LexMOHAN BIR SINGH CHAWLA versus PANJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• MOHAN BIR SINGH CHAWLA A v. PANJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH AND ANR. DECEMBER 11, 1996 [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] B University : Constitution of India, !950 : Articles 14 and 15. Weightage-Grant of-To students of same university-Validity of-Ad- c mission to LL.B.-Based on marks secured in qualifying examination-Rule presclibed by University-Provided for weightage of 10% of the marks ob- tained in qualifying examination to be added in case of candidates who passed the qualifying examination from the same university-Held: Weightage of 10% was on higher side-It should not exceed So/er-Since admission D pertained to 1993-94 not possible to give any relief-But it must be taken into consideration for future admissions. The rule governing admission to LL.B. course among other courses prescribed by the respondent-University provided that while admission shall be made on the basis of merit, ten percent of the marks obtained in the E qualifying examination shall be added in the case of candidates who had passed the qualifying examination from the respondent-University. The impugned rule read: "(vi) Admission shall be made on merit which shall be determined after giving weightage as under: (a) 10% marks obtained in the aggregate marks of the qualifying F examination passed from Panjab University." The appellant filed writ petition before the High Court challenging the validity of the aforesaid rule on the ground that the said rule violated the eqnality clause enshrined in Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The G High Court dismissed the writ petition. Being aggrieved the appellant ·- preferred the present appeal. The question before this Court was whether weightage of ten percent marks given to students of the same university in the matter of admission to different courses in its constituent or affiliated colleges was permissible H 949 950 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. A where the admission was not based upon a common admission test. Disposing of the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. From the decided cases, following principles emerge.: B (a) College-wise preference is not permissible in any event.. (b) University-wise preference is permissible provided it is relevant and reasonable. Seventy to eighty percent reservation has been sustained, even where students from different universities appear at a common entrance test. The trend, however, is towards reducing the reservations and C providing greater weight to merit. The practice all over the country today, as a result of the decisions of this Court, is to make iifteen percent of the seats in M.B.B.S. course and twenty five per~ent of the seats in post- graduate medical courses in all the Government medical colleges in the country (except Andhra Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir) available on the D basis of merit alone. Students from anywhere in the country can compete for these seats which are allotted on the basis of an All-India test conducted by the designated authority. (c) The rule of preference on the basis of domicile/requirement of residence is not bad provided it is within reasonable limits, i.e., it does not E result in reserving more than eighty five percent seats in graduate courses and more than seventy five percent seats in post-graduate courses. But district-wise reservations are an anathema. ( d) Where the students from different universities appear at a com- mon entrance test/examination (on the basis on which admissions are F made) the rule of university-wise preference too must shed some of its relevance. The explanation of difference in evaluation, standards of educa- tion and syllabus lose much of their significance when admission is based upon a common entrance test. At the same time, the right of the State Governments (which have established and maintained these institutions) to G regulate the process of admission and their desire to provide for their own students shonld also be accorded due deference. ( e) The fair and proper rule is; the higher you go, in any discipline, lesser should be the reservations - of whatever kind. It is for this reason that it was said in Dr. Pradeep jain that there should be no reservations in the matter of H admission to snper-specialities, though in the recent decision in Rajiv = .. M.B.S. CHA WIA v. PB. UNNERSITY 951 Gopinath Bhatt, a different view appears to have been taken while affirming the A principle of merit, at t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.