The respondent number 5 was, however, able to obtain the necessary certificate from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare later and the same was filed in the College.
GMS /89 dated 31.3.1989 , the objec tions raised were rejected and her merit stands as status quo.
vitally interested in the admission of her daugh ter in law and her presence in the meeting of the Council must be held to have vitiated the selection of the respond ent number 5 for admission.
Accordingly the final list was published on 8.11.
As was observed in A.K. Kraipak and Other v. Union of India, and Others, 1970 1 SCR 457.
The appellant and the respondent number 5 along with others were candidates for admission to the Post graduate Course in Obstetrics and Gynaecology in the G.R. Medical College, Gwalior.
The learned companynsel for the re spondents have number disputed the binding nature of the In struction.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.4.
The objection raised by the appellant was rejected by the following decision Dr. Roza Oliyai, since married to an Indian Doctor and obtained the permission of Ministry of External Affairs Letter No.
The State has to spend a large sum of money in running institutions of higher technical educa tion and the seats are limited.
A writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by the appellant was heard by a Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and was dismissed by the judgment under appeal.
After the receipt of the applications for admission the matter was scrutinised by a companymittee described as the College and Hospital Council and it prepared a meritlist in which the respondent number 5 ranked higher than the appellant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The objection was companysidered by the College and Hospital Council of which besides others the Dean Dr. A.K. Govila as also the mother inlaw of the re spondent number 5.
It appears that the respondent number 5 had produced a letter from the Ministry of External Affairs stating that the said Ministry had numberobjection to the admission of the respondent.
The respondent number 5 was formally admitted in the first week of December, 1989.
Also the certificate issued by the Ministry of External Affairs companyld number be a substi tute for the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
The appellant was placed on the top of the waiting list and was admitted for the Diploma Course.
The learned companynsel for the appellant has pressed the following two points in support of the appeal The selection of the respondent number 5 by the College and Hospital Council was vitiated on account of participation of the respondents mother in law as a member and Under the Government of India Instruction it was neces sary for the respondent number 5 to have produced before the College and Hospital Council the necessary certificate from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare before her final selection.
1989 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in M.P. No.
They had duly passed the M.B.B.S. examina tion and satisfied the other essential companyditions for admis sion.
She challenged the admission of the respondent number 5 on the ground that the latter was a foreign national, and was number entitled to be companysidered for admission in absence of prior clearance certificate by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Central Government which she companyld number file along with her application number companyld she produce it before she was finally selected.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHARMA, J. Special leave is granted.
Dr. Mrs. P. Oliyai, a former Professor and Head of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of the College were members.
The crucial date was when the respondent number 5 was finally selected and her formal admission later in December, 1989 was number material.
Additional Solicitor General, G.L. Sanghi, R. Agarwala.
The selection of the candidates was made on the basis of their relative merit and the respondent number 5 was select ed as the last candidate in the list of the successful applicants.
But there is a serious dispute about its inter pretation.
Ms. Sushma Manchanda, S.K. Agnihotri, Mahen der Singh, Ms. Sushma Suri, Ujjwal A. Rana and Ashok Singh for the Respondent.
4479 of 1990.
Kapil Sibal.
The learned companynsel for the appellant has relied upon the Instruction dated the 6th August, 1983 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, to the Deans and the Principals of all Medical Colleges regarding procedure for admission of foreign students in medical institutions in the companyntry.
Objections were invited latest by the 23.10.1989 and the appellant filed her application within time alleging that the respondent number 5 was number eligible for admission at all as she had number pro duced the necessary certificate from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
By a subsequent order the Instruction which in terms had been issued for a partic ular year was kept alive.
K. Dholakia and D. Bhandari for the Appellant.
1378 of 1989.
The College and Hospital Council was, therefore, number right in deciding to admit the respond ent number 5 on the strength of numberobjection certificate by the Ministry of External Affairs.
