Permissible classification upheld for medical admissions; non-reserved candidates had no standing to challenge reserved-seat nominations.

Reservation of seats in a medical college admission scheme was treated as valid where the categories were based on territorial, institutional, reciprocal and special circumstances, not on prohibited grounds of discrimination. Article 15(1) was held inapplicable because the scheme did not discriminate only on religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth, and Article 29(2) was also inapplicable because admission was not denied on those grounds. Under Article 14, the classification satisfied permissible classification because it had intelligible differentia and a rational nexus with the object of providing medical education. A candidate outside the reserved class had no locus standi to challenge nominations to reserved seats.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the reservation of seats in the medical college admission scheme and the system of nominations made by the Central Government were unconstitutional under Articles 14, 15 and 29 of the Constitution. (ii) Whether the appellants had locus standi to challenge the nominations made to the reserved seats.

Issue (i): Whether the reservation of seats in the medical college admission scheme and the system of nominations made by the Central Government were unconstitutional under Articles 14, 15 and 29 of the Constitution.

Analysis: The admission rules were treated as having statutory sanction under the university ordinance structure. The categories for which seats were reserved were examined separately and found to be based on territorial, institutional, reciprocal and special circumstances, rather than on any prohibited ground of discrimination. Article 15(1) was held inapplicable because the rules did not discriminate on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. Article 29(2) was also held inapplicable because admission was not denied on those grounds. Under Article 14, the classification was held to satisfy the test of permissible classification because it rested on intelligible differentia and had a rational relation to the object of providing medical education through properly identified sources.

Conclusion: The reservation scheme and the nomination mechanism were held to be valid and not unconstitutional.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants had locus standi to challenge the nominations made to the reserved seats.

Analysis: The appellants were not competing for the reserved seats and therefore had no enforceable right to question the manner in which those seats were filled. The Court held that any alleged irregularity in nominations to reserved seats did not automatically convert the seats into part of the general pool, and the appellants could not compel such conversion. The challenge to the timing or legality of particular nominations was also rejected because the appellants had no right to assail nominations to seats outside the category for which they applied.

Conclusion: The appellants were held to have no locus standi to challenge the nominations.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the reservation policy was upheld and the challenge to the nominations was not maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A reservation scheme for admission to an educational institution is valid if it is founded on an intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the object of the institution, and a candidate who is not within the reserved class has no locus standi to challenge the filling of reserved seats.

---