# CHlTRA GHOSH & ANOTHER v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS - **Citation:** [1970] 1 S.C.R. 413 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1969-04-25 - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/chltra-ghosh-another-v-union-of-india-and-others-4794 - **Pages:** 8 ## Headnote A CHlTRA GHOSH & ANOTHER v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS April 25, 1969 413 B [M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., J. M. SHELAT, V. BHARGAVA, c D E F G H K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] Constitution of India Arts. 14, 15(1) and (2) and 29(2)-Rules of centrally administered college providing for reservation of seats for spe· cified categories of students-Power to Central Government to nominate students to seats on the basis of classification-If valid. 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 jndia in 1958. The college prospectus containoJ ce'rtain rules relating to the admission of students which made resenftl~ tions of places in the college in favour of various categories of students and provided for nominations to bt. 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 nomina ... tions 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 petition. It was 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 1\rt. 14 of the Constitution; further mor:~ 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 g'.roup 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 thei exception of Himachal Pradesh they do not have any Medic:al 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 Govern1nent servants posted in lndiiln Missions abroad, it is equally well known that due to exigencies of service these persons are faced \Vith difficulties in the matter of educatioit. 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 arrange· ments 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 diffe'rentja which distinguished them from the group to which the appellants belonged. [418C·FJ 414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (I 970] I S.C.R The object of the ct-assification bv the Central Government "'·ho A maintained and ran the institution ~1as 10 select the best available students from sources as classified in the rules and the classificarion 1hcrefore hJJ a rational nexus •vith the object to be achieved. [419C) Shri Rani Krishna /)a/n1ia v. Slzri Justice S. R. Tendolkar & Ot.:!ers [I 959 S.C.R. 279; Minor P. Ra~ndran v. Stal< of Madras, [19681 2 S.C.R. 786; Umerh Ch. Sinha v. V. N. Singh, Principal P.M.C. & Hospital end Ors. J.L.R. 46 Patna 616 referred to. B °fl?e~e "'as no discrimination against the appellants on grounds oniy of rehg1on, race, caste, language, sex or place of birth and thc'rcfore there was no violation of Art. 15 or A ## Text A CHlTRA GHOSH & ANOTHER v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS April 25, 1969 413 B [M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., J. M. SHELAT, V. BHARGAVA, c D E F G H K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] Constitution of India Arts. 14, 15(1) and (2) and 29(2)-Rules of centrally administered college providing for reservation of seats for spe· cified categories of students-Power to Central Government to nominate students to seats on the basis of classification-If valid. 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 jndia in 1958. The college prospectus containoJ ce'rtain rules relating to the admission of students which made resenftl~ tions of places in the college in favour of various categories of students and provided for nominations to bt. 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 nomina ... tions 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 petition. It was 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 1\rt. 14 of the Constitution; further mor:~ 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 g'.roup 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 thei exception of Himachal Pradesh they do not have any Medic:al 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 Govern1nent servants posted in lndiiln Missions abroad, it is equally well known that due to exigencies of service these persons are faced \Vith difficulties in the matter of educatioit. 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 arrange· ments 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 diffe'rentja which distinguished them from the group to which the appellants belonged. [418C·FJ 414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (I 970] I S.C.R The object of the ct-assification bv the Central Government "'·ho A maintained and ran the institution ~1as 10 select the best available students from sources as classified in the rules and the classificarion 1hcrefore hJJ a rational nexus •vith the object to be achieved. [419C) Shri Rani Krishna /)a/n1ia v. Slzri Justice S. R. Tendolkar & Ot.:!ers [I 959 S.C.R. 279; Minor P. Ra~ndran v. Stal< of Madras, [19681 2 S.C.R. 786; Umerh Ch. Sinha v. V. N. Singh, Principal P.M.C. & Hospital end Ors. J.L.R. 46 Patna 616 referred to. B °fl?e~e "'as no discrimination against the appellants on grounds oniy of rehg1on, race, caste, language, sex or place of birth and thc'rcfore there was no violation of Art. 15 or Art. 29. (ii) The appellants did not have any right to challenge the nomination• 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 scats were not in ai:cordance with the rules, such seats must be regarded as not bavina 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 intere. 1 to 4 shall immediately enquire from the candidates who are above the petitiopers in order of merit whether they want the admissions and on their failure to reply m a shor) ume or on their refusal to accept the offer, the admission shall be made either of the petitioners or oi 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. I read with s. 141, Civil Procedure Code seeki,ng 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 l, 1969, a petition was filed under Arts. 133 (I)( c) and 132( 1) of the Constitution for leave to appeal to this Court. In the prayer leave was sought again.,1 che judgment dismissing the writ petition as also the order by which the review petition was disposed of. ln 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 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 o.nly by asking for leave of this Court under Art. 136 which was never done. In the'>e circumstances the arguments of Mr. B. C. Misra for the appcilants were confined to the matters decided by the judgment dated December 3. I 968. It is common ground that the University of Delhi is a statutor" bodv incorporated by the Delhi University Act of I 922 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 II provides that there shall be a Medical Courses Admission B c D E F G H A B c D E F G H CHITRA GHOSH v. UNION (Grover, J.) 417 Committee. It is this committee which finalises the cases of admission except those which are to be referred to the Standing Com· mittee oa 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 re~rvation was approved by the Standing Committee of the Academic Council of tlie Delhi University and finally by the Academic <;:ouncil 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 admissio,n have statutory sancllon and are not of a purely administrative nature. · Before the High Court only two questions were raised. The first was whether die provision for reservation of seats was unconstitutional. The second was whether the nomiinations 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 discrimil!Iation. According to him such reservation was hit by Art. 14 read with clauses (1) and (4) of Art 15 and c}ause (2) of Art: 29 of the Constitution. In addition the system of nominations being made by the GoYeljllment and not by the Admission Committee w:as per st discriminatory. Article 29(2) may be read first. It safS, no citizen shall be denied admissiQa into any educational institution Jllllintained by the State or rficiehing aid out of St.ate funds on ground& ocily of religion, race, caste~ languase or any of them. Under clau8e ( 1) ol Art. 15 the. State cannot discriininate against any citizen on grounds qnty 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) cQDtained in Rule 4 relating to eligibilitv for adinission for ,whom seats are reserved do not fall within the exception contained in cl. 4 of Art. 15. The persons in these categor!es, it is said, cannot be regarded as socially and educationally backward classes of citizens nor can it be supposed that all of them must beloog to schedule castes 'llnd tribes. We are unable to see how Art. 15 (1 ) can be ilnvoked in the present case. The rules do not discriminate between any citizen on grounds o,uly 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 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1970] I S.C.R. grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them. This brings us to Art. l 4. 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('), 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 olhers 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 persoos for whom seats have been reserved arc the sons and daughters of residents of Union territories other than Delhi. These areas are we!I 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 educatioei from these areas should be provided some facility for doi-,ng 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 institution~ imparting medical education in foreign countries. The cultural. Colombo Plan and Thailand scholars arc given admi>sion in medical institutions in this country by reason of reciprocal arrangements of educational and cultural nature. Regarding Jammu & Kaslunir 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 intelligi'ble differentia which distinguishes them from the group to which the appellants belong. J t is the Cenlral 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 can.not be denied the right to decide from what sources the admission will be made. That essentially is a question of policy and depends inter-a/ia 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 (I\ (t959) S.C.R. 279. B c D E F G H A B c D E F G H CHITltA GHOSH v. UNION (Grover,!.) 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 tbe classification. The next question that has to be determined is whether the differentia on which classificatiqn 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 ruin the institution, e.g., the Central Government in the present case. In Minor P. Rajendran v. State of Madras(') it has 11een 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 classi1'¢d in the manner done in the pre~erit case it is difficult to see how that classification has JllO rational nexus with the object of impartinl!: medical education and also of selection for the purpose. The case of Minor P. Rajendran(') 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 decisiQ!l of a foll bench of the Patna High Court in Umesh Ch. Sinha v. V. N. Singh, Principal, P.M.C. & Hospital & Ors.(') be of any avail to the appellants. In that case prefereμtial treatment had bee,n 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 principle governfog admissiOill to the college on the one hand and the pecuniary difficulties or the meritorious services re!IPered by the employees of the University on the other and that prefereintial treatment to the children of these employees would amount to f!vouritism and patronage. There is no question of any preferential treatment being accorded to any particular category or class of persons desii:ous of receiving medical education in the present case. The mere fact that the Ce,ntral Government' Ifas to make the nominations with regard to the reserved seats cannot be considered to be preferential treatment of any kind. As the q1ndidates for the reserved seats have to be drawn from different sources it would be difficult to have uniformitv 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· (I) (1968] 2 S.C.R. 786. (2) I.L.R. 46 Patna. 616' 420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1970] l SC.R. ground of each of them would be different and divergent and there. tore the Central Govcrnm~nt 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 '11 a very reasonatile 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 apoe!lants 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 prOJ>Crly filled up would_ be thrown open to the general pool is wholly unfounded. The Central Government is under no obligation to release those scats to tll.e 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 scats have not been reserved. In our opinion the High Court was in error in going into the question and holding that out of tho 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 an.Y 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 avplied 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 Gov~rnment. It was not, therefore, open to them to assail any of the nominations which had been made. The appeal fails ~nd it is dismissed with no order as to costs. R.K.P.S. Appeal dismissed. A B c D E F G ' I I I I