VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

( 1 ) THIS batch of Writ Petitions lay siege to the Respondent s policy of giving preference for the purposes of admission in educational courses to persons who have cleared the 10+2 examinations from Schools located in the national Capital Territory of Delhi (NCT of Delhi ). Over three decades ago, in kumari N. Vasundara vs. State of Mysore, 1971 (2) Supreme Court Cases 22, the apex Court has extended its imprimatur to an admission precondition mandating as many as of as much as ten years residence in the State where the College is situate.

( 2 ) THE grievance which has been expressed in the Govt. School teachers Association Petitions is to the effect that in several cases students who are regularly domiciled for several years in Delhi along with their parents may be left with no alternative but to take admission in Schools in the satellite townships and environs of Delhi, such as in Noida, Gurgaon etc. The contention is that since these students are domiciled in Delhi they ought not to be excluded from seeking admission in the Delhi University merely because they have schooled in the satellite township of Delhi. One of the eligibility criteria that has been prescribed by the University of Delhi is that candidates should have passed the 12th Class examination under 10+2 system conducted by the cbse/council of Indian School Certificate Examination/jamia Millia Islamia, New delhi. It is further stipulated that every ?candidate must have studied 11th and 12th Classes regularly from a recognized school with the National Capital territory of Delhi?. The Delhi University has however set apart 15 per cent of the seats for allotment according to the Merit of the All India List.

( 3 ) IN WP (C) No. 6139-44/2006 titled as Sarita Vs. S. C. E. R. T. , the petitioners have assailed the policy of the State Council of Education Research and Training (SCERT) whose prospectus prescribes that ?candidates seeking admission to ETE course must have passed Sr. Secondary Examination (10+2) by cbse, Delhi or its equivalent examination of any other recognized board/university, from the Schools of National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi only. ? It is admitted that this has the consequence of total reservation for delhi students. Petitioners No. 2 to 6 are domiciled in the State of Haryana and have passed their 10+2 presumably from schools located in Haryana. The petitioners have prayed that the requirement of having passed 10+2 from a school within the NCT of Delhi should be struck down. It is noteworthy and ironical that the State of Haryana also requires that its students should be domiciled in Haryana for them to be entitled to seek admission in educational institutions in that State. It will be relevant to recall that in Anant Madaan vs. State of Haryana, (1995) 2 Supreme Court Cases 135, the Court had upheld the policy of the State of Haryana which requires that students should have studied the 10th, 10+1 and 10+2 classes as regular candidates in recognized institutions in Haryana. This policy is more parochial than the one assailed by these petitioners.

( 4 ) IN WP (C) No. 1531-32/2006 titled as Independent Schools federation of India (Regd.) vs. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprasth University, the requirement of domicile in Delhi as a pre-requisite for seeking admission in educational institutions in Delhi has been assailed. The Petitioners in WP (C) no. 7242/2003 have joined in these prayers, namely, that students from the satellite township otherwise domiciled in Delhi should be considered for admission in Delhi. However, the platform on which the two sets of Writ petition are predicated are totally disparate since the argument in Independent schools Federation is that is is unconstitutional to prescribe domiciliary requirements in any part of India.

( 5 ) IN Saurabh Chaudri vs. Union of India, AIR 2004 Supreme Court 361, the Constitution Bench had to determine the Constitutional validity of reservations predicated upon domicile

Click Here to Read the rest of this document