NIDAMARTI MAHESHKUMAR versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [1986] 2 S.C.R. 230 · Decided: 06-04-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
230 
NIDAKARTI MAHESHKUMAR 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASm'RA & ORS. 
APRIL 6, 1986 
rP.N. RHAQJATI, C.J. AND D.P. MAnoN, JJ.l 
y-
Constitution of India, Articles 15(1)(4) and 21 
Admission to ME?dical Colleges -
RE?sE?rvati on of Seats for 
students from hackward region of StatE?- Va1i~ity of. 
.,.. 
c 
Professional Colleges -
Admission to -
RuJt=> B(2) of\_--
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Rules 
for admission to M.B.R.S. 
Course -
Student from 
school/co]lege within juriscHction of one 
university 
--t·-
Ineligible for admission to medical 
college or colleges 
situated in jurisdiction of another university-
Validity of 
Rule- Whether violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 
The qualification required for admission to the MBBS 
course in the State of Maharashtra is the passing of 12th 
standard examination held by the Maharashtra State Board of 
Secondary and 
Higher Secondary Education. It comprises of i--
three Divisional Boards -
one for Vidharbha region, another 
for Marathwada region and the third for the rest of Maharash-
tra - and though for the purpose of convenience each of these 
three Divisional Boards conducts the 12th standarrl examination 
for the area within its jurisdiction, th~ examination which is 
held is one and the same throughout the State of Maharashtra,''f 
based on the same syllabus, with the same set of questions and). 
the same standard of evaluation. The results of the 12th 
standard examination are published divisionwise and the merit 
list is also prepared on that basis but the question papers 
being same and the standard of evaluation also being uniform 
throughout the three regions, it is easy to assess the 
comparative merits of the candidates in the three regions by 
reference to the marks obtained by them at the 12th standard 
examination. 
The respondent-State, instead of selecting candidates 
from all over the State for the academic year 1985 on the 
basis of their performance in the 12th standard examination, 
made 
regionwise classification for admission to medical 
}-""'~ 
' 
• 
NIDAMARTI MAHESHKUMAR v. STATE 
231 
colleges by framing new Rules for admission to the M.B.B.S. A 
~ourse. Rule E(2) of the Rules provided that a student from 8 
school or college situated within 
~he jurisdiction of a 
particular university could seek admission only in the medical 
college or colleges situate within the jurisdiction of that · 
University and he could not be eligible for admission to B 
medical college or colleges situate in the jurisdiction of 
~~ another university. 
The appellant challenged the validity of Rule 
B(2) of 
\ 
the Rules before the High Court on the ground that it offends 
Article 14 of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the 
writ petition on the ground that since the implementation of 
.. the order passed in Dr. Pradeep Jain & Ora. v. Uniou of India C 
)C& Ors. et~ •• {1984] 3 s.c.c. 654 that 30% of the open seats 
r should be available for admission to students on all India 
basis and that only 70% of the seats could be reserved on the 
basis of 
residence or institutional preference, had been 
deferred by the Supreme Court, the State Gcvernme1t "had no 
other alternative but to fill in the seats as if there were no 
directions from the Supreme Court to fill in the seats on 
D 
~ all-India basis" and Rule B(2) of the Rules for admission to 
the M.B.B.S. course framed by the State Government for the 
academic year 1985 was therefore valid. 
\ . 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD: 1. The regionwise scheme adopted by the State 
Government in Rule B(2) clearly results in denial of equal 
opportunity violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 
E 
~ [245 D] 
F 
,.-" 
2.(i) nte object of any valid sch~ of admissions must 
be to "select the best candidates for being admitted to 
medical colleges" and that if any departure is to be" made 
"from the principle of selection on the basis of merit • 1
1
t 
must be justified on the touch-stone of Article 14. f23S D-E 
Minor P. Rajendran v. State of Madras. (1968] 2 S.C.R. 
786, A. P~rta-«urappan v. State of Tamil Nadu. 
(1971] 
2 
S.C.R. 430 and Dr. Pradeep Jain & OT&. v. Union of India & 
Ora. etc., [1984] 3 s.c.c. 654, relied upon. 
D.P. Joshi •• Stat~ of Madhya Bharat. {1955] 
1 S.C.R. 
G 
H 
A 
B 
~c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
.> 
232. 
' 
\ 
r 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[19861 2 s.c.R. 
1215 and Jagdish Saran v. Union of Imfa, [1980) -~ S.,'. ·.R. 831, 
referred to. 
2.(ii) 
There 
are 
two 
considerations 
which 
may 
' legitimately weigh 
with the

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