SUMYRA MEKHRI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner who is a citizen of India hailing from the State of Jammu and Kashmir and who has become a permanent resident of Bangalore from May 1988, has challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 4 (1)(b) of the Karnataka Conduct of Entrance Test for Admission to Post-Graduate Degree and Diploma (Medical and Dental) Courses Rules, 1987, ('the Rules' for short) as it stands after its amendment by notification dated 25-9-1990, which provides that no candidate other than an Indian citizen of Karnataka origin shall be eligible for appearing for the entrance test, unless he or she or his / her parent (father / mother) had been a resident of Karnataka State for a period of ten years or has owned or possessed landed property or house in Karnataka State.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, are these : The petitioner is a citizen of India. She hails from the State of Jammu and Kashmir. She passed M.B.B.S. degree from Government Medical College, Srinagar, in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. She had a brilliant academic career having won Gold Medal in her M.B.B.S. examination in addition to various other prizes in the college including the credential of 'Best outgoing female student'. Her father is the Head of the Department of Medicine at the Government Medical College, Srinagar. Since the date of her birth in Jammu and Kashmir, she was a permanent resident of that State. On 26-5-1988 the petitioner married one. Dr. Imtiaz A. Mekhri of Bangalore, who is a leading Ophthalmologist, born in the City of Bangalore and residing in the City of Bangalore and having his medical practice at Mekhri Nursing Home, Lalbagh Road, Bangalore. After her marriage, she came to Bangalore and has been residing with her husband. She was desirous of pursuing her Post-graduate studies in Medicine in the State of Karnataka in Opthalmology. On enquiry, she learnt that admission to Post-Graduate Medical and Dental courses in the State of Karnataka was regulated by the Rules. Rule 4 (5), which was then in force relevant for the purpose of this case, reads :

(3.) During the previous academic year, namely, 1990-91, the petitioner being desirous of applying for admission to the entrance test, secured an application form. In the application, the eligibility as contained in Rule 4(1)(b) of the Rules as amended on 12-9-1989, was incorporated. Consequently, the petitioner, not having passed M.B.B.S. examination from any of the Universities established in this State, presented this writ petition questioning the constitutional validity of the said Rule and seeking appropriate reliefs. After the petitioner presented the writ petition, she came to know that again the Rule had been amended by Notification 25-9-1990. Rule 4 (1)(b) of the Rules, as amended by the said Notification reads :