KUMARI N. VASUNDARA versus STATE OF MYSORE & ANR.

Citation: [1971] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 381 · Decided: 15-04-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

KUMARI N. V ASUNDARA 
v. 
STATE OF MYSORE & ANR. 
April 15, 1971. 
(J. M. SHELAT, I. D. DUA AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.J 
Constitution of India, Art. 14-Equality-Rules for selection of candi-
dates to Pre-Professional course in the Government Medical Colleges in 
the State of Mysore framed in 1970-Admission based on domicile and 
residence for not less than 10 years prior to application-Reasonableness. 
Rule 3 of the rules for selection of candidates for admission to the 
preprofessional course leading to M.B.B.S. in the Government Medical 
Colleges in the State of Mysore provided that "no person who is not a 
citizen of India and who is not domiciled and resident in the State of 
Mysore for not less than ten years at any time prior to the date of the 
application for a seat, ~hall be eligible to apply" 
The petitioner's application for admission was rejected on the ground 
that she had not resided in the State for a period of ten years as required 
by r. 3. She challenged the constitutional validity of r. 3 on the ground 
ef violation of right to equality guaranteed by Art. 14 of the Constitution. 
It was contended that the impugned rule, by imposing the condition of 
residence in addition to the condition of being domiciled in the State created 
an artificial classification which suffered from unconstitutional descrimina-
tion. In support of the .validity of the rule it was urged that by the rule the 
State only attempted to select those students who were more likely to serve 
as doctors in the State and it was for the State to determine the sources 
from which to select candidates. 
Dismissing the petition, 
381 
A 
B 
c 
E 
HELD: The word "domicile" in r. 3 is used to convey the idCa of 
y 
intention to reside or remain in the State of Mysore. 
If classification 
based on residence does not impinge upon the principle of equality, as 
held by this Court in D. P. Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat, then the 
further condition of residence in the State for at least ~n years would 
also be equally valid unless it is shown that selection of the period of 
ten years makes the classification so unreasonable as to render it arbitrary 
and without any substantial basis or intelligible differentia. 
The object 
of framing the impugned rule is to impart medical education to the best 
G. 
talent available, out of the class of persons who are likely, so far as it 
can reasonably be foreseen, to serve as doctors the inhabitants· of the State. 
The State has to formulate with reasonable foresight a just scheme of 
classification for imparting medical education to the available candidates 
which would serve the object and purpose of providing broad-based n1edi-
cal aid to the people of the State and to provide medical education to 
those who are best suited for such education. Proper classifiCation inspir-
ed by this consideration and selection on merit from such classified groups, 
H 
therofore, cannot be challenged on the ground of inequality violating Art. 
14. The petitioner. has not shown that the impugned rule suffer from the 
vice of unreasonableness. [388 D-389 CJ 
:382 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1971] SUPP. s.c.R. 
.A 
There is likelihood of some cases of hardships under the impugned 
B 
·C 
.D 
E 
J!' 
H 
ru1e. But cases of hardships are likely to arise in the working of almost 
any rule which may be framed for selecting a limited number of candidates 
for ad1nission out of a long list. This would not render the rule unconsti-
tutional. [389 E] 
D. P. Joshi v. The State of Madhya Bharat and Anr., [1955] I S.C.R. 
1215, relied on. 
Chitra Ghosh & Anr. v. Union of India and Ors .. [1970] I S.C.R. 413 
and Minor P. Rajendran v. State of Madras & Ors .. [1968] 2 S.C.R. 786, 
referred to. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 606 of 1970. 
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for en-
forcement of fundamental rights. 
R. B. Datar, for the petitioner. 
Niren De, Attorney-General and S. P. Nayar, for the respon· 
dents . 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Dua, J.-The only question raised in this writ petition under 
Art. 32 of the Constitution relates to the constitutional validity 
of r. 3 of the Rules for Selection of candidates for admission to 
the Pre-Professional/B.Sc. Part I Course leading to M.B.B.S. in 
the Government Medical Colleges and for certain seats in the 
private Medical Colleges in the State of Mysore framed by that 
State on July 4, 1970 (hereinafter called "the Selection Rules"). 
The peti

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