Delhi High Court

Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha ... vs Dr. Smit Rajput & Ors on 1 May, 2015

Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw

          *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                       Date of decision: 1st May, 2015

+                                 LPA No.551/2013
       GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA
       UNIVERSITY                                             ..... Appellant
                      Through: Mr. Mukul Talwar, Mr. Sradhananda Mohapatra
                               and Mr. Vipin Singh, Advs.
                                     Versus
       DR. SMIT RAJPUT & ORS                               ..... Respondents
                      Through: Mr. Manoj Goel and Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, Advs.
                               for R-1 to 8.
                               Ms. Zubeda Begum, Adv. for R-9/GNCTD.
                               Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal and Ms. Sandhya
                               Raghav, Advs. for R-10/DU.
                               Mrs. Suparna Srivastava, Mr. Kumar Harsh and
                               Mr. Neelmani Pant, Advs. for R-11/UOI.
                               Mr. T. Singhdev, Mr. Manan Khera and Mr. Vishu
                               Agarwal, Advs. for R-12/MCI.
                               Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Bina
                               Madhavan, Ms. Akanksha Mehra, Mr. Udai
                               Rathore and Mr. Laksh Puri, Advs. for R-23.

                                  AND

+                                 LPA No.170/2014
       DR. KUSHAL AGRAWAL & ORS                               ..... Appellants
                      Through: Mr. Manoj Goel and Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, Advs.
                                  Versus
       GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA
       UNIVERSITY & ORS                                     ..... Respondents
                      Through: Mr. Mukul Talwar, Mr. Sradhananda Mohapatra
                               and Mr. Vipin Singh, Advs. for R-1/GGSIPU.
                               Ms. Zubeda Begum, Adv. for R-2/GNCTD.


LPA Nos.551/2013 & 170/2014                                       Page 1 of 30
                               Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal and Ms. Sandhya
                              Raghav, Advs. for R-3/DU.
                              Mrs. Suparna Srivastava, Mr. Kumar Harsh and
                              Mr. Neelmani Pant, Advs. for R-4/UOI.
                              Mr. T. Singhdev, Mr. Manan Khera and Mr. Vishu
                              Agarwal, Advs. for R-5/MCI.
                              Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Bina
                              Madhavan, Ms. Akanksha Mehra, Mr. Udai
                              Rathore and Mr. Laksh Puri, Advs. for R-16.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The fight, in these intra-court appeals, both against the judgment dated

29th July, 2013 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.3952/2013 filed

by the six appellants in LPA No.170/2014 along with respondents No.17 and

18 therein, is with respect to the seats in the Post Graduate Medical Courses

(PGMCs) of Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIPU), the

appellant in LPA No.551/2013. The claim in the writ petition preferred by

the said eight students of the Maulana Azad Medical College (MAMC),

Delhi, affiliated to Delhi University (DU), was that they besides being

entitled to be considered for admission for the seats in PGMCs of their own

college / university, are also entitled to be considered for admission to the

PGMCs of GGSIPU. Needless to state that GGSIPU as well as some of its

students who were impleaded as parties to the writ petition, controverted the

said claim. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment dated 29th

July, 2013 has partly allowed the said claim of the students of DU, by

directing that the students of DU are entitled to be considered for admission

to the 50% of the State / Institutional quota seats in PGMCs of GGSIPU.

Aggrieved therefrom, LPA No.551/2013 has been preferred by GGSIPU.

The students of DU who had filed the writ petition are also aggrieved from

being held entitled to be considered only for 50% of the PGMCs seats of

State/Institutional quota in GGSIPU and claim to be entitled to be

considered for 100% of the said seats and have filed LPA No.170/2014 in

this regard. As far as the students of GGSIPU, who were impleaded as

respondents to the writ petition were concerned, aggrieved from the

judgment dated 29th July, 2013, they preferred SLP No.24528/2013 and the

Supreme Court vide ad-interim order dated 5th August, 2013 therein stayed

the operation of the judgment of the learned Single Judge. However upon

LPA No.551/2013 having been preferred by GGSIPU, the Supreme Court

vide order dated 17th January, 2014 in the said Special Leave Petition,

adjourned the hearing thereof sine die till the disposal of the said appeal

before this Court and further directed that the interim order dated 5 th August,

2013 shall remain effective until the decision of the appeal.

2. Certain applications for impleadment came to be filed in LPA

No.551/2013 but need is not felt to refer thereto as no reference was made

thereto at the time of hearing.

3. We have heard Mr. Mukul Talwar, Advocate for GGSIPU, Mr.

Krishnan Venugopal, Senior Advocate for students of GGSIPU, Mr. Manoj

Goel, Advocate for the students of DU / writ petitioners and Mr. Mohinder

J.S. Rupal, Advocate for DU.

4. In accordance with the judgments of the Constitution Bench in

Saurabh Chaudhri Vs. Union of India (2003) 11 SCC 146 and (2004) 5

SCC 618, the admissions to the PGMCs in various colleges / institutions in

the country are made from two sources; 50% of the seats are to be filled on

the basis of All India Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination

(AIPGME) in which all medical graduates from all across the country are

eligible to appear and the remaining 50% of the seats are to be filled on the

basis of entrance examination conducted by different universities / colleges

open only to students who have done their MBBS from the same college(s)/

university. In common parlance, the former category is known as All India

Quota and the latter as the State / Institutional quota.

5. As far as Delhi is concerned, it has seats in PGMCs besides in

Maulana Azad Medical College, Lady Hardinge Medical College (LHMC)

and University College of Medical Sciences (UCMS) affiliated to DU also in

Vardhman Mahavir Medical College (VMMC), Ram Manohar Lohiya Post

Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (RML-PGIMER) and

in the Employees State Insurance Post Graduate Institute of Medical

Sciences and Research (ESI-PGIMSR), all affiliated to GGSIPU.

6. 50% of the seats in PGMCs in DU were / are accordingly of All India

quota and the remaining 50% are reserved only for the students who have

done their MBBS from DU.

7. Similarly, 50% of the seats in PGMCs in GGSIPU were / are of All

India quota and the remaining 50% are reserved for students who have done

their MBBS from GGSIPU.

8. Eight students of DU filed the writ petition from which theses appeals

arise, with respect to the admissions to the academic year 2013-14. We may

record that prior to the academic year 2013-14, DU and GGSIPU were

making admission to the 50% State / Institutional quota seats in PGMCs by

holding separate examination. With effect from the academic year 2013-14,

the Medical Council of India (MCI) provided for a single eligibility-cum-

entrance examination viz. National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET-

PG) for admission to PGMCs. Both DU as well as GGSIPU, for admission

to the academic year 2013-14 instead of holding their separate entrance tests

for admission to the 50% seats of the State / Institutional quota were

required to make admissions thereto on the basis of the merit list of NEET-

PG. It was the case of the said 8 students of DU in the writ petition:

(i) that GGSIPU was set up by the Government of National Capital

Territory of Delhi (GNCTD);

(ii) however GGSIPU, instead of considering all the students who

had done their MBBS from Delhi, including from medical

colleges affiliated to DU, for admission to the 50% seats in

PGMCs, of the State / Institutional quota, was restricting the

admission thereto only to such of the students who had done

their MBBS from GGSIPU or medical colleges affiliated to

GGSIPU;

(iii) that while laying down the eligibility criteria for admission to

State / Institutional quota seats in PGMCs, no further artificial

distinction / bifurcation could be made on the basis of

affiliation to the different universities and all the students who

have done MBBS from Delhi, ought to be treated equally;

(iv) that while DU, as against 600 seats in MBBS, had only 230

seats in PGMCs, GGSIPU had as many as 122 seats in PGMCs

as against 150 seats for MBBS thereby assuring nearly every

MBBS graduate of GGSIPU a post graduate seat;

(v) that the students of GGSIPU were thus enjoying unfair

advantage over their counterparts in DU;

(vi) that the State quota seats in PGMCs in colleges situated in

Delhi could not be segregated on the basis of their respective

affiliation to DU or GGSIPU;

(vii) that the action of GGSIPU, of not allowing MBBS graduates

from medical colleges of Delhi though affiliated to DU

admission to PGMCs in medical colleges affiliated to GGSIPU,

was at the cost of merit; while less meritorious candidates from

GGSIPU were able to secure PGMCs seat of the State /

Institutional quota, the more meritorious candidates of DU were

left out.

9. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned judgment has

found/observed/recorded/ held: -

(a) that a comparison of the relative merit of the candidates from

GGSIPU and DU in the result of NEET- PG, 2013 showed that

as against 27 candidates of DU who found place in the first

3000 ranks, only three candidates of GGSIPU had qualified and

that too in ranks much lower than that of DU candidates;

similarly as against 264 candidates of DU who found place

amongst the total 44000 ranks, only 122 candidates of GGSIPU

had found place and again in much lower ranks;

(b) the Supreme Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain Vs. Union of India

(1984) 3 SCC 654 held that though theoretically speaking, if

admissions are given on the basis of All India National

Entrance Examination, each individual would have equal

opportunity of securing admission, but that would not take into

account diverse considerations such as differing levels of social

economic and educational development of different regions,

disparity in the number of seats available for admission to the

MBBS course in different States and difficulties experienced by

students from one region who might in the competition on all

India basis get admission to the MBBS course in another region

far remote from their own; thus a certain percentage of

reservation on the basis of residence requirements may

legitimately be made in order to equalize the opportunities for

medical admission and such percentage of reservation may also

include institutional reservation for students passing from the

same college or clearing the qualifying examination from the

school system of the educational hinterland of the medical

colleges in the States; however as far as admissions to PGMCs

are concerned, it would be eminently desirable not to provide

for any reservation based on residence requirement within the

State or on institutional preference;

(c) in Saurabh Chaudhri (supra) however it was held that

institutional preference should be limited to 50%, the rest being

left for open competition based primarily on merit on all India

basis;

(d) the right of a meritorious student to get admission in a PGMC is

a fundamental right which cannot be whittled down, except for

valid considerations; reliance in this regard was placed on

Islamic Education Vs. State of Karnataka (2003) 6 SCC 697 -

it was precisely for this reason that an All India Entrance Test

called NEET-PG, 2013 was held for admission to all the

medical institutions in the country so that all the candidates

seeking admission to the medical institutions are subjected to

same examination, same set of questions and same ways of

evaluation of answer books;

(e) that though the Supreme Court in Dr. Saurabh Chaudhri

(supra) had observed that in an ideal situation the meritorious

students are treated equally but such a situation continues to be

a mirage, thereby necessitating preference/reservation to certain

classes;

(f) however a classification to withstand the touchstone of equality,

has to be based on a reasonable and intelligible differentia,

which, in turn, must be founded on a rational basis;

(g) that considered on the basis of their rank in NEET-PG, 2013,

the MBBS graduates who passed out from DU were much more

meritorious than the candidates who passed out from GGSIPU;

(h) excluding the candidates who passed out their MBBS/BDS

course from DU, despite their having obtained higher marks in

an Entrance Test which was common to all the candidates in the

country, would not be constitutionally valid;

(i) a region wise classification had been upheld by the Courts for

the reason of absence of common examination and for the

reason that it was felt that the Government which provides

funds for functioning of an institution has a right to decide the

source from which admission could be made - however in the

case of Delhi, both DU as well as GGSIPU are situated in the

same territory and it cannot be said that DU caters to the need

of one region and GGSIPU to the need of another; there are no

backward or forward areas and no geographical division in the

jurisdiction of GGSIPU and DU; thus neither of the reasons

which prevailed while upholding region wise classification

were applicable to Delhi;

(j) the reason given by GGSIPU, that the students of DU being

more meritorious will take all the PGMCs seats in GGSIPU, to

the detriment of the students from GGSIPU, is irrational and

defies logic;

(k) it was nobody‟s case that the infrastructure available in

GGSIPU was inferior to that in DU or that GGSIPU suffered

from any other disadvantage;

(l) in fact the reason for which exception was carved out with

respect to All India Institute of Medical Sciences equally

applies to GGSIPU also;

(m) the Supreme Court also in P.K. Goel Vs. U.P. Medical Council

(1992) 3 SCC 232 had rejected the Scheme of the seven

medical colleges of Uttar Pradesh, of inspite of having a

Common Entrance Examination, filling up their seats on the

basis of merit list of their own students;

(n) though the Supreme Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain supra had

upheld the practice prevalent of reservation of seats for Delhi

students only but at that time there was only one University in

Delhi and GGSIPU had not been set-up; the said consideration

was not available to students passing MBBS/BDS from

GGSIPU since both GGSIPU and DU were situated at the same

place and the students from GGSIPU did not suffer from any

disability or disadvantage or handicap;

(o) had the Supreme Court approved the University wise

preference/reservation in Dr. Pradeep Jain, it would not have

struck down University based classification in Nidamarti

Maheshkumar Vs. State of Maharashtra 1986(2) SCC 534;

(p) there is no statutory rule framed by GGSIPU for giving

preference/reservation to its students while making admissions

to 50% PGMC seats of the State quota;

(q) the GNCTD also had not framed any rule providing for

preference/reservation to students from GGSIPU for admission

against the 50% State quota seats in PGMCs;

(r) therefore there is no statute or statutory rule permitting

preference/reservation to the students passing their qualifying

examination from the GGSIPU for the purpose of admission to

PGMC in the said University;

(s) in fact DU also does not have any statutory rule for providing

preference/reservation to its own students in the matter of

admission to PGMCs;

(t) an administrative decision of the University to accord

preference/reservation to its own students, in the matter of

admission to PGMC, cannot be treated at par with a statutory

rule/regulation which could be framed either by the

Government or by the University;

(u) as many as 12 other States with multiple Universities were

interpreting the institutional preference to mean preference for

all the students passing out from various Universities in the

concerned State; of the remaining States, three had no Medical

College, five had only one University/Medical University and

five had only one Medical College and therefore the question of

institutional preference/reservation did not arise in their case;

(v) there is no intelligible differentia between the MBBS graduates

of GGSIPU and the MBBS graduates of DU, both of which

Universities are situated in the same territory, without any

regional disparity and geographical division or jurisdiction;

(w) though the Supreme Court in Christian Medical College,

Vellore Vs. UOI (2014) 2 SCC 305 had done away with

NEET-PG but the same would be irrelevant; and,

(x) that as per the view taken by the Supreme Court in various

cases, 50% of the State quota seats of PGMCs available in

GGSIPU should be filled up purely on the basis of ranks

obtained by the candidates passing out their qualifying

examination either from DU or from GGSIPU and the

remaining 50% of such seats should be filled up from amongst

the medical graduates of GGSIPU alone.

Accordingly, GGSIPU was directed to prepare and issue two separate

lists, one containing the names of the eligible medical graduates of both the

Universities, who are to be considered for admission to half of the State

quota seats and the second list containing the names of only eligible

GGSIPU medical graduates, who are to be considered for admission against

the remaining 50% seats in the State quota for admission to PGMCs in the

Academic Session 2013-14.

10. One thing which immediately stares in the face of the judgment of the

learned Single Judge is that while half of the 50% State/Institutional quota

seats in PGMCs in GGSIPU were thrown open to students of DU also, no

similar direction was issued with respect to the State / Institutional quota

PGMCs seats in DU. Thus, while half of the State / Institutional quota seats

in GGSIPU became available to DU candidates, it was not so vice-versa. It

was perhaps because, though the students of DU who had filed the writ

petition sought relief against GGSIPU, they did not seek a similar relief

against their own University i.e. DU, to also throw open its PGMCs seats of

the State / Institutional quota to the students of GGSIPU; rather it appears

that DU did not even file a counter affidavit before the learned Single Judge.

The judgment of the learned Single Judge also does not record the stand of

DU in this regard.

11. However during the pendency of the appeals before this Court, DU in

or about February, 2014 filed an affidavit stating that the learned Single

Judge, in the impugned judgment had wrongly observed that DU does not

have a statutory rule providing for preference/reservation to its own students

in the matter of admission to PGMCs. Attention was invited to Section 30 of

the University of Delhi Act, 1922 and to Clause 5 of Appendix-II of

Ordinance-V of DU relating to PG Degree Courses providing for such

reservation. It was further stated that since the students of DU who had filed

the writ petition had not sought any relief against DU, DU was not called

upon to make its stand clear. It was yet further stated

"Be that as it may, the University of Delhi is open to consider the issue to allow the eligible students of GGSIPU to be considered for admission in PGMCs in accordance with the Admission/Reservation Rules of the University of Delhi, provided they have appeared in the Entrance Test notified by the University of Delhi and provided the GGSIPU allows the students of University of Delhi to appear in the Entrance Exam conducted by the GGSIPU and to participate in the admission process".

12. However the counsel for the DU during the hearing stated that DU is

not willing to allow the students of GGSIPU admission to PGMCs seats of

the State/Institutional quota in DU. On enquiry it was stated that the

statement aforesaid in the affidavit of February, 2014 was merely of being

willing to consider, and is not binding on DU.

13. The common contention of the counsel for GGSIPU, the senior

counsel for impleaded students of GGSIPU and of DU was:-

I. that the reliefs claimed in the writ petition were specific to the

admission to the academic year 2013-14;

II. that of the eight students of DU who had preferred the writ

petition, two did not even join in filing the appeal and the

remaining six have also since done their post-graduation and

are no longer interested in seeking admission to PGMCs seats

of the State quota in GGSIPU;

III. that the relief claimed in the writ petition was in the backdrop

of the situation prevailing for admission to Academic Year

2013-14; admission to State quota seats in all medical colleges

in the country, in that year, was on the basis of NEET-PG;

however upon NEET-PG having been abolished by the

Supreme Court vide judgment in Christian Medical College,

Vellore (supra), the situation as prevailing prior thereto is back

in vogue and which in any case does not permit of a common

merit list of the students of GGSIPU and DU; while DU makes

admission to PGMCs seats of the State quota on the basis of the

rank in AIPGME held for filling up the All India quota seats,

GGSIPU holds its own separate examination for the said

purpose and in which students of DU are not entitled to

participate; and,

IV. that the reliefs claimed in the writ petition, on the basis of

NEET-PG which now no longer exist, have become impossible

of granting.

14. The counsel for the six of the eight students of DU who had filed the

writ petition (and who are the appellants in LPA No.170/2014) does not

dispute that all the eight students have since done their post-graduation

either from a seat in All India quota or from DU only and are now no longer

desirous of admission to the PGMCs seats of the State quota in GGSIPU. He

however states that the question involved is an important one and in the

interest of all students of DU and thus should be decided. With respect to the

contention of the other counsels, of the relief claimed being now no longer

feasible, he has contended that the relief claimed in the writ petition has to

be read as not confined to the admissions for the Academic Year 2013-14

only but also to all successive years. He has yet further contended that the

abrogation of NEET-PG does not pose any difficulty as GGSIPU and DU

can be directed to either hold a Common Examination for filling up of their

State/Institutional quota seats or to make admissions thereto on the basis of

rank in the AIPGME held for filling up of All India Quota seats. He

however admitted that the State / Institutional quota seats only in GGSIPU

cannot be directed to be open for DU students and the State / Institutional

quota seats in DU also have to be directed to be open for GGSIPU students.

15. Since the counsel (for appellants in LPA No.170/2014) though

admitting that his clients were left with no cause of action sought to

purportedly espouse the cause of the MBBS graduates of DU in general, we

asked him as to how he can claim to be representing them or acting in their

interest.

16. No answer was forthcoming except for stating that opening up of all

the State quota seats in DU as well as GGSIPU to students of both the

Universities is important for the sake of upholding the principle of

meritocracy.

17. We further enquired from the counsel (for the appellants in LPA

No.170/2014) as to how a direction against DU to open up its PGMCs seats

of the State quota to students of GGSIPU also can be given without any such

relief having been claimed in the writ petition or even now.

18. The only answer forthcoming is that since the DU, in its affidavit of

February, 2014 filed in this appeal, has shown willingness to consider the

same, they should be so directed. The counsel however has no answer to the

pleas raised in the said affidavit of DU, of it having a statutory rule against

allowing the same and which aspect has not been adjudicated by the learned

Single Judge, having been not called upon to adjudicate the same.

19. The counsel (for appellants in LPA No.170/2014) otherwise admits

that the direction cannot be one way only i.e. of directing GGSIPU only to

open up its seats to the students of DU without a corresponding direction to

DU.

20. The counsel has yet further contended that the judgment abrogating

NEET-PG was pronounced on 18th July, 2013 i.e. a few days before the

impugned judgment dated 29th July, 2013 and the learned Single Judge was

fully aware of the same. He has further contended that inspite of NEET-PG

having been abrogated, the Supreme Court vide order dated 17 th January,

2014 supra did not allow the SLP preferred by the students of GGSIPU and

on the contrary is awaiting the decision in this appeal. It was argued that thus

the Supreme Court has also taken a view that the present proceedings,

notwithstanding the abrogation of NEET-PG, are maintainable.

21. The other counsels clarify that though NEET-PG was abrogated vide

judgment dated 18th July, 2013 but admissions to the PGMCs seats of the

State quota for the Academic Year 2013-14 were made according to the rank

in NEET-PG only, though State/Institution wise, as none of the

Universities/Colleges had held their own examination as they used to earlier.

22. We have perused the order dated 17th January, 2014 of the Supreme

Court and do not find the Supreme Court to have therein applied itself to the

effect of abrogation of NEET-PG. In fact the stage therefor did not arise.

We are unable to accept the contention of the advocate for appellants in LPA

No.170/2014 that the Supreme Court has formed any view that the present

proceedings remain alive notwithstanding abrogation of NEET-PG. Just like

with respect to a judgment it is the principle that it is a precedent on what it

lays down and adjudicates and not on what may be inferred therefrom,

similar is the case with respect to the orders. From the factum of the

Supreme Court having adjourned the SLP before it sine die awaiting the

outcome of this appeal, it cannot be said that the Supreme Court has directed

this Court to return a finding on merits if otherwise this Court finds the same

to be unnecessary.

23. Though we have heard the counsels at length on merits but for the

reasons following are of the view that it would not be appropriate for this

Court to in these proceedings return any finding on merits:-

A. the writ petition from which these appeals arise were filed not

in public interest but as a private lis. The settled principle with

respect to a private lis is that if the cause of action therefor

disappears even at an appellate stage, the same is to proceed no

further. Supreme Court in Shipping Corporation of India Ltd.

Vs. Machado Brothers (2004) 11 SCC 168 though in the

context of a civil suit held that if by subsequent events the

original proceeding has become infructuous, it is the duty of the

Court to take such action as is necessary and which includes

disposing of infructuous litigation, as continuing such litigation

will be like flogging a dead horse and not benefit any of the

parties. Supreme Court in Rajesh D. Darbar Vs. Narasingrao

Krishnaji Kulkarni (2003) 7 SCC 219also dealt with the impact

of subsequent happenings under the heads of, first its bearing on

the right of action, second, on the nature of the relief and third,

on its importance to create or destroy substantive rights. It was

inter alia held that it is important that the party claiming the

relief must have the same right from which the relief may flow

and that subsequent events in the course of the case cannot be

constitutive of substantive rights enforceable in that very

litigation except in a narrow category. Admittedly the eight

students of DU who had filed the writ petition from which these

appeals arise are now left with no cause of action. This

proceeding is now being pursued purportedly to espouse the

cause of the other students of DU in general but from whom

neither Mr. Manoj Goel, Advocate nor the appellants in LPA

No.170/2014 have any authority. We do not really know what

the students of DU want. Whether they are willing to, as against

having a chance of seeking admission to the PGMCs seats of

the State quota in the GGSIPU, have the State quota seats of

DU also opened to students of GGSIPU to whom they are not

open as yet. Though these appeals have remained pending for

some time and the hearing itself has spanned over a few

months, none of the other students of DU have come forward.

Though some intervention applications were filed but have not

been pressed/pursued. We would hesitate to return a finding, in

vacuum, on such an important issue affecting a large number of

students.

B. The counsel for appellants in LPA No.170/2014 also agrees that

the opening up of the State quota seats cannot be one sided;

either such seats in both Universities have to be opened to

students from both Universities or in neither. However no relief

against DU was claimed. It is a classic case of the writ

petitioners, at the time of filing of the writ petition wanting a

portion of the pie of GGSIPU seats without wanting to share

their own. They have only now become wiser. However in the

process, the question whether DU can be so directed remained

to be considered and there are no pleadings even with respect

thereto. For this reason alone, we cannot in the absence of any

pleadings, for the first time in this appeal, consider the said

aspect. Once that is so, we do not feel the need to consider

whether a direction can be given to GGSIPU to open up its

PGMCs seats of the State / Institutional quota to MBBS

graduates from DU. No purpose would be served thereby.

C. The Court does not indulge in academic exercise. Reference in

this regard may be made to Arnit Das Vs. State of Bihar (2001)

7 SCC 657 observing that it is settled practice that the Court

does not decide the matter which are only of academic interest

on the facts of a particular case. Following the said principle,

the Division Bench of this Court in Association For

Development Vs. Union of India MANU/DE/1491/2010, even

in a Public Interest Litigation, did not proceed to decide the

challenge to the appointment of members of National

Commission for Protection of Child Rights whose term was

expiring shortly after the time the petition came up for hearing.

It was held that no purpose would be served in adjudicating on

that aspect. Earlier to that also, the Constitution Bench in A.K.

Roy Vs. Union of India (1982) 1 SCC 271 had observed that

the position is firmly established in the field of Constitutional

adjudication that the Court will decide no more than needs to be

decided in any particular case. It was held that abstract

questions present interesting challenges, but it is for scholars

and text-book writers to unravel their mystique; it is not for the

courts to decide questions which are but of academic

importance.

D. There is merit also in the contention that the relief claimed in

the writ petition was premised on the existence at the time of

admissions to the academic year 2013-14 of a Common

Entrance Test i.e. NEET-PG to check the inter se merit of the

students of both Universities. NEET-PG, after the institution of

the writ petition, has ceased to exist. The learned Single Judge

however, concerned only with the admissions to the academic

year 2013-14, still went ahead to issue directions since

notwithstanding NEET-PG having been held to be illegal,

admissions to that academic year were to be on the basis of that

only. However it is not so for subsequent years for allowing the

directions issued by the learned Single Judge to be followed for

the subsequent years also, directions to GGSIPU and DU to

hold a common examination for admission to State/

Institutional quota seats in PGMCs in both, to test the inter se

merit of students of both universities will also have to be issued

and modalities thereof will have to be devised and for which

again neither any relief has been claimed nor pleadings exist.

This Court would hesitate from venturing into the said aspect

also for the first time in appellate jurisdiction; and,

E. The issue involved is undoubtedly an important one having

wide ramifications which may extend to outside Delhi also.

Without proper pleadings, we would not like to venture into the

same.