Important Point
In case of admissions, University-wise preference is permissible provided it is relevant and reasonable.

Judgment

B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.-The rule governing admission to LL.B. course among other courses prescribed by the Punjab University provided that while admission shall be made on the basis of merit, ten percent of the marks obtained in the qualifying examination shall be added in the case of candidates who have passed the qualifying examination from the Punjab University. The impugned rule reads:

"(iv) Admission shall be made on merit which shall be determined after giving weightage as under :

(a) 10% marks obtained in the aggregate marks of the qualifying examination passed from Punjab University."

2. A number of writ petitions were filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court by students, who have passed the qualifying examination from universities other than Punjab University, questioning the validity of the said weightage rule. According to them, the rule violates the equality clause enshrined in Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution and ought to be struck down. The writ petitions have been dismissed by the High Court. Only one of the writ petitioners has approached this Court by way of this Special Leave Petition.

3. Leave granted. Heard the counsel for the appellant and the Punjab University.

4. There is little doubt that addition of ten percent of marks to candidates who have passed their qualifying examination from Punjab University confers a substantial advantage to the candidates from the university over the candidates who have passed the qualifying examination from other universities. The result of the operation of the said rule is stated in the judgment of the High Court on the basis of the information furnished by the counsel for the university. In the Academic Year 1991-92, out of 360 students admitted into the LL.B. course, 74 students were from other universities. For the Academic Year 1992-93, the non-Punjab University students were 57 out of 300. In the Academic Year 1993-94, their strength came down to 47 out of a total admission of 300 students. The question is - is this rule valid ? In other words, the issue is whether the weightage of ten percent marks given to students of one s own university in the matter of admission to different courses in its constituent of affiliated colleges is permissible whether the admission is not based upon a common entrance test ? Inasmuch as a certain dissonance is found in the decisions on the subject, we have heard the counsel at some length. Sri Dhruv Mehta, learned counsel for the Punjab University, has brought to our notice the several decisions on the subject to which a brief reference would be in order.

5. In D.N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore1, a three-Judge Bench of this Court considered the validity of Rule 9(1) of the Mysore Medical Colleges (Selection for Admission) Rules, 1970 relating to admission to M.B.B.S. course. Rule 9(1) provided that the seats in the general pool shall be distributed university-wise, i.e., seats in colleges affiliated to the Karnataka University shall be allotted to persons passing from colleges affiliated to that university and seats in colleges affiliated to Bangalore and Mysore Universities shall respectively be allotted to persons passing from colleges affiliated to each such university provided that not more than twenty percent of the seats in the colleges affiliated to any university may, in the discretion of selection committee, be allotted to students passing from colleges affiliated to any other university in the State or elsewhere in India. The validity of the rule was questioned on the ground that it brings about an unreasonable classification which is neither intelligible nor has a rational nexus with the object of the rule. It was submitted that when there is one selection committee for all the government medical colleges in all the three universities and 59 private colleges affiliated to them, the reservation of eighty percent of seats in favour of students of the same university is neither reasonable nor valid. The challenge to th