Judgment

DUA, J.: - The only question raised in this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution relates to the constitutional validity of Rule 3 of the Rules for Selection of candidates for admission to the Pre-Professional/B. Sc. Part I course leading to M. B. B. S. in the Government Medical Colleges and for certain seats in the private Medical Colleges in the State of Mysore framed by that state on July 4, 1970 (hereinafter called "the Selection Rules")

2. The petitioner Kumari N. Vasundara claims to have passed the Pre-University Examination of the Bangalor University with physics, chemistry and biology as optional subject securing 78% marks in these subjects . She applied for admission to the Pre-Professional Course leading to the M.B.B.S. in the Government Medical Colleges, but the Selection Committee, after interviewing her on September 14,11970,rejected her application on the ground that she had not resided in the State of Mysore for a period of ten years prior to the date of her application as required by Rule 3 of the Selection Rules. It is not disputed that but for the condition requiring residence in Mysore State for a period of ten years prior to the date of her application she was otherwise eligible for admission under the Selection Rules in all other respects. Rule 3 reads as under:

"No person who is not a citizen of India and who is not domiciled and resident in the State of Mysore for not less than ten years at any time prior to the date of the application for a seat, shall be eligible to apply:

Provided that this provision shall not apply (a) in the case of persons applying for seats referred to in Clauses (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 4, (b) in the case of children of Central Government employees serving on duty in the State on the date of making the application and (c) in the case of children of Mysore Government employees including children of members of a all India Services borne on the Mysore State Cadre who -

(i) are serving or have served outside the State of Mysore on deputation during the relevant period, and

(ii) are in the service of the State on the date of making the application or have retired from service not more than four years prior to the date of making the application."

3. Shri Datar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 3 on two grounds. The first challenge is founded on the ground of violation of the right to equality guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution. According to his argument the impugned rule has, by imposing the condition of residence for a minimum period of ten years in the State of Mysore in addition to the condition of being domiciled in that State, created an artificial classification which suffers from unconstitutional discrimination, between the Indian citizens domiciled in the State of Mysore who have resided there for ten years or more and those who have resided there for less than ten years. The period of ten years of residence selected in this rule is not only arbitrary but is highly unreasonable, based on no rational or intelligible principle, said the counsel. Its unreasonableness was illustrated by submitting that students normally pass the Pre-University Examination at the age of 16 or 17 years. To expect such students to have resided in the State of Mysore for ten years in order to be eligible for admission to the Preprofessional / B. Sc. Part I Course leading to M. B. B. S. would mean that the children of those Indian citizens having their domicile in the State of Mysore who happen, for compelling reasons, to reside in other States in the Indian Union before their children have completed ten years of residence in the State of Mysore would be deprived of the opportunity of having medical education in their own State of domicile. This argument was elaborated by submitting that if all other States in the Union were also to frame similar rules insisting on residence for ten or more years,