Anup Razdan (Dr.) Vs. Union of India

Anup Razdan (Dr.) vs Union of India

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jul 15, 1998

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/681947

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/681947
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: K. Ramamoorthy, J.
Decided On: Jul 15, 1998
Case Number: C.W. No. 4782/97 and CM Nos 8855/97 and 461/98
Subject: Constitution

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education - Admission to Medical college--Reservation for central Government nominee--Challenge to nomination on the ground that the candidate were not qualified to be nominated--The petitioner himself placed very low in merit list--Challenge to nomination, not maintainable. -

Key legal issue: Constitution
Acts & sections: Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Anup Razdan (Dr.)

Advocate Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv

Respondent

Union of India

Advocate Mr. Rakesh Tikku, ; Mr. Vinay Bhasin, ; Mr. Shayam Babu

Legal References

Acts: Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226
Reported In: 1998VAD(Delhi)18; 74(1998)DLT627; 1998(46)DRJ336

Excerpt

education - admission to medical college--reservation for central government nominee--challenge to nomination on the ground that the candidate were not qualified to be nominated--the petitioner himself placed very low in merit list--challenge to nomination, not maintainable. - orderk. ramamoorthy, j.1. the petitioner has prayed for quashing the nomination of respondents 3 to 6 for the mds course against the seats reserved for central government nominees at king george medical college, lucknow for the academic year 1995-96. the writ petition was instituted on 10.11.1997. the case of the petitioner shortly stated is that respondents 3 to 6 were not qualified to be nominated and they have allotted seat on extraneous consideration. the selection of the candidates made by preparing the merit list and nomination of the candidates and the allotment of specialised made in the order of merits. the petitioner is very much lower down in the list of selected candidates and thereforee, she cannot claim any right to be nominated. the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the writ petition 2. mr. prashant bhushan, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised several contentions relating to the nominations of the candidates from delhi, when there is a college at delhi, namely, all india medical institute of science and other points. in view of the fact that the petitioner is very much lower down in the list of selected candidates. even if the case of the petitioner is accepted with reference to respondents 3 to 6, the petitioner cannot claim to be selected and nominated for the college at king george medical college, lucknow.3. respondents 3 to 6 are fully qualified and no case has been made out by the petitioner to substantiate the point that respondents 3 to 6 are not qualified and their nomination and selection made is not in accordance with law.4. in this view of the matter, i do not deem it necessary to consider other points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the writ petition is dismissed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

K. Ramamoorthy, J.

1. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the nomination of respondents 3 to 6 for the MDS course against the seats reserved for Central Government nominees at King George Medical College, Lucknow for the Academic Year 1995-96. The writ petition was instituted on 10.11.1997. The case of the petitioner shortly stated is that Respondents 3 to 6 were not qualified to be nominated and they have allotted seat on extraneous consideration. The selection of the candidates made by preparing the merit list and nomination of the candidates and the allotment of specialised made in the order of merits. The petitioner is very much lower down in the list of selected candidates and thereforee, she cannot claim any right to be nominated. The petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the writ petition

2. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, the learned counsel for the petitioner raised several contentions relating to the nominations of the candidates from Delhi, when there is a college at Delhi, namely, All India Medical Institute of Science and other points. In view of the fact that the petitioner is very much lower down in the list of selected candidates. Even if the case of the petitioner is accepted with reference to respondents 3 to 6, the petitioner cannot claim to be selected and nominated for the college at King George Medical College, Lucknow.

3. Respondents 3 to 6 are fully qualified and no case has been made out by the petitioner to substantiate the point that respondents 3 to 6 are not qualified and their nomination and selection made is not in accordance with law.

4. In this view of the matter, I do not deem it necessary to consider other points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the writ petition is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 1998 Same Parties Anup Razdan (Dr.) vs Union of India Same Subject Constitution Same Judge K. Ramamoorthy, J. Acts & Sections Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226

Constitution