Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7
PETITIONER:
MOHAN BIR SINGH CHAWLA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
PANJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/12/1996
BENCH:
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, K.S. PARIPOORNAN
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.
The rule governing admission to LL.B. course among
other courses prescribed by the Panjab University provided
that while admission shall be made on the basis of merit,
ten percent of the marks obtained in the qualifying
examination shall be added in the case of candidates who
have passed the qualifying examination from the Panjab
University. The impugned rule reads:
"(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
examination passed from Panjab
University."
A number of writ petitions were filed in the Punjab and
Haryana High Court by students, who have passed the
qualifying examination from universities other than Panjab
University, questioning the validity of the said weightage
rule. According to them, the rule violates the equality
clause enshrined in Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution
and ought to be approached this Court by way of this Special
Leave Petition.
Leave granted. Heard the counsel for the appellant and
the Panjab University.
There is little doubt that addition of ten percent of
marks to candidates who have passed their qualifying
examination from Panjab University confers a substantial
advantage to the candidates from the university over the
candidates who have passed the qualifying examination from
other universities. The result of the operation of the said
rule is stated in the judgment of the High Court on the
basis of the information furnished by the counsel for the
university. In the Academic Year 1991-92, out of 360
students admitted into the LL.B. course, 74 students were
from other universities. For the Academic Year 1992-93, the
non-Panjab University students were 57 out of 300. In the
Academic Year 1993-94, their strength came down to 47 out of
a total admission of 300 students. The question is - is this
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7
rule valid? IN other words, the issue is whether the
weightage of ten percent marks given to students of one’s
own university in the matter of admission to different
courses in its constituent of affiliated colleges is
permissible where the admission is not based upon a common
entrance test? Inasmuch as a certain dissonance is found in
the decisions on the subject, we have heard the counsel at
some length. Sri Dhruv Mehta, learned counsel for the Panjab
University, has brought to our notice the several decisions
on the subject to which a brief reference would be in order.
In D.N.Chanchala v. State of Mysore [1971 Suppl.
S.C.R.608], a three-Judge Bench of this Court considered the
validity of Rule 9(1) of the Mysore Medical Colleges
(selection for Admission) Rules, 1970 relating to admission
to M.B.B.S. course. Rule 9(1) provided that the seats in the
general pool shall be distributed university-wise, i.e.,
seats in colleges affiliated to the Karnataka University
shall be allotted to persons passing from colleges
affiliated to that university and seats in colleges
affiliated to Bangalore and Mysore Universities shall
respectively be allotted to persons passing from colleges
affiliated to each such university provided that not more
than twenty percent of the seats in the colleges affiliated
to any university may, in the discretion of selection
committee, be allotted to students passing from colleges
affiliated to any other university in the State or elsewhere
in India. The validity of the rule was questioned on the
ground that it brings about an unreasonable classification
which is neither intelligible nor has a rational nexus with
the object of the rule. It was submitted that when there is
one selection committee for all the government medical
colleges in all the three universities and 59 private
colleges affiliated to them, the reservation of eighty
percent of seats in favour of students of the same
university is neither reasonable nor valid. The challenge to
the validity was repelled holding that "there is nothing
undesirable in ensuring that those attached to such
universities have their ambitions to have training in
specialised subjects like medicine satisfied through
colleges affiliated to their own universities...The fact
that a candidate having lesser marks might obtain admission
at the cost of another having higher marks from other
university does not necessarily mean that a less meritorious
candidate gets advantage over a more meritorious one. As is
well-known, different universities have different standards
in the examination held by them. A preference to one
attached to one university in its own institutions for post-
graduate or technical training is not uncommon.... Further,
the Government which bears the financial burden of running
the Government colleges is entitled to lay down criteria for
admission in its own colleges and to decide the sources from
which admission would be made, provided, of course, such
classification is not arbitrary and has a rational basis and
a reasonable connection with the object of the rules." The
argument of excessive reservation in favour of same
university candidates was also repelled.
In Jagdish Saran v. Union of India [1980 (2) S.C.R.
831], the admission rules prescribed by the Delhi University
provided that seventy percent of the seats at the post-
graduate level in the medical courses shall be reserved for
students who have obtained their M.B.B.S. degree from the
same university. The remaining thirty percent seats were
open to all, including the graduates of Delhi. Krishna
Iyer,J., speaking for the three-Judge Bench, reviewed all
the decisions rendered till then on the subject including
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7
D.N.Chanchala. From the last mentioned decision, the learned
Judge drew the conclusion that "University-wise prefential
treatment may still be consistent with the rule of equality
of opportunity where it is to correct an imbalance or
handicap and permit equality in the larger sense....If
university-wise classification for post-graduate medical
education is shown to be relevant and reasonable and the
differential has a nexus to the larger goal of equalisation
of educational opportunities, the vice of discrimination may
not invalidate the rule." The learned Judge rejected the
argument that since every university is providing similar
reservation, the reservation cannot be said to be
unreasonable. The reasonableness of any such rule has to be
examined on a totality of the facts and cannot be justified,
the learned Judge said, merely because other universities
have provided a similar rule. The learned Judge pointed out
that the admissions to post-graduate medical courses are
determined on the basis of a common entrance test. Inasmuch
as the students of Delhi University are drawn from all over
India and are not confined to the Delhi region, the learned
Judge held, the rule is "not that invidious". The learned
Judge also recognised the desire of the students for
institutional continuity in education and recognised it as
one of the ground justifying the reservation. The argument
of excessive reservation was rejected on the ground that the
material placed before the Court was imperfect and
inadequate to form a basis for invalidating the rule.
In Dr. Pradeep Jain v.Union of India [1984 (3)
S.C.C.654], the Court opined that wholesale reservation made
by some of the State governments on the basis of domicile or
requirement of residence within the State or on the basis of
institutional preference for students who have passed the
qualifying examination held by the university or the State
and excluding all students not satisfying the said
requirement, regardless of merit, is unconstitutional being
violative of Article 14. Affirming that anyone from any
where in the country, irrespective of his language,
religion, place of birth or residence, is entitled to be
afforded equal chance of admission to any secular
educational course anywhere in the country, but, at the same
time, recognising the de facto inequalities existing in the
society and the need for affirmative action on that account,
the Court directed that thirty percent of the seats in the
M.B.B.S course and fifty percent of the seats in the post-
graduate medical courses in all the government colleges in
the country should be set apart for being filled purely on
the basis of merit. Students from all over the country were
held entitled to compete for these seats and the admission
was directed to be based upon merit and merit alone. [The
above percentage was brought down to fifteen percent and
twenty five percent respectively in the subsequent decision
in Dr.Dinesh Kumar v. Motilal Nehru College (1986 (3)
S.C.C.727)]. The discussion in Para 19 of the Judgment is
relevant since it refers to the various contending factors,
the earlier decisions of these Court and the direction in
which the court ought to proceed. The court also held that
so far as super-specialities are concerned, there should be
no reservation either on the basis of institutional
preference or otherwise and that admissions should be
granted purely on merit determined on All-India basis.
In State of Rajasthan v. Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta [1989
(1) S.C.C.93], the Rajasthan University provided that
admission to post-graduate medical courses in the colleges
affiliated to the said university shall be based upon the
merit determined at the competitive examination called ’PG".
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7
The PG competitive examination was common to all the five
medical colleges in the State. The rule, however, provided
further that "(d) the total marks so obtained (at the PG
competitive examination shall be converted into percentage.
The percentage so obtained shall be increased as follows:
(i) by five if the applicant passed the final MBBS
examination from the same institution from which selections
are being made." The validity of sub-clause (ii) of clause
(d) alone was challenged as violative of Article 14. The
Court noticed that all the five medical colleges in the
State [located at Jaipur, Bikaner, Udaipur, Jodhpur and
Ajmer] were not similarly situated in the sense that Jaipur
Medical College was generally considered to be the best -
also because it offered many more PG courses than other
colleges. The Court held that addition of five percent marks
to the marks obtained by students who have passed their
examination from, say, Jaipur Medical College, in the matter
of admission to post-graduate medical courses in that
medical college, brings about an extremely unfair and unjust
result. In the case of admission to post-graduate medical
courses where each mark counts, addition of five percent
marks on the ground of institutional [same college]
preference was held to be excessive and unreasonable and,
therefore, void. It was pointed out that by virtue of the
said rule of preference, students with far less marks would
steal a march over a student securing higher marks only
because he has passed his M.B.B.S. examination from the same
college.
In Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Thukral
Anjali Dev Kumar [1989 (2) S.C.C.249], the admission rules
provided a preference in favour of "candidates applying for
admission at the parent institution". The note appended to
the rule defined the expression "parent institution" to mean
"the medical college at which the candidate has passed his
qualifying examination". The matter again related to
admission to post-graduate medical courses. The rule was
struck down by this Court holding that it practices a patent
discrimination and that there is no intelligible differentia
to justify the said classification, viz., college-wise
preference. The Bench comprising M.M.Dutt and
T.K.Thommen,JJ. followed the decision in Dr.Ashok Kumar
Gupta and held that college-based institutional preference
is impermissible. The unfairness of the rule was held to be
demonstrable and patent. The Court also rejected the
contention that because the standard of the students in
practical examinations differ from college to college, the
college-wise preference was not invalid.
In P.K.Goyal v. Uttar Pradesh Medical Council [1992 (3)
S.C.C.232], the relevant rule provided that "based on the
marks obtained at the competitive entrance examination and
the candidates’s choice of the course, a merit list shall be
prepared for each college." To wit, while the admission to
post-graduate medical courses in Uttar Pradesh was
determined on the basis of marks obtained at the combined
entrance examination conducted by the government, the rules
provided at the same time that admission shall be
institution-wise, i.e., from among the students who have
passed M.B.B.S. course from that particular college. This
was held to be violative of Article 14 following the
decisions in Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta and Thukral Anjali Dev
Kumar.
In Anant Madaan v. State of Haryana [1995 (2)
S.C.C.135], decided by a Bench of two Judges including, one
of us [B.P.Jeevan Reddy,J.], the challenge was to a rule
made by the Government of Haryana providing that in matter
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7
of admission to M.B.B.S./B.D.S. courses, eighty five percent
of the seats shall be reserved for candidates who have
studied 10th, 11th and 12th examinations from
schools/colleges outside the State of Haryana but whose
parents were either residing in or domiciled in the State of
Haryana. The challenge to the rule was repelled following
the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in
D.P.Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat [1955 (1) S.C.R.1215]
and the decisions in Jagdish Saran, Dr.Pradeep Jain and
Dinesh Kumar. The impugned rule was, however, treated as a
rule providing preference on the ground of
domicile/residence.
Sanjay Ahlawat v. Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak
[1995 (2) S.C.C.762] was again a case from the State of
Haryana. The decision was rendered by a Bench of two Judges,
including one of us [B.P.Jeevan Reddy,J.J. The challenge was
to the rule providing that in the matter of admission to
post-graduate medical courses, preference be given to local
candidates by adding ten extra marks, i.e., to students
passing the M.B.B.S. examination from the Rohtak Medical
College. The rule further provided that students who are
residents or domiciled in the State of Haryana but who have
passed their M.B.B.S. examination from a medical college
outside the State of Haryana shall be added five marks. The
validity of the rule was sustained observing that it was not
a case of college-wise, or for that matter university-wise,
reservation but it is a rule providing for preference on the
basis of domicile. It was held on the basis of facts and
figures furnished by the State that the said rule did not
have the effect of shutting the doors of admission to
students passing their M.B.B.S. course from other medical
colleges than the Rohtak Medical College, which was said to
be the only medical college in the State of Haryana. It was
shown to the Court that outside students also got admission
in reasonable numbers. The Court accepted the explanation
furnished by the State that extra marks were awarded to
graduates of the Rohtak College to ensure that medical
facilities in the State are not impaired because of dearth
of doctors. The Court accepted the explanation that
residents of Haryana will, by and large, remain in Haryana
after obtaining medical degrees and that their services will
be available to the people of the State. In view of these
circumstances, the rule was held to be not violative of
Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
Lastly, we may refer to a three-Judge Bench decision in
Gujarat University v. Rajiv Gopinath Bhatt [1996 (4)
S.C.C.60]. The Gujarat University invited applications for
admission to two super-speciality courses, D.M. and M.C.H.,
the admission whereto was to be made based upon the marks
obtained at the entrance examination conducted by the
university. Because of the small number of seats available
in the said courses, the rule provided that "first
preference will be given to candidates from Gujarat
University. Second preference will be given to candidates
from other universities of Gujarat State. Any vacancy
remaining after this shall remain unfilled". By the time,
the appeal came up for hearing before this Court, the appeal
bad become infructuous as noticed in Para 4 of the Judgment,
inasmuch as the respondent was allowed to join the course
and had also completed the course by that date. In that view
of the matter, the Court was of the opinion that it is not
actually required to examine the grievance made on behalf of
the appellant-university against the judgment of the High
Court which had struck down the rule. Even so, at the
instance of the counsel for the university, the court
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7
examined the validity of the rule. The High Court had relied
upon the decision of this Court in Jagdish Saran and Dr.
Pradeep Jain for invalidating the rule. This Court, however,
sustained the rule, except the last sentence therein, on the
following reasoning:
"Without examining that question
in detail, it may be pointed out
that the aforesaid judgments
(Jagdish Saran and Pradeep Jain)
were not in connection with the
admission in super-speciality
course. At the same time, we
reiterate that object of any
institution while selecting
applicants for admission is select
the best amongst the applicants,
regional and other considerations
which do not satisfy the test of
Art.14 of the Constitution should
not affect the merit criteria. But
from time to time, this court
taking into consideration the local
and regional compulsion have been
making efforts to strike a balance
so that the students who have
pursued the studies in a particular
State and have been admitted in the
medical colleges of that State are
not suddenly thrown on the street
when question of their admission in
super seats are limited in number."
After referring to certain observations in Dr.Pradeep
Jain and Anant Madaan, the Court observed, "(T)herefore if a
rule has been framed that out of the merit list prepared,
preference is to be given for admission in the super
speciality courses to the students of the University in
question, per se it cannot be held to be arbitrary,
unreasonable or violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution."
From the decided cases, following principles emerge:
(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
providing greater weight to merit. The practice all over the
country today, as a result of the decisions of this Court,
is to make fifteen percent of the seats in M.B.B.S. course
and twenty five percent 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 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 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7
at a common entrance test/examination [on the basis of which
admissions are made] the rule of university-wise preference
too must shed some of its relevance. The explanation of
difference in evaluation, standard of education 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 regulate the process of admission and
their desire to provide for their own students should 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
admission to super-specialities, though in the recent
decision in Rajiv Gopinath Bhatt, a different view appears
to have been taken while affirming the principle of merit,
at the same time. In the larger interest of the nation, it
is dangerous to depreciate merit and excellence in any
field.
Now let us examine the facts of the case before us from
the standpoint of above principles. The reservation being
university-wise, it cannot be said to be bad. Having regard
to the fact that the case is one of admission to LL.B course
and also having regard to the fact that admission of ten
percent of marks is yet on the higher side. The result of
the rule is evident in the figures mentioned hereinbefore.
The representation of students from other universities
appears to be coming down steadily. In the present
competitive age, ten percent of marks will make a
substantial difference. May be, the addition, if any, should
not exceed five percent
Inasmuch as the admissions concerned herein pertain to
the year 1993-94, it is snot possible to give any relief to
the appellant herein. We do, however, hope and trust that
the university will take into consideration the observations
made herein and modify the rule accordingly so as to avoid
any avoidable litigation and complications for the next
academic year.
The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No order
as to costs.