Case: Dr. Muneeb Ul Rehman Haroon and Others Vs. Government of Jammu and Kashmir State and Others

The petitioners applied for admission to the Medical College, Srinagar, for the Post-graduate Course of the Kashmir University for t he semester beginning in July 1980. They appeared for an entrance test but the result of that test was not declared officially. The petitioners seem to possess information to the effect, and they have so alleged in their petitions, that they have passed the test. No admissions were made either to the July, 1980 semester or to the two following semesters beginning in November, 1980 and July 1981. An entrance test was held for admission to the semester beginning in November 1981 and the resu lt of the test has been announced. We are informed that 16 out of 17 petitioners in these two Writ Petitions appeared for that testThere is a vague averment in the petitions that the refusal of the Government to admit any student at all for the July, 1980 semester is violative of the petitioners fundamental rights under articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution and is also mala fide. We are unable to see how. The petitioners have not been picked and chosen for hostile treatment as compared with other candidates similarly circumstanced. They are also not deprived of their right to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation. They are all qualified doctors, they have passed their M.B.B.S. examinati on, almost all of them have appeared for the entrance test held for the November, 1981 semester and they are all serving and practising as doctors.

Court's reasoning:
According to clause 3 of the 1980 Notice of Admission, it was necessary for the candidates to have completed one years Compulsory House Job in the concerned speciality, as provided in the statutes of the Kashmir University. Under the amended provision which came into force in 1981, candidates have to complete one years House Job in a recognised institution in the concerned subject or six months House Job in the concerned subject and six months House Job in an allied subject. The amended rule conforms to the rule which prevails in other parts of the country and is in accordance with the recommendations of the Medical Council of India.In so far as the allegation of mala fides is concerned, no specific facts have been alleged on the basis of which we can record a finding that the decision not to admit any students at all for three consecutive semesters was actuated by a mala fide intention on the part of the State Government. There is a bald ass ertion in the Writ Petitions that a total ban was placed on admission to the three consecutive semesters in order to favour some persons. Who those persons are we do not know. How they stood to gain by a tota ban on admissions to the post- graduate course for a year and half is not clear. And, we cannot assume which dealing with a question which has such far reaching consequences as the question of mala fides, that the State Government had some particular persons in mind, to favour whom, every one of the students was denied the benefit of post-graduate education. How, by denying admission to all, favour was shown to a few is difficult to understand, especially when those few favourites are in obscurity and remain unidentified.