Writ jurisdiction over publicly funded medical institutions extends to merit-based admission disputes where public duty is performed in substance.

A medical institute functioning within a statutory university framework, receiving substantial public funding and subject to public control, was treated as performing a public duty and as an instrumentality of State in substance; it was therefore amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. On admissions, the petitioners were found to have higher merit than selected candidates, and the refusal to admit them could not be justified on the record. The Court held that admission had to follow merit and directed admission for the current term without disturbing admissions already made to others.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Dean, the Society and the Local Managing Committee of the medical institute were amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether the petitioners were entitled to admission to the postgraduate course on merit.

Issue (i): whether the Dean, the Society and the Local Managing Committee of the medical institute were amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Analysis: The institute functioned under a statutory university framework, its Local Managing Committee was constituted under the Nagpur University Act, 1974, and the committee was responsible for academic administration and admission rules. The institution was substantially supported by public funds and government participation, and the Court applied the broad approach to Article 12 and Article 226, including the tests of financial assistance, control, and public function. The bodies concerned were treated as performing public duties and as instruments of State in substance.

Conclusion: Yes. The respondents were amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

Issue (ii): whether the petitioners were entitled to admission to the postgraduate course on merit

Analysis: The petitioners were found to possess higher merit than the selected candidates, and there was no acceptable justification for denying them admission. Since the admission process was required to be based on merit, and the refusal could not be sustained on the record, the Court held that the petitioners had a right to be considered and admitted.

Conclusion: Yes. The petitioners were entitled to admission for the current term.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the respondents were held subject to writ control, and relief was granted directing admission to the petitioners without unsettling the admissions already made to others.

Ratio Decidendi: A body receiving substantial public funding, exercising statutory control, and performing an important public function in education may be treated as amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 because it discharges a public duty and acts as an instrumentality of State in substance.

---