SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1968 Supreme(SC) 11

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.N. WANCHOO, C.J.I., R.S. BACHAWAT, J.M. SHELAT, G.K. MITTER AND C.A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.
1. Minor P. Rajendran (In W. P. No. 194 of l967), 2. Miss Nirmala Devi (In W. P. No. 196 of 1967); 3. Miss Nistharini (In W. P. No. 202 of l967), Petitioners
Versus
State of Madras and others (In all the Petitions), Respondents.
Writ Petns. Nos. 194, l96 and 202 of l967 and Civil Appeal No. 1456 of 1967,
D/17-1-1968.
Writ Petns. Nos. 194, 196 and 202 of 1967.
Civil Appeal No. 1456 of 1967 :
Advocates appeared
Mr. H. R. Gokhale, Senior Advocate (Mrs. Shyamala Pappu, M/s. M. K. Ramamurthi and Vineet Kumar, Advocates, with him), for Petitioner (In W. P. No. 194 of 1967); Mr. M. K. Ramamurthi. Mrs. Shyamala Pappu and Vineet Kumar, Advocates, for Petitioners (In W. Ps. Nos. 196 and 202 of 1967); M/s. M. R. M. Abdul Karim and K. Rajendra Chaudhuri, for Appellant (In C. A. No. 14.56 of 1967); Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General for India (M/s. G. Ramanujam and A. V. Rangam. Advocates, with him), for Respondents (In W Ps. Nos. 194 and 196 of 1967); Respondents Nos. 2 to 6 (In C. A No 202 of 1967) and Respondents No. 1 (In C. A No. 1456 of 1967) Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General for India and Mr. K. N. Mudaliar, Advocate General for the State of Madras (M/s. A. V Rangam and G. Ramanujam, Advocates. with them). For Respondent No. 1 (In W. P. No. 202 of 1967).

Advocates:
A.V.RANGAM, C.K.DAFTARY, G.RAMANUJAM, H.R.GOKHALE, K.N.MUDALIYAR, K.RAJENDRA CHAUDHARY, M.K.RAMAMURTHY, M.R.M.ABDUL KARIM, SHYAMALA PAPPU, VINEET KUMAR, VINIT KUMAR

Headnote:

Madras Educational Rules - Rule 6 and 8 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 and 15 - Education matter - Admission - M.B.B.S. Course - Selection process - Whether districtwise allocation is violative of Article 14 will depend on what is object to be achieved in matter of admission to medical colleges - Three petitions and civil appeal challenge same order of State of Madras by which rules were promulgated for selection of candidates for admission to First year Integrated M.B.B.S. Course - Held, There is however no substance in contention raised in this behalf, for Rules as to eligibility and qualification as framed by University have been followed - So far as admission is concerned, it has to be made by those who are in control of Colleges,- Government, because medical colleges are Government colleges affiliated to University - Court have already indicated that so far as selection for current year is concerned, it will stand, however, R. 8 will not be enforced when selection is made hereafter - Petitioners/appellant will get their costs, one set of hearing fee - Partly allowing the Petitions

Judgement

WANCHOO, CJI. :- The three petitions and the civil appeal challenge the same order of the State of Madras by which rules were promulgated for selection of candidates for admission to the First year Integrated M.B.B.S. Course. We shall briefly refer to the provisions of the Rules to understand the attack made thereon. It appears that there was a large rush of candidates for admission to the medical colleges in the State of Madras while the seats therein were limited. In consequence, the State of Madras which runs these colleges framed rules for admission to them. It is not necessary to refer to all the Rules and we shall confine ourselves to those Rules which have a bearing on the challenge made in these cases. Rule 2 provides for reservation of 10 seats for certain categories. We are however not concerned with it as it is not challenged. Rule 3 provides for appointment of a Selection committee of not more than three persons. The Committee has to interview all candidates who are qualified and eligible for admission to the course and the interview is for verifying the data and allotting marks for extra curricular activities. Rule 4 provides for reservation of seats for Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes, with which also we are not concerned in the present cases. Rule 5, which is one of the rules under challenge, provides for reservation for socially and educationally backward classes, and lays down that for the purpose of this rule "socially and educationally backward classes" will mean those classes which have been specified in Group III of the revised Appendix 17-A to the Madras Educational Rules issued with G. O. (Ms) 839 Education, dated 6th April, 1951, as subsequently amended. Rule 6 provides for reservation for women, which is also not under challenge and the remaining seats, under Rule 7, go to the general pool available to all.

2. Rule 8, which is another rule under challenge, provides that the seats reserved in the general pool and the seats reserved for the socially and educationally backward classes will be allocated among the various districts on the basis of the ratio of the population of each district to the total population of the State. This districtwise allocation will not apply to seats reserved for Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes provided under Rule 5. Then follows Rule 9 as to the procedure for selection and qualifications of candidates. Rule 10 (d) provides for a maximum of 75 marks for extra curricular activities which have been specified under five heads. Further the Rules also prescribe the form of application, and as the selection is on a districtwise basis the form has a column to the effect: "Nativity Claimed". It further appears from the form that nativity depends on the S.S.L.C. Register i. e. the district from which the candidate passed the S.S.L.C. Examination, or on the nativity certificate of parents. Further for the purpose of nativity, the place where the candidate s parents were born or the place where they possessed immovable property has to be considered. The candidate may choose the district, from which he passed the S.S.L.C. Examination, but he may, in the alternative, choose some other district on the ground of nativity, and this choice leaves it open to him to choose the district of permanent residence of the father or the mother. Further the form of certificate shows that where the parents are dead, even the guardian s nativity, can be the basis of the district which a candidate may claim.

3. On the basis of these rules, a number of Selection Committees were appointed each consisting of three members. It is not in dispute that the three members of the Selection Committee did not sit together to interview candidates; each member was allotted 25 marks out of the total of 75 prescribed for the interview and interviewed each candidate separately. This method of selection has also been attacked as against the Rules.

4. Four main contentions have been raised before us in these
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top