1980 (3) TMI 271 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of the admission scheme for postgraduate medical courses.
2. Allocation of marks for additional qualifications like diplomas.
3. Reservation for candidates from outside the state.
4. Adherence to procedural requirements in the admission process.
5. Validity of government directives modifying selection criteria.
6. Equitable relief for students affected by the High Court's decision.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of the Admission Scheme:
The court emphasized that admissions to higher professional education must align with constitutional imperatives, specifically Articles 14 and 15. The Kerala State's admission scheme was criticized for provincialism and failing to uphold the principles of equal opportunity and national integrity. The court suggested the need for a national consensus on admissions to postgraduate courses to avoid annual litigation and ensure fairness.

2. Allocation of Marks for Additional Qualifications:
The selection process included awarding 10% extra marks to diploma holders. The court found this reasonable as it recognized additional accomplishments relevant to postgraduate studies. However, the issue arose whether candidates could claim these marks if their diploma certificates were obtained after the application deadline but before the selection process.

3. Reservation for Candidates from Outside the State:
The Kerala State reserved only 2% of seats for candidates from outside the state, which the court found insufficient and violative of Articles 14 and 15. The court held that this reservation was a "clever device to oust the 'outside' University Graduates" and did not meet the constitutional requirement of equal opportunity. The court directed the state to reconsider and formulate a more inclusive policy.

4. Adherence to Procedural Requirements:
The High Court invalidated the admissions of certain candidates because their diploma certificates were not attached to their applications, as required by the prospectus. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that while proof of qualification is necessary, the method of proof should not be rigid. The court held that the possession of a diploma before the application deadline is essential, but the proof of it can be submitted later, provided it is before the selection process.

5. Validity of Government Directives Modifying Selection Criteria:
The court upheld the government's directive allowing candidates to submit their diploma certificates before the selection process rather than with the application. This directive was seen as a practical solution to administrative delays and was not considered arbitrary or illegal.

6. Equitable Relief for Students:
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court's decision to quash the entire selection process, which would have resulted in a wasted academic year. The court emphasized the need for constructive judicial intervention to minimize disruption and ensure that students already admitted could continue their studies. The court directed that two additional seats be created to accommodate deserving candidates, ensuring that no seats were wasted and academic progress was not unduly hampered.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court's judgment focused on balancing constitutional principles with practical considerations to ensure fairness in admissions to postgraduate medical courses. It highlighted the need for a more inclusive and equitable admission policy, while also providing immediate relief to affected students by allowing them to continue their studies and creating additional seats where necessary. The court's approach emphasized flexibility in procedural requirements and the importance of substantive justice over rigid adherence to form.