Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Vikas Pathania Vs. U.S.i.

Vikas Pathania vs U.S.i.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jul 17, 1996
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/695745

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Civil Appeal No. 1072 of 1996
Subject
Constitution

Case Summary

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

The case focused the eligibility of the admission to the medical college and it also questioned the validity of residence requirement - It was held that the condition was not arbitrary or un constitutional. - - Moti Lal Nehru Medical College [1986]3SCR345 stands fully satisfied.

Key legal issue
Constitution
Acts & sections
Constitution of India - Article 14

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vikas Pathania

Advocate B.P. Ojha,; Jitender Sharma,; Meenakshi Vij and;

Respondent

U.S.i.

Legal References

Acts
Constitution of India - Article 14
Cases Referred
Anand Madan v. State of Haryana
Reported In
1996RLR443

Excerpt

the case focused the eligibility of the admission to the medical college and it also questioned the validity of residence requirement - it was held that the condition was not arbitrary or un constitutional. - - moti lal nehru medical college [1986]3scr345 stands fully satisfied......completely debar him from sitting in the entrance examination in the general category because he did not pass cbse examination from any of the recognised schools conducting regular classes situated in delhi. this, he feels is vocative of article 14 of constitution of india. we tend to disagree. (3) it is not disputed that similar eligibility rules arc in force in as many as eleven indian states. it is also not disputed that the impugned eligibility conditions with regard to general category were challenged on the same ground in c.w.p. no. 1247/94 titled as pooja malik vs. univ. of delhi and was dismissed in liming with the following observations : 'the conditions stipulated by the university of delhi in the notification have been in existence all these years and we do not find that any constitutional right of the petitioner has been violated any way. this petition has, thereforee, no merit. dismissed.'(4) keeping in view the observations made in pooja's malik''s case which seem to have inspired by the judgment of the supreme court in pradeep jain v. 1984 (2) scc 645 upholding the reservation in admission on the basis of residence requirement and constitution reservations, we find no force in the present, writ petition. it is not that the right of the petitioner to appear in the all india entrance test for admission to medical colleges under the university of delhi or all over india ha' been taken away. he has that right. we may mention that 15% of the total number of seats are admittedly to be filled up on the basis of all india entrance examination. thus the requirement emphasised in dr. dinesh kumar v. moti lal nehru medical college : [1986]3scr345 stands fully satisfied. we further feel that the following observations made in para. 10 of anand madan v. state of haryana : air 1995 sc955 clinch the issues : '10. in the present case, the reservation which has been made on the basis of candidates having studied for the proceeding three years in.....

Full Judgment

Jaspal Singh, J.

(1) There are certain rules for eligibility for entrance exams. for admission to MBBS/BDS course. The essential qualifications for general category are :

'B.ESSENTIAL Qualifications For General Category : Candidates who have appeared/passed 12th Class Exam. under 10+2 system conducted by the C.B S.E / Council for the Indian School Certificate Exam./Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi (Except Patrachar Vidyalaya and Open Schools) with required subjects i.e. Physics, Chemistry, Biology. Botany & Zoology) and English (Core or Elective) securing minimum 50% marks in aggregate in these subjects from the Recognised Schools conducting regular Classes situated within the National Capital Territory of Delhi only will be eligible for the University of Delhi.'

(2) The grievance of the petitioner is that though he is a bonafide permanent resident of Delhi, the above qualifications completely debar him from sitting in the entrance examination in the General Category because he did not pass Cbse examination from any of the Recognised Schools conducting regular classes situated in Delhi. This, he feels is vocative of Article 14 of Constitution of India. We tend to disagree.

(3) It is not disputed that similar eligibility Rules arc in force in as many as eleven Indian States. It is also not disputed that the impugned eligibility conditions with regard to General Category were challenged on the same ground in C.W.P. No. 1247/94 titled as Pooja Malik vs. Univ. of Delhi and was dismissed in liming with the following observations :

'THE conditions stipulated by the University of Delhi in the notification have been in existence all these years and we do not find that any constitutional right of the petitioner has been violated any way. This petition has, thereforee, no merit. Dismissed.'

(4) Keeping in view the observations made in Pooja's Malik''s case which seem to have inspired by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pradeep Jain v. 1984 (2) Scc 645 upholding the reservation in admission on the basis of residence requirement and Constitution reservations, we find no force in the present, writ petition. It is not that the right of the petitioner to appear in the All India Entrance Test for admission to medical colleges under the University of Delhi or all over India ha' been taken away. He has that right. We may mention that 15% of the total number of seats are admittedly to be filled up on the basis of All India Entrance Examination. Thus the requirement emphasised in Dr. Dinesh Kumar v. Moti Lal Nehru Medical College : [1986]3SCR345 stands fully satisfied. We further feel that the following observations made in para. 10 of Anand Madan v. State of Haryana : AIR 1995 SC955 clinch the issues : '10. In the present case, the reservation which has been made on the basis of candidates having studied for the proceeding three years in recognised schools/colleges in Haryana is in respect of these 85% of seats. It excludes 15% seats which have to be filled in on an all-India basis. The eligibility criterion, thereforee, is in conformity with the decisions of this Court referred to above. It cannot, thereforee, be considered as arbitrary or unreasonable or vocative of Article 14 of the Constitution.'

(5) The eligibility criterion, thereforee, is in conformity with the abovementioned judgments of the Supreme Court and consequently cannot be said to be unreasonable, arbitrary or vocative of the Constitution. The writ petition is consequently, dismissed with no order as to costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial