9911796707
TMI Blog1969 (4) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Delhi, was established by the Government of India in June 1958. According to the college prospectus, 125 students are admitted annually; 15% seats are reserved for schedule caste candidates and 5% for scheduled tribes candidates, 25% of the seats (excluding the seats reserved for Government of India nominees) are reserved for girl students who are taken on the basis of merit. The following categories of students only are eligible for admission : (a) Residents of Delhi.... (b) (i) Sons/Daughters of Central Government Servants posted in Delhi at the time of the admission. (ii) Candidate whose father is dead and is wholly dependent on brother/sister who is a Central Government Servant posted in Delhi at the time of the admission. (c) Sons/Daughters of residents of Union Territories specified below including displaced persons registered therein and sponsored by their respective Administration of Territory :- (i) Himachal Pradesh (ii) Tripura (iii) Manipur (iv) Naga Hills (v) N.E.F.A. (vi) Andaman. (d) Sons/Daughters of Central Government servants posted in Indian Missions abroad. (e) Cultural Scholars. (f) Colombo Plan Scholars. (g) Thailand Scho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er 47, Rule 1 read with Section 141, Civil Procedure Code seeking a review of the judgment and order dated December 3, 1968. This petition was dismissed by the High Court by a detailed order dated January 27, 1969. On February 1, 1969, a petition was filed under Articles 133(1)(c) and 132(1) of the Constitution for leave to appeal to this Court. In the prayer leave was sought against the judgment dismissing the writ petition as also the order by which the review petition was disposed of. In the certificate, however, in the heading only the judgment dated December 3, 1968 is mentioned. It would appear that the certificate was limited to the appeal against the writ petition. This would be so because under Order 47, Rule 7 the order of the court rejecting the application for review is not appealable. If the appellants desired to challenge that order it could have been done only by asking for leave of this Court under Articles 136 which was never done. In these circumstances the arguments of Mr. B.C. Misra for the appellants were confined to the matters decided by the judgment dated December 3, 1968. 4. It is common ground that the University of Delhi is a statutory body incorporate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f citizens or for the scheduled castes and tribes. According to Mr. Misra the categories (c) to (h) contained in Rule 4 renting to eligibility for admission for whom seats are reserved do not fall within the exception contained in Clause 4 of Article 15. The persons in these categories, it is said, cannot be regarded as socially and educationally backward classes of citizens nor can it be supposed that all of them must belong to schedule castes and tribes. 7. We are unable to see how Article 15(1) can be invoked in the present case. The rules do not discriminate between any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. Nor is Article 29(2) of any assistance to the appellants. They are not being denied admission into the Medical College on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them. This brings us to Article 14. It is claimed that merit should be the sole criterion and as soon as other factors like those mentioned in Clauses (c) to (h) of Rule 4 are introduced, discrimination becomes apparent. 8. As laid down in Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar and Ors. [1959]1SCR279 Article 14 forbids class legi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... education. If the sources are properly classified whether on territorial, geographical or other reasonable basis it is not for the courts to interfere with the manner and method of making the classification. 10. The next question that has to be determined is whether the differentia on which classification has been made has rational relation with the object to be achieved. The main purpose of admission to a medical college is to impart education in the theory and practice of medicine. As noticed before the sources from which students have to be drawn are primarily determined by the authorities who maintain and run the institution, e.g., the Central Government in the present case. In Minor P. Rajendran v. State of Madras [1968]2SCR786 it has been stated that the object of selection for admission is to secure the best possible material. This can surely be achieved by making proper rules in the matter of selection but there can be no doubt that such selection has to be confined to the sources that are intended to supply the material. If the sources have been classified in the manner done in the present case it is difficult to see how that classification has no rational nexus with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Central Government. They do not compete for the reserved seats and have no locus standi in the matter of nomination to such seats. The assumption that if nominations to reserved seats are not in accordance with the rules all such seats as have not been properly filled up would be thrown open to the general pool is wholly unfounded. The Central Government is under no obligation to release those seats to the general pool. It may in the larger interest of giving maximum benefit to candidates belonging to the non-reserved seats release them but it cannot be compelled to do so at the instance of students who have applied for admission from out of the categories for whom seats have not been reserved. In our opinion the High Court was in error in going into the question and holding that out of the nine seats filled by nomination two had been filled contrary to the admission rules and these would be converted into the general pool. Since no appeal has been filed against that part of the order we refrain from making any further observations in the matter. 13. Finally Mr. Misra attempted to agitate the question of some of the nominations being illegal as the candidates who had been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
