Dr. Puneet Rana vs All India Institute Of Medical ...
2004 Latest Caselaw 1378 Del

JUDGMENT

D.K. Jain, J.

1. The present appeal, under letters patent, is directed against the judgment of a learned single judge, dismissing the appellant's petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The issue involved relates to legality of the prescription of a minimum p rcentage 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 (hereafter''AIIMS''). The appellant alleged that such a description is arbitrary, discriminatory and therefore, violative of Article of 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned single judge, in the impugned judgment, found the condition to be valid.

2. The admission programme to various Post-graduate courses conducted by AIIMS is based upon an All India competitive examination. The prospectus prescribes that each 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, as on 30th July 2004 The second, impugned condition is that 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). Hence, 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 appellant passed his MBBS Examination from the Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi; he secured 2032 marks out of 3700 (i.e 54.92%). Though he did not satisfy the eligibility requirement of possessing 55%, yet he submitted an application, claiming to have obtained 55% instead of 54.92%. This error was overlooked at the time of processing the application, and the appellant eventually appeared. He was placed at No. 20 in the order of merit, in the entrance examination. After being called for counseling for allotment of a General Surgery seat, he was informed by the Committee that since the percentage of marks scored by him in his MBBS Examination was less than 55%, he was ineligible for admission.

4.The appellant represented against the decision of the committee, stating that the marks shown by him in the application was due to a bona fide mistake and that he ought to be considered, and given admission. This was however, rejected. In these circumstances, he approached this Court under Article 226, questioning the prescription of 55% marks in the MBBS examination as arbitrary.

5.The learned single judge, in the judgment under appeal has noticed that the AIIMS is an institute of national character, entitled to grant its degrees, which are recognized qualifications. After noticing that the institution, being one of its kind in the country, is faced with severe pressure for admission to its courses, the learned judge has held that the process of determination of the merit of the candidates was founded upon two considerations, namely the performance in the MBBS Examination and t e performance in the entrance test. It was further held that AIIMS was not precluded from insisting upon, or prescribing an eligibility criterion in the form of minimum percentage, as a pre-requisite for candidates, to appear for the entrance examination The other contention about discrimination on the plea that such a minimum percentage was not insisted upon in the case of an All India Entrance Exam held by the AIIMS for admission under the 25% All India Quota, for postgraduate medical and dental courses throughout the country was also negatived. The learned single judge held that the two admission processes were for two different institutions, viz AIIMS on the one hand, and other institutions, on the other and hence, there was no basis for a complain of discrimination.

6. Ms. Madhu Tewatia, appearing for the appellant submitted that the prescription of 55% marks in MBBS as the eligibility for admission was arbitrary and unreasonable, once the AIIMS set its own standard, and sought to evaluate candidates through a common entrance test. The object of that test, she submitted, was to apply a uniform yardstick through the common entrance test, and judge the suitability and merit of candidates, from the standpoint of AIIMS. This was fair and necessary, having regard to the lack of uniformity in different states and universities, in awarding marks. Once this concern was addressed, through a standard evolved by AIIMS itself, namely its own entrance examination, the insistence for 55% marks in medical graduation, in fact undermined the purpose of holding the entrance examination, since there was disparity in different Universities and institutions, leading to unfairness and unreasonableness. Learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Preeti Srivasta a (Dr.)-vs- State of Madhya Pradesh , particularly paragraph 28 ( of the SCC report) which underscores the aforesaid objective.

7. Learned counsel also assailed the findings of the learned single judge about there being no discrimination between aspirants for AIIMS seats and seats in other institutions. She submitted that the two sets of examinations were held by the same body, v iz AIIMS; the candidates were identical, namely medical graduates; all of them were subject to MCI regulations. Under these circumstances, she submitted, there was no justification to insist upon 55% marks in MBBS as an eligibility condition as far as admissions to AIIMS were concerned, and permit admissions in respect of those scoring 50% in respect of other institutions, even though the examinations were being conducted by AIIMS, for both sets of candidates.

8. AIIMS was set up under an Act of Parliament in 1956. It has been declared as an institution of national importance (Section 5). Section 13 specifies the objects of the Institute as under: ''13. (a) to develop patterns of teaching in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education in all its branches so as to demonstrate a high standard of medical education to all medical colleges and other allied institutions in India; (b) to bring together in one place educational facilities of the highest order for the training of personnel in all important branches of health activity; and (c) to attain self-sufficiency in postgraduate medical education.''

Having regard to those objectives, it is inevitable that in search for excellence, an attempt is made to ensure that the best students secure admission to the courses offered by AIIMS. We are of the view that the reasoning of the learned single judge, nagely that the process starts from the stage of scrutiny of candidates based on their performance in the MBBS Examination, cannot be faulted. The finding that this process of elimination is not arbitrary, merely because the final selection is based on the performance in the entrance examination, and that by itself could not have prevented the AIIMS from prescribing a percentage of marks in the qualifying examination as a condition of eligibility, is unexceptionable.

9. Shri Mukul Gupta, appearing for AIIMS has drawn our attention to a recent judgment of the Supreme Court, rendered in an identical situation. There, two sets of eligibility criteria for admissions were insisted upon- one by the state authority, and another by a Central agency, namely, the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). The Supreme Court, after considering the decision in Preeti Srivastava (supra) and other judgments, held that the prescription of one did not preclude the insistence f the other, in State of T.N. v. S.V. Bratheep : ''One other argument is further advanced before us that the criteria fixed by AICTE were to be adopted by the respective colleges and once such prescription had been made, it was not open to the Government to prescribe further standards particularly when they had established the institutions in exercise of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution. However, we do not think this argument can be sustained in any manner. Prescription of standards in education is always accepted to be an appropriate exercise of power by the bodies recognizing the colleges or granting affiliation, like AICTE or University. If in exercise of such power the prescription had been made, it cannot be said that the whole matter has been foreclosed '' We may also note that in Preeti Srivastava (supra) itself, the Court acknowledged the possibility of two sets of criteria being insisted upon in admission procedures, in the following terms, at page 160 of the SCC reports ( para 39): ''In every case the minimum standards as laid down by the Central statute or under it, have to be complied with by the State while making admissions. It may, in addition, lay down other additional norms for admission or regulate admissions in the exercise of its powers under Entry 25 List III in a manner not inconsistent with or in a manner which does not dilute the criteria so laid down.'' In view of the above reasoning, the submission of the appellant has to be rejected.

10. We are also in agreement with the learned single judge as regards the findings of absence of discrimination. The plea that since the AIIMS conducts two entrance tests - one for its own seats, and the other for the All India quota, in other institutions, and yet prescribes two different sets of eligibility criteria vis a vis marks in MBBS, resulting in discrimination, has to be rejected. This is because there can be no comparison with the two; as far as AIIMS itself is concerned, it is an institution of national importance, entitled to award its own degrees, and therefore entitled to set its own standards, for admitting students. As far as the other institutions are concerned, the role of AIIMS is merely of an examining body; the methodology and procedure, as well as all conditions relating to the All India quota are prescribed by the Central Government. This has been done pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court in Pradeep Jain -vs- Union of India , and subsequent series of judgment and orders. The plea of discrimination can be examined in as between equals; in the present case the AIIMS cannot be treated on the same footing as other institutions. It would not be possible to compare different objects or institutions, where dissmilarity is inherent, and complain of differential treatment. Hence, we reject the complaint of violation of Article 14, and affirm the findings of the learned single judge.

11. In view of the foregoing, the appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs.