SYED KABIRUDDIN Vs. DEAN GOVT MEDICAL COLLEGE NAGPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a candidate for admission to one of the two Medical Colleges in Nagpur. As provided in the Rules regulating admission to the Medical Colleges of the Government of Maharashtra for the Academic Year 1983-84 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), some condidates have been admitted in open category. The last of such candidates had secured 252 corrected marks. The corrected marks of the petitioner work out to 251 and hence he was not admitted. We are told that he stands at serial No. 5 in the waiting list. He has challenged some of the provisions contained in the rules regarding addition of marks and reservation of some seats. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner confined his submissions to his challenge to two of such provisions. One of them is contained in R.4C(xiii) read with 6B(v) under which 3 marks are added to the total of a student "affected by a Defence/Irrigation Project as stated in R.4C(xiii)". The other provision is R.5C(ii) under which five seats are reserved in the Indira Gandhi Medical College at Nagpur for students who have passed the 10th and 12th Standard examinations conducted by Divisional Board of the Nagpur Division established under the Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards Act, 1965 or any examination equivalent to the said 10th standard examination and also the 11th standard examination from institutions situated within the limits of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation. The petitioner contends that these two provisions are constitutionally invalid as they offend Art.14 of the Constitution. According to him, the addition of 3 marks to the abovesaid affected students has no nexus with the object of the Rules, namely, to select the best talent and meritorious students for admission. The other Rule, namely, R.5C(ii) is also challenged in a similar way i.e. the fact whether a candidate has passed the 10th and 12th Standard examinations from an educational institution in Nagpur can have no relevance in so far his merit is concerned and has no nexus with the object of the rules.

(2.) In so far as challenge to R.4C(xiii) read with 6B(v) is concerned, we need not go into the merits of the challenge since the question which falls for our consideration is decided in favour of the petitioner by Division Bench of this Court in Miss Rajashri Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petn. No. 2360 of 1983 decided on 30-9-1983. The Division Bench has held that R.6B(v) read with R.4C(xiii) is invalid and inoperative. We are in respectful agreement with this decision of the Division Bench.

(3.) In so far as R.5C(ii) is concerned, it is in the following terms :