<?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>1969 (4) TMI 128 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296661</link>
    <description>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.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Jul 2021 18:20:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=651297" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (4) TMI 128 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296661</link>
      <description>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.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296661</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>