SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.S. PATHAK, CJI., RANGANATH MISRA AND M.M. DUTT, JJ.
Meenakashi Malik, Petitioner
Versus
University of Delhi and others, Respondents.
Writ Petn. (Civil) No. 1050 of 1986
Decided on 1- 5-1989.
JUDGMENT
PATHAK, CJI.:— On 31 July, 1987, we allowed this writ petition and directed the respondents to admit the petitioner, Meenakshi Malik, in one of the three Delhi Medical Colleges in the first year course prescribed for the M.B.B.S. Degree. We said that the reasons would be pronounced later. We proceed to do so now.
2. The petitioner was born in Delhi on 8 September, 1967. Her father, Shri O.P. Malik, was employed in the National Council of Educational, Research and Training, Sri Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi and her mother, Smt. Kanta Devi Malik was employed in the Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Mehrauli, New Delhi. The petitioner attended the Junior Public School, Shakti Nagar, up to Class II and the Cambridge School, Siriniwaspuri, New Delhi, up to Class IX until 19 January, 1982. The petitioners father was placed on deputation in January. 1982 with the Government of Nigeria to serve in its Ministry of Education through the Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of India. New Delhi. The petitioner, who was a minor at the time, had to accompany her parents along with her minor brother. In Nigeria, the petitioner continued her education as an Overseas candidate and appeared for the examination conducted by the University of London in Kanduna, Nigeria, and she passed the General Certificate of Education Ordinary level (GCE-O level) which is recognised by the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi, as equivalent to Class XI in India.
3. On completing the period of his deputation on 8 April, 1984 the petitioners father returned to India with his family. The petitioner was admitted to Class XII in the Delhi Public School, Mathura Road, New Delhi. The Central Board of Secondary Education permitted her admission to that Class. The petitioner appeared in the All India Senior School Certificate Examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi, in March, 1985 and passed the examination. The petitioner then sat for the Entrance Examination for admission to one of the three Medical Colleges in Delhi, and she obtained 750 marks. The candidates who obtained an equal number of marks or even less were granted admission, but the petitioner was denied admission. She fell for consideration in the quota of seventy per cent of the seats reserved for candidates who had passed the qualifying examination from the University of Delhi or the Central Board of Secondary Education or the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination from recognised schools conducting regular classes in the Union Territory of Delhi. But she was denied admission because she had not satisfied the further condition that the last two years of education should be had in a school in Delhi. Aggrieved by the denial of admission, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
4. It seems to us that the qualifying condition that a candidate appearing for the Entrance Examination for admission to a Medical College in Delhi should have received the last two years of education in a school in Delhi is unreasonable when applied in the case of those candidates who were compelled to leave India for a foreign country by reason of the posting of the parent by the Government to such foreign country. There is no real choice in the matter for such a student, and in many cases the circumstances of the student do not permit her to continue schooling in India. It is, of course, theoretically possible for a student to be put into a hostel to continue her schooling in Delhi. But in many cases this may not be feasible and the student must accompany a parent to the foreign country. It appears to us that the rigour of the condition prescribing that the last two years of education should be received in a school in Delhi should be relaxed, and there should be no insistence on the fulfilment of that condition, in the case of students of parents who are transferred to a foreign country by the Governm
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.