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

1969 Supreme(SC) 210

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
25-4-1969.
M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.I., J.M. SHELAT, V. BHARGAVA, K.S. HEGDE AND A.N. GROVER, JJ.
Kumari Chitra Ghosh and another, Appellants
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 452 of 1969, D/- 25-4-1969.
Advocates appeared
Mr. B. C. Misra, Senior Advocate, (Mr. M. V. Goswami, Advocate, with him), for Appellants; Mr. B. Sen, Senior Advocate, (Mr. S. P. Nayar, Advocate, with him), for Respondents (Nos 1, 2 and 4).

Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Mr. D. C. Raina, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mazhar Ali Khan, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: Mr. P S Chandel, Dy AG.
For the Respondent Nos. 4 & 5:Mr Amrish Kapoor, Advocate, Mr. Pranav Kohli, Advocate.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226 and 227 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 114 - Order 47, Rule 1 r/w Section 141 - Admission - Pre-medical examination - Non-reserved seats – Process - Appellants are residents of Delhi - They passed pre-medical examination of Delhi University held in April 1968 and obtained 62.5 per cent marks - In June 1968 they applied for admission to first year M. B.B. S - Class at Lady Hardinge Medical College, New Delhi but they were not admitted - Whether they want admissions and on their failure to reply in a short time or on their refusal to accept offer, admission shall be made either of petitioners or of other candidates who are above them in merit list within one week from today - Held, High Court was right in saying that standards of examination passed by them, subject studied by them and educational background of each of them would be different and divergent had (and?) therefore Central Government was appropriate authority which could make a proper selection out of those categories - They do not compete for reserved seats and have no locus standi in matter of nomination to such seats - High Court was in error in going into question and holding that out of nine seats filled by nomination two had been filled contrary to admission rules and these would be converted into general pool - Since no appeal has been filed against that part of order we refrain from making any further observations in matter - Appeal dismissed.

Judgment

GROVER, J.:- This is an appeal by certificate from a judgment of the Delhi High Court dismissing a petition filed by the appellants under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in the matter of their admission to the Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi, hereinafter called the "Medical College."

2. The appellants are residents of Delhi. They passed the pre-medical examination of the Delhi University held in April 1968 and obtained 62.5 per cent marks. In June 1968 they applied for admission to the first year M. B.B. S. class at the Lady Hardinge Medical College, New Delhi but they were not admitted. Thereafter they applied for admission to the Maulana Azad Medical College. This college, which is a constituent of the University of Delhi, was established by the Government of India in June 1958, According to the college prospectus, 125 student are admitted annually; 15 per cent seats are reserved for scheduled caste candidates and 5 per cent for scheduled tribes candidates. 25 per cent of the seats (excluding the seats reserved for Government of India nominees) are reserved for girl students who are taken on the basis of merit. The following categories of students only are eligible for admission :

(a) Residents of Delhi .........

(b) (i) Sons/Daughters of Central Government Servants posted in Delhi at the time of the admission.

(ii) Candidate whose father is dead and is wholly dependent on brother/sister who is a Central Government Servant posted in Delhi at the time of the admission.

(c) Sons/Daughters of residents of Union Territories specified below including displaced persons registered therein and sponsored by their respective Administration of Territory:-

(i) Himachal Pradesh (ii) Tripura (iii) Manipur (iv) Naga Hills (v) N.E.F.A. (vi) Andaman.

(d) Sons/daughters of Central Government servants posted in Indian Missions abroad.

(e) Cultural Scholars.

(f) Colombo Plan Scholars.

(g) Thailand Scholars.

(h) Jammu & Kashmir State Scholars.

According to the note 23 seats are reserved for categories (c) to (h) above. The minimum percentage of marks which a candidate seeking admission must have obtained in the aggregate of compulsory subjects is 55.

3. Now the appellants had obtained 62.5 per cent marks and were domiciled in Delhi. According to them they were entitled to admission and would have been admitted but for the reservation of the seats which were filled by nominations by the Central Government. In the year 1968 when the appellants sought admission 9 students had been nominated by the Central Government out of the 23 seats which had been reserved for categories (c) to (h) mentioned above. These students had obtained less percentage of marks than the appellants. The appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging primarily the power of the Central Government to make the nominations. It was prayed that these nominations be struck down and the respondents (Union of India, Medical College, University of Delhi etc.) be directed to admit the appellants and all other students who were eligible strictly in the order of merit. The writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of the High Court. The authority of the Central Government to select candidates for the reserved seats was upheld. It was however, found that among the nine seats filled in the Medical College by the Government, two nominations had been made contrary to the admission rules. The High Court was of the view that these two seats would also become a part of the general pool for admission of candidates on merit. The order was, therefore, made in the following terms :

"We, therefore, direct the respondents 1 to 4 as follows: two seats shall be filled immediately for admission to the first year M.B.B.S. Course of the College from the merit list in which petitioner No. 1 is number 4 and petitioner No. 2 is number 9. The respondents 1 to 4 shall immediately enquire from the candidates who are above the petitioners in order of merit whether they want














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