http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: CHITHRA GHOSH & ANOTHER

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/04/1969

BENCH: GROVER, A.N. BENCH: GROVER, A.N. HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ) SHELAT, J.M. BHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA HEGDE, K.S.

CITATION:  1970 AIR   35            1970 SCR  (1) 413  1969 SCC  (2) 228  CITATOR INFO :  R          1971 SC1439  (4,7)  R          1971 SC1762  (22,42,48,49)  R          1971 SC2560  (13)  RF         1972 SC  13  (12)  D          1972 SC1375  (35)  R          1975 SC 563  (38)  R          1979 SC 765  (20)  RF         1980 SC1255  (21)  RF         1983 SC1235  (5)  R          1989 SC 903  (21,22,23)  RF         1992 SC   1  (119)

ACT: Constitution  of  India Arts. 14, 15(1) and (2)  and  29(2)- Rules  of  centrally  Administered  college  providing   for reservation  of seats for specified categories of  students- Power to Central Government to nominate students to seats on the basis of classification-If valid.

HEADNOTE: The  appellants  passed the pre-medical examination  of  the Delhi University in April, 1968 and obtained over 62% marks, They applied for admission to the first year M.B.B.S. Course at  the Maulana Azad Medical College which is a  constituent of  the  University  of Delhi and  was  established  by  the Government  of  India  in  1958.   The  college   prospectus contained  certain  rules  relating  to  the  admission   of students which made reservations of places in the college in favour  of various categories of students and  provided  for nominations  to  be made by the Central Government  to  fill some  of the reserved places.  The appellants’  applications for admission to the college were rejected.  Thereafter they filed a writ petition challenging primarily the power of the Central  Government  to make the nominations  and  contended that nine students nominated by the Government had  obtained lower  marks in the pre-medical examination so that if  they were to be excluded, the appellants would be entitled to  be admitted  in  the  college.  The High  Court  dismissed  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

petition. It  ",as  contended  on behalf of the  appellants  that  the provisions  in the rules for reservation of seats  were  not based  on any reasonable classification and  were  therefore violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution: further more, they also  violated  clauses (1) and (4) of Art. 15  as  well  as clause  (2)  of Art, 29. It was further contended  that  the nominations to the reserved seats were  also contrary to the rules. HELD :    dismissing the appeal (i) The   first  group  of  persons  for  whom  seats   were reserved  were the sons and daughters of residents of  Union territories other than Delhi.  These areas are well known to be comparatively backward and with the exception of Himachal Pradesh  they do not have any Medical College of their  own. It was necessary that persons desirous of receiving  medical education from these areas should be provided some  facility for doing so.  As regards the sons and daughters of  Central Government servants posted in Indian Missions abroad, it  is equally  well known that due to exigencies of service  these persons  are  faced  with  difficulties  in  the  matter  of education.   Apart from the problems of language, it is  not easy  or always possible to get admission into  institutions imparting  medical  education  in  foreign  countries.   The reservations  for  the cultural, Colombo Plan  and  Thailand scholars  were made by reason of reciprocal arrangements  of educational and cultural nature.  The reservations in favour of Jammu and Kashmir scholars were also justifiable as there were  inadequate arrangements for medical education  in  the State  itself.   The classification in all these  cases  was based  on intelligible differentia which distinguished  them from the group to which the appellants belonged. [418C-F] 414 The  object of the classification by the Central  Government who  maintained  and ran the institution was to  select  the best  available students from sources as classified  in  the rules and the classification therefore had a rational  nexus with the object to be achieved. [419C] Shri  Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S. R.  Tendolkar  & Others  [1959]  S.C.R. 279; Minor P. Rajendran v.  State  of Madras,  [1968]  2  S.C.R. 786; Umesh Ch.  Sinha  v.  V.  N. Singh, Principal P.M.C. & Hospital and Ors.  I.L.R. 46 Patna 616 referred to. There  was  no  discrimination  against  the  appellants  on grounds  only  of religion, race, caste,  language,  sex  or place of birth and therefore there was no violation of  Art. 15 or Art. 29. (ii) The appellants did not have any right to challenge  the nominations made    by the Central Government.  They did not compete for the reserved seats     and  had no locus  standi in  the  matter  of  nomination  of  two  such  seats.   The contention that if nominations to reserved seats were not in accordance  with the rules, such seats must be  regarded  as not  having been properly filled and must be thrown open  to the  general  pool,  was  wholly  unfounded.   The   Central Government was under no obligation to release those seats to the general pool.  Although in the larger interest of giving maximum benefit to candidates belonging to the  non-reserved seats,  the  Central Government could and did  release  some seats, if could not be compelled to do so at the instance of students  who  had  applied for admission from  out  of  the categories’ for whom seats had not been reserved. [42OC-E]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 452 of 1969. Appeal from the judgment and order dated December 3, 1968 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 817 of 1968. B.   C. Misra and M. V. Goswami, for the appellants. B.   Sen and S. P. Nayar, for respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Grover, J. This is an appeal by certificate from a  judgment of  the Delhi High Court dismissing a petition filed by  the appellants  under Arts. 226 and 227 of the  Constitution  in the  matter of their. admission to the Maulana Azad  Medical College, New Delhi, hereinafter called the "Medical College" The appellants are residents of Delhi.  They passed the pre- medical  examination of the Delhi University held  in  April 1968  and obtained 62.5% marks.  In June 1968  they  applied for admission to the first year M.B., B.S. class at the Lady Harding  Medical  College,  New  Delhi  but  they  were  not admitted.   Thereafter  they applied for  admission  to  the Maulana  Azad  Medical College.  This college,  which  is  a constituent  of the University 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                             415 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 Scholars.               (h)   Jammu & Kashmir State Scholars. According  to the note 23 seats are reserved for  categories (c)  to (h) above.  The minimum percentage of marks which  a candidate  seeking  admission  must  have  obtained  in  the aggregate of compulsory subjects is 55. Now  the  appellants  had  obtained  62.5%  marks  and  were domiciled in Delhi.  According to them they were entitled to admission   and  would  have  been  admitted  but  for   the reservation of the seats which were filled by nominations by the   Central  Government.   In  the  year  1968  when   the appellants sought admission 9 students had been nominated by the  Central Government out of the 23 seats which had  ’been reserved  for categories (c) to (h) mentioned above.   These students  had  obtained less percentage of  marks  than  the appellants.   The  appellants filed a writ petition  in  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

High  Court challenging primarily the power of  the  Central Government  to  make the nominations.  It  was  prayed  that these nominations be struck down and the respondents  (Union of  India,  Medical College, University of  Delhi  etc.)  be directed to admit the -appellants and all other students who were eligible strictly in 416 the order of merit.  The writ petition was disposed of by  a division  bench  of the High Court.  The  authority  of  the Central  Government  to select candidates for  the  reserved seats  was  upheld.  It was, however, found that  among  the nine seats filled in the Medical College by the  Government, two  nominations  had been made contrary  to  the  admission rules.  The High Court was of the view that these two  seats would  also become a part of the general pool for  admission of  candidates on merit.  The order was, therefore, made  in the -following terms : "We,  therefore, direct the respondents 1 to 4 as follows  : two  seats shall be filled immediately for admission to  the first  year M.B., B.S. Course of the College from the  merit list  in which petitioner No. 1 is number 4  and  petitioner No. 2 is number 9. The respondents 1 to 4 shall  immediately enquire from the candidates who are above the petitioners in order of merit whether they want the admissions and on their failure  to  reply in a short time or on  their  refusal  to accept the offer, the admission shall be made either of  the petitioners or of other candidates who are above them in the merit list within one week from today." In  December 1968, the appellants filed a petition under  s. 114  and 0. 47, R. 1 read with s. 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 Arts. 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 men- tioned.  It would appear that the certificate was limited to the  appeal  against the writ petition.  This  would  be  so because  under 0. 47, R. 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 Art. 136  which  was  never done.   In  these  circumstances  the arguments  of  Mr.  B.  C. Misra  for  the  appellants  were confirmed  to  the  matters decided by  the  judgment  dated December 3, 1968. It  is  common  ground that the University  of  Delhi  is  a statutory  body incorporated by the Delhi University Act  of 1922 as amended from time to time.  Under S. 30 of that  Act Ordinances  can be made providing for various matters  which include  the  admission of students to  the  University  and their  enrolment as such.  Ordinance 11 provides that  there shall be a Medical Courses Admission 417 Committee.  It -is this committee which finalises the  cases of  admission except those which are to be referred  to  the Standing Committee on -account of any special features.  The Medical  Courses Admission Committee at its meeting held  on November  5, 1965, recognised that 23 seats in  the  Medical College  shall  be  reserved  for  certain  categories   for nomination.   This reservation was approved by the  Standing Committee  of the Academic Council of the  Delhi  University

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

and  finally  by the Academic Council itself by means  of  a resolution  dated  March  3, 1966.  In the  High  Court  and before  us both sides argued on the footing that  the  rules set out in the prospectus of the Medical College relating to admission  have statutory sanction and are not of  a  purely administrative nature. Before  the High Court only two questions were raised.   The first was whether the provision for reservation of seats was unconstitutional.  The second was whether the nominations to the reserved seats had been made contrary to the rules.  Mr. Misra has amplified the first submission-by urging that  the reservation  of seats for admission to the  Medical  College was not based on any reasonable classification and  suffered from  the  vice of discrimination.  According  to  him  such reservation was hit by Art. 14 read with clauses (1) and (4) of  Art. 15 and clause (2) of Art.- 29 of the  Constitution. In  addition  the system of nominations being  made  by  the Government  and  not by the Admission Committee was  per  se discriminatory. Article 29(2) may be read first.  It says, no citizen  shall be   denied  admission  into  any  educational   institution maintained by the State-or receiving aid out of State  funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them.   Under  clause  (1)  of  Art.  15  the  State  cannot discriminate   against  any  citizen  on  grounds  only   of religion, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.  Clause (4),  however,  provides that nothing in the  Article  shall prevent the State from making any special provision for  the advancement  of  any  socially  and  educationally  backward classes of citizens or for the scheduled castes and  tribes. According  to Mr. Misra the categories (c) to (h)  contained in  Rule  4 relating to eligibility for admission  for  whom seats  are  reserved  do  not  fall  within  the   exception contained  in  cl.  4  of Art. 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. We  are unable to see how Art. 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 Art 29(2) of any assistance to the appellants.  They are not being denied admission into the Medical College on 418 grounds  only of religion, race, caste, language or  any  of them.  This brings us to Art. 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. As  laid down in Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice  S. R. Tendolkar & Others(1), Art. 14 forbids class  legislation it  does not forbid reasonable classification.  In order  to pass  the test of permissible classification two  conditions must be fulfilled, (i) that the classification is founded on intelligible  differentia  which  distinguishes  persons  or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group  and, (ii) that that differentia must have a  rational relation  to the object sought to be achieved.   The  .first group  of persons for whom seats have been reserved are  the sons  and daughters of residents of Union territories  other than Delhi.  These areas are well known to be  comparatively backward and with the exception of Himachal Pradesh they  do not have any Medical College of their own.  It was necessary that  persons desirous of receiving medical  education  from

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

these  areas should be provided some facility for doing  so. As  regards  the sons and daughters  of  Central  Government servants posted in Indian Missions abroad it is equally well known that due to exigencies of their service these  persons are  faced  with  lot  of  difficulties  in  the  matter  of education.   Apart from the problems of language, it is  not easy  or always possible to get admission into  institutions imparting  medical  education  in  foreign  countries.   The cultural,  Colombo  Plan  and Thailand  scholars  are  given admission in medical institutions in this country by  reason of  reciprocal  arrangements  of  educational  and  cultural nature.   Regarding  Jammu  & Kashmir scholars  it  must  be remembered  that  the  problems relating to them  are  of  a peculiar nature and there do not exist adequate arrangements for medical education in the State itself for its residents. The   classification  in  all  these  cases  is   based   on intelligible  differentia which distinguishes them from  the group to which the appellants belong. It  is  the  Central Government which  bears  the  financial burden of running the medical college.  It is for it to  lay down the criteria for eligibility.  From the very nature  of things  it  is not possible to throw the admission  open  to students  from all over the country.  The Government  cannot be  denied  the  right  to  decide  from  what  sources  the -admission will be made.  That essentially is a question  of policy  and depends inter-alia on an overall assessment  and survey  of  the  requirements  of  residents  of  particular territories  and other categories of Persons for whom it  is essential to provide facilities for medical education. ,  If the sources are properly (1)  [1959] S.C.R. 279. 419      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. 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  Gov- ernment in the present case.  In Minor P. Rajendran v. State of Madras(1) 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  the object of imparting medical education and also of selection, for the purpose. The    case   of   Minor   P.   Rajendran(1)   is    clearly distinguishable,  because there the classification had  been made   district-wise  which  was  considered  to   have   no reasonable  relation with the object sought to be  achieved. Nor can the decision of a full bench of’the Patna High Court in  Umesh  Ch.  Sinha v. V. N. Singh,  Principal,  P.M.C.  & Hospital  & Ors. (2) be of any avail to the appellants.   In that  case  preferential  treatment had been  given  to  the children..  of the employees of the Patna University in  the matter  of admission to the Patna Medical College.   It  was held  that  there  was no,,  reasonable  nexus  between  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

principle  governing  -admission to the college on  the  one hand  and  the  pecuniary difficulties  or  the  meritorious services  rendered by the employees of the  University  on,, the other and that preferential treatment to the children of these  employees would amount to favoritism  and  patronage. There,.  is no question of any preferential treatment  being accorded  to  any particular category or  class  of  persons desirous  of  -receiving medical education  in  the  present case.  The mete fact that the Central Government has to make the nominations with regard to the reserved seats cannot  be considered to be preferential treatment of any kind.  As the candidates  for  the reserved seats have to  be  drawn  from different  sources it would be difficult to have  uniformity in  the  matter of selection from amongst  them.   The  High Court  was  right  in  saying  that  the  standards  of  the examinations  passed by them, the subjects studied  by  them and the educational back-- (1) [1968] 2 S.C.R. 786. (2) I.L.R. 46 Patna. 616’ 420 ground of each of them would be different and divergent  and therefore   the  Central  Government  was  the   appropriate authority  which could make a proper selection out of  those categories.   Moreover  this is being done  with  the  tacit approval  and  consent  of  the  Medical  Courses  Admission Committee. -It appears that the Central Government has  been acting in a very reasonable way inasmuch as when nominations were  made only to nine seats the rest were thrown  open  to the general pool. The other question which was canvassed before the High Court and  which has been pressed before us relates to the  merits of the nominations made to the reserved seats.  It seems  to us  that the appellants do not have -any right to  challenge the nominations made by 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. Finally Mr. Misra attempted to agitate the question of  some of  the nominations being illegal as the candidates who  had been  nominated had not applied in time-the prescribed  date being August 1, 1968.  This contention cannot be entertained for two reasons.  The first is that no such point appears to have  been  raised  before  the High  Court  when  the  writ petition was disposed of on December 3, 1968.  It is only at the  stage  of review that this matter seems  to  have  been pressed.   Secondly  it  has  been  held  by  us  that   the appellants  had no right to challenge the nominations  which had  been  made  by the Central  Government.   It  was  not, therefore,  open  to them to assail any of  the  nominations which had been made.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

The  appeal  fails and it is dismissed with no order  as  to costs. R.K.P.S.               Appeal dismissed. 421