M.P.THAKKAR - (1.) WHAT may 'appear' to be equal treatment accorded in obeisance to the equality doctrine embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution in its application in 'reality' may result in denial of equality and may accordingly be liable to be condemned for defying the equality doctrine. This has been illustrated by the provision embodied in Ordinance No. 278-E(d)(ii) of the Ordinance of University of Rajasthan which provides for uniform addition of 5 Per Cent marks to the students applying for admission to the postgraduate course in any one of the five Medical Colleges provided the student has passed his final MBBS Examination from the College to which admission in post-graduate course is sought. The said provision has been held to be unconstitutional and in our opinion the conclusion reached by the High Court is right though the reasoning which has commended itself to this Court is somewhat different.
(2.) THREE Writ Petitions were instituted in the Rajasthan High Court, (Jaipur Bench) by the Writ Petitioners who sought admission to post-graduate courses in the Colleges affiliated to the Rajasthan University. There are five such Medical Colleges at five different centres in Rajasthan, viz. Jaipur, Bikaner, Udaipur, Jodhpur and Ajmer. It appears that for the purpose of securing admission to these Colleges the applicants seeking admission have to appear at a competitive examination called PMG. The passing of this Examination is a pre-condition for securing admission to the PMG course in any one of the aforesaid five Colleges in Rajasthan. The PMG competitive examination is 'common' for all the five Medical Colleges. There is one syllabus and one combined examination is conducted by the University. The successful candidates are entitled to addition of 5 Per Cent marks in the percentage of aggregate marks by way of institutional preference if the concerned candidates had passed the final MBBS Examination conducted by the Rajasthan University. A further addition of 5 Per Cent of marks by way of institutional preference in the sense of preference dependent on the particular Medical College at which the concerned candidate has passed his final MBBS examination is also provided. It is this college-based institutional preference which has given rise to the present controversy. Such preference is rooted in the impugned provision namely Ordinance 278-E(d) which deserves to be quoted:- "(d) The total marks so obtained shall be converted into percentage. The percentage so obtained shall be increased as follows : (i) By 5 if the applicant passed the final M.B.B.S. Examination for (from?) the Rajasthan University. (ii) By another 5 if the applicant passed the Final M.B.B.S. Examination from the same institution for which selections are being made." The Writ Petitioners contended that this provision violated the equality principle enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India and was accordingly unconstitutional. It appears that while each of the five Medical Colleges in Rajasthan is conducting post-graduate courses in specified specialities and super specialities, the Doctors who have graduated from all the Medical Colleges in Rajasthan by and large consider admission to post-graduate courses at SMS College at Jaipur as most advantageous. In other words securing admission in post-graduate course at Jaipur in SMS College is considered to be an achievement and the courses at Jaipur are the most sought after courses. The reasons underlying this keenness to secure admission in Jaipur College are understandable inasmuch as : (i) there are many more seats available for PG courses; and (ii) there are many more specialities available at the Jaipur College as compared to other Colleges. A Tabular statement reflecting the positions of seats in the five Medical Colleges may be scrutinized:- JUDGEMENT_93_1_1989Html1.htm B. DIPLOMA JUDGEMENT_93_1_1989Html2.htm Now it has to be realized that the aggregate of marks for all subjects put together is 2750. 5 Per Cent of these marks would work out to 137.5 marks. In the result a candidate from the same College will have an advantage of 137.5 marks over candidates from other Colleges. In Medical courses where there is intense competition and candidates run neck to neck so often with a difference of a mark or two, a difference of 137.5 marks by way of Collegewise institutional preference would virtually make a mockery of the merit criteria. A candidate, say from Jaipur College, who secures 137.5 marks less than a candidate from Jodhpur, Bikaner, Udaipur or Ajmer will get admission in P. G. course at Jaipur in preference to the other more meritorious candidates merely because he passed the M.B.B.S. Examination at Jaipur even though all of them secured their marks at the identical competitive examination to all the Colleges. It needs no argument that Art. 14 is seriously shattered. Statements filed by the parties in this Court further go to show that some disciplines are available only in particular Colleges and not in other Colleges. For instance 1. M.D. in 'Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation' is available only in S.M.S. College, Jaipur. 2. 'T.B. and C.D.' is not available in Ajmer Medical College. 3. 'Skin and V.D.' is not available in Udaipur and Ajmer Colleges. 4. 'Psychiatry' is available only in Jaipur and Bikaner Colleges and not in others. 5. M.D. in 'Radio-therapy' is available only in Jaipur and Bikaner and not in other Colleges.
(3.) AN analysis of the data reflected in the aforesaid statement and its impact on the fortunes of the students aspiring for the Post-Graduate Courses reveal: (i) that a student passing his final degree examination in MBBS from Jaipur would steal a march over the students passing from the remaining four Colleges for with 5 Per Cent weightage a student from Jaipur would have a far better chance of securing admission in a postgraduate course at Jaipur inasmuch as there are as many as 114 seats at the Jaipur Medical College as compared to the number of seats ranging between 45 and 49 in each of the remaining Medical Colleges regardless of the superior merits of students from other colleges; (ii) a student passing his final degree examination in M. B. B.S. from Jaipur aspiring for admission in PG course would have a far better chance of securing admission in the subject of his choice vis-a-vis students from all other Colleges inasmuch as in each subject the number of seats in the Jaipur College is much larger than in any of the remaining Colleges regardless of his superior merits; (iii) a candidate from any of the four Colleges other than Jaipur College would have practically no chance of securing admission in certain disciplines such as: (a) Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, (b) ANatomy, (subject to rotation after 1988), (c) Radio-therapy, ANd (d) Psychiatry etc. regardless of his superior merits; (iv) a candidate with a special aptitude for a particular discipline would not get admission in PG course in that discipline unless he belongs to a College in which the particular discipline is available regardless of his superior merits. 5A. The merit position in relation to the students would also undergo a vast change as is revealed by the tabular statement reproduced hereunder: MERIT POSITION OF RESPONDENTS WITH AND WITHOUT JUDGEMENT_93_1_1989Html3.htm The fortunes of the candidates would thus undergo a sea change. Those who are more meritorious having secured more aggregate marks than others would not get admission to PG courses anywhere in Rajasthan, whereas those with lesser merits would get admission by reason of the 5 Per Cent Collegewise preference. To take the case of the appellants, they having secured aggregate marks of 1650, 1638, 1624, 1617 and 1613 have not been able to secure admission in any discipline. As against this candidates having secured much less marks already secured admission in one or the other of the 5 Medical Colleges. In order to illustrate the point, the tabular statements reproduced hereinbelow may be glanced at: JUDGEMENT_93_1_1989Html4.htm Statement showing list of candidates, less meritorious (than the appellants) who have secured admission JUDGEMENT_93_1_1989Html5.htm ;