THUKRAL ANJALI DOOKUMAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In view of the urgency, the petitions are admitted and the Rules are made returnable forthwith. The main contesting parties, viz. the Bombay Municipal Corporation, the State Government and the University of Bombay waive service and appear. The Corporation has also filed its affidavit-in-reply to the petition. Since the interests of both the sets of students, namely, those who support the petitions and those who oppose, are fairly and effectively represented by the contesting parties, it is not necessary to hear all the students. Nor is it possible to do so. Some of the students who are joined as parties to some of the petitions are present in Court to instruct the respective Counsel. One of them, i.e. respondent No. 16 in Writ Petition No. 3264 of 1988 has also filed an affidavit-in-reply. However, the appearances of all the students have not been recorded. We will treat those students who are not served as deleted. It may be mentioned that by our interim orders we had restrained the concerned Colleges from giving effect to the list of students selected by them for admission to the respective post-graduation courses. Hence no prejudice can be said to have been caused to them, if they are not individually heard, as indeed it is not possible to do so. Further, it is a common question of law, and not merits in individual cases which is being decided in the present case and the decision will affect all equally, even if in the meanwhile same students have been admitted in some colleges. The courses have yet to commence. With these preliminary observations, we may now proceed to deal with the petitions.

(2.) These are petitions in which a common question of law is raised, namely, the validity of Rule 4(A) of the Rules framed by the Bombay Municipal Corporation for admission to Post-Graduate Degree and Diploma Courses as its Medical Colleges framed on June 18, 1988, and Rule 6 framed under the Government Resolution dated 18th June, 1971. The said Rule 4(A) reads as follows :

(3.) The question that is raised in the present petitions is therefore whether the micro-institutional preference below the University level which is incorporated in the said Rule 4 (A) and 6 is valid in view of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in (Kumari N. Vasundara v. State of Mysore) A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1439; (D.N. Chanchala etc. v. The State of Mysore) A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1762; (Minor A. Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu) A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 2303 ; (Dr. Jagdish Saran v. Union of India) A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 820; (Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India) A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1420; (Dr. Dinesh Kumar & others v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad & others) A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 1415; (Nidamarti Maheshkumar v. State of Maharashtra & others) A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1362; and (Dr. Dinesh Kumar & others v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad) A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1877.