<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1999 (10) TMI 739 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188272</link>
    <description>A locality-based admission rule was analysed under Article 14 for excluding permanent residents of Ahmedabad who studied in institutions outside the municipal limits. The court reasoned that a distinction based only on the physical location of the school, without a real nexus to the object of serving local residents through merit-based admissions, is artificial and arbitrary. At the same time, the rule was treated as capable of reasonable construction because it was subordinate legislation intended to preserve a substantial reservation for local residents. On that construction, permanent residents of Ahmedabad studying in the Ahmedabad Urban Development Area were included, and the challenge to the rule failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Nov 2016 17:12:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=448916" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (10) TMI 739 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188272</link>
      <description>A locality-based admission rule was analysed under Article 14 for excluding permanent residents of Ahmedabad who studied in institutions outside the municipal limits. The court reasoned that a distinction based only on the physical location of the school, without a real nexus to the object of serving local residents through merit-based admissions, is artificial and arbitrary. At the same time, the rule was treated as capable of reasonable construction because it was subordinate legislation intended to preserve a substantial reservation for local residents. On that construction, permanent residents of Ahmedabad studying in the Ahmedabad Urban Development Area were included, and the challenge to the rule failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=188272</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>