Vijay Kumar Sharma vs University Of Delhi And Anr.
1997 Latest Caselaw 568 Del

JUDGMENT

Cyriac Joseph, J.

(1) According to the averments in the petition, the petitioner is a citizen of India and he and his forefathers have deep roots in Delhi for the last 50 years. Though he has been living abroad for more than 15 years, at present he is residing at K-310, Kangra Niketan, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018. The petitioner has a daughter who has passed her 10+2 Examination (XII Standard) from the Indian School, Safat, Kuwait which is approved by the Ministry of Education, Kuwait and is recognised by the Central Board of Secondary Education. New Delhi. The petitioner's daughter wants to join for Mbbs Course in one of the Colleges affiliated to Delhi University. The University of Delhi has invited applications on the prescribed proforma for admission to first year Mbbs Course. The admissions are based on entrance examination. As per the Bulletin of Information issued by the University, a candidate will be eligible for MBBS/BDS entrance examination conducted by the University of Delhi only if he/she has appeared/passed 12th Class examination under 10+2 system conducted by the C.B.S.E./ Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination /Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi (except Patrachar Vidyalaya & Open Schools) with required subject i.e. Physics, Chemistry, Biology (Botany & Zoology) and English (Core or Elective) securing minimum 50% marks in aggregate in these subjects from the recognised school conducting regular classes situated within the National Capital Territory of Delhi. Since the petitioner's daughter studied in the Indian School, Safat, Kuwait and passed 12th Class Examination from there she is not eligible to appear in the entrance examination. Having felt aggrieved by the stipulation that the candidates appearing in the entrance examination should have passed l2th Class examination from the recognised schools conducting regular classes situated with the National Capital Territory of Delhi, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the eligibility criteria and praying for direction to the respondents not to cancel the form of petitioner's daughter only on the ground that she has not passed her 12th Class examination from a school situated within the National Capital Territory of Delhi and to consider the candidate of the petitioner's daughter for admission to first year Mbbs Course.

(2) On 31st March, 1997 this Court directed to issue notice to the respondents to show cause why rule nisi be not issued. On the same date this Court also passed an order in C.M. 2302/97 directing respondent No. 1 to accept the application form of the petitioner's daughter. On the basis of the order dated 31.3.1997 in C.M. 2302/ 97 the petitioner's daughter was allowed to appear in the entrance examination held on 24.5.1997. By order dated 2.7.1997 in C.M. 5208/97 this Court directed the respondents to declare the result of the petitioner's daughter subject to the result of the writ petition.

(3) Learned Counsel for the parties submitted that in compliance with the order dated 2.7.1997 the result of the petitioner's daughter was declared and that she secured only 422 marks and rank No. 3739. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 1, Ms. Rekha Aggarwal, pointed out that there were only 200 seat in the general category and hence going by the marks and rank obtained by the petitioner's daughter there was absolutely no chance of her getting admission even if she was considered eligible to appear in the entrance examination. In this view of the matter learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 further pointed out that it was unnecessary to consider the writ petition on merits. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though the petitioner's daughter might not get admission during this academic year, she would like to try again in the next year and at that time also the impugned eligibility criteria would stand in her way and hence it was necessary that the challenge of the petitioner against the eligibility criteria was considered on merits by this Court. In view of the performance of petitioner's daughter in this year's entrance examination it is really unnecessary to decide this writ petition on merits. However, in view of the insistence of the learned Counsel for the petitioner I proceed to consider the matter on merits.

(4) The petitioner challenges Clause III-B of the Bulletin of Information issued by the University of Delhi which reads thus:

B.Essential Qualifications for General Category : Candidates who have appeared /passed 12th Class Examination under 10+2 system conducted by the C.B.S.E/ Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination /Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi (except Patrachar Vidyalaya and Open Schools) with required subjects i.e. Physics, Chemistry, Biology (Botany & Zoology) and English/Core of Elective, securing minimum 50% marks in aggregate in these subjects from the recognised schools conducting regular classes situated within the National Capital Territory of Delhi only will be eligible for MBBS/BDS Entrance Examination conducted by the University of Delhi.

(5) The grievance of the petitioner is against the stipulation that a candidate should have passed the 12th Class examination from the recognised school situated within the National Capital Territory of Delhi. According to the petitioner a candidate should be treated eligible if he /she has passed the qualifying examination from any recognised school whether the said school is situated within or outside the National Capital Territory of Delhi. The only legal contention raised by Mr. Manohar Lal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned Clause Iii B of the Bulletin of Information quoted above is discriminatory and hence violative of Article 14ofthe Constitution of India inasmuch as the candidates who passed the qualifying examination from the schools situated outside the National Capital Territory of Delhi are treated differently from the candidates who passed the qualifying examination from the schools situated within the National Capital Territory of Delhi. According to the learned Counsel, the differentiation based on the situation or location of the schools is unreasonable and arbitrary.

(6) Ms. Rekha Aggarwal, learned Counsel for the University contended that the impugned clause in the Bulletin of Information was legal and valid and that the differentiation based on the situation or location of the school was reasonable and justifiable. The learned Counsel also submitted that the legal point raised by the Counsel for the petitioner was covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Pradeep fain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., reported inl984 (3) Scc 654, and Anant Madaan v. State of Haryana & Anr., , and the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 1072/ 96.

(7) In Dr. Pradeep Jain and others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it would be constitutionally permissible to provide for reservation of a certain percentage of seats in the Medical Colleges for students satisfying the prescribed requirements as also and for students who have passed Puc or pre-medical examination or any other qualifying examination held by the University from the State (See paragraph 19 of the judgment). The following sentences in paragraph 9 of the said judgment indicate that the validity of giving preference or reservation to students who passed the qualifying examination from the schools situated in the Union Territory of Delhi was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said judgment:

"THE Delhi University in its counter-affidavit gave a brief synopsis summarizing the domicile or residential requirement or institutional preference followed by each State Government for admission to the Medical Colleges situate within its territory. It is not necessary for the purpose of the present judgment to reproduce in detail the precise domicile or residential requirement or institutional preference adopted and prevailing in different States in regard to admissions to Medical Colleges. Suffice it to state that for admission to Mbbs Course domicile or permanent residence is required in some State, residence for a specified number of years ranging from three to twenty years is required in some other States while in a few States the requirement is that the candidate should have studied in an educational institution in the State for a continuous period varying from four to ten years or the candidate should be a bonafide resident of the State and in case of admissions to Mds Course in Uttar Pradesh the candidate should be either a citizen of India, the domicile of whose father is in Uttar Pradesh and who himself is domiciled in Uttar Pradesh or a citizen of India, domiciled of whose father may not be in Uttar Pradesh and who himself had resided in Uttar Pradesh for not less than five years at the time of making the application and so far as admissions to Mds Course in Karnataka are concerned, the candidate should have studied for at least five years in an educational institution in the State of Kamataka prior to his joining Bds Course. The position in regard to admissions in Medical Colleges in the Union Territory of Delhi is a little different, because there, out of a total 410 seats available for admission to Mbbs Course in the three Medical Colleges affiliated to Delhi University, 148 are reserved seats and 262 are nonreserved seats, an entrance examination is held and the first 50 seats are filled from amongst the eligible candidates who pass the entrance examination in order of merit and the remaining 212 seats are filled, again on merit, but by candidates who have passed their qualifying examination from the schools situate in the Union Territory of Delhi only. It will thus be seen that in almost all States and Union Territories admissions to Medical Colleges are based either on residence requirements or on institutional preferences.The question is whether such reservations or preferences are constitutionally valid when tested on the touchstone of Article 14."

(8) Hence, the learned Counsel for the University is justified in her submission that the legal point raised by the petitioner is covered by the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, against the petitioner.

(9) In Anant Madaun's case the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered whether the condition requiring a candidate to have studied in X, X+1, and X+2 Classes in a recognised institution in the State of Haryana can be considered arbitrary or unreasonable and held that the said condition could not be considered as arbitrary or unreasonable or violative to Article 14 of the Constitution. In the light of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the contention of the petitioner herein has no merit.

(10) In Civil Writ Petition No. 1072/96 Vikas Pathania v. Union of India & Ors., the very same Clause contained in the Bulletin of Information published by the University of Delhi in 1996 was under challenge. A Division Bench of this Court relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain b Ors., v. Union of India and Anant Madaan v. State of Haryana, (supra) held that the eligibility criterion could not be said to be unreasonable, arbitrary or violative of the Constitution. I am bound by the said judgment of the Division Bench of this Court and hence the contention of the petitioner is liable to be rejected.

(11) Learned Counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meenakshi Malik v. University of Delhi & Ors., , where the father of the candidate was in Government service and was posted by the Government outside India. As the parents were compelled to go outside India, the children were also required to go with their parents. Considering this as a hard case the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the qualifying condition that a candidate should have received the last two years education in a school in Delhi, should be relaxed in that case as the candidate was compelled to leave India for a foreign country by reason of the posting of her parents by the Government to such foreign country. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also had observed that there was no choice in the matter in such a situation and hence the rigour of the condition prescribing that the last two years' education should be received in Delhi should be relaxed in that case. However, the daughter of the petitioner in the present writ petition is not in a position similar to that of the candidate in Meenakshi Malik case. The petitioner (i.e. father of the Candidate has voluntarily taken employment outside the National Capital Territory of Delhi. Hence the petitioner's daughter is not entitled to any relaxation as was given to the candidate in Meenakshi Malik v. University of Delhi. It may be noted in this context that in the judgment in Anant Madaan v. State of Haryana, a similar request was turned down by the Hon'ble Court pointing out that the parents of the candidate had voluntarily taken employment outside the State of Haryana. (See paragraph 12 of the judgment).

(12) Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the above- mentioned cases decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this Court the candidates had opportunity to appear in the entrance examination for admission to the Medical Colleges of the State in which their school was situated whereas the petitioner's daughter has no such opportunity since she studied in a school in Kuwait. Even assuming that the above submission of the learned Counsel is factually correct, it is not relevant for deciding the validity of the impugned Clause in the Bulletin of Information. The real question is whether the University of Delhi or the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi could validly stipulate the impugned condition that a candidate appearing for the entrance examination should have passed the qualifying examination from a recognised school situated within the National Capital Territory of Delhi. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this Court have held that it could be done. It may also be mentioned that the learned Counsel for the University pointed out from the petition in Civil Writ Petition No. 1072/96 that the petitioner therein also could not appear in the entrance examination conducted in Delhi by the University of Delhi or in the entrance examination conducted in the State of Andhra Pradesh in which State the school of the candidate was situated. It is also to be remembered that the petitioner's daughter is eligible to appear in the entrance examination for the seats in the All India Quota and hence it is not a question of total exclusion.

(13) Another aspect highlighted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in some of the other States seats have been reserved in Mbbs Course for Non- Resident Indians but no such reservation is made by the University of Delhi or the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi. The petitioner has no legal right in the matter and this Court cannot compel the University or the Government to make such reservation.

(14) In view of the facts and the legal position stated above the writ petition is devoid of merit and hence it is here by dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.