1. Challenge to admission rules defining local students based on the location of the educational institution, excluding city residents who studied in adjacent urban development areas. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 1213
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
Versus
NILAYBHAI R. THAKORE
Decided on : October 13, 1999
Important Points
A classification based only on the location of the educational institution within or outside the Municipal area for the purpose of defining "local student" is unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Subject
Constitutional Law - ARTICLE 14 - RIGHT TO EQUALITY
Act Referred
BOMBAY PROVINCIAL MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT: S.66(21)
BOMBAY PROVINCIAL MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS RULES: R.7, R.6(1)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.14
BOMBAY PROVINCIAL MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS RULES: R.7, R.6(1)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.14
Headnote
EDUCATION - ADMISSION - LOCAL STUDENT - CLASSIFICATION - REASONABLENESS - ARTICLE 14 - BOMBAY PROVINCIAL MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT, 1949 - SECTION 66(21) - RULES 6 AND 7 OF THE RULES FOR ADMISSION TO SMT. N. H. L. MUNICIPAL MEDICAL COLLEGE - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of Rules 6(i) and 7 of the Rules for Admission to Smt. N. H. L. Municipal Medical College, contending that the definition of "local students" was unreasonable, illegal, illogical, irrational, and violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court of Gujarat allowed the writ petition, holding that the impugned Rules were violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and struck them down.
Issues: 1. Whether the classification made under Rule 7 of the impugned Rules amounts to an arbitrary classification? 2. Whether the impugned Rules can be interpreted in a manner that upholds their validity?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The classification made under Rule 7 of the impugned Rules, which defines "local student" as a student who has passed SSC/new SSC examination and the qualifying examination from any of the High Schools or Colleges situated within the Ahmedabad Municipal limits, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 2. The impugned Rule 7 can be interpreted to include a permanent resident student of Ahmedabad Municipality who acquires the above qualifications from any of the High School or College situated within Ahmedabad Urban Development Area.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgment and order of the High Court of Gujarat. The validity of Rule 6 was upheld as it stands, and the validity of Rule 7 was upheld as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether restricting local student status to those studying within municipal limits is a reasonable classification or an arbitrary distinction violating Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para 4 , 6 , 7 )
3. Classification based solely on the location of the educational institution, excluding city residents studying in adjacent areas, is artificial and lacks a reasonable nexus with the objective. (Para 10 )
4. Undergraduate reservations based on domicile or institution are permissible if not wholesale, but must not create arbitrary distinctions without a reasonable nexus to the objective. (Para 8 , 10 )
5. Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; admission rules upheld, with the definition of local student interpreted to include city residents studying in adjacent urban development areas. (Para 15 )
6. Are reservations based on domicile, university, or institution permissible for undergraduate courses?
Yes, reservations based on domicile, university, or institution are permissible for undergraduate courses, provided that such reservations are not wholesale. (Para 8 )
7. Is reservation permissible for post-graduate and super-speciality medical courses?
No, the court has prohibited any reservation whatsoever for post-graduate and super-speciality courses. (Para 9 )
8. Is a classification for admission based solely on whether a student studied within municipal limits versus an adjacent urban development area reasonable?
No, such a classification is an artificial distinction that lacks a reasonable nexus with the objective of providing education to city residents, rendering it arbitrary and violative of Article 14. (Para 10 )
9. How should courts handle defects in subordinate legislation that are arbitrary but serve a laudable object?
Rather than striking down the rule, courts may employ a constructive interpretation to iron out creases and supplement written words to give effect to the legislature's intention while removing the arbitrariness. (Para 13 , 14 )
Judgment
SANTOSH HEGDE, J.
( 1 ) LEAVE granted.
( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
( 3 ) BEFORE the High Court of Gujarat, the respondents herein challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 6 (i) and Rule 7 of the Rules for Admission to Smt. N. H. L. Municipal Medical College on the ground that the said Rules which define "the local students" are unreasonable, illegal, illogical, irrational and violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. They further prayed for a writ of mandamus or a writ in the like nature directing the respondents to consider the case of the students who are residing in the limits of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and who have passed the qualifying examination from the School (s) situated within the limits of Ahmedabad Urban Development Area (hereinafter referred to as "auda") for admission in the Medical College referred to above as local students. The cause for filing the said writ petition was that Rules 6 and 7 of the said Rules prevented the students who are residents of Ahmedabad city but who had acquired their qualification for admission from the educational institutions situated within the AUDA from being treated as "local students".
( 4 ) THE respondents in their counter-affidavit in the writ petition had contended that the medical college in question was managed and administered by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and was also financed from the Municipal funds. Therefore, it was competent for the Municipal Corporation to define the source of admission in respect of the college administered and managed by it. It contended that in view of the law laid down by this Court in numerous judgments, it had made provisions for admission to 15 Per Cent of the seats available in the said colleges to be reserved for all-India candidates. The Rule confining admission to the students who have studied in educational institutions within the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation was a reasonable Rule inasmuch as the Municipal Corporation which manages the medical college was responsible for providing medical education to the said students.
( 5 ) THE High Court of Gujarat vide its judgment dated 12-5-1999 allowed the said writ petition following the judgments of this Court in the cases of Mohan Bir Singh Chawla v. Punjab University, Chandigarh, (1997) 2 SCC 171 : (1997 AIR SCW 609 : AIR 1997 SC 788); P. Rajendran v. State of Madras, AIR 1968 SC 1012; Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCR 942 : (AIR 1984 SC 1420) and two other judgments of its own Court holding that the object of the Admission Rules is to secure the best available students and the classification on the basis of the students having passed their SSC/new SSC examination and the qualifying examination from the institutions within the local limits of Ahmedabad has no reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the Admission Rules for selecting the best candidates for admission to the medical college. Such a classification on the basis of attending the school or college within and outside the Corporation limits is not a reasonable classification in the context of admission to medical college. It further held that the classification is not on the basis of residence nor in respect of students of a particular University, therefore, distinguishing the judgments of this Court in Sanjay Ahlawat v. Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak, (1995) 2 SCC 762 : (1995 AIR SCW 228) and Jagdish Saran v. Union of India, (1980) 2 SCC 768 : (AIR 1980 SC 820) held the impugned Rules as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and, accordingly, struck down the same.
( 6 ) IT is argued before us by Mr. K. N. Rawal, learned Additional Solicitor General, on behalf of the appellants that the medical college in question was established and is being managed by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation from out of its own funds and the Rules in question were framed nearly three decades ago and in consonance with the dire
