NEERA GUPTA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions are classic illustrations of discrimination and arbitrariness. Discrimination and arbitrariness in State actions strike at the very foun dation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws against every State action. The' right to equality is the most important fundamental right of any democratic society. Fundamental rights are considered inalienable, natural and very basic bundle of rights guaranteed by the Constitution of any civilised society.

(2.) This order shall dispose of writ petitions No. 1141, 1147 and 1154 of 1996. The basic facts of these petitions are almost identical, therefore, to avoid repetition detailed facts of only Writ Petition No. 1141/96 are recapitulated. The petitioner was compelled to approach this Court because of the letter dated 14th March, 1996 sent by the Assistant Registrar (Medical), to the Dean, Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi. In this letter it is mentioned that Dr. Neera Gupta, student of M.D. Micro-Biology is not eligible to appear in the annual examination to be held during the month of April-May, 1996, as she availed maternity leave for the period from 8.6.1993 to 8.8.1993 and Dr. Neera Gupta may be eligible to appear in the supplementary examination to be held during 1996, if otherwise eligible. A similar letter was sent to another petitioner (in Writ Petition No. 1147/96) Dr. Meenakshi Mittal she was also not permitted to appear in the annual examination. .These petitioners were seriously aggrieved by the said letter and approached this Court with the prayer that the said letter of 14th March, 1996 be quashed being illegal and vi-olative of Articles 14 & 15 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) In the writ petition it is mentioned that the petitioner has attended more than 75% lectures which is much more than the required number of (2/3rd) lectures to be eligible to appear in the examination. The said order dated 14th March, 1996 was primarily challenged on the ground of discrimination.