Vs. State of Haryana & Ors  INSC 90 (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
Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.- Leave granted.
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 leave.
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. In 1994, the eligibility conditions were changed.
The relevant parts of these eligibility conditions prescribed in 1994 are as
candidates who have studied 10th, 10+1 and 10+2 classes as regular candidates
in recognised institutions in Haryana...
children/wards ... of the employees appointed on regular basis of Haryana State
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
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 fulfillment of other eligibility conditions and further
providing that they should submit a certificate of 138 Haryana
residence/domicile as per State Government Rules along with an affidavit by the
parent/guardian that the candidate had not appeared or was not appearing in the
entrance 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, 11th and 12th standards as regular candidates in recognised
institutions in Haryana. They had also challenged the corrigendum. 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 30-8-1994 (being the judgment of the
third learned Judge to whom the matter was referred because of the difference
of opinion between the two teamed Judges), only four petitioners are before us
as appellants. These are:
in appeal arising from SLP (C) No. 16093 of 1994, Bharat B. Dua in appeal
arising from SLP (C) No. 16149 of 1994; Nandita Kalra in appeal arising from
SLP (C) No. 18871 of 1994 and Shalini Jain in appeal arising from SLP (C) No.
20602 of 1994. 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 ICSE (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. Both 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 parents 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 candidates
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 Chandigarh Medical College.
recommendations of the Committee were forwarded to the University by the
Director, Medical College, Rohtak.
the members of the medical faculty of the respondent-University also made a
similar representation to the University to make changes in the eligibility
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 140 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
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 on 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 institutional preference. As far back as in 1955, in the case
of D.R Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat1, 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 Jagadish Saran (Dr) v. Union of India2 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 Pradeep Jain (Dr) v. Union
of India3. This Court has observed in that judgment: (SCR p. 981 : SCC p. 687, para
19) "We are, therefore, of the view that a certain percentage of
reservation on the basis of residence requirement may legitimately be made in
order to equalise 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
reservation for students passing the PUC 1 (1955) 1 SCR 1215: AIR 1955 SC 334 2
(1980) 2 SCC 768 :(1980) 2 SCR 831 3 (1984) 3 SCC 654: (1984) 3 SCR 942 141 or
pre-medical examination of the same university or clearing the qualifying
examination from the school system of the educational hinterland of the medical
colleges in the State......
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 (Dr) v. Motilal Nehru Medical
College4. 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 Delhi5 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. This Court considered this as a hard case. It held that
the qualifying condition that the candidate should have received the last two
years of education in a school in Delhi, should be relaxed in that case as the
candidate was 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 Malik5. Therefore, the relaxation which was given
by this Court in the case of Meenakshi Malik5 cannot be given to any of the
appellants before us.
appellants have also cited before us some judgments of the High Courts. 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 4 (1986) 3 SCC 727 :(1986) 3 SCR
345 5 (1989) 3 SCC 112: (1989) 2 SCR 858 142 arbitrary nor unreasonable and the
Punjab and Haryana High Court has rightly upheld the same.
counsel for Nandita Kalra who appears in appeal arising from SLP (C) No. 18871
of 1994 has submitted that the second and third conditions in the eligibility
criteria which make an exception
favour of children/wards of employees of the Haryana State Government or
children/wards of employees of All-India Services borne on Haryana cadre or of
statutory bodies and corporations constituted under an Act of the State of Haryana as also
favour of the children or wards of personnel of defence services and
paramilitary services belonging to the Haryana State at the time of entry into
service as per the service record, are discriminatory. He has submitted that
there is no valid basis for making a distinction between these employees and
employees in private service outside the State of Haryana.
learned third Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court whose judgment decides
the conflict between the two differing Judges of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court has pointed out in his judgment that he is not called upon to express any
view on that issue since it is not a question on which either of the two other
Judges had expressed any opinion. He has observed that no decision is called
for on this question. Since this issue has not been either discussed or decided
by any of the three Judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court whose judgments are before us, we are not called
upon to examine this question. The decision in the case of Deepak Sibal v.
Punjab University6 was cited before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. But, as observed by the learned third Judge of
the Punjab and Haryana High Court, it was
cited only in the context of the challenge to the corrigendum. We are not
required to examine, in the present appeals, any challenge to the corrigendum.
Hence, it is not open to the appellant in Appeal No. 1068 of 1995 arising from
SLP (C) No. 18871 of 1994 to now challenge before us the second and third
the premises, the appeals are dismissed. In the circumstances, there will be no
order as to costs.