Dr. Puneet Rana vs All India Institute Of Medical ...
2004 Latest Caselaw 645 Del

JUDGMENT

T.S. Thakur, J.

1. The short question that falls for consideration in this petition is whether the prescription of a minimum percentage of marks in the qualifying examination as a condition of eligibility for appearance in the entrance test for Post-Graduate studies in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi(hereinafter referred to as AIIMS, New Delhi) is so harsh, arbitrary, or discriminatory as to be violative of Article of 14 of the Constitution of India. The facts in the backdrop whereof, the question arises are few and may, therefore, be stated at the outset.

2. AIIMS, New Delhi conducts a competitive examination for admission to various Post-Graduate medical courses offered by it. The prospectus issued by the Institute, prescribes the following eligibility criterion :-

(i) A candidate must possess MBBS degree for MD/MS and BDS degree for MDS courses of a University recognized by the Medical Council of India/Dental Council of India and must have completed the required period of pre-registration internship (12 months) in a recognized hospital. Those who are likely to complete their internship after 30th July, 2004 are not eligible.

(ii) The candidate must have obtained a minimum of 55% marks in aggregate in all the MBBS/BDS professional examinations (50% for candidates belonging to SCs /STs). Therefore to be eligible for the said entrance examination, the General Category candidates are required to obtain a minimum of 55% marks in aggregate in the MBBS professional examination.

3. The petitioner who appears to have passed his MBBS Examination from the Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi had scored 2032 marks out of a total of 3700 marks which worked out to 54.92% of the aggregate. He did not, therefore, satisfy the prescribed condition of eligibility in that he did not have a minimum of 55% marks in aggregate. He all the same appears to have submitted an application in which he claimed his percentage in the MBBS Examination to be 55% instead of 54.92% actually scored by him. The error in the percentage of marks scored by the petitioner appears to have escaped the scrutiny of the authorities with the result that the petitioner was permitted to appear in the entrance examination in which he was placed at No. 20 in the order of merit. He was in due course called for counselling for allotment of a seat in General Surgery but was shortly thereafter informed by the Committee that the percentage of marks scored by him in his MBBS Examination being less than the minimum prescribed, he was not eligible for admission to the entrance examination or to the allotment of a seat, the high rank secured by him in the entrance examination notwithstanding. A representation was filed by the petitioner in which he described the error in the percentage of marks to be bona fide mistake and by which he sought relaxation of the eligibility criterion. This representation was upon consideration turned down by the Institute. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing the constitutional validity of the stipulation requiring 55% marks in the MBBS examination as a condition of eligibility for appearance in the entrance examination.

4. Ms. Madhu Tewatia, learned counsel for the petitioner made a two-fold submission in support of the petition. It was firstly argued by her that the admission to the post-graduate courses offered by the Institute being based entirely on the performance of the candidates in the entrance examination, it was unnecessary to stipulate a minimum percentage of marks in the qualifying examination as a condition of eligibility for writing the said examination. So long as the candidates possessed the minimum qualification prescribed, namely, a Bachelor's Degree in Medical Sciences, it was, argued the learned counsel, immaterial whether he/she had passed the examination with 55% marks or less. Admissions based on the performance of the candidates in the entrance examination would in any case ensure that the available seats were allotted only to the meritorious out of those competing for the same.

5. It was alternatively argued that the stipulation of a different eligibility criteria, i.e., 55% in the case of entrance examination for post-graduate courses offered by the Institute and 50% for the All-India examination conducted by the Institute for admission to similar courses in other institutions and medical colleges was discriminatory. The content and the duration of the courses offered by the Institute and other medical colleges being the same, the prescription of different percentage of marks in the MBBS Examination as a condition of eligibility for appearance in the entrance examination for such courses was unjustified and discriminatory.

6. All India Institute of Medical Sciences is one of the premier institutions in the country established under an Act of Parliament with the object of improving professional competence and ensuring high standard of medical education at the under-graduate and post-graduate levels. The Institute promotes medical research and self-sufficiency in post-graduate medical education. The degrees awarded by the Institute are under the provisions of Act recognised medical qualifications and equivalent to similar degrees awarded by other recognised Universities in India. As an Institute of excellence that strives for excellence, it is but natural that against the limited number of seats offered by it for post-graduate studies, a large number of candidates from all over the country seek admission to such studies. A process of selection of the best out of these candidates, therefore, becomes inevitable. This process could and does logically start from the stage of scrutinising candidates on the basis of their performance in the MBBS Examination. Out of thousands who appear and qualify in the said examination, the entry to the competitive examination for admission to post-graduate courses is limited to those who have performed well in the graduate examination and scored 55% or more. The process of determination of the merit of the candidates which forms the essence of the ultimate selection is in that sense dual in character, namely;

i) the performance in the MBBS Examination; and

ii) the performance in the entrance test.

It is true that the merit list of the candidates is eventually drawn up on the basis of the performance in the entrance examination only without adding to the performance of the candidate any weightage for his performance in the MBBS examination but consideration of the candidates performances in the MBBS examination is implicit in the ultimate selection. That is because only such of the candidates as have scored 55% or more marks are eligible for appearance in the test. Those who do not touch that level of performance, get eliminated at the threshold. There is, in my opinion, no legal or other flaw in the method that the Institute has evolved for itself as a university in the matter of selection of candidates for courses offered by it. Just because the ultimate selection is based on the performance in the entrance examination, does not necessarily mean that the Institute could not have prescribed a definite percentage of marks in the qualifying examination as a condition of eligibility as it has done in the instant case. Any such prescription of marks is in fact meant to ensure that candidates who perform well not only in the entrance examination but also in the MBBS examination alone remain in the zone of consideration. The first limb of the argument advanced by Ms. Tewatia must, therefore, fail and is accordingly rejected.

7. That brings me to the alternative submission of the learned counsel. The submission that since the Institute holds two competitive examinations - one for the seats offered by it, and other for seats available in other institutions, it ought to stipulate the same conditions of eligibility for both proceeds on a falacy that stipulations of different standards for different examinations would constitute discrimination offensive to Article 14 of the Constitution. There is, in my opinion, no question of comparing the conditions of eligibility stipulated by one Institute with those stipulated by another, no matter the content and the length of the course offered by both is similar. So also a comparison of the conditions of eligibility stipulated for one course with those stipulated for another course offered by the same institution also does not lead us anywhere. What should be the conditions of eligibility for admission to any course of study or competitive examination meant to select candidates for such courses is essentially a matter for the academicians to decide. Whether 50% marks in the MBBS examination should suffice or a higher percentage could be stipulated as a condition of eligibility for appearance in the competitive examination does not have any juristic overtones. The question is one concerning achievement or maintenance of academic standards which can be better left to be managed by experts. All that need be said is that so long as the condition of eligibility prescribed for any course is not patently irrational and in defiance of plain logic, the courts would be slow to intervene. The opinion of the experts especially in fields where such expertise is not wanting deserves to be respected.

8. The petitioner was admittedly ineligible to appear in the entrance examination as he did not have 55% marks in the MBBS examination. He could not have, therefore, taken the entrance examination which he succeeded in doing by claiming that he had 55% marks in the MBBS examination. That being the position and in the absence of any power vested in the Institute to relax the said condition of eligibility, there was no room for any lenient view in his favor simply because he had performed well in the entrance examination and scored a relatively high rank. If his performance in the entrance examination were to be made a basis for determining whether he ought to be considered or excluded from consideration, it would apart from denying a similar opportunity to other candidates who were kept out or who did not apply for appearance in the examination set a bad precedent. It would in that case place a premium on an irregularly, if not deliberate, suppression or misrepresentation of facts by the candidate. It would also set a bad precedent in that by misrepresentation of the facts, other candidates could similarly take a chance and if placed higher in the merit list, claim that denial of a seat to them was unfair.

9. In the result, there is no merit in this petition, which is dismissed in liming.