Heard Sri Prashant Chandra, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Mahima Pahwa, Advocate for the petitioner, Sri K. Chandra, Counsel for the King George's Medical University, Sri Sanjay Bhasin, Add. Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh, Ms Nisha and Ms Disha Chandra, Advocate appearing for private respondents.
In both the writ petitions, petitioners have assailed the merit list of candidates declared eligible for Counselling in admission to DM/M.Ch. courses inter-alia on the grounds that the prescription as contained in the Information Brochure issued by the Chief Co-coordinator, All India DM/M.Ch. Entrance Examination-2016, King George's Medical University, Lucknow, categorically provides that in case of a tie between two candidates, the candidate entitled for preference shall be on the basis of higher number of marks in the first paper. Further, in case of a tie up and equality of marks in the first paper as well, higher marks in the MBBS shall determine the preference. Furthermore, in case of equality in marks in MBBS as well, the candidate higher in age is to be given preference. However, this procedure has not been adhered to by the authorities and has been given a complete go by causing prejudice to the petitioners.
Draped in brevity, the facts of the case are that a notification for All India DM/M.Ch. Entrance Examination-2016 was issued inviting applications for admission to DM/M.Ch. courses in different Medical Colleges within the State of Uttar Pradesh. For conducting the said entrance examination, the King Georege's Medical University, Lucknow,[in short 'Medical University'] was nominated by the State Government.
The Information Brochure for admission to the aforesaid courses issued in this regard prescribes that for admission to DM/M.Ch. courses, a candidate must have passed MBBS and passed or appeared in MD/MS/DNB by 1.7.2016 in the relevant subjects enumerated at point no. 2 of the Information Brochure. Point No.4 enjoins that a candidate can apply for a maximum of two courses at a time and give their option for the Institution.
Petitioner -Varinder Singh Attri of Writ Petition No.16998 of 2015 (MS) applied for only one course i.e. Urology and appeared for both the papers pertaining the said course i.e. the First Paper General Surgery and the Second Paper, which is in respect to the Super Specialty subject whereas petitioner,namely, Shahnawaz Danish, petitioner of writ petition no. 17021 (MS) of 2016 applied for Surgical Gastroenterology course. he also appeared in both the papers pertaining to the said course. The examination was conducted on 10.7.2016 and results thereof were declared on the website on 15.7.2016.
According to Petitioner-Varinder Singh Attri, he is shown to have secured 7th rank in the merit list and that he has obtained a grand total of 568 marks, which includes 400 marks in Urology [super specialty subject]. In paper-I i.e. General Surgery, petitioner has obtained 168 marks. According to the petitioner, candidates at merit list numbers 5 and 6 have also obtained a grand total of 568 marks. Therefore, the eligibility is to be determined as per the process as prescribed in the Information Brochure under the heading 'result' in case of a tie in marks of two or more candidates.
As far as petitioner Shahnawaz Danish is concerned, in the result declared on 15.7.2016, the petitioner is shown to have secured 4th rank in the merit list and that he has obtained a grand total of 588 marks. It is said that the petitioner has secured 412 marks in Gastroenterology (Super Specialty subject) and 176 marks in General Surgery subject. According to him, the candidate at merit list no.3 has also obtained 588 marks i.e. equal to the marks of the petitioner.
It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that when the candidates have obtained equal marks and there is tie, the eligibility to determine the merit or the position must be conducted in accordance with the process declared in the Information Brochure but the authorities have declared the result without adopting the process as laid down in case of tie in result in two or more candidates, which is highly unreasonable and unjustified.
It has next been contended that Chief Coordinator, Controller Examination, KGMU, Lucknow has made an impermissible departure from the process prescribed in the Brochure for examination as in case of there being tie in the result of two or more candidates, the preference must have been given to a candidate, who had secured higher marks in Paper-I i.e. General Surgery whereas the Authorities have taken into consideration the marks of Super Specialty Subject i.e. Paper-II. Therefore, the action of the respondents is whimsical, arbitrary and unreasonable which has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner as they have been denied admission though they have secured higher marks in General Surgery Subject.
Lastly, it has been argued that if the process as prescribed in the Information Brochure has been adopted, petitioner-Varinder Singh Attri would be on higher merit than opposite parties nos.3 and 4 i.e. Mr. Ashish Sharma and Mr. Siddharth Pandey and petitioner-Shahnawaz Danish would have got preference over and above Mr Amit Dangi.
Refuting the allegations of the petitioners, on behalf of the Official respondents, it has been submitted that the merit list, which has been brought on record contains total marks of Paper-II is due to typographical error. In true sense, these marks shown under column of total marks of Paper-II, are marks obtained by the candidates including the petitioner in their Super Specialty Papers.
Clarifying the position, it has been submitted that no answer-sheet titled as Paper-II was supplied to petitioners or other similar candidates who have applied for admission in one Super Specialty subject. The official respondents have invited attention of the court towards the merit list prepared by the Examination Committee contained and marked as Annexure-CA-4 to the Counter Affidavit filed in Writ Petition No.16998 (MS) of 2016, in which the marks obtained in Super Specialty papers have been mentioned instead of total marks of Paper-II. Petitioners herein are fully aware that they had not appeared in Paper-II as there was no Paper-II mentioned by petitioners in writ petitions. Therefore, there was only one answer sheet supplied to petitioners as well as other similar candidates during examination, who have applied for admission in Super Specialty Courses of DM/ M.Ch only in one subject. Admittedly, petitioners have applied for admission in Super Specialty Course of M.Ch only in one subject i.e. Urology and Surgical Gastroenterology respectively. Therefore, they were required to appear only in one paper containing 180 Multiple Choice Questions. Out of which 60 questions are related to general medicine or general Surgery while remaining 120 questions are related to Super Specialty subject.
As regard wrong mention of marks under the heading of total marks in Paper-II or any mistake occurred in the Brochure, Counsel for the petitioners relying upon the decision rendered in W.B. State Electricity Board Vs. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. and others; (2001) 2 SCC 451,asserted that it would not be permissible to rectify such mistakes after lapse of time. A mistake has to be discovered as notice as early as possible and necessary steps would be taken but not after lapse of reasonable time.
Elaborating his submission, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is well settled law that the terms and conditions of the Brochure are binding and must be adhered to by all concerned. The obligations placed upon an applicant/ candidate as per the brochure, have to be discharged in the form and manner prescribed therein as propounded in the case of Manpreet Kaur Randhawa Vs. Baba Farid University of Health (decided on 06.12.2001 by Punjab-Haryana High Court).
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon paragraph 6 of the decision rendered in Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh Vs. Sanjay Gulati and others; (1983) 3 SCC 517, which reads as under:
"It is strange that in all such cases, the authorities who make admissions by ignoring the rules of admission contend that the seats cannot correspondingly be increased, since the State Government cannot meet the additional expenditure which will be caused by increasing the number of seats or that the institution will not be able to cope up with the additional influx of students. An additional plea available in regard to Medical Colleges is that the Indian Medical Council will not sanction additional seats. We cannot entertain this submission. Those who infringe the rules must pay for their lapse and the wrong done to the deserving students who ought to have been admitted has to be rectified. The best solution under the circumstances is to ensure that the strength of seats is increased in proportion to the wrong admissions made."
The aforesaid Writ Petition No.17021 (MS) of 2016 has seriously been contested by private respondent i.e. Dr. Amit Dangi. It has been submitted by learned Counsel for private respondent that he had appeared in the All India DM/ M.Ch Entrance Examination, 2016 (AIDMM.Ch.EE-2016) conducted by the King George's Medical University, Uttar Pradesh Lucknow on 10.07.2016. In the said examination, the private respondent was provided only one question paper which was to be answered in 180 minutes (3 hours). The private respondent was seeking admission in the Super-specialty Course of M.Ch. (Surgical Gastroenterology). The sole question paper consists of 180 questions which were Multiple Choice Questions (MCQ). In the said sole question paper, there was no demarcation or division or section. The OMR answer-sheet that was provided, in which the answer option was to be blackened, divided the answer into two sections, namely, "Section A" and "Section B". While answers to the question number 1-60 were to be filled in the tabular box occurring under the caption of "Section A", the answer from question number 61-180 were to be filled in the tabular box occurring under the caption "Section B". On correlating the OMR sheet with the question paper provided, and also as provided at Page 7 of the Brochure, it can be said that "Section A" of the First Question Paper comprised of questions on General Surgery and "Section B" comprised of questions on Specialty subject. The private respondent has appeared in only the first paper, and did not appear in second paper. In fact even the petitioner of the instant writ petition has also appeared in only one paper comprising of 180 questions.
It has also been argued on behalf of Official respondent that the petitioner-Virendra Singh Attri has secured only 400 marks in Super Specialty subject while opposite party no. 3 (Mr. Ashish Sharma) and opposite party no.4 (Mr. Siddharth Pandey) have secured 412 and 404 marks respectively, therefore, the question does not arise that the petitioner shall be placed above the rank of Mr. Ashish Sharma and Mr. Siddharth Pandey.
Clarifying the position, it has been submitted that the Information Brochure has been issued by the King George's Medical University, Lucknow, with the approval of the Director General, Medical Education and Training, Government of U.P. for conducting entrance examination for admission in Super Specialty DM/M.Ch Courses. Petitioners have applied for admission in Super Specialty Course only in one subject, therefore, the examination pattern as provided at Page No.23 of the writ petition which is a part of the Brochure is applicable and not the part of the Brochure as provided at Page No.24 of the writ petition upon which the petitioners have wrongly placed his reliance.
It has further been argued by Official respondent that the scheme of the examination as provided in the Brochure for conducing the entrance examination for admission in Super Specialty DM/ M.Ch Courses is very clear as the said Brochure provides for those candidates, who have applied for admission in DM/ M.Ch courses in only one subject, they have to answer 180 Multiple Choice Questions including 60 questions of General Surgery in the case of M.Ch and 120 Multiple Choice Questions of Super Specialty subject concerned. Petitioners have relied upon the pattern of examination as provided at Page No.24 of the writ petition which is also a part of the Brochure but the said part of the Brochure as provided at Page No.24 of the writ petition is not applicable in the case of petitioners as they have applied for admission in only one Super Specialty Subject. Since petitioners have not applied for admission in two Super Specialty Subjects of DM/M.Ch Course, therefore, the question does not arise for appearing of petitioners in the second Super Specialty Examination Paper.
It has also been contended on behalf of Official respondents that the merit list has been prepared in accordance with pattern of examination as provided in Brochure at Page No.23 of the writ petition and the petitioner-Virendra Singh Attri has obtained only 400 marks in Super Specialty Paper whereas Mr. Ashish Sharma and Mr. Siddharth Pandey [private respondents] have obtained 412 and 404 marks respectively in the same Super Specialty Paper. Therefore, Mr. Ashish Sharma and Mr. Siddharth Pandey are higher in rank than that of the petitioner for the purpose of admission in M.Ch course. There is no tie in marks secured by the petitioner,Mr. Ashish Sharma and Mr. Siddharth Pandey in the Super Specialty paper.
Elaborating further, it has been submitted that in case of tie in the total marks of 180 questions in the Question paper, the marks of 120 questions of super-speciality questions of the same paper would be considered for determining the merit of a candidate for admission in super-specialty courses DM/M.Ch, who has applied for only in one subject of super-specialty.
As regard petitioner of Writ Petition No.17021 (MS) of 2016, namely, Shahnawaz Danish is concerned, it has been urged on behalf of Official respondent that the petitioner has secured 588 marks in total whereas he has secured 412 in Super Specialty Paper i.e. Surgical Gastroenterology but in the merit list, the said marks are wrongly mentioned under the heading of total marks in Paper-II. As a matter of fact, in the merit list prepared by the Coordinating Committee, the petitioner's marks are same i.e. 412 in Super Specialty Paper, namely, Surgical Gastroenterology. The only difference is with regard to the heading mentioned in the merit list prepared by the Coordinating Committee and the merit list contained in Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition No.17021 (MS) of 2016.
At the cost of repetition, it has again been emphasized that the merit of a candidate, who is appearing in Super Specialty Course MD/ M.Ch is determined on the basis of the marks secured by the candidate in the Super Specialty paper. In fact there is no Paper-II for conducting entrance examination for admission in Super Specialty Courses MD/ M.Ch for those candidates who have applied for admission only in one subject. In these circumstances, petitioners have no legal right to claim placement on higher place in the merit list than that of private respondents.
Learned Counsel for the private respondents while agreeing with the assertions of the official respondents added that at the examination centre at National PG College, Lucknow at which the petitioners had also appeared, after the first paper of 180 questions was over, there were many students who stayed to appear in the second Specialty Paper which was to commence after the break of one hour. Since, the answering private respondents had not opted the second subject, they did not appear in the examination held in second meeting. Likewise, petitioners also did not appear in the second paper. Though, there were several students who had appeared for second paper.
It has also been urged on behalf of private respondents that in every examination for admission to a Super Specialty Course of DM/M.Ch Course, weightage is to given to the marks obtained in that particular Super Specialty qua the General Subjects (General Surgery/ General Medicines). In all the examinations conducted by number of Institutions/ States for admission to DM/ M.Ch Courses, except in the case of G.B. Pant (Uptil 2014) and King George's Medical University, Lucknow, only one examination in the Super Specialty Subject in which the candidate is seeking admission is conducted without there being any identified sections/ differentia of General Surgery/ General Medicines. This is purely because the candidate has to be tested on the knowledge of the subject in which he is keen to pursue the Super Specialty Course.
Lastly, it has been contended on behalf of private respondent that the private respondent had appeared last year also in the DM/ M.Ch Examination 2015 conducted by King George's Medical University, Lucknow. In that examination,a candidate was required to appear in two separate papers, one Super Specialty Paper and one General Paper. Those candidates who had opted for two Super Specialty were required to appear in three papers. In admission process, in case of tie, candidate getting higher marks in concerned specialty subject is to be placed higher in merit. This has been practiced and is being religiously followed in all over the Universities since past.
After going through the record, it comes out that the State Government vide Government Order dated 06.04.2016 has authorized the King George Medical University to conduct entrance examination for admission in Super Specialty DM/ M.Ch Course in King George Medical University, Lucknow, G.S.V.M. Medical College, Kanpur, L.L.R.M. Medical College, Meerut, M.L.M. Medical College, Allahabad and Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow. The scheme of the examination is provided in the aforesaid Brochure as under:-
(i) Written Examination for all DM/ M.Ch Courses shall be held on 10.07.2016.
(ii) Reporting time for the examination is 9:00 A.M.
(iii) The venue shall be displayed on the admit card.
To understand the controversy, it would be apt to refer some of the relevant clauses of the Information Brochure issued for conducting All India DM/M.Ch Entrance Examination-2016 by the conducting Medical University nominated by the State Government. The First heading deals with the courses, seats and eligibility and then comes the application procedure. Regarding Examination, Counselling and Admission, the Brochure prescribes as under:-
"EXAMINATION The written examination for all DM/MCh courses shall be held on 10/07/2016. Reporting time for the examination is 9:00 AM. The venue shall be displayed on the admit card. Each candidate shall have 180 Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) to be answered in 180 minutes and shall include 60 MCQs of General Medicine for all DM courses and 60 MCQs of General Surgery for all MCh courses. The paper may include some questions on statistics and research methodology. The remaining 120 questions shall be of the concerned super-specialty. The examination paper for MCh in Surgical Oncology will include some questions of ENT, Orthopedics and Obstetrics and Gynecology.
The MCQs will comprise of four options with "one correct option" and also of "assertion reason" type.
The correct response to each question shall be as determined by the Board of Examiners of AID-MMChEE-2016. In case you have any dispute regarding any question, you are required to submit your written specific complaint to the Chief Coordinator within 24 hours of completion of the examination.
There shall be four marks for each correct answer. There shall be no negative marking.
Candidates applying for two super-specialty subjects shall have to complete the second super-specialty paper of 120 questions separately over one hundred twenty minute time period. There shall be 1 Hours gap between the two papers. Second booklet and OMR sheet will be issued for this purpose.
All Candidates will have to appear in first paper to be eligible for counselling. Candidates who only appear for second paper will not be eligible.
During Counselling the Merit ranking will be drawn up separately according to the marks of paper I and paper II respectively. There will be no addition of marks of paper I and paper II at all.
RESULT
1. The result (merit list) shall be declared on website, www.kgmu.org and also submitted to Director General Medical Education and Training, UP for counseling and admission.
2. Candidate shall have to secure a minimum of 50% marks.
3. Merit list for those who have qualified will be declared.
In case of tie, the preference will be given in the following order-
1. Higher number of marks in First paper
2. Higher MBBS marks
3. Higher age of candidate COUNSELLING As per MCI directions the allotment of seats shall be done through counseling based on merit cum choice basis. The counseling shall be held under the chairmanship of Director General Medical Education UP (DGME), 6th Floor, Jawahar Bhawan, Ashok Marg, Lucknow-226001. The schedule of counseling shall be declared by the DGME on website www.updgme.in and www.kgmu.org. The candidate has to appear before Counseling Board/ Admission Committee personally and record his / her choice on his/ her merit rank. At the time of counseling the candidate has to bring all the original certificates, mark sheets along with admit card and proof of identity. A Bank Draft of Rs.1000/-in favour of D.G.M.E.U.P has to be deposited as counseling fee at the time of counseling. Counseling board shall determine the eligibility for admission. Candidate has to submit a bank draft of Rs 30,000/- as security money at the time of counseling. This draft/money shall be returned to the candidate who joins the allotted seat. If allotted and the candidate does not join the seat, then this security amount of Rs. 30,000/- shall be forfeited. The vacant seat if any /reshuffling of seat shall be done through second counseling.
ADMISSION The specialty wise allotment will be offered by the Director General Medical Education U.P. according to the merit cum choice basis of All India DM/ MCh entrance examination 2016, through counseling. The examining body does not offer the admission letter. The candidate who has qualified for the admission to All India DM/MCh course shall deposit the prescribed fee on the date notified for that purpose by the respective Medical College / Medical University. Those who fail to do so will lose their claim for admission to the course. Prior to the admission to All India DM/ MCh course the selected candidate will be subjected to medical examination for fitness. Candidate will have to produce the following original documents at the office of the Principal/ Registrar of the concerned institute:
High School Certificate Mark sheets of all the MBBS professional examination Internship completion certificate MBBS and MD / MS/DNB degrees Permanent registration certificate Employer's relieving certificate or no objection certificate from the employer (if employed) Admit card of AIDMMChEE-2016 countersigned by the invigilator.
Any other relevant certificate/s A bond of Rs. 1.00 Lac shall be made in favour of the Principal/Director/Registrar/as the case may be. The terms will have to be executed, if the candidate leaves the course before completion.
Candidates shall be required to complete the admission formalities and join the courses assigned to them within the specified period."
The scheme of examination, reproduced herein above was applicable to the petitioners as well as those candidates who have submitted their application forms for admission in Super Specialty Courses DM/ M.Ch only in one subject. Undoubtedly, the petitioners have submitted their online application for admission in M.Ch Course i.e. Urology/ Gastroenterology. The question booklet provided to the petitioners and similarly situated other candidates, who have applied for their admission in M.Ch Course in only one subject contained 180 Multiple Choice Questions. Out of which Question Nos.1 to 60 were of General Surgery while Question Nos.61 to 180 i.e. 120 questions containing Multiple Choice Questions of the Super Specialty subject. In the OMR answer-sheet provided to the petitioners and similar other candidates in Examination Hall along with above said question papers, it was mentioned as Section 'A' containing Multiple Choice Questions 1 to 60 while other part was mentioned as Section 'B' containing Multiple Choice Question Nos.61 to 180. Thus the petitioner and similar other candidates who have applied for admission in M.Ch Course in only one Super Specialty subject were required to answer 60 questions of General Surgery from Serial Nos.1 to 61 and 120 questions from Serial Nos.61 to 180 of Super Specialty subject in the same answer-sheet.
In these circumstances, I find force in the submissions advanced by the Counsel for the official respondents' that in case of tie in the total marks of 180 questions in the Question Paper, the marks of 120 questions of super-specialty subject of the same paper would be used to determine the merit of a candidate for admission in super-specialty courses. Under the heading 'Examination' of Information Brochure, it has been clearly laid down that 'during Counselling the Merit, ranking will be drawn up separately according to the marks of Paper I and Paper II respectively.' Paper I and Paper II mention here connotes the marks obtained in Super Specialty Subjects and not the marks of General Surgery/Medicine. Similarly, under the heading "Result' at point no.3, it has been mentioned that in case of tie, the preference will be given to a candidate having number of marks in First paper which again connotes and means the marks obtained in super specialty subject by a candidate. I also find force in the explanation given by the official respondents in paragraph 20 of the counter affidavit that in the merit list total marks of paper II is due to typographic error. As a matter of fact, these marks are the marks obtained by the candidates including the petitioner in their super-specialty papers. This assertion is also substantiated by the fact that no answer sheet titled as paper II was supplied to the petitioner or other similar candidates, who have applied in one super specialty subject.
From the perusal of the averments made in the writ petition, it comes out that petitioners have relied upon the entrance examination of those candidates, who have applied for their admission in two Super Specialties Subjects which is mentioned at Page No.24 of the writ petition. This part of the examination scheme is not applicable in the case of the petitioners because they had applied for admission in only one M.Ch Super Specialty subject i.e. Urology/ Gastroenterology.
It may be mentioned that the criteria for determining the merit provides that in case of tie in the total marks of 180 questions in the Question Paper, the marks of 120 questions of Super Specialty questions of the same paper would be considered to determine the merit of a candidate for admission in Super Specialty Courses [DM/ M.Ch], who has applied for only one subject of Super Specialty. In case of tie in marks in Super Specialty subject, then the percentage of marks in MBBS Examination will be considered for preparation of merit list. In the event of there being a tie in super specialty subject also, in that eventuality, age of candidate will be considered for preparation of merit list. Thus, the merit of the candidates prepared for M.Ch Super Specialty course in one subject only, is to be determined on the basis of the marks obtained by a candidate in Super Specialty subject and not in Paper-II as alleged by the petitioners. The answering respondents rightly suggested that Scheme of the Examination as mentioned in Brochure at Page No.23 of the writ petition also provides that there will be only one paper containing 60 general questions of General medicine or General Surgery and the same paper will contain Super Specialty subject paper 120 Multiple Choice Questions, therefore, question does not arise to consider the merit on the basis of Paper-II as asserted by the petitioners.
As regards the case laws relied upon by the petitioners are concerned, I would like to mention that in Punjab Engineering College case (Supra) on which petitioner has placed reliance, eight candidates were admitted to the Punjab Engineering College for the academic year 1982-83, by what is described as the "Spot Test". Their admission was struck down by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on the ground that it is contrary to Rules and Regulations. When controversy reached to the Apex Court, it observed that it would be unjust to cancel their admission at this stage and to remove their names from the college. Here, the candidates are yet to be admitted. Therefore, the facts of present case are entirely different than those of aforesaid case and cannot be made applicable here.
The W.B. State Electricity Board case (Supra) is also of no avail to petitioners as it relates with the tender process and the mistake therein was found to be unintentional and had occurred due to the fault of the computer termed as "a repetitive systematic computer typographical transmission failure".
As far as the law as propounded by Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Manpreet Kaur Randhawa (Supra) and by the Madras High court in the case of Dr. M. Vennila Vs. Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (decided on 12th June, 2016), is concerned, this Court is in agreement with the principle that the Prospectus/ Information Brochure is binding on the candidates as well as on the Authorities assigned to identify the candidates for selection and admission but the terms and procedure are to be read together as a whole and not in isolation, which is advantageous/ suits to petitioners. There is no dispute to the fact that petitioners have applied for pursuing M.Ch in one subject.
As averred above, the candidates were required to answer the question of General Subject as well as the subject in which they intend to pursue Super Specialty Course. There is no question of giving weightage to the marks obtained in General Subject. In my considered opinion, in every examination, admission to a Super Specialty Course i.e. DM/ M.Ch, weightage should be given and has rightly been given to the marks obtained in the subject in which, a candidate intends to pursue his studies. To my understanding, petitioners want of doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.
At this juncture, it is imperative to observe that in catena of decisions, the Apex Court as well this Court has held in unambiguous word that in academic matters, unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions, the Regulations or the Notification issued, the Courts shall keep their hands off since those issues fall within the domain of the experts. This Court in University of Mysore Vs. C.D. Govind Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491, Tariq Islam Vs. Aligarh Muslim University, (2001) 8 SCC 546 and Rajbir Singh Dalal Vs. Chaudhary Devi Lal University, (2008) 9 SCC 284, has taken the view that the Court shall not generally sit in appeal over the opinion expressed by expert academic bodies and normally it is wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of academic experts, who are more familiar with the problem they face, than the Courts generally are. Here, in the instant case, there is no dispute to the fact that the merit list has been prepared by the Examination Committee consisting of four Professors as well as Vice Chancellor of the University for admission in Super Specialty Course. It has been brought to the notice of the Court that merit list prepared by the said Committee/ Expert Body does not contain the total marks obtained in Paper-II as wrongly mentioned in the merit list [Annexure-1]. On scrutiny of records, it is established beyond doubt that there is no tie in marks between petitioners and private respondents as the marks obtained in Super Specialty Subject have been taken into account by the Examination Committee, which is wholly correct, justified and reasonable.
Needless to mention here that the procedure/ condition laid down in the information Brochure is to be interpreted in a harmonious manner to advance the procedure/ guideline as workable and effective to achieve the object of examination. If the interpretation as suggested by petitioners is applied for admission to various subjects, it would be difficult to hunt the best candidate for admission in the super specialty subject. A candidate is to be tested for his knowledge in specialized subject of his choice and not the common subject.
Taking the holistic view of the entire facts and circumstances, discussed herein above, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere in exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the afore-captioned writ petitions are dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.
Dated: 30 August 2016 akverma