Vs. State of Haryana & Ors  INSC 87 (25 January 1995)
Sujata V. (J) Manohar Sujata V. (J) Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J)
1995 AIR 955 1995 SCC (2) 135 JT 1995 (1) 612 1995 SCALE (1)396
These four appeals by special leave challenge a judgment of the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana upholding the validity of the eligibility criteria
prescribed for the year 1994 for the entrance test to be conducted for the
State of Haryana for the purposes of admission to
medical and dental colleges in the State of Haryana. These appellants along with a large number of other petitioners
challenged these eligibility criteria of 1994 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Being
aggrieved by the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court substantially
upholding the eligibility criteria, while striking down a portion of the
Corrigendum four of these petitioners have filed these appeals by special
Till 1993 the eligibility conditions required, inter alia, that a candidate
should be a resident/domiciled in the State of Haryana and was required to produce a certificate of Haryana
domicile/residence as prescribed in those Rules.
1994, the eligibility conditions were changed. The relevant parts of these
eligibility conditions prescribed in 1994 are as follows:
i) The candidates who have studied 10th, 614 10 +1 and 10 + 2 classes as
regular candidates in recognised institutions in Haryana....
The children/wards of the employees appointed on regular basis of Haryana Stat
e Government/Members of All India Services borne on Haryana cadre/statutory
bodies/corporations established by or under an Act of the State of Haryana
whether posted in Haryana or outside....
The children/wards of the employees of Indian Defence Services/ Paramilitary
forces belonging to Haryana State at the time of entry into service as per
their service records Thereafter a Corrigendum was issued by the State of Haryana
granting eligibility to children/wards of the employees belonging to Haryana
who had studied 10th, 10+ 1 and 10+2 classes as regular candidates in recognised
institutions in Chandigarh subject to their fulfilment of other eligibility
conditions and further providing that they should submit a certificate of Haryana
residence/domicile as per State Government Rules along with an affidavit by the
par- ent/guardian that the candidate had not appeared or was not appearing in
the enHance test of any State or Union Territory other than Haryana.
petitioners before the Punjab and Haryana High Court had challenged the
eligibility conditions of 1994 insofar as they require that candidates should
have studied for the 10th, 11 th and 12th standards as regular candidates in recognised
institutions in Haryana. They had also chal- lenged the Corrigendunm. The two learned
Judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court who heard
these writ petitions differed. Hence the petitions were referred to a third
Judge who concurred with one of the Judges and held that the condition
requiring a candidate to have studied in the 10th, 10+1 and 10+2 classes in recognised
institutions in Haryana was valid. The condition in the Corrigendum which
required an affidavit from the parent or guardian of the candidate that the
candidate was not appearing or had not appeared in the entrance test of any
State or Union Territory was, however, struck down as arbitrary and unreasonable. In
the present appeals, however, we are not concerned with the Corrigendum.
of a large number of petitioners whose petitions were decided by the Punjab and
Haryana High Court by its judgment dated 30th of August, 1994 (being the
judgment of the third learned Judge to whom the matter was referred because of
the difference of opinion between the two learned Judges), only four
petitioners are before us as appellants.
are : Anant Madaan in appeal arising from S.L.P. (C) No. 16093/94, Bharat B. Dua
in appeal arising from S.L.P. (C) No. 16149/94, Nandita Kalra in appeal arising
from S.L.P. (C) No. 18871/94 and Shalini Jain in appeal arising from S.L.P. (C)
No. 20602/ 94. Anant Madaan has passed his 10+1 and 10+2 examinations from New
Delhi. According to him, his parents are residents of Haryana. Bharat Dua
passed his I.C.S.E. (10th standard) examination as well as 10+1 and 10+2
examinations from Bishop Cotton School, Shimla in Himachal Pradesh. According
to this appellant, his parents are residents of Haryana. Nandita Kalra has
passed her 10th, 10+1 and 10+2 class examinations from New Delhi.
her parents are also residing in New Delhi. Her father is in the Department of
Science and Technology while her mother is a Professor. According to her,
though her par- 615 ents reside in New Delhi on account of their work, they are
domiciled in Haryana. Shalini Jain has passed her 10th, 10+ 1 and 10+2 class
examinations from New Delhi. Her parents, according to her, are residents in Haryana.
According to all these appellants the condition which requires the can- didates
to have passed their 10th, 10+1 and 10+2 class examinations from recognised
institutions in Haryana is arbitrary and discriminatory because it excludes
children of parents who may be residents of or who may be domiciled in Haryana
but who may have sent their children to schools or colleges outside Haryana for
a variety of reasons. They have also challenged this requirement on the ground
of hardship. All these candidates wanted to appear for the entrance test
conducted by the Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak, Haryana.
Registrar, Maharshi Dayanand University who is the second respondent before us,
has filed a counter affidavit setting out, inter alia, the circumstances in
which the eligibility conditions came to be changed in 1994. He has stated in
the affidavit that various representations were received asking for changes in
the eligibility criteria in order to curb a practice which had grown, by which
admissions were sought by residents from outside the State of Haryana on the
basis of bogus domicile certificates at the cost of genuine residents of the
State of Haryana. The second respondent has also pointed out that the
University was, on account of these bogus certificates, even today involved in
several litigations pertaining to candidates who had arranged forged domicile
certificates and obtained admissions on the basis of such certificates. It was
felt that the criteria were required to be changed so that genuine residents of
the State of Haryana could be granted admission and unnecessary litigation
avoided. Thereupon, the Director, Medical College, Rohtak constituted a three
member Committee to consider the various memoranda submitted by the President,
Bar Association of Rohtak, President of the University College Students
Association and Government College for Women Students Association, Secretary, Haryana
State Medical Teachers Association and letters from some other representatives
of the public of Haryana which had been addressed to the Health Ministry of the
State Government. The Committee consisted Dr. D.R. Yadav, Professor and Head,
Department of Forensic Medicine, Dr. (Mrs.) Usha Dhall, Professor and Head,
Department of Anatomy and Dr. D.R. Arora, Associate Professor, Department of
Microbiology, Medical College, Rohtak. The Committee examined the whole issue at length.
It also examined the eligibility conditions for admission to MBBS/BDS Courses
stipulated in the neighbouring States of Rajasthan, Delhi and the Union Territory of Chandigarh.
It recommended changes in the criteria for admission to MBBS/BDS Courses in the
State of Haryana. It recommended that the candidates
should have studied for the last three years before the qualifying examination,
continuously as regular candidates, in a recognised institution in the State.
The Committee pointed out that this would ensure that candidates who were
genuine residents in the State alone would be eligible for the admission test.
It also referred to a similar condition in the prospectus issued by the University of Rajasthan and the University of Delhi as also by the Punjab University for admission to Chanigarh Medical College.
recommendations of the Com- 616 mittee were forwarded to the University by the
Director, Medical College, Rohtak. Thereafter the members of the medical faculty of
the respondent-University also made a similar representation to the University
to make changes in the eligibility criteria. The matter was referred by the
Vice-Chancellor of the respondent-University to the Admission Committee which
also recommended, inter alia, the above test as well as the other tests which
have been finally incorporated in the 1994 eligibility criteria. The decision
of the Admission Committee was forwarded to the Commissioner and Secretary to
Government of Haryana, Health and Medical Education Department. Thereafter the
prospectus for the year commencing 1994 was issued by the respondent- University which prescribes the above eligibility criteria under
view of the above facts, we have to consider whether the condition requiring a
candidate to have studied in 10th, 10+1 and 10+2 classes in a recognised
institution in the State of Haryana, can
be considered as arbitrary or unreasonable. It is by now well settled that
preference in admissions or. the basis of residence, as well as institutional
preference is permissible so long as there is no total reservation on the basis
of residential or institu- tional preference. As far back as in 1955, in the
case of D.P. Joshi v. The State of Madya Bharat and Anr. (1955 (1) SCR 1215), this Court, making a
distinction between the place of birth and residence, upheld a preference on
the basis of residence, in educational institutions.
the case of Jagdish Saran & Ors. v. Union
of India & Ors. (1980 (2) SCR 83 1) this Court reiterated that regional
preference or preference on the ground of residence in granting admission to
medical colleges was not arbitrary or unreasonable so long as it was not a
wholesale reservation on this basis. This Court referred to various reasons why
such preference may be required. For example, the residents of a particular
region may have very limited opportunities for technical education while the
region may require such technically qualified persons. Candidates who were
residents of that region were more likely to remain in the region and serve
their region if they were preferred for admission to technical institutions in
the State, particularly medical colleges. A State which was short of medical
personnel would be justified in giving preference to its own residents in
medical colleges as these residents, after qualifying as doctors, were more
likely to remain in the State and give their services to their State. The Court
also observed that in the case of women students, regional or residential
preference may be justified as their parents may not be willing to send them
outside the State for medical education. We, however, need not examine the
various reasons which have impelled this Court to uphold residential or
institutional preference for admission to medical colleges. The question is
settled by the decision of this Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain etc. v. Union of
India & Ors. etc. (1984 (3) SCR 942). This Court has observed in that
judgment (at page 981):
are, therefore, of the view that a certain percentage of reservation on the
basis of residence requirement may legitimately be made to equalize
opportunities for medical admission on a broader basis and to bring about real
and not formal, actual and not merely legal, equality. The percentage of
reservation made on this count may also include institutional 617 reservation
for students passing the PUC or pre-medical examination of the same university
or clearing the qualifying examination from the school system of the
educational hinterland of the medical colkg= hi he State....." This Court
held in that case that reservation to the extent of 70% on this basis would be
permissible. This percentage of reservation was subsequently increased to 85%
by this Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar & Ors. v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad & Ors. 1986 (3) SCR 345). This Court in that
case directed an entrance examination on an All India basis for the remaining
15% of seats.
the present case, the reservation which has been made on the basis of
candidates having studied for the preceding three years in recognised
schools/colleges in Haryana is in respect of these 85% of seats. It excludes
15% seats which have to be filled in on an All India basis. This eligibility
criterion, therefore, is in conformity with the decisions of this Court
referred to above. It cannot, therefore, be considered as arbitrary or
unreasonable or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
appellants drew our attention to a decision of this Court in Meenakshi Malik v.
University of Delhi & Ors., (1989 (2) SCR 858) where the father of the
candidate was in Government service. He was posted by the Government outside
India. As the parents were compelled to go outside India, the children were
also required to go with their parents.
Court considered this as a hard case. It held the the qualifying condition that
the candid should have received the last two yews of education in a school in
Delhi, should relaxed in that case as the candidate compelled to leave India
for a foreign country by reason of the posting of her parents by the Government
to such foreign country. The Court observed that there was no real choice in
the matter for such a student and hence the rigour of the condition prescribing
that the last two years of education should be received in Delhi should be
relaxed in that case.
of the appellants who are before us are in a position similar to that of the
appellant in the above case.
fact, the parents of Anant Madaan, Bharat B. Dua and Shalini Jain are in Haryana.
In the case of Nandita Kalra the parents have voluntarily taken employment
outside the State of Haryana. They are not in the same situation
as the parents of Meenakshi Malik (supra).. Therefore, the relaxation which was
given by this Court in the case of Meenakshi Malik (supra) cannot be given to
any of the appellants before us.
appellants have also cited before us some judgments of the High Count We need
not, however, examine them since the matter is concluded by the above decisions
of this Court. 'The eligibility condition, therefore, which requires that the
candidate should have studied 10th, 10+1 and 10+2 classes from a recognised
institution in the State of Haryana is
neither arbitrary nor unreasonable and the Punjab and Haryana High Court has rightly upheld the same.