed that the State must do everything possibleof the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, other backward communities, the State is entitled to make reservations for them in the matter of admission to medical, other technical institutions. In the absence of any law to the contrary, it must also be open to the Government to impose such conditions as would make the reservation effective, would benefit the candidates belonging to these categories for whose benefit, welfare the reservations have been made. In any particular situation, taking into consideration the realities, circumstances prevailing in the State it will be open to the State to vary, modify the conditions regarding selection f or admission, if such modification or variation becomes necessary for achieving the purpose for which reservation has been made, if there be no law to the contrary. Note (ii) of rule 20 of the Rules for admission framed by the State Government specifically empower the Government to grant such relaxation in the minimum qualifying marks to the extent considered necessary.In the State of Kerala, Anr. v. N.M. Thomas (1) this Court by a majority had held that relaxation of the Rules whic h required a lower division clerk to pass a departmental test within a period of two years in the interest of the employees belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes was not unconstitutional or illegal. 16. The relaxation made by the State Government in the rule regarding selection of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes for admission into medical colleges cannot be said to be unreasonable, the said relaxation constitutes no violation of Art. 15 (l), (2) of the Constitution. The said relaxation also does not offend Art. 14 of the Constitution. 17. It has to be noticed that there is no relaxation of the condition regarding eligibility for admission into medical colleges. The relaxation is only in the rule regarding selection of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes categories who were otherwise qualified, eligible to seek admission into medical colleges only in relation to seats reserved for them. The respondent Nivedita Jain, other deserving candidates may feel that because of the reservations they are being deprived of the opportunity of getting their admission into medical colleges. 18. It is however, to be noted that the validity of the reservations of seats for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes categories has not been challenged in the writ petition, very properly as in view of Art. IS (4) of the Constitution. In the case of Jagdish Saran, Ors. v. Union of India, Ors. (l) relied on by Mr. Phadke, this Court has held that the Indian Constitution is wedded to equal protection, non-discrimination, Arts.14, 15, 16 are inviolable, Art. 2 9 (2) strikes a similar note though it does not refer to A regional restrictions or reservations; Art. IS further saves States power to make special provisions for women, children or for advancement of socially, educationally backward classes, reservations under Art. IS (4) exist, are applied.This Court further held at p. 855 as under:-, The only other ground that was urged in support of the case of the writ petitioners that the order in question is illegal, invalid, is that the order violat es ordiance 54 of the University of Jabalpur. No such ground has been taken in the writ petition. 19. Though the High Court has considered this argument, the High Court does not appear to have come to any definite finding on this question. This question, in the instant case, cannot be said to be a question of pure law. In the affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the University, it has been stated that the ordinance 54 has not been adhered to. 20. In the absence of any plea being taken in the writ petition, we are of the opinion that the respondent is not entitled to urge this point, rely on any alleged contravention of ordinance 54 of Jabalpur University. 21. The Judgment and order passed by the High Court are hereby set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. There will, how ever, be no order as to costs. 22. Though this appeal succeeds, yet in our opinion, justice requires that the respondent Nivedita Jain who has already been admitted to the Medical College on the basis of interim order passed by the Court and ha s been prosecuting her studies should be allowed to continue her studies and to continue to be student of the Medical College where she is already studying. She is otherwise a qualified candidate and eligible for admission into the medical course which she is now undergoing and the cause of justice does not require that her studies should be interrupted and her career should not be put in jeopardy.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]It seems to us prima facie that those provisions do not authorise the Council to do so. But we refrain from expressing any final opinion in the matter as the Council is not a party before usAs we have earlier noticed, the order in question has been struck down by the High Court essentially on the ground that the order which is an executive order violates Regulation II of the Council which has the force of a Statute. It is not in dispute, it cannot be disputed that the order m question is in conflict with the provisions contained in Regulation II of the CouncilFor a proper appreciation of these rival contentions, it becomes necessary to analyze, understand the scheme of the Act, the Regulations framed thereunder. The Act was enacted "to provide for reconstitution of the Medical Council of India, the maintenance of Medical Register for India, for matters connected therewith". S. 2 deals with definitions, defines "Regulation" in subsec. (i) to mean "a Regulation under s. 33". Ss. 3 to 10 of the Act are not of any material consequence, these sections deal with composition of the Council, its functions. S. 11, 12, 13, 14 which deal with the question of recognition of medical qualifications by the Council are also not very relevant for our present purpose. S. 15 which deals with question of a person possessing qualifications for enrollment on any State Medical Register, is also not very material.S. 16 provides that every University or Medical Institution in India whic h grants a recognised medical qualification shall furnish such information as the Council may from time to time require, as to the courses of study, examination to be undergone in order to obtain such qualification, as to the ages at which courses of study, examination are required to be undergone, such qualification is conferred, generally as to the requisites for obtaining such qualifications granted by the University or Medical Institution. S. 17 confers a r ight of inspection of Medical Institution, College, Hospital or other institutions where medical education is given, also to attend any examination held by any University or Medical Institutionof recommending to the C entral Government recognition of medical qualifications granted by that University or medical institution14. S. 18 confers a further right of appointing visitors for inspection of any medical institution, College, Hospital or other institutions where medical education is given, for attending any examination held by any University or Medical Institutionof granting recognised medical qualifications. S. 19 empowers the committee to make a representation to the Central Government for withdrawal of the recognition, if it appears to the Council on a report by the Committee or the Visitor that the Courses of study, examination to be undergone in, or the proficiency required from candidates at any examination held by any University or medical institution do not conform to the standards prescribed by the Council or that the staff, equipment, accommodation, training, other facilities for instructions, training provided in such University or Medical Institution or in any College or other institution affiliated to that University do not conform to the standards prescribed by the Council.The said Section 19 further provides that in the event of any representation being made to the Cen tral Government by the Council, the Central Government will forward the same to the Government of the State in which the University or medical institution is situated, the State Government shall forward it along with such remarks as it may m ake to the University or Medical Institution, with an intimation of the period within which, the University or medical institution may submit its explanation to the State Government;, on receipt of the explanation, if any within the s tipulated period the State Government on the expiry of the period shall make its recommendations to the Central Government, the Central Government after making such further enquiries, if any, as it may think fit, proceed to act in the manne r laid down in. (4) of S. 19 of the Act. S. 19A of the Act which is important for our purposes in this appeal reads as follows:, Provided that a candidate who has appeared in a qualifying examination the result of which has not been a declared, may be provisionally allowed to take up the competitive examination, i n case of his selection for admission to a medical college, he shall not be admitted thereto unless in the meanwhile he has passed the qualifying examination15. It cannot be disputed that the State must do everything possibleof the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, other backward communities, the State is entitled to make reservations for them in the matter of admission to medical, other technical institutions. In the absence of any law to the contrary, it must also be open to the Government to impose such conditions as would make the reservation effective, would benefit the candidates belonging to these categories for whose benefit, welfare the reservations have been made. In any particular situation, taking into consideration the realities, circumstances prevailing in the State it will be open to the State to vary, modify the conditions regarding selection f or admission, if such modification or variation becomes necessary for achieving the purpose for which reservation has been made, if there be no law to the contrary. Note (ii) of rule 20 of the Rules for admission framed by the State Government specifically empower the Government to grant such relaxation in the minimum qualifying marks to the extent considered necessary.In the State of Kerala, Anr. v. N.M. Thomas (1) this Court by a majority had held that relaxation of the Rules whic h required a lower division clerk to pass a departmental test within a period of two years in the interest of the employees belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes was not unconstitutional or illegal16. The relaxation made by the State Government in the rule regarding selection of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes for admission into medical colleges cannot be said to be unreasonable, the said relaxation constitutes no violation of Art. 15 (l), (2) of the Constitution. The said relaxation also does not offend Art. 14 of the Constitution17. It has to be noticed that there is no relaxation of the condition regarding eligibility for admission into medical colleges. The relaxation is only in the rule regarding selection of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes categories who were otherwise qualified, eligible to seek admission into medical colleges only in relation to seats reserved for them. The respondent Nivedita Jain, other deserving candidates may feel that because of the reservations they are being deprived of the opportunity of getting their admission into medical colleges18. It is however, to be noted that the validity of the reservations of seats for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes categories has not been challenged in the writ petition, very properly as in view of Art. IS (4) of the Constitution. In the case of Jagdish Saran, Ors. v. Union of India, Ors. (l) relied on by Mr. Phadke, this Court has held that the Indian Constitution is wedded to equal protection,, Arts.14, 15, 16 are inviolable, Art. 2 9 (2) strikes a similar note though it does not refer to A regional restrictions or reservations; Art. IS further saves States power to make special provisions for women, children or for advancement of socially, educationally backward classes, reservations under Art. IS (4) exist, are applied.This Court further held at p. 855 as, The only other ground that was urged in support of the case of the writ petitioners that the order in question is illegal, invalid, is that the order violat es ordiance 54 of the University of Jabalpur. No such ground has been taken in the writ petition19. Though the High Court has considered this argument, the High Court does not appear to have come to any definite finding on this question. This question, in the instant case, cannot be said to be a question of pure law. In the affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the University, it has been stated that the ordinance 54 has not been adhered to20. In the absence of any plea being taken in the writ petition, we are of the opinion that the respondent is not entitled to urge this point, rely on any alleged contravention of ordinance 54 of Jabalpur University.