1989 INSC 0018
                                        Dr. Sanjay Mehrotra and Another

                                                           Vs

                                  Gsvm Medical College, Kanpur and Others

                                       Civil Appeals Nos. 201-202 of 1989

                                      (M. M. Dutt, Dr. T. K. Thammen JJ)

                                                      13.01.1989

                                                        ORDER

1. Special leave is granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The two appellants, namely, Dr. Sanjay Mehrotra, son of Shri B. R. Mehrotra, Dr. Vivek Tandon,
son of Shri T. N. Tandon and respondent 9, Dr. Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal, son of Shri R. K.
Aggarwal were admitted in GSVM Medical College, Kanpur in D.M. (Cardiology) course for the
session 1987-89. The admissions of the appellants and respondent 9 were set aside by the High
Court by its judgment dated September 16, 1988 at the instance of respondent 6. By the said
judgment the High Court also directed the admissions of respondents 6, 7 and 8 in the said course.

3. It appears that the Government of U.P. framed certain rules for the admission in the
superspeciality courses. Under the said Rules candidates will be admitted on the basis of their merits
in the MBBS examinations. Under the Rules, 75 per cent of the seats are reserved for the
institutional candidates. The appellants and respondent 9 were admitted on the basis of institutional
preference.

4. According to the High Court, in view of the decision of this Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of
India ((1984) 3 SCC 654 : (1984) 3 SCR 942), admission to superspeciality courses should be made
strictly on the basis of present merit and as no examination was held by the college to assess the
merits of the candidates, the High Court set aside the admission of the appellants and respondent 9.

5. It is stated by Mrs. Shobha Dikshit, learned counsel appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh that
there is likelihood of two seats falling vacant i.e. one seat at GSVM Medical College, Kanpur and
the other seat at KGS Medical College, Lucknow.

6. Our attention is, however, drawn to the fact that for the session 1988-90 four seats are lying
vacant and they have not yet been filled. The 1988-90 session is the current session and no steps
have yet been taken for filling up those vacancies. We are told that advertisements will soon be
published for admission in the 1989-91 session. In the circumstances, we are of the view that as four
seats are vacant for the current session, the appellants and respondent 9 can be admitted in the
current session. Accordingly, we direct respondents 1 to 4 admit the appellants and respondent 9 in
the vacant seats in the current session i.e. 1988-90 session. We make it quite clear that examinations
for the current session will be held at such time as the authorities may decide in that regard. If any
seat for the 1987-89 session falls vacant either at GSVM Medical College, Kanpur or at KGS
Medical College, Lucknow, it will be open to the authorities concerned to admit the appellants in
those two seats. In any event, the appellants and respondent 9 shall be admitted in the vacancies for
the current session 1988-90.

7. Before we conclude, we may express the view that in future it would be better for the authorities
concerned to hold admission tests for the assessment of merits of the candidates for admissions in
the superspeciality courses.

8. The appeals are disposed of as above. There will be no order as to costs.

</html