1997 (5) TMI 438 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of writ petition against an unaided private medical college.
2. Petitioner's eligibility for admission to the MBBS course.
3. Respondents' adherence to admission guidelines.
4. Judicial review of private educational institutions performing public duties.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Writ Petition Against an Unaided Private Medical College:
The primary issue was whether a writ petition is maintainable against an unaided private medical college affiliated to a university. The Full Bench of the High Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Panjab University had previously ruled that such a petition is not maintainable. However, this view was doubted, leading to the matter being referred to a larger Bench. The Court reviewed the decisions in Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V. R. Rudani and Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which expanded the scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was concluded that the High Courts have the power to issue writs not only to statutory authorities and instrumentalities of the State but also to "any other person or body performing public duty." Thus, the petition against the unaided private medical college was maintainable.

2. Petitioner's Eligibility for Admission to the MBBS Course:
The petitioner claimed to be a convert to Christianity and applied for admission under the reserved category for Christians. She was provisionally selected but was required to produce a "Baptism Certificate" and a valid "sponsorship letter." The petitioner failed to submit the official sponsorship letter by the stipulated deadline and instead provided a "commending letter." The Court found that the petitioner did not meet the necessary eligibility criteria as she failed to produce the required documents, including a valid sponsorship letter from an authorized person of the Diocese of Amritsar.

3. Respondents' Adherence to Admission Guidelines:
The respondents contested the petitioner's claim, asserting that the Christian Medical College is a privately managed, unaided minority institution and questioned the maintainability of the writ petition. They maintained that the petitioner did not submit the official sponsorship letter by the deadline, which was a prerequisite for admission. The College's guidelines required that the sponsorship letter be submitted along with the application form by June 15, 1996. The petitioner failed to comply with this requirement, and her selection was provisional and subject to the production of relevant certificates in original. The Court upheld the respondents' adherence to the admission guidelines and found no fault in their actions.

4. Judicial Review of Private Educational Institutions Performing Public Duties:
The Court emphasized that private educational institutions, especially those providing medical education, perform a public duty and supplement the State's efforts. These institutions are subject to the regulations and rules framed by the affiliating university and the Medical Council of India. The Court noted that such institutions are partners with the State in performing a public duty and are subject to judicial review. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution is not confined to the enforcement of fundamental rights but also extends to any person or authority discharging a public duty. The Court overruled the Full Bench decisions in Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab and Gurpreet Singh Sindhu v. The Punjab University, Chandigarh, which had previously held that writs could not be issued against private educational institutions.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the writ petition was maintainable against the unaided private medical college. However, on merits, the petitioner was not entitled to the issue of a mandamus directing the respondents to admit her to the MBBS course as she failed to meet the eligibility criteria and did not produce the required sponsorship letter. The writ petition was dismissed, but there was no order as to costs.