D. N. CHANCHALA versus STATE OF MYSORE AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1971] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 608 · Decided: 03-05-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

608 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
D. N. CHANCHALA 
v. 
STATE OF MYSORE AND ORS. ETC. 
(with co1U1ected petitions) 
May 3, 1971 
[J. M. SHELAT, I. D. DUA AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.] 
Mysore Medical Colleges (Selection fbr Admission) Rules 1970- -Scope 
of Government's rule making power-Rules in University Acts laying down 
qualifications for admission do not deprive Government of power to rt· 
gulate admission to i'ts own medical colleges affiliated to the Universities-
University-wise distribution of seats under r. 9(1) not violative of .A.rt. 14 
of Constitution-Setting apart of certain number of seats under r. 4 and re-
servation of seats under r. 5 whether excessive-Whether violative of Art. 
15(4) of Constitution-Requirement of 10 years residence in state under r. 
3-Jntermittent residence does not satisfy rule-Classification of children 
of political sufferers under r. 4(h) whether a reasonable classification-
1·erm 'political sufferer' whether. vague. 
Constitution of India 1950-Rule 9(1) of Mysore Medical 
Colleges 
(Selection for Admission) Rules 1970 whether violates Art. 14-Rules 4 tind 
5 whether make excessive reservation-Whether Violative of Art. 15(4)-
Rule 4(h) making reservation in favour of children of 'political suf}ereri 
whether discriminatory. 
The Government of Mysore State conducts four medical colleges tv.•o 
of which are affiliated to the Universities of Mysore and Bangalore, the 
other two being affiliated to Karnatak University. C passed her pro-univer-
sity course examination from Bangalore University with 67 % marks in 
optional subjects, namely Physics, Chemistry and Biology. She then passed 
the B.Sc. Part I examination of Karnatak University, Under the Ordi-
nances of the Karnatak University, she was entitled to be admitted to the 
M.B.B.S. course of Karnatak University. However the Selection Committee 
formed under the Mysore Medical Colleges (Selection for Admission) Rules 
1970 did not select her for admission to that course because of Rule 9 of 
the said Rules under which preference for admission to a medical college 
run by a University was given to students who had passed the P.U.C. 
Examination of the same University and only 20% of the seats were avail· 
able to those passing the P.U.C. Examination of other Universities. C 
filed a writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution on the following 
contentions: (1) that once the petitioner was eligible for admission to a 
medical college affiliated to the Karnatak University according to the Ordi-
nances of that University, the State Government could not make rules, the 
effect of which was to deprive her of admission; (2) that the university-wise 
distribution of seats provided under r. 9(1) was discriminatory and being 
without any rational basis violated Art. 14 of the Constitution; (3) that 
the reservation of seats under rr. 4 & 5 for the various categories of per· 
sons set out therein was far more excessive than permitted by the decisions 
of this Court and was in violation of Art. 15(4). 
V passed her P.U.C. examination from a government college affiliated 
to Venkateshwar University in Andbra Pradesh with Physics, Chemistry 
and Biology as her optional subjects, securing in those subjects 150 out of 
200 marks i.e. 75')(,. On July 1970 she made an application for selection 
D. N. CHANOHALA v. MYSORE (She/at J.) 
609 
to a seat in in any one of the medical colleges affiliated to Karnatak Uni-
A 
versity. The Selection Committee did not include her in the list o~ select-
ed candidates arid the reason given was that she was not a resident of the 
State of Mysore for not less than 10 years at any time prior to the date of 
the application for a seat as required by r. 3 of the Mysore Medical Col-
leges (Selection for Admission) Rules 1970. 
In this connection the peti-
tioner filed a certificate from the Tahsildar, Bellary that she had resided 
in the State of Mysore for a period of 10 years before her applicatiod. 1 B 
It was further stated on her behalf that though she had left the State of 
Mysore on the transfer of her father to Andhra Pradesh before she was 
ten years old, she had continued to come and reside at her family house 
in the State of Mysore during her vacations. 
• 
J. challenged the validity of r. 4(h) of the aforesaid Rules on the 
ground that the reservation for children of 'political sufferers' made therein 
was not valid under the constitution. 
Held: (i) So long as the rules for selection applicable to the medical

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.