Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.40 seconds)Article 15 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Amalendu Kumar vs The State Of Bihar And Ors. on 7 May, 1979
In Amalendu Kumar v. State of Bihar (AIR 1980 Pat 1) (FB) (supra), the minimum qualifying marks that were prescribed for general category of standards were 45% and in relation to candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes, the minimum qualifying marks had been reduced to 40%. The
said minimum qualifying marks in relation to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates were subsequently further reduced to 35% and the learned Judges of the Patna High Court held that the reduction of the minimum qualifying marks to 35% in relation to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates was violative of the provisions of Clause (1) of Article 15 of the Constitution and was not saved by provisions of Clause (4) of Article 15. In taking the aforesaid view, the learned Judges of the Patna High Court have placed strong reliance on the recommendations that had been made by the Medical Council of India with regard to admission to the Medical Colleges. The learned Judges of the Patna High Court have pointed out that according to the recommendations of the Medical Council of India, relaxation of 5% in the minimum marks could be given to candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes and have observed that further relaxation in the minimum qualifying marks from 45% to 40% and thereafter to 35% had no relevance to the primary object of securing the best possible candidates consistent with the objective of making provisions for advancement of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In my opinion, the aforesaid decision of the Patna High Court, instead of lending assistance to the argument of Shri Shrimali, goes against him inasmuch as the decision of the Patna High Court is based on the original recommendations of the Medical Council of India, which were made in 1979 and thereafter the Medical Council has revised its recommendations, whereby, it has permitted relaxation to a greater extent in favour of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, The relaxation that has been made by the State Government under order dated 23/27 January, 1981, is in consonance with the aforesaid revised recommendations of the Medical Council of India. The learned Judges of the Patna High Court have observed that Medical Council of India is an expert body and the recommendations made by it can be made the basis for testing the validity of the relaxations made in favour of the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes for the purpose of admission to Medical Colleges. In that case, the High Court held the relaxation to be violative of the provisions of Article 15(1) of the Constitution on the ground that it was in excess of the relaxation permissible under toe recommendations of the Medical Council of India. On the same logic, the relaxation in the present case, must be upheld, because, it is in consonance with the revised recommendations of the Medical Council of India.
Suresh vs Vasant And Ors. on 1 May, 1972
28. The present case is on all fours with the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in Suresh v. Vasant (supra) inasmuch as here also the 19 additional seats have been created for students belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and the said seats have been filled up by lowering the qualifying marks from 40% to 35%, If the said additional seats were not filled from amongst the students belonging to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, they would not have been available to the students belonging to the other castes. The petitioner neither belongs to a Scheduled Caste nor to a Scheduled Tribe. He can have no say in the matter of filling of those additional seats and he has, therefore, no locus standi to challenge the admission to the said seats.
Charles. K. Skaria vs Dr.C.Mathew on 19 March, 1980
In Charles K. Skaria v. Dr. C. Mathew, AIR 1980 SC 1230, the validity of a rule whereby a quota of 2% of the total number of seats in the M.S. and M.D. courses of the various Universities of Kerala had been prescribed for candidates from the entire country except Kerala, was under challenge. The Kerala High Court had struck down the said rule on the ground that the aforesaid quota of 2% for the whole country was too low and illusory. The Supreme Court affirmed the said judgment of the Kerala High Court and observed that fundamental rights of the candidates do not depend on the grace of Governments and Indians are not aliens in their own motherland when asking for seats on the score of equal opportunity. The Supreme Court has also cautioned the State of Kerala that an enlightened policy of admission to institutions of higher studies in harmony with the Constitution must be formulated if it is not to be guilty of confusion in college campuses and student
litigation which paralyse educational
life.
Chithra Ghosh & Another vs Union Of India And Others on 25 April, 1969
In this context, reference may be made to the following observations of the Supreme Court in Chitra Ghosh's case (AIR 1970 SC 35) (supra):
Nishi Maghu Etc. Etc vs State Of Jammu And Kashmir And Ors on 9 May, 1980
In this context, reference may also be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Miss Nishi Maghu v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1980 SC 1975. In the said case, the Supreme Court has referred to the fact that following the request made by the Government of India, 10% of the seats in the Government Medical College, Jammu for the academic year 1979-80 were reserved for students from other States on reciprocal basis. This shows that there is an All India policy for allocation of seats in educational institutions, especially medical colleges, to students from other States on reciprocal basis. The aforesaid policy decision appears to be in consonance with the observations of the Supreme Court.