A
B
c
' ' . ' .
DR. MUNEEB UL REHMAN HAROON AND ORS.
v.
GOVERNMENT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR STATE
AND ORS.
_August 13, 1984_
[Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., A. VARADARAJAN AND AMARENDRA
NATH SEN, JJ .]
_Constitution_ _of India 1950, Articles_ _)4 and_ _19_
_Medi1..·al_ _Col/eges-1Vo admi•sious_ _1nade_ _to_ _Post-Graduate medical_ _course_
_for three consecutive seniesters-Action_ _of authorities whether_ _r;irbitrary_ _and_
_violative_ _of fundamental rights._
D _Practice_ _and Procedure-Mala_ _/ides-Plea_ _of·-Bald assertion_ _in_ _writ_
_petition-Insufficient-Specific facts_ _to_ _be_ _alleged._
The petitioners in the writ petitions were medical gradultes who
applied for ad.nission to the Post-gradu.ite course in the Medical College,
..
#### 1
E
F
G
H
Srinagar for the semester beginning in July 1970, appJared for an entrance
test but the result was rIOt declared officially. They contended in their
writ petitions that the refllsal of the Government to admit any student at
all for the Post-Graduate course for the three semesters \Vhich commenced
in July 1980, November 1980 and July 1981 was viola•.ive of the funda.
mental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution,
besides being _ma la_ _fide._
The State Government contested the writ petitions contending that
the rules which were in operation in July, 1980 governing admission to the
Post-Graduate Medical Course, were prejudicial to the interests of the
students of Jammu Medical College and were to an extent discriminatory
and that was why rio admissions were made to the July 1980 semester,
that the amendment of the rules of admission were initiated so as to
bring them in conformity with the requirements of the Constitution, and
that this took a long period of 18 months.
Dismissing the writ petitions,
# -
subject. The amended rule conforms to the rule which prevailed in other
parts of the country and was in accordance with recommendations of the
Medical Council of India. [347C-G]
ORIGINAL JuRISDicnoN: Writ Petition No. 1742 & 3129 of
1981.
Under article 32 of the Constitution of India.
_Vimal Dave_ for the Petitioner.
M. U. REHMAN _v._ _1._ K. STAril 34S
HELD : There is no violation of any of the fundamental rights of A
the petitioners nor is the action of the State authorities arbitrary or
_ma/a fide._ [J48C]
_Atala fides_ cannot be a~$un1ed while dealing with a question which has
far-re~ching consequences. No .specific facts havo been alleged on the basis
of which a finding can be recorded that the decisicn not to adtnit any student
at all for three consecutive semesters was actuated by a _rnala_ _fide_ intention
on the part. of the St;.te .Government. There is only a bald assertion in
the writ petitions that a total ban was placed on admission to the three
consecutive semesters in order to r.~vour some per.sons. [347H-348A]
In the instant case, u11til the year 1973 there was only one Medical
College in the State of Jammu & KashmirJ wbich was at Srinagar. The
Medical College al Jammu wo1s started in 197 3. The Jammu Medical
Co\ [1] ege was affiliated to the Ja.mmu University while the Srinagar Medical
College W<lS affiliated 10 K«shmir University. The statutes of Jammu
B
c
University did not correspond to th·~ statutes of the Kashmir Uoiversity D
for admission to the Post-graduate courseJ thcreb)' causing discrimination
in favour of thoSe fulfilling the requir~inents under the statutes of the
Kashmir University as against those eligible under the statutes of the
Jammu University. That was why, the State Government had to take [1 ]
action for :uriog the defects Which were inherent in the prevailing proce ..
dure for selection to the Post-Graduate Medical Course in 'the two medical E
colleges. The Kashmir University statute was arnended so as to introduce
uniformity in the rules of admission. According to clause 3 of the 1980
Notice of Admission, it WJS necessary for the caodidcites to have completed
one year's Con1pulsory House Job in the concerned speciality, as provided
in the statutes of the Kashmir University. Under the amended µrovisions
which came into force in 1981 candidates had to complete one years's F
House Job in a recognised institut!on in the concerued subject or six months'
House Job in the concerned subject and six months' House Job in an •allied
G
H
346 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985j I s.C.k.
A _Alta! Ahmed_ for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
###### c
D
E
F
G
CHANDRACHUD, C. J. These Writ Petitions are not maintainable under article 32 of the Constitution because they do not involve
the violation of any fundamental right of the petitioners. The
petitioners applied for admission to the Medical College, Srinagar,
for the Post-graduate Course of the Kashmir University for the
semester beginning in July 1980. Th'y app~ared for an entrance
test but the result of that test was not declared officially. The
petitioners seem to possess info:imt'on to the effect, and they have
so alleged in their petitions, th1t th'Y hwe 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 result of the test has been announced.
We are informed that 16 out of 17 petitioners in these two Writ
Petitions appeared for that test.
There is a vague averment in the petitions that the refusal of
the Government to admit any student at all for the July, 1980 seme
strr is violative of the petitioners' fundamental rights under articles
14 and 19 of the Constitution and is also _ma/a 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. examination, 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.
Shri T.U. Mehta, who appears on behalf of the petitioners,
says that the wholesale non-admission of students to the Post
graduate Course for the three semesters which commenced in July
1980, November 1980 and July 1981 is an arbitrary act which offends
against the guarantee of fairness implicit in article 14. The answer
of the State Government is that the rules which were in operation
in July 1980, governing admission to the Post-graduate Medical
Course, were prejudicial to the interests of the students of the
Jammu Medical Coliege and were, to an extent, discriminatory.
That is why, no admissions were made to the July 1980 semester.
###
M. u.,REHMAN _v._ J, K. STATE _(Clzandrachud,_ _c._ _J.)_ 347
Ttere is apparently no reason for doubting the veracity of this
explanation though, we do not know why the amendment of the
rules of admission, so as to bring them in conformity with the
requirements of the Constitution, took as long as 18 months. The
red· tape correspondence between the Health Department Commissioner, the Principal of the Srinagar Medical College, the ViceChancellor of the Kashmir University and the Ministry of Health
consumed a long time.
Until the year 1973, there was only one Medical College in
the State of Jammu & Kashmir, which was at Srinagar. The Medical
College at Jammu was started in 1973. The Jammu Medical College
is affiliated to the Jammu University while the Srinagar Medical
College is [1] affiliated to the Kashmir University. The statutes of
Jammu University did not correspond to the statutes of the Kashmir
University for admission to the post-graduate course, thereby
causing discrimination in favour of those fulfilling the requirements
under statutes of the Kashmir University as against those eligible
under the statutes of the Jammu University. With more and more
candidates from the Jammu Medical College becoming eligible
for selection to the post-graduate medical course, the discriminatory
procedure prescribed by the statutes of the Kashmir University
became conspicuous. That is why the State Government had to
take action for curing the defects which were inherent in the prevailing procedure for selection to the post-graduate medical course in
the two medical colleges. The Kashmir University statute was
amended so as to introduce uniformity in the rules of admission.
According to clause 3 of the 1980 Notice of Admission, it was
necessary for the candidates to have completed one year's Compulsory House Job in the concerned speciality, a• provided in the
statutes of the Kashmir University. Under the amended provision
which came into force in 1981, candidates hwe to complete one
year's 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 preyails in other parts of the country
and is in accordance with the recommendations of the Medical
Council of India.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
##
J
In so far as the allegation of _ma/a 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
~onsecutive semesters was actuated by a _ma/a_ fideintention on the H
A
B
c
[)
348 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (198511 S.C.Ri.
part of the State Government. There is a bald assertion 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 ha If
is not clear. And, we cannot assume while dealing with a question
which has such far reaching consequences as the question of _mu/a_
_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 fow is difficult to understand, especially when
those few favourites are in ob;cur:ty and remain unidentified.
Since there is no violation of any of the fundamental rjghts of
the petitioners, nor indeed is the action of the State authorities
arbitrary or _ma/a fide,_ the petitions must fail and are dismissed.
There wil,l be no order as to costs.
N.V.K. _Petitions dismissed._
##### ..
