GAUTAM KAPOOR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question for decision by us is whether the provision made prescribing the minimum age limit of 17 years to be completed during the calendar year of admission to the First year of the M.B.B.S./B.D.S. course is invalid. This reference to a larger Bench has been made on the ground that there appears to be a conflict in the decisions of this Court on this point. The other questions, which have been referred, do not call for any answer as we shall indicate hereafter. The questions referred to us for our decision are as under :-

(2.) The only material facts leading to this reference are these :- Petitioner Gautam Kapoor applied for appearing at the Pre-Medical Test held in the year 1986, but his application was rejected "on the ground that he would not complete the age of 17 years on or before 31st Dec. 1986. This decision was taken on account of the prescribed minimum age limit for admission to the First Year course in a Medical College. The petitioner, therefore, challenged the validity of the provision prescribing the minimum age limit. This provision is contained in Cl. 3 of Rules of Admission to Medical Colleges in Rajasthan, 1986, which prescribes the conditions of eligibility and the relevant portion therein for our purpose is as under :-

(3.) The only question for our decision is whether prescribing the minimum age limit of 17 years for entry into a Medical College violates Art.14 of the Constitution as urged strenuously by learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. G.S. Singhvi, learned Counsel contends that there should be no minimum age limit prescribed for the purpose and a candidate should be eligible for admission on passing the qualifying examination, which the First Year of the Three Years Degree Course after passing the Higher Secondary Examination. Based on the normal calculation, learned counsel concedes that ordinarily minimum age of a candidate at the time of passing the qualifying examination would be 16 years at the time of that examination in March/April of the year of admission. The question, therefore, is whether the prescribing of the minimum age limit is unreasonable or arbitrary, which has no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the provision. We are unable to accept this contention.