TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Admission Rules, Declares Unconstitutional, Emphasizes Merit</h1> <h3>Municipal Corpn. OF Greater Bombay Versus Thukral Anjali Deo Kumar</h3> Municipal Corpn. OF Greater Bombay Versus Thukral Anjali Deo Kumar - 1989 AIR 1194, 1989 (1) SCR 919, 1989 (2) SCC 249, 1989 (1) JT 468, 1989 (1) SCALE 670 Issues Involved:1. Constitutional validity of Rule 4(A) of the Rules framed by the Bombay Municipal Corporation for admission to post-graduate courses.2. Constitutional validity of Rule 5 framed under the Government Resolution dated June 18, 1971 for admission to the Government Medical College.3. Discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.4. Collegewise institutional preference for admission to post-graduate courses.5. Evaluation of merit and standardization of practical examinations.6. Justification of institutional continuity and preference based on institutional affiliation.Detailed Analysis:1. Constitutional Validity of Rule 4(A) and Rule 5:The principal issue revolves around the constitutional validity of Rule 4(A) framed by the Bombay Municipal Corporation and Rule 5 framed under the Government Resolution dated June 18, 1971. Both rules provided for collegewise institutional preference for admission to post-graduate courses. The High Court struck down Rule 4(A) in its entirety and Rule 5 in part, deeming them discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, rendering them invalid.2. Discrimination and Violation of Article 14:The rules in question were challenged on the grounds of discrimination. The High Court found that these rules created an unjustifiable classification that favored students from specific colleges, thereby violating the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14. The Supreme Court upheld this view, emphasizing that any classification must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved, which in this case was to prefer merit for post-graduate courses.3. Collegewise Institutional Preference:The Supreme Court examined whether collegewise institutional preference was permissible. It referred to the case of Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, where the Court had condemned wholesale reservation based on domicile or institutional preference that excluded more meritorious students. The Court clarified that the term 'institutional preference' in Pradeep Jain's case referred to university-wise preference, not collegewise preference. Therefore, the Court did not uphold collegewise institutional preference.4. Evaluation of Merit and Standardization of Practical Examinations:The appellants argued that practical examinations conducted by individual colleges made it difficult to compare and evaluate the merits of candidates from different colleges. However, the Supreme Court rejected this contention, noting that practical exams were conducted by a mix of internal and external examiners appointed by the University. The Court found no evidence to support the claim that different standards were applied by different colleges.5. Justification of Institutional Continuity:The appellants also argued that institutional continuity justified collegewise preference, citing the convenience and familiarity of students with their own institutions. The Court, however, found this argument unconvincing, stating that institutional continuity did not justify discrimination against more meritorious students from other colleges.6. Institutional Preference Based on Institutional Affiliation:The Court examined the broader implications of institutional preference, noting that such preferences should not exceed 50% of the total number of open seats and should be subject to revision by the Indian Medical Council. The Court emphasized that any preference should be based on merit and not on the affiliation to a particular college.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to strike down Rule 4(A) and part of Rule 5, declaring them discriminatory and unconstitutional. The Court directed that students already admitted under the impugned rules should not be disturbed. It also allowed for the framing of new rules consistent with the judgment and Article 14 of the Constitution. The appeals were dismissed without any order as to costs. The Court also considered the reasonable requests for admission of certain students based on merit, provided seats were available.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
