# D. N. CHANCHALA v. STATE OF MYSORE AND ORS. ETC - **Citation:** [1971] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 608 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1971-05-03 - **Case number:** Writ Petitions Nos. 618 to 622 of 1970 - **Bench:** J. M. Shelat, I. D. Dua, V. Bhargava - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/d-n-chanchala-v-state-of-mysore-and-ors-etc-5377 - **Pages:** 26 ## Headnote Mysore Medical Colleges (Selection fbr Admission) Rules 1970- -Scope of Government's rule making power-Rules in University Acts laying down qualifications for admission do not deprive Government of power to rt· gulate admission to i'ts own medical colleges affiliated to the UniversitiesUniversity-wise distribution of seats under r. 9(1) not violative of .A.rt. 14 of Constitution-Setting apart of certain number of seats under r. 4 and reservation of seats under r. 5 whether excessive-Whether violative of Art. 15(4) of Constitution-Requirement of 10 years residence in state under r. 3-Jntermittent residence does not satisfy rule-Classification of children of political sufferers under r. 4(h) whether a reasonable classification1·erm 'political sufferer' whether. vague. Constitution of India 1950-Rule 9(1) of Mysore Medical Colleges (Selection for Admission) Rules 1970 whether violates Art. 14-Rules 4 tind 5 whether make excessive reservation-Whether Violative of Art. 15(4)- Rule 4(h) making reservation in favour of children of 'political suf}ereri whether discriminatory. The Government of Mysore State conducts four medical colleges tv.•o of which are affiliated to the Universities of Mysore and Bangalore, the other two being affiliated to Karnatak University. C passed her pro-university course examination from Bangalore University with 67 % marks in optional subjects, namely Physics, Chemistry and Biology. She then passed the B.Sc. Part I examination of Karnatak University, Under the Ordinances of the Karnatak University, she was entitled to be admitted to the M.B.B.S. course of Karnatak University. However the Selection Committee formed under the Mysore Medical Colleges (Selection for Admission) Rules 1970 did not select her for admission to that course because of Rule 9 of the said Rules under which preference for admission to a medical college run by a University was given to students who had passed the P.U.C. Examination of the same University and only 20% of the seats were avail· able to those passing the P.U.C. Examination of other Universities. C filed a writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution on the following contentions: (1) that once the petitioner was eligible for admission to a medical college affiliated to the Karnatak University according to the Ordinances of that University, the State Government could not make rules, the effect of which was to deprive her of admission; (2) that the university-wise distribution of seats provided under r. 9(1) was discriminatory and being without any rational basis violated Art. 14 of the Constitution; (3) that the reservation of seats under rr. 4 & 5 for the various categories of per· sons set out therein was far more excessive than permitted by the decisions of this Court and was in violation of Art. 15(4). V passed her P.U.C. examination from a government college affiliated to Venkateshwar University in Andbra Pradesh with Physics, Chemistry and Biology as her optional subjects, securing in those subjects 150 out of 200 marks i.e. 75')(,. On July 1970 she made an application for selection D. N. CHANOHALA v. MYSORE (She/at J.) 609 to a seat in in any one of the medical colleges affiliated to Karnatak UniA versity. The Selection Committee did not include her in the list o~ selected candidates arid the reason given was that she was not a resident of the State of Mysore for not less than 10 years at any time prior to the date of the application for a seat as required by r. 3 of the Mysore Medical Colleges (Selection for Admission) Rules 1970. In this connection the petitioner filed a certificate from the Tahsildar, Bellary that she had resided in the State of Mysore for a period of 10 years before her applicatiod. 1 B It was further stated on her behalf that though she had left the State of Mysore on the transfer of her father to Andhra Pradesh before she was ten years old, she had continued to come and reside at her family house in the State of Mysore during her vacations. • ## Text _Characters 0–39,964 of 75,108. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39964 for what follows._ 608 A B c D E F G H D. N. CHANCHALA v. STATE OF MYSORE AND ORS. ETC. (with co1U1ected petitions) May 3, 1971 [J. M. SHELAT, I. D. DUA AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.] Mysore Medical Colleges (Selection fbr Admission) Rules 1970- -Scope of Government's rule making power-Rules in University Acts laying down qualifications for admission do not deprive Government of power to rt· gulate admission to i'ts own medical colleges affiliated to the UniversitiesUniversity-wise distribution of seats under r. 9(1) not violative of .A.rt. 14 of Constitution-Setting apart of certain number of seats under r. 4 and reservation of seats under r. 5 whether excessive-Whether violative of Art. 15(4) of Constitution-Requirement of 10 years residence in state under r. 3-Jntermittent residence does not satisfy rule-Classification of children of political sufferers under r. 4(h) whether a reasonable classification1·erm 'political sufferer' whether. vague. Constitution of India 1950-Rule 9(1) of Mysore Medical Colleges (Selection for Admission) Rules 1970 whether violates Art. 14-Rules 4 tind 5 whether make excessive reservation-Whether Violative of Art. 15(4)- Rule 4(h) making reservation in favour of children of 'political suf}ereri whether discriminatory. The Government of Mysore State conducts four medical colleges tv.•o of which are affiliated to the Universities of Mysore and Bangalore, the other two being affiliated to Karnatak University. C passed her pro-university course examination from Bangalore University with 67 % marks in optional subjects, namely Physics, Chemistry and Biology. She then passed the B.Sc. Part I examination of Karnatak University, Under the Ordinances of the Karnatak University, she was entitled to be admitted to the M.B.B.S. course of Karnatak University. However the Selection Committee formed under the Mysore Medical Colleges (Selection for Admission) Rules 1970 did not select her for admission to that course because of Rule 9 of the said Rules under which preference for admission to a medical college run by a University was given to students who had passed the P.U.C. Examination of the same University and only 20% of the seats were avail· able to those passing the P.U.C. Examination of other Universities. C filed a writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution on the following contentions: (1) that once the petitioner was eligible for admission to a medical college affiliated to the Karnatak University according to the Ordinances of that University, the State Government could not make rules, the effect of which was to deprive her of admission; (2) that the university-wise distribution of seats provided under r. 9(1) was discriminatory and being without any rational basis violated Art. 14 of the Constitution; (3) that the reservation of seats under rr. 4 & 5 for the various categories of per· sons set out therein was far more excessive than permitted by the decisions of this Court and was in violation of Art. 15(4). V passed her P.U.C. examination from a government college affiliated to Venkateshwar University in Andbra Pradesh with Physics, Chemistry and Biology as her optional subjects, securing in those subjects 150 out of 200 marks i.e. 75')(,. On July 1970 she made an application for selection D. N. CHANOHALA v. MYSORE (She/at J.) 609 to a seat in in any one of the medical colleges affiliated to Karnatak UniA versity. The Selection Committee did not include her in the list o~ selected candidates arid the reason given was that she was not a resident of the State of Mysore for not less than 10 years at any time prior to the date of the application for a seat as required by r. 3 of the Mysore Medical Colleges (Selection for Admission) Rules 1970. In this connection the petitioner filed a certificate from the Tahsildar, Bellary that she had resided in the State of Mysore for a period of 10 years before her applicatiod. 1 B It was further stated on her behalf that though she had left the State of Mysore on the transfer of her father to Andhra Pradesh before she was ten years old, she had continued to come and reside at her family house in the State of Mysore during her vacations. • J. challenged the validity of r. 4(h) of the aforesaid Rules on the ground that the reservation for children of 'political sufferers' made therein was not valid under the constitution. Held: (i) So long as the rules for selection applicable to the medical colleges run by Government do not suffer from any constitutional or legal infirmity, they cannot be challenged as the Government can regulate admission to its own institutions. The objection that it cannot by such rules, provide for requirements over and above those laid down by the univer· sities for eligibility, cannot be sustained. [617D·E] (ii) Since the universities are set up for satisfying the educational needs of different areas where they are set up and medical colleges are establish· ed in those areas, it can safely be presumed that they also were so set up to satisfy the needs for medical training of those attached to those universj .. ties. There is nothing undesirable in ensuring as has been done under r. 9 (I) that those attached to such universities have their ambitions to have training in specialised subjects like medicine satisfied through colle11es attached to their own universities. Such a basis for selection bas not the disadvantage of districtwise or unitwise selection as any student from any part of the state can pass the qualifying examination in any of the three universities irrespective of his place of birth or residence. Further the rules confer a discretion on the selection committee to admit outsiders upto 20o/o of the total available seats in any one of these colleges i.e. those who have passed the equivalent examination held by any other university not only in the state but also elsewhere in India. It was therefore impossible to say that the basis of selection adopted in those rules would defeat the object of the rules as was said in Rajendran's case. [619E·620C] The rules lay down a valid classification. Candidates passing through the qualifying examination held by a university form a class by themselves as distinguished from those passing through such examination from the other two universities. Such a classification has a reasonable nexus with the object of the rules, namely, to cater to the needs of candidates who would naturally look to their own university to advance their training in technical studies, such as medical studies. The rules therefore cannot justly be attached on the ground of hostile discrimination or as being other. wise in breach of Art. 14. [620G-621A] (iii) Setting apart' ~O seats ~der r. 4 is ~ot a r~:vation but laying down sources for selection necess1ated by cer.ta1n ovcrrldmg considerations such as obligations towards those who serve the interest of the country'; security, certain reciprocal obligations and the like. The reservation under r. S though apparently appearing on the high side, not having been shown as unreasonably excessive the contention in regard to it must fail. [622BJ 39-1 S.C. India/71 c D E F G H ~.10 B D E F G H StJPRBMB COURT llEPOllTS (1971] SUPP. S.C.Jl, (iv) The residence contemplated by r. 3 must prima facie have an el•· ment of continuity or regularity in residence and would not mean an intermittent stay such as during the vacations. It would thus appear that V did not, withstanding the certificate of residence issued by the Tehsildar, comply with the requirement of 10 years residence under r. 3. However the percentage of 7'5 % marks claimed by the petitioner was only in respect of optional subjects. Her aggregate marks were only' 65 % as compared to 65 ·6% obtained by the student last selected and on the basis of this percentage her application was rightly rejected. It was therefore not neces· sary to go into the facts relating to the petitioner's residence in Mysore State or the validity of r. 3. [624B·F, G:·Hl (v) Per Shela! & Bhargava, JJ. (Dua 1. dissenting) The definition of 'political sufferer' in r. 4(h) is in clear and unambi· guous language, besides containing sufficient details so as to distinctively identify the persons who would fall within it. The person must have suf· fered incarceration, whether as imprisonment or detention, for a period of at least six months or been awarded capital punishment, or must have died while actually in detention or undergoing imprisonment, or killed or incapacitated permanently by firing or lathi charge by the police or by the military, or must have lost employment, property, or means of livelihood. These should have been the consequences of his having participated in the national movement for the emancipation of India. There Was thus no ambiguity in the definition of politi.·al sufferer which would result in discrimination in administering the rule. [626F·H] It is not unreasonable to extend the principle on which Art. 15 (4) is based to the children of political sufferers who in consequence of their participation in the emancipation struggle became unsettled in life, in some cases economically ruined, and were therefore not in a position to make available to their children that class of education which would place them in fair competition with the children of those who did not suffer from thnt disadvantage. If that be so, it must follow that the definition of 'political sufferer' not only makes the children of such sufferers distinauishablo from the rest but such classification has a reasonable nexus with the object of the rules which can be nothing else than a fair and just distribution of seats. [629G·630C] Per Dua, 1. The object of selection for admission to the medical col· leges, considered in the light of the directive principles of State policy contained in our Constitution appears to be to select the best material from amongst the candidates in order not only to provide them with ade. quate means of livelihood, but also to provide the much needed medical aid to the pleop!e and to improve public health generally. It cannot be con· fidently said that there is a reasonable nexus between the differentia on which the children of political sufferers are classified as a distinct group and tho object of admission to the Medical Colleges. In view however of the admitted fact that the marks obtained by J were lower than the marks secured by the last candidate admitted from the category of the children of political sufferers, the petitioner was not entitled to claim admission, even if the children of political sufferers were not given any priority. On this ground alone the petition of J deserved to be dismissed. Accordingly it was unnecessary to go into the question of the invalidity of r. 4(h) in this case. [632F·HJ In view of the above findings the writ petitions must be dismissed. Rajendran v. Madras, [1968] 2 S.C.R. 786, Periakaruppan v. Tamil Nadu, W.P. 285 and 314 of 1970, decided on Sept. 23, 1970 and Balaj/ v. Mysore, [1963] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 439, distinltlished. '· D. N. CHANCHALA •• 'MYSOl\ll (Shelat,J.) 611 Andhra Pradesh v. Lavu Narendranath, C.As. 2161-A and 2161B of A 1970, decided on Feb. II, 1971 and Chitra Ghosh v. Union of India, [1970) 1 $.C.R. 413, applied. Surendrakumar v. State, A.I.R. 1969 Raj. 182, Umesh Chandra v. V. N. Singh, [1967) 1.LR. 46 Pal 616, Kerala v. Jacob, A.l.R. 1964 Ker. 316, Ramchandra v. State, Al.R. 1961 M.P. 247, Subhashini v. State, A.I.R. 1966 Mys. 40 and Anil Kumar v. Mysore, (1969) 17 L.R. (Mysore) 110, refer- ~~ B ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petitions Nos. 618 to 622 of 1970. Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of fundamental rights. Lakshmlnarasu, Vineet Kumar and Bindra Thakur, for the C petitioners (in W. P. Nos. 618 and 620 to 622 of 1970). S. K. Venkataranga, Shyamala Pappu, Vineet Kumar and Bindra Thakur, for the petitioner (in W. P. No. 619 of 1970). Niren De, Attorney-General, R. C. Mahindra and S. P. Nayar, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (in W. P. Nos. 618 and 620 to 622 D of 1970). Sunder Swami, Advocate-General, Mysore and S. P. Nayar for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (in W. P. No. 619 of 1970). R. B. Datar, for intervener (in W. P. No. 621 of 1970). The Judgment of J. M. SHELAT and v. BHARGAVA, JJ. was delivered by SHELAT, J. I. D. DUA, J. gave a partly dissenting Opinion. Shelat, J'.-These five petitions have been filed by candidates who failed to be selected for admission in Government Medical colleges in the State of Mysore and challenge the validity of the Selection Rules framed by the Government. Since they raise common questions, it is expedient to deal with them together and dispose them of by a common judgment. Writ petition No. 619 of 1970, we were told by counsel, is the most comprehensive of them all and therefore we shall deal with 1t first and as typical of the rest. As the rest of the petitions raise the same questions, it is not necessary to deal with each of them separately. Writ petitions Nos. 621 and 622, however, raise certain additional questions which will be dealt with to that extent separately. Writ Petition Ne. 619 of 1970 The petitioner in. thiB Writ Petition passed the Secondary School Leaving exruninati9n in March 1968 obtaining first class marks. In March 1969, she passed the Pre-University Course E F G H 612 A B c D E F G H SUPRl!ME COURT REPORTS. (1971 SUPP. s.c.R. Exami~tion _held by ~he Bangalore U~versity s~curing 67 % marks m optional sub1ects, namely, Physics, CheIDistry and Biology, and 71 % marks in the aggregate. Her father having retired at Dharwar, she prosecuted her further studies for B.Sc. Part I examinailion in the Karnatak Science College, Dharwar, a college afliliated to the Karnatak University. She passed the B.Sc. Part I examination held by that University securing once again :i first class. Under Ordinance 144(c) of the Karnatak University, a student having passed the B.Sc. Part I examination with Physics, Chemistry and Biology as his optional subjects would be a eligible for admission to a medical course provided he has obtained the minimum marks prescribed for admission to that course from time to time. The petitioner having obtained first class marks in the B.Sc. Part I examination was, therefore, eligible for admission to the medical course in the medical colleges affiliated to that University. There are three universities in Mysore State, namely, Karnatak, Mysore and Bangalore universities. All the three universities hold pre-university course examination, the passing of which makes a student eligible for admission to courses leading to university degrees. But, whereas the Karnatak Oniversity requires the passing of B.Sc. Part I examination leading to M.B.B.S. as the minimum qualification for being eligible for medical course, the other two universities require the passing of what is c.illed the Pre-Professional examination, which is equivalent to B.Sc. Part I leading to M.B.B.S. degree of the Karnatak University. The State of Mysore conduots four medical colleges ; the Government Medical College at Mysore, which is affiliated to the Mysore University, the Government Medical College at Ilangalore, which is afliliated to the Bangalore University, and the Karnatak Medical College at Hubli and the Government Medical College at Bellary, whkh are afliliated to the Karnatak University. All the four medical colleges together have 765 seats in the aggregate. Besides these four institutions, there are also private managed medical colleges at Manipal, Davangere, Belgaum and Gulbarga with 120 seats in each of them, admission upto 10% therein being under the control of the Government. The State Government has framed rules. called the Mysore Medical Colleges (Selection for AJmissionJ Rules, 1970 regulating admission to Government medical colleges and for a certain number of seats specified therein in each of the said private medical colleges. Under these rules, the selection for admission to the Government medical colleges as also for the seats under the control of the Government iin other colleges is entrusted to a selection committee constituted by the Government. D. N. CHANCHALA v. MYSORE (She/at, J.) In- accordance with the said ruloo, the petitioner applied to the selection committee for admission to any one of the medical colleges affiliated to the Karnatak University. She was, however, not selected.· For appreciating the reasons why the committee could not select her, one has first to examine the said rules framed by the Government. These rules are annexure '3' to the writ petition. Under r. 1(2), these rules are to apply for selection for admission to the Pre-Professional/B.Sc. Part I Course leading to M.B.B.S. in the said Government medical colleges and to 59 seats in the aggregate in the four private medical colleges mentioned therein. The expression "the Pre-Professional/B.Sc. Part 1 Course leading to M.B.B.S." has been used in sub-r. (2) of r. 1 to mean Pre-Professional course in Bangalore and Mysore universities, and B.Sc. Part I course leading to M.B.B.S. in the Karnatak University. The scheme under the rules Is that on passing the Pre-University Course examination a pupil becomes eligible to apply for admission to the Pre-Professional Course in Bangalore and Mysore universities and to the B.Sc. Part I Course leading to M:B.B.S. in the Karnatak University, the common qualification for eligibility to both the said courses in the three universities being the passing of the P.U.C. examination. Rule 2 prescribes the qualification for eligibility. Under this rule the candidate must. have passed the P.U.C. examination or the XI standard of the Higher Secondary Schools examination of any university established by law in India or of any institution recognized by the State Government, or an equivalent examination with (i) Physics, Chemisl!y and Biology, or (ii) Chemistry, Botany and Zoology as optional subjects, or, as provided by cl. (b), who is a graduate of any univer-· sity with (i) Physics, Chemistry and Biology, or (ii) Chemistry, Botany and Zoology as optional subjects. Such a candidate must have obtained specified percentage of marks and must be within the age limit prescribed by the three universities. Under rule 2, therefore, there are two categories of candidates who only are eligible for selection; (I) those who have passed the P.U.C. exam;nation or an equivalent examination, and (2) those who are graduates, having graduated with the optional subjects specified therein. The petitioner, not being a graduate, fell under the first category of candidates eligible for selection. Rule 2(2) provides that out of the available number of seats, after deducting the number of seats set apan under r. 4, 80% of the seats shall be open for those who have passed the P.U.C. examination and 20% for those who are graduates. Rule 4·sets apart in all 60 seats for different categories of persons, namely, students from Union territories and States where . there are no medical colleges, students from relatively less developed Commonwealth countries, cultural scholars and students under T.C.S. of the 613 A B c D E F G H 814 SUPREMI COVRT REPORTS (1971] SUPP. s.c.R. B D G • Colombo Plan and spec\aJ Commonwea11A Assistance Plan, students from Nepal, repatriates from Burma, Ceylon, Mozambiquo cbildcen of Defence Personnel and Ex-Defence Personnel, 1;tu: ?ents w~o have ~as.sed L.AM.S. and. L.U.M.S., lady students takmg family planmng programme, children of political sufferers. and lastly. students from Goa. Rule 5 provides that out of the number of ~ts available for allotment, after deducting the number of seats set apart under r. 4, 15 % shall be reserved for persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, 3 % shall be reserved for persons belonging to the Scheduled Tribes and 30 % shall be reserved for persons belonging to socially and educationally backward classes. Rule 7(1) provides for the constitution of the Selection Committee, and a. (2) thereof entrusts oo the Commiittee the duty to select candidates possessing the requisite qualification for admission to the said Pre-Professional I B.Sc. Part I Course leading to M.B.B.S. Rules 9 deals with distribution of seats among the several colleges. a. (!) thereof provides .that seats in the general pool shall be distributed university-wise, that is, seats in colleges alliliated to the Karnatak University shall be allotted to" persons passing from colleges alliliated to that university. and seats in colleges alliliated to Bangalore and Mysore Universities shall respectively be allotted to persons passmg from colleges alliliated to each such university, provided that not more than 20% of the seats in the colleges alliliated to any university may, in the discretion of the Selection Committee, be allotted to students passing from colleges alliliated to any Other university in the State or elsewhere in India. The rest of the rules do not affect the petitioner's case, and therefore, need not be cited. Brietly, the effect of these rules is that the qualification for selection to the Pre-Professional Course, as it is known in Mysore and Bangalore universities, or B.Sc. Part I Course leading to M.B.B.S. in the Karnatak University, is that the candidate has either passed the P.U.C. examination, or is a graduate having had the aforesaid optional subjects. The selection is to be made by the seleotion committA:e under r. 7(2) for admission to the Pre. Professional I B.Sc. Part I leading to M.B.B.S. A student getting admission to tlie aforesaid course has thus to pass the Pre-Professional examination held by the Mysore and Bangalore uni¥ersities, or B.Sc. Part I leading to M.B.B.S. examination held by the Karnatak University. It is only after passing this examinarkm that a candidate can prosecute .the regular M.B.B.S. course. . The common qualification for being selected for the Pro-Professional or B.Sc. Part I leading to M.B.B.S. degree being the pasaing of die P.U.C. munina11on or ct l!eing a: gradulto, pallllin& of B.SC. :f'att I examination by a mden• is ilrelBYaDt. • the mmb coan.., ed for scleclioD ~ dlclBc oblained bf biin cidm" in P..lJ.C. aam. 1'111tion or Ill& D.S.. aaiam.-. JIB aJrWy stated. r. 2~2> .. o. N. CHANCHALA Y. KYSOllE (She/at, J.) apart upto 20% of the seats for those who are graduates, i.e .. those who have obtained B.Sc. degree. A student passing the · P.U.C. examination or an examination equivalent to that examination can branch off either to (I) Pre-Professional /B.Sc. Part I leading to M.B.B.S .• or (2) B.Sc. degree course. Under the rules no direct admission to M.B.B.S. course is possible because every student wishing to take up that course has first to be selected for the Pre-Professional/B.Sc. Part I leading to M.B.B.S. course and pass the requisite examination in that course. Though, for the purposes of selection. marks . obtained at the P.U.C. examination or at the B.Sc. examination only are taken into account and the passing of the B.Sc. Part I examination is for that purpose not relevant, there appears to be one advantage to a candidate who has passed B.Sc. Part I examination with the prescribed optional subjects held by the Karnatak University. That advantage. as appearing from the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner's father and the correspondence between him and the University authorities, is that such a candidate, if selected, would be directly admitted to the M.B.B.S. degree course in the medical colleges alliliated to the Karnatak University. It is not necessary to say anything about what happens in the other universities since we are for the present not concerned with such a question. The second effect of these rules is that if a student has passed the P.U.C. examination held by a particular university, such a student is, by virtue of r. 9(1), eligible for admission in the medical college or colleges alliliated to that university. The Selection Committee, however, has the discretion to allot seats, upto 20% of the seats in the colleges affiliated to a university, to students passing from colleges afliliated ~o any other university in the State or even elsewhere in India. Consequently, the petitioner having passed her P.U.C. examination from Bangalore University could apply for admission in a medical college affiliated to that university. If she were to apply for admisSion in a medical college afliliated to the Karnatak University she could ooly be selected ti> a seat from among seats upto the maximum of 20% of seats left in the discretion of the Selection C.Ollllllltee as provided by r. 9(1). It is true that she had got 67% "marks iD optiaaal lllhjects in the P.U.C. e.~amina tion and students with. 1C$Cl' number of marks. but passing from colleges affiliated w the Karnatak UnWeTsity. got admission. But that was because silo had passed the P.U.C. =ination held by the Bangalore University and wanted admission in a medical 615 B c. D E F G H 6J6 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPOR'lll . [1971) SUPP. s.c.R. college affiliated to another university, namely, the Karnatak University. In view of this consequence, counsel for the petitioner made three submissions : (!) that once the petitioner was eligible for admission to a medical college affiliated to the Karnatak University according to the Ordinances of that university, the State Government could not make rules, the effect of which was to deprive her of admission (2) that the university-wise distribution of seats provided under r. 9(1) was discriminatory and being without any rational basis violated Art. 14 of the Constitution; and (3) that the reservation of seats under rr. 4 and 5 for the various categories of persons set out therein was far more excessive than permitted by the decisions of this Court and was in violation of Art. 15(4). Consequently, rr. 4 and 5 laying down such reservation should be held invalid. We propose to deal with these submissions in the order in which they were placed before us by counsel. As seen earlier, there are two sets of provisions dealing with the teaching of medical courses. The first consists of Ordinances of the universities, and the second consists of the rules framed by the Government for selection of candidates for admission to the Pre-Professional I B.Sc. Part I leading to M.B.B.S. degree. The Ordinances framed by the three universities are made under the different U nivers'ities Acts setting up those universities and under the powers reserved to them under them. These Ordinances are made for the purposes set out in tb1se Acts and for carrying out those purposes. One of such purposes would be the maintenance of certain academic standards in the various faculties taught in the college affiliated to the universities. For the purposes of maintaining such standards the universities lay down certain minimum qualifications for eligibility for entrance in those faculties. These Ordinances and regulations made under the Acts lay down the minimum qualifications required for eligibility and are not to be confused with rules for admission. A candidate may have the minimum qualification so as to make him eligible for entrance in a particular faculty. That does not mean that his being eligible necessarily makes him entitled to admission in that faculty, for, admission can only be commensurate with the number of available seats in such a faculty. The medical colleges in question are not university colleges but have been set up and are being maintained by the State Government from out of public funds. Since they are affiliated to one or the other of the three unlversitie~. the Government cannot frame rules or act inconsistently with the ordinances or the regulations of the universities laying down standards of eligibility. It is nobody's case that the Government has made rules which are D. N. CHANCHALA v. MYSORB (She/at, J.) 617 in any way Inconsistent with the rules for eligibility laid down in A such ordinances and regulations. Since the Government has set up these colleges and maintains them, it has prima facie the power to regulate admission in its own institutions. Counsel for the petitioner pointed out to us no provision from the University Acts which deprives the GovB ernment of the power of making rules for admission in its own colleges. That being so, it cannot be said that the Government has no power to regulate admission in its own colleges or that because a student is eligible for admission under the Vniversity ordinances, he automatically gets a right to admission which he can enforce in a court of law. The rules are limited to admission to the Pre-Professional/ B.Sc. Part I Course leading to M.B.B.S. degree in the Government medical colleges and in respect of 59 seats in the aggregate In the medical colleges run by private management. The control for admission in respect of the 59 seats in the private colleges must have been acquired by the Government with the consent of or under some agreement with those colleges by reason of their getting financial and other aid from the Government. So long as the rules for selection applicable to the colleges run by the Government do not suffer from any constitutional or legal infirmity, they cannot be challenged as the Government can regulate admission to its own institutions. The objection that it cannot, by such rules, 'provide for requirements over and above those laid down by the universities for eligibility cannot be sustained. (See A ndhra Pradesh v. Lavu Narendranath (') wherein the earlier decisions on this subject have been examined and followed.) The next contention was that r. 9(1), which prescribes university-wise .distribution of seats results in discrimination for it lays down a classification which Is neither based on any intelligible differentia, nor has a. rational nexus with the object of the rules. The argument was that although there is one selection committee for all the Government medical colleges in all the three universities and for the said 59 seats in private colleges, students passing from colleges affiliated to a particular university are first admitted in Government medical colleges afliliated to that university and only seats upto 20% in each of such medical col1eges can be allotted to outSiders in the iliscretion of the committee.. The result is that a student having higher marks than the last admitted student is deprived of a seat only for the reason that he had passed his P.U.C. examination from a college afliliated to another university. According to counsel, such a classifica- ·tion has no rational basis and has no reasonable nexus with and (I} C. As. 2161-A and 2161-B of 1970, dee. on Feb. 11, 1971. c D E F G H 618 Sl.!1RDIS COVRT REPORTS (1971] Sl.!1P. S.C.R:. B c D E ' G B is in fact inconsistent with the very object of establishment of Government medical colleges, namely, to train in medicine the. most meritorio~ aJ!longst the candidates seeking admission. In support of this contention counsel relied on Rajendran v .. Madras (') where rule 8 of the selection rules framed by theMadras Government was struck down on the ground of its being; violative of Art. 14. Rule 8 provided that the seats available in the general pool, as also those reserved for the socially and edu· cationally backward classes would be allotted amongst various districts on the basis of the ratio of the population of each district to the total population of the State. The contention was that distribution of seats districtwise would result in denial of better candidates from being selected and candidates of inferior ' calibre getting selected only because they were born in that district where there were fewer candidates of good calibre. In d~ fence of such a classificaltion, two reasons were urged : (!) that if districtwise classification was not provided, candidates from Madras city would get a larger number of seats in proportion to the population of the State, elbowing out candidates from the districts, and (2) if selection was made districtwise, those selected from a district were likely to settle down as practitioners in that district, so that the districts were likely to benefit from their training. It was conceded that Art. 14 permitted classification. But this Court rejected the justification for the aforesaid classification urged by the State on the ground that the first meant that candi· dates from the districts, admitted to be of inferior calibre than candidates from Madras city, would stand a better chance of selection, a result defeating the very object of selection, namdy. to get the best candidates, and the second on the ground that it was neither pleaded in the counter-affidavit of the State, nor had the State placed any facts or figures justifying the plea that stu· dP.nts selected districtwise would settle down as medical practi· tioners in the respective districts where they resided. In Periakaruppan v. Tamil Nadu ('), a rule which provided for distribution of seats unitwise and which set up different selection committees for each unit was held to be bad on the ground that it did not d'iffer much from the districtwise distribution st