1994 (3) TMI 382 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of discontinuation of donor seats.
2. Binding nature of the arrangement between the Government and the donor.
3. Applicability of the Unnikrishnan judgment.
4. Res judicata effect of the previous Gujarat High Court judgment.
5. Requirement of natural justice in terminating the arrangement.
6. Discrimination in filing appeals.

Summary:

1. Validity of discontinuation of donor seats:
The Government of Gujarat's decision to discontinue the twelve donor seats in M.P. Shah Medical College was challenged by the respondent trust. The Supreme Court upheld the Government's decision, stating that the arrangement allowing the donor to nominate students was contrary to Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, as it was inconsistent with the principles established in the Unnikrishnan judgment, which mandated that all admissions in professional colleges, whether private or government, must be based on merit.

2. Binding nature of the arrangement between the Government and the donor:
The respondent trust argued that there was a binding contract between the Government and the donor established in 1954, which was upheld by the Gujarat High Court in a previous judgment (Nanavati case). However, the Supreme Court found that even if such a contract existed, it could not override constitutional principles. The arrangement was not a formal contract u/s 299 of the Constitution and was not legally enforceable.

3. Applicability of the Unnikrishnan judgment:
The Supreme Court clarified that the principles laid down in the Unnikrishnan judgment, which prohibited reservations for any community, group, or family in private professional colleges, were equally applicable to government colleges. Thus, the Government of Gujarat was justified in terminating the arrangement based on this judgment.

4. Res judicata effect of the previous Gujarat High Court judgment:
The respondent trust contended that the previous judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the Nanavati case operated as res judicata, preventing the Government from challenging the validity of the arrangement. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the previous judgment was not a judgment in rem but in personam, and did not create an estoppel against the Government from acting in accordance with constitutional principles.

5. Requirement of natural justice in terminating the arrangement:
The Supreme Court held that the termination of the arrangement by the Government was not a quasi-judicial act requiring the observance of natural justice principles. It was a matter governed by a contract, and the writ petition challenging it was not maintainable as it fell within the realm of private law.

6. Discrimination in filing appeals:
The respondent trust argued that the Government's decision to appeal only in the case of M.P. Shah Medical College and not in the case of the pharmacy college was discriminatory. The Supreme Court found no substance in this argument, explaining that the Government's decision was based on the significance of the number of seats involved and the distinction between the two cases.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the judgments of the Gujarat High Court, and upheld the Government of Gujarat's decision to discontinue the donor seats in M.P. Shah Medical College. No order as to costs was made, and no orders were issued on interlocutory applications.