Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (1.26 seconds)
Kumari Chitra Ghosh And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 25 April, 1969 cites

Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia vs Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar & ... on 28 March, 1958

8. As laid down in Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar and Ors. [1959] S.C.R. 279, Article 14 forbids class legislation it does not forbid reasonable classification. In order to pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled, (i) that the classification is founded on intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and, (ii) that that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. The first group of persons for whom seats have been reserved are the sons and daughters of residents of Union territories other than Delhi. These areas are well known to be comparatively backward and with the exception of Himachal Pradesh they do not have any Medical College of their own. It was necessary that persons desirous of receiving medical education from these areas should be provided some facility for doing so. As regards the sons and daughters of Central Government servants posted in Indian Missions abroad it is equally well known that due to exigencies of their service these persons are faced with lot of difficulties in the matter of education. Apart from the problems of language, it is not easy or always possible to get admission into institutions imparting medical education in foreign countries. The cultural, Colombo Plan and Thailand scholars are given admission in medical institutions in this country by reason of reciprocal arrangements of educational and cultural nature. Regarding Jammu & Kashmir scholars it must be remembered that the problems relating to them are of a peculiar nature and there do not exist adequate arrangements for medical education in the State itself for its residents. The classification in all these cases is based on intelligible differentia which distinguishes them from the group to which the appellants belong.
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 1003 - Full Document

Minor P. Rajendran vs State Of Madras & Ors on 17 January, 1968

In Minor P. Rajendran v. State of Madras it has been stated that the object of selection for admission is to secure the best possible material. This can surely be achieved by making proper rules in the matter of selection but there can be no doubt that such selection has to be confined to the sources that are intended to supply the material. If the sources have been classified in the manner done in the present case it is difficult to see how that classification has no rational nexus with the object of imparting medical education and also of selection for the purpose.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 181 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document
1