LexCHLTRA GHOSH & ANOTHER versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
CHlTRA GHOSH & ANOTHER
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
April 25, 1969
413
B
[M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., J. M. SHELAT, V. BHARGAVA,
c
D
E
F
G
H
K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.]
Constitution of India Arts. 14, 15(1) and (2) and 29(2)-Rules of
centrally administered college providing for reservation of seats for spe·
cified categories of students-Power to Central Government to nominate
students to seats on the basis of classification-If valid.
The appellants passed the pre-medical examination of the Delhi Uni-
versity in April, 1968 and obtained over 62 % marks, They applied for
admission to the first year M.B.B.S. Course at the Maulana Azad Medical
College which is a constituent of the University of Delhi and was establish-
ed by the Government of jndia in 1958. The college prospectus containoJ
ce'rtain rules relating to the admission of students which made resenftl~
tions of places in the college in favour of various categories of students
and provided for nominations to bt. made by the Central Government to
fill some of the reserved places. The appellants' applications for admission
to the college were rejected. Thereafter they filed a writ petition challeng-
ing primarily the poWer of the· Central Government to make the nomina ...
tions and contended that' nine students nominated by the Government had
obtained lower marks in the pre-medical examination so that if they were
to be excluded, the appellants would be entitled to be admitted in the
college.
The High Court dismissed the petition.
It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the provisions in the
rules for reservation of seats were not based on any reasonable classification
and were therefore violative of 1\rt. 14 of the Constitution; further mor:~
they also violated clauses ( 1) and ( 4) of Art. 15 as well as clause (2)
of Art. 29. It was further contended that the nominations to the reserved
seats were also contrary to the rules.
HELD : dismissing the appeal :
{i) The first g'.roup of persons for whom seats were reserved were
the sons and daughters of residents of Union territories other than Delhi.
These areas are well known to be comparatively backward and with thei
exception of Himachal Pradesh they do not have any Medic:al College of
their own.
It was necessary that persons desirous of receiving medical
education from these. areas should be provided some facility for doing so.
As regards the sons and daughters of Central Govern1nent servants
posted in lndiiln Missions abroad, it is equally well known that due to
exigencies of service these persons are faced \Vith difficulties in the
matter of educatioit.
Apart from the problems of language, it is not
easy or always possible to get admission into institutions imparting medical
education in foreign countries. The reservations for the cultural. Colombo
Plan and Thailand scholars were made by reason of 'reciprocal arrange·
ments of educational and cultural nature. The reservations in favour of
Jammu and Kashmir scholars were also justifiable as there were inade-
quate arrangements for medical education in the State itself.
The classi-
fication in all these cases was based on intelligible diffe'rentja which distin-
guished them from the group to which the appellants belonged. [418C·FJ
414
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(I 970] I S.C.R
The object of the ct-assification bv the Central Government "'·ho
A
maintained and ran the institution ~1as 10 select the best available students
from sources as classified in the rules and the classificarion 1hcrefore hJJ
a rational nexus •vith the object to be achieved.
[419C)
Shri Rani Krishna /)a/n1ia v. Slzri Justice S. R. Tendolkar & Ot.:!ers
[I 959 S.C.R. 279; Minor P. Ra~ndran v. Stal< of Madras, [19681 2 S.C.R.
786; Umerh Ch. Sinha v. V. N. Singh, Principal P.M.C. & Hospital end
Ors. J.L.R. 46 Patna 616 referred to.
B
°fl?e~e "'as no discrimination against the appellants on grounds oniy
of rehg1on, race, caste, language, sex or place of birth and thc'rcfore there
was no violation of Art. 15 or Art. 29.
(ii) The appellants did not have any right to challenge the nomination•
made by the Central Government. They did not compete for the reserved
seats and had no locus standi in the matter of nomination of two such
seats.
The contention that if nominations to reserved scats were not in
ai:cordance with the rules, such seats must be
regarded
as not bavina
been properly filled and must be thrown openExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.