GULLAPALLI NAGCSWARA RAO Vs. PRINCIPAL MEDICAL COLLEGE GUNTUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these petitions raise the principal question relating to the constitutionality of the rule reserving a certain percentage of seats for students who passed the Higher Secondary Certificate Examination in the Pre-professional Course in Medicine and could be disposed by a common judgment. They are filed for the issue of writs of mandamus directing the Principals of the various Medical Colleges in this State and the State Government to consider their applications for admission into the Pre-professional Course in Medicine ignoring the rules in so far as they reserve one-third of the seats of Multi-purpose candidates, i.e., those who passed the Higher Secondary Certificate Examination. It may be mentioned here that these students are called Multi-purpose candidates since they pass this examination from Multi-purpose schools. A scheme for the conversion of Secondary Schools into Multi-purpose schools was introduced in the Andhra area in 1956-57.

(2.) The material facts for the purpose of this enquiry are shortly these. All the petitioners took their Pre-University Course Examination in March-April, 1961 from the different colleges situate in this State securing a fairly high percentage of marks in their optional subjects, biological and physical sciences. Admissions to the Pre-professional Courses are made on regional basis and the students pertaining to a particular region have to seek admission in the colleges situated within that zone. The total number of seats in all the Colleges in the Andhra area is 462, while the number of seats available for admission in the Telangana area is 265. In the Andhra region five seats are reserved for candidates from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh, the right to nominate them vesting in the Government of India and one seat reserved for the nominee of the Kerala Government. Out of the rest of the seats, 16 per cent are reserved for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, 25 per cent for socially and educationally backward classes and 30 per cent for women candidates, the remaining seats being made available for open competition. The applicants for admission to these courses have to satisfy the qualifications prescribed for in that regard. The minimum educational qualification prescribed is a pass in the Pre-University Science Course Examination with physical and biological sciences as subjects or a pass in the Higher Secondary Certificate Examination of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The Higher Secondary Certificate referred to in this rule means the certificate given under the reorganisation of secondary education at the end of the eleventh year or the VII form. The selections are made with reference to the aggregate of marks obtained in the optional subjects only (equated to a maximum of 300) in the Pre-University or the Higher Secondary Examination. Students who obtain a certain minimum of marks alone are eligible for admission to. this course.

(3.) For the purpose of admission to the Pre-professional Course a student who has taken the VII form examination in a Multi-purpose School and a student who has passed the Pre-University Course Examination are regarded as having equal qualifications. Admissions for the Pre-professional Course in Medicine should be made both from the categories of Multi-purpose and P.U.C. students on merit basis, subject to the condition that one-third of the total number of seats in all the categories at least should be given to Multi-purpose candidates. It is this reservation that is the main subject of attack in all these petitions. The petitioners being apprehensive that this reservation will deprive them of a chance of obtaining admission as the number of seats available for the general pool is reduced and candidates who have secured more than 70 per cent would alone get admission, have presented these petitions the substance of their grievance being that Multi-purpose candidates will gain an undue advantage over P.U.C. candidates as a result of this rule. They impugn this rule as being opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, being discriminatory in nature. According to them it violates the guarantee of equal protection enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution and is also repugnant to Articles 15, 16 and 29 of the Constitution.