Dismissed¶80

Dr. Muneeb Ul Rehman Haroon and Ors. v. Government of Jammu and Kashmir State and Ors.

Supreme Court13 Aug 19841984 INSC 138 · [1985] 1 S.C.R. 3441984 INSC 138

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Post-graduate medical admissions; total non-admission for three semesters (July 1980, November 1980, July 1981); Medical College Srinagar / Kashmir University versus Jammu University statute discrimination; article 32 maintainability; article 14 arbitrariness and fairness guarantee; article 19 profession; mala fides - bald assertion insufficient, specific facts required; Medical Council of India recommendations; compulsory House Job requirement amended 1981; Government of Jammu and Kashmir; Writ Petition No. 1742 & 3129 of 1981; (1985) 1 SCR; petitions dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petitions were dismissed and there will be no order as to costs. ¶80

Dr. Muneeb Ul Rehman Haroon and Ors. versus… — Writ and Judicial Review | Supreme Court (1985)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petitions were dismissed and there will be no order as to costs.

¶80

Issue for consideration

Whether the refusal of the Government to admit any student at all to the Post-Graduate medical course for the July 1980 semester (and the two following semesters) violated the petitioners' fundamental rights under articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution, rendering the writ petitions maintainable under article 32. +2 more

¶52

Court's answer

The 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.

¶51

Ratio / Principle

No infringement of articles 14 and 19: the petitioners were not picked and chosen for hostile treatment as compared with other similarly circumstanced candidates, and as qualified doctors serving and practising they were not deprived of their right to practise any profession or carry on any occupation.

¶52

Key takeaways

The Court found no reason to doubt the State's explanation that the admission rules then in operation were prejudicial to Jammu Medical College students and discriminatory, and that amending the rules to bring them in conformity with the requirements of the Constitution took as long as 18 months owing to inter-departmental red-tape correspondence; accordingly the non-admissions were not arbitrary.ratio¶65
The Kashmir University statute was amended to introduce uniformity in the rules of admission between the two medical colleges; the amended provision (in force from 1981, requiring one year's House Job, or six months' House Job each in the concerned and an allied subject) conforms to the rule prevailing in other parts of the country and is in accordance with the recommendations of the Medical Council of India.ratio¶68

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Supreme Court of India (Y.V. Chandrachud C.J., A. Varadarajan and Amarendra Nath Sen JJ.; August 13, 1984) - Writ Petition No. 1742 & 3129 of 1981, original jurisdiction under article 32. Medical graduates who alleged they had passed the entrance test for the Post-Graduate course at the Medical College, Srinagar (result never officially declared) challenged the Government's total non-admission of students for the semesters beginning July 1980, November 1980 and July 1981 as violative of articles 14 and 19 and mala fide. HELD, petitions dismissed: (i) no fundamental right was involved - the petitioners were not singled out for hostile treatment among similarly circumstanced candidates and, being qualified doctors serving and practising, were not deprived of their right to practise; (ii) the July 1980 non-admission stemmed from admission rules prejudicial to and discriminatory against Jammu Medical College students (the Jammu and Kashmir University statutes differed), and the 18-month delay in amending the rules was due to inter-departmental correspondence; the amended Kashmir University statute introduced uniformity, requiring House-Job training in conformity with practice elsewhere in India and Medical Council of India recommendations; (iii) the mala fides plea was a bald assertion without specific facts, with the alleged beneficiaries unidentified, and mala fides could not be assumed. No order as to costs.

' ' . ' .

DR. MUNEEB UL REHMAN HAROON AND ORS.

¶6

¶7

GOVERNMENT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR STATE AND ORS.

¶8

¶9

August 13, 1984

¶10

[Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., A. VARADARAJAN AND AMARENDRA NATH SEN, JJ .]

¶11

¶12

Constitution of India 1950, Articles )4 and 19

¶13

¶14

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.

¶15

D Practice and Procedure-Mala /ides-Plea of·-Bald assertion in writ petition-Insufficient-Specific facts to be alleged.

¶16

¶17

The petitioners in the writ petitions were medical gradultes who applied for ad.nission to the Post-gradu.ite course in the Medical College, 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.

¶18

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, G 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.

¶19

Dismissing the writ petitions,

¶20

¶21

34S

¶22

M. U. REHMAN v. 1. K. STAril

HELD : There is no violation of any of the fundamental rights of the petitioners nor is the action of the State authorities arbitrary or ma/a fide. [J48C]

¶29

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]

¶30

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<sup>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 University did not correspond to th·~ statutes of the Kashmir Uoiversity 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 take¹ 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 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 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 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.

¶35

¶36

Under article 32 of the Constitution of India.

¶37

Vimal Dave for the Petitioner.

346

[1985j I s.C.k.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Alta! Ahmed for the Respondent.

¶50

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶51

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.

¶52

There is a vague averment in the petitions that the refusal of the Government to admit any student at all for the July, 1980 semestrr 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.

¶53

•

¶54

¶55

Shri T.U. Mehta, who appears on behalf of the petitioners, says that the wholesale non-admission of students to the Postgraduate 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.

¶56

347

¶57

M. u. ,REHMAN v. J, K. STATE (Clzandrachud, c. J.)

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.

¶66

¶67

•

¶68

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 is¹ 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.

¶69

¶70

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

(198511 S.C.Ri.

348

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

•

[)

A 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 B 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.

¶80

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.

¶81

N.V.K.

¶82

Petitions dismissed.

Dr. Muneeb Ul Rehman Haroon and Ors. v. Government of Jammu and Kashmir State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Muneeb Ul Rehman Haroon and Ors. v. Government of Jammu and Kashmir State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nirmal Singh versus State of Punjab and Ors.

Ram Sarup versus State of Haryana & Ors.

Election Commission of India versus State of Haryana

O.P. Singla & Anr. etc. versus Union of India & Ors.

Rajendra Jha versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, District Dhanbad and Anr.

V. Sasidharan versus Peter & Karunakar & Ors.