RAJASHRI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these writ petitions the petitioners have challenged R.6 of the Medical Colleges of the Government of Maharashtra Rules for Admission 1983-84 (hereinafter called the Admission Rules) on the ground that the said Rule is violative of the petitioners' fundamental right guaranteed under Art.14 of the Constitution it being arbitrary in nature and has no nexus with the objects sought to be achieved viz. selection of meritorious candidate for admission to the medical college.

(2.) Shri K. K. Singhvi and Shri Avinash Shivade, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended before us that the addition of marks to give weightage to the students for admission to the medical college as incorporated in the various sub-rules of R.6 is wholly unwarranted, arbitrary and has no nexus with the objects sought to be achieved. According to the learned Counsel, this Rule giving weightage in substance purports to defeat the very purpose of selection viz. selection of the most meritorious student. It also creates unhealthy competition amongst the students belonging to the same class and has no nexus with the object. It is also contended by the learned Counsel that while laying down such weightage the Government has not followed any uniform policy and different weightage is provided in the rules relating to admissions to the medical colleges, engineering colleges or the Dental colleges or Ayurvedic colleges. Some of the rules which were in the field for earlier years were arbitrarily deleted and some new rules are introduced. According to the petitioners the rules are being changed from time to time to suit particular vested interests and depend upon lobby power leaving the fortunes of students to litigative astrology annually. Shri Rairikar, learned counsel appearing for one of the petitioners adopted the arguments advanced by Shri K. K. Singhvi and Shri Shivade.

(3.) On the other hand, it is contended by the respondent Government that R.6 as a whole has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved and, is neither arbitrary nor unwarranted. Since each and every sub-rule of R.6 is independently challenged on one or other ground, it is necessary to deal with each and every sub-rule independently. Rule 6 of the Admission Rules reads as under: -