Lalithamma Vs Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges Bangalore and ors - Citation 372401 - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Lalithamma Vs Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges Bangalore and ors - Citation 372401 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372401',
			'acts' => 'Admission to Medical Colleges in the State of Mysore Rules - Rules 9 and 10(8)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 5209 of 1970',
			'appellant' => 'Lalithamma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Lalithamma Vs. Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - INCOME TAX ACT,1961[C.A.No.43/1961]-- Section 143 (1)(A): [K.L. Manjunath & A.S. Bopanna, JJ] Income arising out of leasing of hotel building - Assessee, carrying on hotel business  Assessees Licence Agreement with Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. -  Question whether amount received by the Assessee from the company, be treated s the income from other sources or a business income  Finding of the assessing officer that the income received from the company is income from other sources  Challenge as to assessment  Held, The transaction is in the nature of lease and the intention of the assessee is not to revive/restart business. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has been managing the hotel through M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., The transaction between assesses and M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. is in the nature of lease and the income from such hotel building is business income -  It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. ..7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R.U. Goulay, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'R.S. Mahendra, High Court Govt. Pleader for Govt. Adv. and ;S.G. Goddakale Gowda, High Court Govt. Pleader for ;H.K. Vasudeva Reddy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1971-07-06',
			'deposition' => ' Petition dismissed ',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B. Venkataswami and ;E.S. Venkataramiah, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkataswami, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner herein has sought for the issue of a Writ or Direction or Order against the respondents, to consider her case for admission to the First Year M. B. B. S. Course of the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli, or any other of the Government Medical Colleges and select her for the said course. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Petitioner passed her Pre-University Examination of the Bangalore University in the year 1969 and secured 66.67% in the relevant optional subjects. She hag also passed what is known as B. Sc., Part I Examination of the Karnatak University, which would enable her to seek admission for the First Year M. B. B. S. course. According to the relevant' Rules for selection of candidates for admission, the qualification prescribed for admission is a pass in the Pre-University Examination. She, therefore, applied for admission to any of the Medical Colleges under the control of any of the Universities in Mysore for the year 1970-71. She was not selected by the first respondent-Selection Committee, constituted for the purpose of the said Rules. Hence the petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It is not disputed that the qualifying examination was a pass in the Pre-University Examination in any of the Universities. It is further undisputed that In so far as the Universities of Bangalore and Mysore are concerned, any selection for admission would enable a candidate to get himself admitted to the Pre-Professional Course leading to medicine. It is only thereafter a candidate would regularly enter into the First Year Medical Course. In so far as the Karnatak University Is concerned, the course, corresponding to the aforesaid Pre-Professional, is B. Sc., Part I of that University. It is only after passing the said B. Sc., Part I can a candidate of that University enter the First Year Medical Course leading to M. B. B. S. It is, therefore, clear that the qualifying examination for all the Universities is a Pre-University course. In the instant case, all that the candidate had claimed was admission to any of the Medical Colleges within the jurisdiction of any of the said three Universities. The marks secured by the last candidate admitted in all these Universities, in the category of the general pool, in which alone the petitioner was entitled to be considered, had secured marks higher than that of the petitioner. The petitioner would have no grievance in this behalf. Indeed, the case was not pressed on behalf of the petitioner in regard to this aspect of the matter. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Sri R. U. Goulay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however urged that the petitioner should have been considered for the seats reserved, under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules for selection of candidates for admission, which provided for allotment of not more than 20% of the seats in Colleges affiliated to any University, in the discretion of the Selection Committee, for candidates passing from Colleges affiliated to any other University in the State or elsewhere in India. His contention is that according to Sub-rule (8) of Rule 10 the process of selection should conform to the other provisions made in the said rule. In other words, the contention is that all those seats so reserved should have been dealt with in one compartment and, if so dealt with, the petitioner would be entitled to be preferred. The foundation for this argument is based on the following facts: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. By virtue of the discretion vested under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules governing the matter, the Selection Committee has selected candidates from the Universities of Shiva.ji, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Poona and Venkateswara. The last candidates admitted from each of these Universities except that of Andhra Pradesh have secured more marks than the petitioner. Hence the petitioner could not have any grievance in regard to them even assuming that the contention urged on her behalf of Sri Goulay had to be accepted. But, in regard to Andhra Pradesh, two candidates have been admitted and one of them has secured only 66%. in the relevant optionals. that is less than 66.67% secured by the petitioner in her Pre-University course Examination. The case on behalf of the petitioner was strenuously urged on the basis of this fact, </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are, however, not persuaded to accept the contention urged on be- half of the petitioner, Proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules conferred discretion on the Selection Committee to allot not more than 20% of the seats to persons belonging to Universities other than the one to which admission is sought by the petitioner, which in the instant case is the Karnatak University. What the Selection Committee, in our opinion, had done is to draw candidates from different sources. Therefore, what the Committee has to do is to compare the merits of the candidates belonging to each of these sources separately. That is exactly what has been done in the present case. We do not think that it would be fair or proper to compare the merit of the petitioner with the merits of the last boy admitted hailing from Andhra Pradesh. No material is forthcoming from the papers before us whether the standards of education and teaching provided in the Andhra Pradesh University were in any way equal to those provided in the Bangalore University. For the same reason, it cannot be predicated that the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules envisages in any manner equal treatment of candidates coming from different Universities either in the State or elsewhere in India. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to certain observations of the Supreme Court made in Writ Petns. Nos. 618 to 622 of 1970, in which judgment was pronounced on 3-5-1971 (reported in : AIR1971SC1762 } D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore. His Lordship, Shelat, J-speaking for the Bench, while disposing of W. P. No. 621 of 1970, V. Soudhamini v. State of Mysore, has observed thus: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'.....There was thus no comparison between persons equally situated even as regards the number of marks secured by them. But apart from that, the result obtained by a student in an examination held by one University cannot be regarded as comparable with the result obtained by another candidate in an examination held by another University. Even assuming that a conscious effort is made to equalise standards obtaining in different unversities. such standards depend on several human factors, methods of teaching and examining, the syllabus in such universities etc., even though the subjects taught and examined were to be the same. It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. That the petitioner and those whom the Selection Committee selected were equally situated cannot, from the facts above stated, be assumed.....' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed, but without costs. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant37; AIR1972Mys37; (1971)2MysLJ361',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372401',
		(int) 1 => 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Lalithamma Vs Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges Bangalore and ors - Citation 372401 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372401',
		'acts' => 'Admission to Medical Colleges in the State of Mysore Rules - Rules 9 and 10(8)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 5209 of 1970',
		'appellant' => 'Lalithamma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Lalithamma Vs. Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - INCOME TAX ACT,1961[C.A.No.43/1961]-- Section 143 (1)(A): [K.L. Manjunath & A.S. Bopanna, JJ] Income arising out of leasing of hotel building - Assessee, carrying on hotel business  Assessees Licence Agreement with Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. -  Question whether amount received by the Assessee from the company, be treated s the income from other sources or a business income  Finding of the assessing officer that the income received from the company is income from other sources  Challenge as to assessment  Held, The transaction is in the nature of lease and the intention of the assessee is not to revive/restart business. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has been managing the hotel through M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., The transaction between assesses and M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. is in the nature of lease and the income from such hotel building is business income -  It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. ..7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R.U. Goulay, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'R.S. Mahendra, High Court Govt. Pleader for Govt. Adv. and ;S.G. Goddakale Gowda, High Court Govt. Pleader for ;H.K. Vasudeva Reddy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1971-07-06',
		'deposition' => ' Petition dismissed ',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B. Venkataswami and ;E.S. Venkataramiah, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Venkataswami, J. </p><p>1. The petitioner herein has sought for the issue of a Writ or Direction or Order against the respondents, to consider her case for admission to the First Year M. B. B. S. Course of the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli, or any other of the Government Medical Colleges and select her for the said course. </p><p>2. The Petitioner passed her Pre-University Examination of the Bangalore University in the year 1969 and secured 66.67% in the relevant optional subjects. She hag also passed what is known as B. Sc., Part I Examination of the Karnatak University, which would enable her to seek admission for the First Year M. B. B. S. course. According to the relevant' Rules for selection of candidates for admission, the qualification prescribed for admission is a pass in the Pre-University Examination. She, therefore, applied for admission to any of the Medical Colleges under the control of any of the Universities in Mysore for the year 1970-71. She was not selected by the first respondent-Selection Committee, constituted for the purpose of the said Rules. Hence the petition. </p><p>3. It is not disputed that the qualifying examination was a pass in the Pre-University Examination in any of the Universities. It is further undisputed that In so far as the Universities of Bangalore and Mysore are concerned, any selection for admission would enable a candidate to get himself admitted to the Pre-Professional Course leading to medicine. It is only thereafter a candidate would regularly enter into the First Year Medical Course. In so far as the Karnatak University Is concerned, the course, corresponding to the aforesaid Pre-Professional, is B. Sc., Part I of that University. It is only after passing the said B. Sc., Part I can a candidate of that University enter the First Year Medical Course leading to M. B. B. S. It is, therefore, clear that the qualifying examination for all the Universities is a Pre-University course. In the instant case, all that the candidate had claimed was admission to any of the Medical Colleges within the jurisdiction of any of the said three Universities. The marks secured by the last candidate admitted in all these Universities, in the category of the general pool, in which alone the petitioner was entitled to be considered, had secured marks higher than that of the petitioner. The petitioner would have no grievance in this behalf. Indeed, the case was not pressed on behalf of the petitioner in regard to this aspect of the matter. </p><p>4. Sri R. U. Goulay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however urged that the petitioner should have been considered for the seats reserved, under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules for selection of candidates for admission, which provided for allotment of not more than 20% of the seats in Colleges affiliated to any University, in the discretion of the Selection Committee, for candidates passing from Colleges affiliated to any other University in the State or elsewhere in India. His contention is that according to Sub-rule (8) of Rule 10 the process of selection should conform to the other provisions made in the said rule. In other words, the contention is that all those seats so reserved should have been dealt with in one compartment and, if so dealt with, the petitioner would be entitled to be preferred. The foundation for this argument is based on the following facts: </p><p>5. By virtue of the discretion vested under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules governing the matter, the Selection Committee has selected candidates from the Universities of Shiva.ji, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Poona and Venkateswara. The last candidates admitted from each of these Universities except that of Andhra Pradesh have secured more marks than the petitioner. Hence the petitioner could not have any grievance in regard to them even assuming that the contention urged on her behalf of Sri Goulay had to be accepted. But, in regard to Andhra Pradesh, two candidates have been admitted and one of them has secured only 66%. in the relevant optionals. that is less than 66.67% secured by the petitioner in her Pre-University course Examination. The case on behalf of the petitioner was strenuously urged on the basis of this fact, </p><p>6. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are, however, not persuaded to accept the contention urged on be- half of the petitioner, Proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules conferred discretion on the Selection Committee to allot not more than 20% of the seats to persons belonging to Universities other than the one to which admission is sought by the petitioner, which in the instant case is the Karnatak University. What the Selection Committee, in our opinion, had done is to draw candidates from different sources. Therefore, what the Committee has to do is to compare the merits of the candidates belonging to each of these sources separately. That is exactly what has been done in the present case. We do not think that it would be fair or proper to compare the merit of the petitioner with the merits of the last boy admitted hailing from Andhra Pradesh. No material is forthcoming from the papers before us whether the standards of education and teaching provided in the Andhra Pradesh University were in any way equal to those provided in the Bangalore University. For the same reason, it cannot be predicated that the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules envisages in any manner equal treatment of candidates coming from different Universities either in the State or elsewhere in India. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to certain observations of the Supreme Court made in Writ Petns. Nos. 618 to 622 of 1970, in which judgment was pronounced on 3-5-1971 (reported in : AIR1971SC1762 } D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore. His Lordship, Shelat, J-speaking for the Bench, while disposing of W. P. No. 621 of 1970, V. Soudhamini v. State of Mysore, has observed thus: </p><p>'.....There was thus no comparison between persons equally situated even as regards the number of marks secured by them. But apart from that, the result obtained by a student in an examination held by one University cannot be regarded as comparable with the result obtained by another candidate in an examination held by another University. Even assuming that a conscious effort is made to equalise standards obtaining in different unversities. such standards depend on several human factors, methods of teaching and examining, the syllabus in such universities etc., even though the subjects taught and examined were to be the same. It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. That the petitioner and those whom the Selection Committee selected were equally situated cannot, from the facts above stated, be assumed.....' </p><p>7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail. </p><p>8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed, but without costs. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant37; AIR1972Mys37; (1971)2MysLJ361',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372401',
	(int) 1 => 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372401/lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Lalithamma Vs Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges Bangalore and ors - Citation 372401 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372401',
			'acts' => 'Admission to Medical Colleges in the State of Mysore Rules - Rules 9 and 10(8)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 5209 of 1970',
			'appellant' => 'Lalithamma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Lalithamma Vs. Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - INCOME TAX ACT,1961[C.A.No.43/1961]-- Section 143 (1)(A): [K.L. Manjunath & A.S. Bopanna, JJ] Income arising out of leasing of hotel building - Assessee, carrying on hotel business  Assessees Licence Agreement with Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. -  Question whether amount received by the Assessee from the company, be treated s the income from other sources or a business income  Finding of the assessing officer that the income received from the company is income from other sources  Challenge as to assessment  Held, The transaction is in the nature of lease and the intention of the assessee is not to revive/restart business. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has been managing the hotel through M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., The transaction between assesses and M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. is in the nature of lease and the income from such hotel building is business income -  It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. ..7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R.U. Goulay, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'R.S. Mahendra, High Court Govt. Pleader for Govt. Adv. and ;S.G. Goddakale Gowda, High Court Govt. Pleader for ;H.K. Vasudeva Reddy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1971-07-06',
			'deposition' => ' Petition dismissed ',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B. Venkataswami and ;E.S. Venkataramiah, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkataswami, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner herein has sought for the issue of a Writ or Direction or Order against the respondents, to consider her case for admission to the First Year M. B. B. S. Course of the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli, or any other of the Government Medical Colleges and select her for the said course. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Petitioner passed her Pre-University Examination of the Bangalore University in the year 1969 and secured 66.67% in the relevant optional subjects. She hag also passed what is known as B. Sc., Part I Examination of the Karnatak University, which would enable her to seek admission for the First Year M. B. B. S. course. According to the relevant' Rules for selection of candidates for admission, the qualification prescribed for admission is a pass in the Pre-University Examination. She, therefore, applied for admission to any of the Medical Colleges under the control of any of the Universities in Mysore for the year 1970-71. She was not selected by the first respondent-Selection Committee, constituted for the purpose of the said Rules. Hence the petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It is not disputed that the qualifying examination was a pass in the Pre-University Examination in any of the Universities. It is further undisputed that In so far as the Universities of Bangalore and Mysore are concerned, any selection for admission would enable a candidate to get himself admitted to the Pre-Professional Course leading to medicine. It is only thereafter a candidate would regularly enter into the First Year Medical Course. In so far as the Karnatak University Is concerned, the course, corresponding to the aforesaid Pre-Professional, is B. Sc., Part I of that University. It is only after passing the said B. Sc., Part I can a candidate of that University enter the First Year Medical Course leading to M. B. B. S. It is, therefore, clear that the qualifying examination for all the Universities is a Pre-University course. In the instant case, all that the candidate had claimed was admission to any of the Medical Colleges within the jurisdiction of any of the said three Universities. The marks secured by the last candidate admitted in all these Universities, in the category of the general pool, in which alone the petitioner was entitled to be considered, had secured marks higher than that of the petitioner. The petitioner would have no grievance in this behalf. Indeed, the case was not pressed on behalf of the petitioner in regard to this aspect of the matter. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Sri R. U. Goulay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however urged that the petitioner should have been considered for the seats reserved, under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules for selection of candidates for admission, which provided for allotment of not more than 20% of the seats in Colleges affiliated to any University, in the discretion of the Selection Committee, for candidates passing from Colleges affiliated to any other University in the State or elsewhere in India. His contention is that according to Sub-rule (8) of Rule 10 the process of selection should conform to the other provisions made in the said rule. In other words, the contention is that all those seats so reserved should have been dealt with in one compartment and, if so dealt with, the petitioner would be entitled to be preferred. The foundation for this argument is based on the following facts: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. By virtue of the discretion vested under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules governing the matter, the Selection Committee has selected candidates from the Universities of Shiva.ji, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Poona and Venkateswara. The last candidates admitted from each of these Universities except that of Andhra Pradesh have secured more marks than the petitioner. Hence the petitioner could not have any grievance in regard to them even assuming that the contention urged on her behalf of Sri Goulay had to be accepted. But, in regard to Andhra Pradesh, two candidates have been admitted and one of them has secured only 66%. in the relevant optionals. that is less than 66.67% secured by the petitioner in her Pre-University course Examination. The case on behalf of the petitioner was strenuously urged on the basis of this fact, </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are, however, not persuaded to accept the contention urged on be- half of the petitioner, Proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules conferred discretion on the Selection Committee to allot not more than 20% of the seats to persons belonging to Universities other than the one to which admission is sought by the petitioner, which in the instant case is the Karnatak University. What the Selection Committee, in our opinion, had done is to draw candidates from different sources. Therefore, what the Committee has to do is to compare the merits of the candidates belonging to each of these sources separately. That is exactly what has been done in the present case. We do not think that it would be fair or proper to compare the merit of the petitioner with the merits of the last boy admitted hailing from Andhra Pradesh. No material is forthcoming from the papers before us whether the standards of education and teaching provided in the Andhra Pradesh University were in any way equal to those provided in the Bangalore University. For the same reason, it cannot be predicated that the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules envisages in any manner equal treatment of candidates coming from different Universities either in the State or elsewhere in India. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to certain observations of the Supreme Court made in Writ Petns. Nos. 618 to 622 of 1970, in which judgment was pronounced on 3-5-1971 (reported in : AIR1971SC1762 } D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore. His Lordship, Shelat, J-speaking for the Bench, while disposing of W. P. No. 621 of 1970, V. Soudhamini v. State of Mysore, has observed thus: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'.....There was thus no comparison between persons equally situated even as regards the number of marks secured by them. But apart from that, the result obtained by a student in an examination held by one University cannot be regarded as comparable with the result obtained by another candidate in an examination held by another University. Even assuming that a conscious effort is made to equalise standards obtaining in different unversities. such standards depend on several human factors, methods of teaching and examining, the syllabus in such universities etc., even though the subjects taught and examined were to be the same. It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. That the petitioner and those whom the Selection Committee selected were equally situated cannot, from the facts above stated, be assumed.....' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed, but without costs. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant37; AIR1972Mys37; (1971)2MysLJ361',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372401',
		(int) 1 => 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Lalithamma Vs Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges Bangalore and ors - Citation 372401 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372401',
		'acts' => 'Admission to Medical Colleges in the State of Mysore Rules - Rules 9 and 10(8)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 5209 of 1970',
		'appellant' => 'Lalithamma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Lalithamma Vs. Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - INCOME TAX ACT,1961[C.A.No.43/1961]-- Section 143 (1)(A): [K.L. Manjunath & A.S. Bopanna, JJ] Income arising out of leasing of hotel building - Assessee, carrying on hotel business  Assessees Licence Agreement with Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. -  Question whether amount received by the Assessee from the company, be treated s the income from other sources or a business income  Finding of the assessing officer that the income received from the company is income from other sources  Challenge as to assessment  Held, The transaction is in the nature of lease and the intention of the assessee is not to revive/restart business. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has been managing the hotel through M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., The transaction between assesses and M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. is in the nature of lease and the income from such hotel building is business income -  It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. ..7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R.U. Goulay, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'R.S. Mahendra, High Court Govt. Pleader for Govt. Adv. and ;S.G. Goddakale Gowda, High Court Govt. Pleader for ;H.K. Vasudeva Reddy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1971-07-06',
		'deposition' => ' Petition dismissed ',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B. Venkataswami and ;E.S. Venkataramiah, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Venkataswami, J. </p><p>1. The petitioner herein has sought for the issue of a Writ or Direction or Order against the respondents, to consider her case for admission to the First Year M. B. B. S. Course of the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli, or any other of the Government Medical Colleges and select her for the said course. </p><p>2. The Petitioner passed her Pre-University Examination of the Bangalore University in the year 1969 and secured 66.67% in the relevant optional subjects. She hag also passed what is known as B. Sc., Part I Examination of the Karnatak University, which would enable her to seek admission for the First Year M. B. B. S. course. According to the relevant' Rules for selection of candidates for admission, the qualification prescribed for admission is a pass in the Pre-University Examination. She, therefore, applied for admission to any of the Medical Colleges under the control of any of the Universities in Mysore for the year 1970-71. She was not selected by the first respondent-Selection Committee, constituted for the purpose of the said Rules. Hence the petition. </p><p>3. It is not disputed that the qualifying examination was a pass in the Pre-University Examination in any of the Universities. It is further undisputed that In so far as the Universities of Bangalore and Mysore are concerned, any selection for admission would enable a candidate to get himself admitted to the Pre-Professional Course leading to medicine. It is only thereafter a candidate would regularly enter into the First Year Medical Course. In so far as the Karnatak University Is concerned, the course, corresponding to the aforesaid Pre-Professional, is B. Sc., Part I of that University. It is only after passing the said B. Sc., Part I can a candidate of that University enter the First Year Medical Course leading to M. B. B. S. It is, therefore, clear that the qualifying examination for all the Universities is a Pre-University course. In the instant case, all that the candidate had claimed was admission to any of the Medical Colleges within the jurisdiction of any of the said three Universities. The marks secured by the last candidate admitted in all these Universities, in the category of the general pool, in which alone the petitioner was entitled to be considered, had secured marks higher than that of the petitioner. The petitioner would have no grievance in this behalf. Indeed, the case was not pressed on behalf of the petitioner in regard to this aspect of the matter. </p><p>4. Sri R. U. Goulay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however urged that the petitioner should have been considered for the seats reserved, under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules for selection of candidates for admission, which provided for allotment of not more than 20% of the seats in Colleges affiliated to any University, in the discretion of the Selection Committee, for candidates passing from Colleges affiliated to any other University in the State or elsewhere in India. His contention is that according to Sub-rule (8) of Rule 10 the process of selection should conform to the other provisions made in the said rule. In other words, the contention is that all those seats so reserved should have been dealt with in one compartment and, if so dealt with, the petitioner would be entitled to be preferred. The foundation for this argument is based on the following facts: </p><p>5. By virtue of the discretion vested under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules governing the matter, the Selection Committee has selected candidates from the Universities of Shiva.ji, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Poona and Venkateswara. The last candidates admitted from each of these Universities except that of Andhra Pradesh have secured more marks than the petitioner. Hence the petitioner could not have any grievance in regard to them even assuming that the contention urged on her behalf of Sri Goulay had to be accepted. But, in regard to Andhra Pradesh, two candidates have been admitted and one of them has secured only 66%. in the relevant optionals. that is less than 66.67% secured by the petitioner in her Pre-University course Examination. The case on behalf of the petitioner was strenuously urged on the basis of this fact, </p><p>6. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are, however, not persuaded to accept the contention urged on be- half of the petitioner, Proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules conferred discretion on the Selection Committee to allot not more than 20% of the seats to persons belonging to Universities other than the one to which admission is sought by the petitioner, which in the instant case is the Karnatak University. What the Selection Committee, in our opinion, had done is to draw candidates from different sources. Therefore, what the Committee has to do is to compare the merits of the candidates belonging to each of these sources separately. That is exactly what has been done in the present case. We do not think that it would be fair or proper to compare the merit of the petitioner with the merits of the last boy admitted hailing from Andhra Pradesh. No material is forthcoming from the papers before us whether the standards of education and teaching provided in the Andhra Pradesh University were in any way equal to those provided in the Bangalore University. For the same reason, it cannot be predicated that the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules envisages in any manner equal treatment of candidates coming from different Universities either in the State or elsewhere in India. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to certain observations of the Supreme Court made in Writ Petns. Nos. 618 to 622 of 1970, in which judgment was pronounced on 3-5-1971 (reported in : AIR1971SC1762 } D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore. His Lordship, Shelat, J-speaking for the Bench, while disposing of W. P. No. 621 of 1970, V. Soudhamini v. State of Mysore, has observed thus: </p><p>'.....There was thus no comparison between persons equally situated even as regards the number of marks secured by them. But apart from that, the result obtained by a student in an examination held by one University cannot be regarded as comparable with the result obtained by another candidate in an examination held by another University. Even assuming that a conscious effort is made to equalise standards obtaining in different unversities. such standards depend on several human factors, methods of teaching and examining, the syllabus in such universities etc., even though the subjects taught and examined were to be the same. It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. That the petitioner and those whom the Selection Committee selected were equally situated cannot, from the facts above stated, be assumed.....' </p><p>7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail. </p><p>8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed, but without costs. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant37; AIR1972Mys37; (1971)2MysLJ361',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372401',
	(int) 1 => 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372401/lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

- income tax act,1961[c.a.no.43/1961]-- section 143 (1)(a): [k.l. manjunath & a.s. bopanna, jj] income arising out of leasing of hotel building - assessee, carrying on hotel business assessees licence agreement with indian hotels co. ltd. - question whether amount received by the assessee from the company, be treated s the income from other sources or a business income finding of the assessing officer that the income received from the company is income from other sources challenge as to assessment held, the transaction is in the nature of lease and the intention of the assessee is not to revive/restart business. therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has been managing the hotel through m/s indian hotels co. ltd., the transaction between assesses and m/s indian hotels co......

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Lalithamma Vs Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges Bangalore and ors - Citation 372401 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372401',
			'acts' => 'Admission to Medical Colleges in the State of Mysore Rules - Rules 9 and 10(8)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 5209 of 1970',
			'appellant' => 'Lalithamma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Lalithamma Vs. Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - INCOME TAX ACT,1961[C.A.No.43/1961]-- Section 143 (1)(A): [K.L. Manjunath & A.S. Bopanna, JJ] Income arising out of leasing of hotel building - Assessee, carrying on hotel business  Assessees Licence Agreement with Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. -  Question whether amount received by the Assessee from the company, be treated s the income from other sources or a business income  Finding of the assessing officer that the income received from the company is income from other sources  Challenge as to assessment  Held, The transaction is in the nature of lease and the intention of the assessee is not to revive/restart business. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has been managing the hotel through M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., The transaction between assesses and M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. is in the nature of lease and the income from such hotel building is business income -  It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. ..7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R.U. Goulay, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'R.S. Mahendra, High Court Govt. Pleader for Govt. Adv. and ;S.G. Goddakale Gowda, High Court Govt. Pleader for ;H.K. Vasudeva Reddy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1971-07-06',
			'deposition' => ' Petition dismissed ',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B. Venkataswami and ;E.S. Venkataramiah, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkataswami, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner herein has sought for the issue of a Writ or Direction or Order against the respondents, to consider her case for admission to the First Year M. B. B. S. Course of the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli, or any other of the Government Medical Colleges and select her for the said course. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Petitioner passed her Pre-University Examination of the Bangalore University in the year 1969 and secured 66.67% in the relevant optional subjects. She hag also passed what is known as B. Sc., Part I Examination of the Karnatak University, which would enable her to seek admission for the First Year M. B. B. S. course. According to the relevant' Rules for selection of candidates for admission, the qualification prescribed for admission is a pass in the Pre-University Examination. She, therefore, applied for admission to any of the Medical Colleges under the control of any of the Universities in Mysore for the year 1970-71. She was not selected by the first respondent-Selection Committee, constituted for the purpose of the said Rules. Hence the petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It is not disputed that the qualifying examination was a pass in the Pre-University Examination in any of the Universities. It is further undisputed that In so far as the Universities of Bangalore and Mysore are concerned, any selection for admission would enable a candidate to get himself admitted to the Pre-Professional Course leading to medicine. It is only thereafter a candidate would regularly enter into the First Year Medical Course. In so far as the Karnatak University Is concerned, the course, corresponding to the aforesaid Pre-Professional, is B. Sc., Part I of that University. It is only after passing the said B. Sc., Part I can a candidate of that University enter the First Year Medical Course leading to M. B. B. S. It is, therefore, clear that the qualifying examination for all the Universities is a Pre-University course. In the instant case, all that the candidate had claimed was admission to any of the Medical Colleges within the jurisdiction of any of the said three Universities. The marks secured by the last candidate admitted in all these Universities, in the category of the general pool, in which alone the petitioner was entitled to be considered, had secured marks higher than that of the petitioner. The petitioner would have no grievance in this behalf. Indeed, the case was not pressed on behalf of the petitioner in regard to this aspect of the matter. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Sri R. U. Goulay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however urged that the petitioner should have been considered for the seats reserved, under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules for selection of candidates for admission, which provided for allotment of not more than 20% of the seats in Colleges affiliated to any University, in the discretion of the Selection Committee, for candidates passing from Colleges affiliated to any other University in the State or elsewhere in India. His contention is that according to Sub-rule (8) of Rule 10 the process of selection should conform to the other provisions made in the said rule. In other words, the contention is that all those seats so reserved should have been dealt with in one compartment and, if so dealt with, the petitioner would be entitled to be preferred. The foundation for this argument is based on the following facts: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. By virtue of the discretion vested under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules governing the matter, the Selection Committee has selected candidates from the Universities of Shiva.ji, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Poona and Venkateswara. The last candidates admitted from each of these Universities except that of Andhra Pradesh have secured more marks than the petitioner. Hence the petitioner could not have any grievance in regard to them even assuming that the contention urged on her behalf of Sri Goulay had to be accepted. But, in regard to Andhra Pradesh, two candidates have been admitted and one of them has secured only 66%. in the relevant optionals. that is less than 66.67% secured by the petitioner in her Pre-University course Examination. The case on behalf of the petitioner was strenuously urged on the basis of this fact, </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are, however, not persuaded to accept the contention urged on be- half of the petitioner, Proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules conferred discretion on the Selection Committee to allot not more than 20% of the seats to persons belonging to Universities other than the one to which admission is sought by the petitioner, which in the instant case is the Karnatak University. What the Selection Committee, in our opinion, had done is to draw candidates from different sources. Therefore, what the Committee has to do is to compare the merits of the candidates belonging to each of these sources separately. That is exactly what has been done in the present case. We do not think that it would be fair or proper to compare the merit of the petitioner with the merits of the last boy admitted hailing from Andhra Pradesh. No material is forthcoming from the papers before us whether the standards of education and teaching provided in the Andhra Pradesh University were in any way equal to those provided in the Bangalore University. For the same reason, it cannot be predicated that the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules envisages in any manner equal treatment of candidates coming from different Universities either in the State or elsewhere in India. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to certain observations of the Supreme Court made in Writ Petns. Nos. 618 to 622 of 1970, in which judgment was pronounced on 3-5-1971 (reported in : AIR1971SC1762 } D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore. His Lordship, Shelat, J-speaking for the Bench, while disposing of W. P. No. 621 of 1970, V. Soudhamini v. State of Mysore, has observed thus: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'.....There was thus no comparison between persons equally situated even as regards the number of marks secured by them. But apart from that, the result obtained by a student in an examination held by one University cannot be regarded as comparable with the result obtained by another candidate in an examination held by another University. Even assuming that a conscious effort is made to equalise standards obtaining in different unversities. such standards depend on several human factors, methods of teaching and examining, the syllabus in such universities etc., even though the subjects taught and examined were to be the same. It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. That the petitioner and those whom the Selection Committee selected were equally situated cannot, from the facts above stated, be assumed.....' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed, but without costs. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant37; AIR1972Mys37; (1971)2MysLJ361',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372401',
		(int) 1 => 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Lalithamma Vs Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges Bangalore and ors - Citation 372401 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372401',
		'acts' => 'Admission to Medical Colleges in the State of Mysore Rules - Rules 9 and 10(8)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 5209 of 1970',
		'appellant' => 'Lalithamma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Lalithamma Vs. Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - INCOME TAX ACT,1961[C.A.No.43/1961]-- Section 143 (1)(A): [K.L. Manjunath & A.S. Bopanna, JJ] Income arising out of leasing of hotel building - Assessee, carrying on hotel business  Assessees Licence Agreement with Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. -  Question whether amount received by the Assessee from the company, be treated s the income from other sources or a business income  Finding of the assessing officer that the income received from the company is income from other sources  Challenge as to assessment  Held, The transaction is in the nature of lease and the intention of the assessee is not to revive/restart business. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has been managing the hotel through M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., The transaction between assesses and M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. is in the nature of lease and the income from such hotel building is business income -  It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. ..7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R.U. Goulay, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'R.S. Mahendra, High Court Govt. Pleader for Govt. Adv. and ;S.G. Goddakale Gowda, High Court Govt. Pleader for ;H.K. Vasudeva Reddy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1971-07-06',
		'deposition' => ' Petition dismissed ',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B. Venkataswami and ;E.S. Venkataramiah, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Venkataswami, J. </p><p>1. The petitioner herein has sought for the issue of a Writ or Direction or Order against the respondents, to consider her case for admission to the First Year M. B. B. S. Course of the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli, or any other of the Government Medical Colleges and select her for the said course. </p><p>2. The Petitioner passed her Pre-University Examination of the Bangalore University in the year 1969 and secured 66.67% in the relevant optional subjects. She hag also passed what is known as B. Sc., Part I Examination of the Karnatak University, which would enable her to seek admission for the First Year M. B. B. S. course. According to the relevant' Rules for selection of candidates for admission, the qualification prescribed for admission is a pass in the Pre-University Examination. She, therefore, applied for admission to any of the Medical Colleges under the control of any of the Universities in Mysore for the year 1970-71. She was not selected by the first respondent-Selection Committee, constituted for the purpose of the said Rules. Hence the petition. </p><p>3. It is not disputed that the qualifying examination was a pass in the Pre-University Examination in any of the Universities. It is further undisputed that In so far as the Universities of Bangalore and Mysore are concerned, any selection for admission would enable a candidate to get himself admitted to the Pre-Professional Course leading to medicine. It is only thereafter a candidate would regularly enter into the First Year Medical Course. In so far as the Karnatak University Is concerned, the course, corresponding to the aforesaid Pre-Professional, is B. Sc., Part I of that University. It is only after passing the said B. Sc., Part I can a candidate of that University enter the First Year Medical Course leading to M. B. B. S. It is, therefore, clear that the qualifying examination for all the Universities is a Pre-University course. In the instant case, all that the candidate had claimed was admission to any of the Medical Colleges within the jurisdiction of any of the said three Universities. The marks secured by the last candidate admitted in all these Universities, in the category of the general pool, in which alone the petitioner was entitled to be considered, had secured marks higher than that of the petitioner. The petitioner would have no grievance in this behalf. Indeed, the case was not pressed on behalf of the petitioner in regard to this aspect of the matter. </p><p>4. Sri R. U. Goulay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however urged that the petitioner should have been considered for the seats reserved, under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules for selection of candidates for admission, which provided for allotment of not more than 20% of the seats in Colleges affiliated to any University, in the discretion of the Selection Committee, for candidates passing from Colleges affiliated to any other University in the State or elsewhere in India. His contention is that according to Sub-rule (8) of Rule 10 the process of selection should conform to the other provisions made in the said rule. In other words, the contention is that all those seats so reserved should have been dealt with in one compartment and, if so dealt with, the petitioner would be entitled to be preferred. The foundation for this argument is based on the following facts: </p><p>5. By virtue of the discretion vested under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules governing the matter, the Selection Committee has selected candidates from the Universities of Shiva.ji, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Poona and Venkateswara. The last candidates admitted from each of these Universities except that of Andhra Pradesh have secured more marks than the petitioner. Hence the petitioner could not have any grievance in regard to them even assuming that the contention urged on her behalf of Sri Goulay had to be accepted. But, in regard to Andhra Pradesh, two candidates have been admitted and one of them has secured only 66%. in the relevant optionals. that is less than 66.67% secured by the petitioner in her Pre-University course Examination. The case on behalf of the petitioner was strenuously urged on the basis of this fact, </p><p>6. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are, however, not persuaded to accept the contention urged on be- half of the petitioner, Proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules conferred discretion on the Selection Committee to allot not more than 20% of the seats to persons belonging to Universities other than the one to which admission is sought by the petitioner, which in the instant case is the Karnatak University. What the Selection Committee, in our opinion, had done is to draw candidates from different sources. Therefore, what the Committee has to do is to compare the merits of the candidates belonging to each of these sources separately. That is exactly what has been done in the present case. We do not think that it would be fair or proper to compare the merit of the petitioner with the merits of the last boy admitted hailing from Andhra Pradesh. No material is forthcoming from the papers before us whether the standards of education and teaching provided in the Andhra Pradesh University were in any way equal to those provided in the Bangalore University. For the same reason, it cannot be predicated that the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules envisages in any manner equal treatment of candidates coming from different Universities either in the State or elsewhere in India. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to certain observations of the Supreme Court made in Writ Petns. Nos. 618 to 622 of 1970, in which judgment was pronounced on 3-5-1971 (reported in : AIR1971SC1762 } D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore. His Lordship, Shelat, J-speaking for the Bench, while disposing of W. P. No. 621 of 1970, V. Soudhamini v. State of Mysore, has observed thus: </p><p>'.....There was thus no comparison between persons equally situated even as regards the number of marks secured by them. But apart from that, the result obtained by a student in an examination held by one University cannot be regarded as comparable with the result obtained by another candidate in an examination held by another University. Even assuming that a conscious effort is made to equalise standards obtaining in different unversities. such standards depend on several human factors, methods of teaching and examining, the syllabus in such universities etc., even though the subjects taught and examined were to be the same. It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. That the petitioner and those whom the Selection Committee selected were equally situated cannot, from the facts above stated, be assumed.....' </p><p>7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail. </p><p>8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed, but without costs. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant37; AIR1972Mys37; (1971)2MysLJ361',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372401',
	(int) 1 => 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372401/lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Lalithamma Vs Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges Bangalore and ors - Citation 372401 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372401',
			'acts' => 'Admission to Medical Colleges in the State of Mysore Rules - Rules 9 and 10(8)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 5209 of 1970',
			'appellant' => 'Lalithamma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Lalithamma Vs. Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - INCOME TAX ACT,1961[C.A.No.43/1961]-- Section 143 (1)(A): [K.L. Manjunath & A.S. Bopanna, JJ] Income arising out of leasing of hotel building - Assessee, carrying on hotel business  Assessees Licence Agreement with Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. -  Question whether amount received by the Assessee from the company, be treated s the income from other sources or a business income  Finding of the assessing officer that the income received from the company is income from other sources  Challenge as to assessment  Held, The transaction is in the nature of lease and the intention of the assessee is not to revive/restart business. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has been managing the hotel through M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., The transaction between assesses and M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. is in the nature of lease and the income from such hotel building is business income -  It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. ..7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R.U. Goulay, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'R.S. Mahendra, High Court Govt. Pleader for Govt. Adv. and ;S.G. Goddakale Gowda, High Court Govt. Pleader for ;H.K. Vasudeva Reddy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1971-07-06',
			'deposition' => ' Petition dismissed ',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B. Venkataswami and ;E.S. Venkataramiah, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkataswami, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner herein has sought for the issue of a Writ or Direction or Order against the respondents, to consider her case for admission to the First Year M. B. B. S. Course of the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli, or any other of the Government Medical Colleges and select her for the said course. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Petitioner passed her Pre-University Examination of the Bangalore University in the year 1969 and secured 66.67% in the relevant optional subjects. She hag also passed what is known as B. Sc., Part I Examination of the Karnatak University, which would enable her to seek admission for the First Year M. B. B. S. course. According to the relevant' Rules for selection of candidates for admission, the qualification prescribed for admission is a pass in the Pre-University Examination. She, therefore, applied for admission to any of the Medical Colleges under the control of any of the Universities in Mysore for the year 1970-71. She was not selected by the first respondent-Selection Committee, constituted for the purpose of the said Rules. Hence the petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It is not disputed that the qualifying examination was a pass in the Pre-University Examination in any of the Universities. It is further undisputed that In so far as the Universities of Bangalore and Mysore are concerned, any selection for admission would enable a candidate to get himself admitted to the Pre-Professional Course leading to medicine. It is only thereafter a candidate would regularly enter into the First Year Medical Course. In so far as the Karnatak University Is concerned, the course, corresponding to the aforesaid Pre-Professional, is B. Sc., Part I of that University. It is only after passing the said B. Sc., Part I can a candidate of that University enter the First Year Medical Course leading to M. B. B. S. It is, therefore, clear that the qualifying examination for all the Universities is a Pre-University course. In the instant case, all that the candidate had claimed was admission to any of the Medical Colleges within the jurisdiction of any of the said three Universities. The marks secured by the last candidate admitted in all these Universities, in the category of the general pool, in which alone the petitioner was entitled to be considered, had secured marks higher than that of the petitioner. The petitioner would have no grievance in this behalf. Indeed, the case was not pressed on behalf of the petitioner in regard to this aspect of the matter. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Sri R. U. Goulay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however urged that the petitioner should have been considered for the seats reserved, under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules for selection of candidates for admission, which provided for allotment of not more than 20% of the seats in Colleges affiliated to any University, in the discretion of the Selection Committee, for candidates passing from Colleges affiliated to any other University in the State or elsewhere in India. His contention is that according to Sub-rule (8) of Rule 10 the process of selection should conform to the other provisions made in the said rule. In other words, the contention is that all those seats so reserved should have been dealt with in one compartment and, if so dealt with, the petitioner would be entitled to be preferred. The foundation for this argument is based on the following facts: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. By virtue of the discretion vested under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules governing the matter, the Selection Committee has selected candidates from the Universities of Shiva.ji, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Poona and Venkateswara. The last candidates admitted from each of these Universities except that of Andhra Pradesh have secured more marks than the petitioner. Hence the petitioner could not have any grievance in regard to them even assuming that the contention urged on her behalf of Sri Goulay had to be accepted. But, in regard to Andhra Pradesh, two candidates have been admitted and one of them has secured only 66%. in the relevant optionals. that is less than 66.67% secured by the petitioner in her Pre-University course Examination. The case on behalf of the petitioner was strenuously urged on the basis of this fact, </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are, however, not persuaded to accept the contention urged on be- half of the petitioner, Proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules conferred discretion on the Selection Committee to allot not more than 20% of the seats to persons belonging to Universities other than the one to which admission is sought by the petitioner, which in the instant case is the Karnatak University. What the Selection Committee, in our opinion, had done is to draw candidates from different sources. Therefore, what the Committee has to do is to compare the merits of the candidates belonging to each of these sources separately. That is exactly what has been done in the present case. We do not think that it would be fair or proper to compare the merit of the petitioner with the merits of the last boy admitted hailing from Andhra Pradesh. No material is forthcoming from the papers before us whether the standards of education and teaching provided in the Andhra Pradesh University were in any way equal to those provided in the Bangalore University. For the same reason, it cannot be predicated that the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules envisages in any manner equal treatment of candidates coming from different Universities either in the State or elsewhere in India. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to certain observations of the Supreme Court made in Writ Petns. Nos. 618 to 622 of 1970, in which judgment was pronounced on 3-5-1971 (reported in : AIR1971SC1762 } D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore. His Lordship, Shelat, J-speaking for the Bench, while disposing of W. P. No. 621 of 1970, V. Soudhamini v. State of Mysore, has observed thus: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'.....There was thus no comparison between persons equally situated even as regards the number of marks secured by them. But apart from that, the result obtained by a student in an examination held by one University cannot be regarded as comparable with the result obtained by another candidate in an examination held by another University. Even assuming that a conscious effort is made to equalise standards obtaining in different unversities. such standards depend on several human factors, methods of teaching and examining, the syllabus in such universities etc., even though the subjects taught and examined were to be the same. It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. That the petitioner and those whom the Selection Committee selected were equally situated cannot, from the facts above stated, be assumed.....' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed, but without costs. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant37; AIR1972Mys37; (1971)2MysLJ361',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372401',
		(int) 1 => 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Lalithamma Vs Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges Bangalore and ors - Citation 372401 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372401',
		'acts' => 'Admission to Medical Colleges in the State of Mysore Rules - Rules 9 and 10(8)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 5209 of 1970',
		'appellant' => 'Lalithamma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Lalithamma Vs. Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - INCOME TAX ACT,1961[C.A.No.43/1961]-- Section 143 (1)(A): [K.L. Manjunath & A.S. Bopanna, JJ] Income arising out of leasing of hotel building - Assessee, carrying on hotel business  Assessees Licence Agreement with Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. -  Question whether amount received by the Assessee from the company, be treated s the income from other sources or a business income  Finding of the assessing officer that the income received from the company is income from other sources  Challenge as to assessment  Held, The transaction is in the nature of lease and the intention of the assessee is not to revive/restart business. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has been managing the hotel through M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., The transaction between assesses and M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. is in the nature of lease and the income from such hotel building is business income -  It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. ..7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R.U. Goulay, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'R.S. Mahendra, High Court Govt. Pleader for Govt. Adv. and ;S.G. Goddakale Gowda, High Court Govt. Pleader for ;H.K. Vasudeva Reddy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1971-07-06',
		'deposition' => ' Petition dismissed ',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B. Venkataswami and ;E.S. Venkataramiah, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Venkataswami, J. </p><p>1. The petitioner herein has sought for the issue of a Writ or Direction or Order against the respondents, to consider her case for admission to the First Year M. B. B. S. Course of the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli, or any other of the Government Medical Colleges and select her for the said course. </p><p>2. The Petitioner passed her Pre-University Examination of the Bangalore University in the year 1969 and secured 66.67% in the relevant optional subjects. She hag also passed what is known as B. Sc., Part I Examination of the Karnatak University, which would enable her to seek admission for the First Year M. B. B. S. course. According to the relevant' Rules for selection of candidates for admission, the qualification prescribed for admission is a pass in the Pre-University Examination. She, therefore, applied for admission to any of the Medical Colleges under the control of any of the Universities in Mysore for the year 1970-71. She was not selected by the first respondent-Selection Committee, constituted for the purpose of the said Rules. Hence the petition. </p><p>3. It is not disputed that the qualifying examination was a pass in the Pre-University Examination in any of the Universities. It is further undisputed that In so far as the Universities of Bangalore and Mysore are concerned, any selection for admission would enable a candidate to get himself admitted to the Pre-Professional Course leading to medicine. It is only thereafter a candidate would regularly enter into the First Year Medical Course. In so far as the Karnatak University Is concerned, the course, corresponding to the aforesaid Pre-Professional, is B. Sc., Part I of that University. It is only after passing the said B. Sc., Part I can a candidate of that University enter the First Year Medical Course leading to M. B. B. S. It is, therefore, clear that the qualifying examination for all the Universities is a Pre-University course. In the instant case, all that the candidate had claimed was admission to any of the Medical Colleges within the jurisdiction of any of the said three Universities. The marks secured by the last candidate admitted in all these Universities, in the category of the general pool, in which alone the petitioner was entitled to be considered, had secured marks higher than that of the petitioner. The petitioner would have no grievance in this behalf. Indeed, the case was not pressed on behalf of the petitioner in regard to this aspect of the matter. </p><p>4. Sri R. U. Goulay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however urged that the petitioner should have been considered for the seats reserved, under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules for selection of candidates for admission, which provided for allotment of not more than 20% of the seats in Colleges affiliated to any University, in the discretion of the Selection Committee, for candidates passing from Colleges affiliated to any other University in the State or elsewhere in India. His contention is that according to Sub-rule (8) of Rule 10 the process of selection should conform to the other provisions made in the said rule. In other words, the contention is that all those seats so reserved should have been dealt with in one compartment and, if so dealt with, the petitioner would be entitled to be preferred. The foundation for this argument is based on the following facts: </p><p>5. By virtue of the discretion vested under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules governing the matter, the Selection Committee has selected candidates from the Universities of Shiva.ji, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Poona and Venkateswara. The last candidates admitted from each of these Universities except that of Andhra Pradesh have secured more marks than the petitioner. Hence the petitioner could not have any grievance in regard to them even assuming that the contention urged on her behalf of Sri Goulay had to be accepted. But, in regard to Andhra Pradesh, two candidates have been admitted and one of them has secured only 66%. in the relevant optionals. that is less than 66.67% secured by the petitioner in her Pre-University course Examination. The case on behalf of the petitioner was strenuously urged on the basis of this fact, </p><p>6. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are, however, not persuaded to accept the contention urged on be- half of the petitioner, Proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules conferred discretion on the Selection Committee to allot not more than 20% of the seats to persons belonging to Universities other than the one to which admission is sought by the petitioner, which in the instant case is the Karnatak University. What the Selection Committee, in our opinion, had done is to draw candidates from different sources. Therefore, what the Committee has to do is to compare the merits of the candidates belonging to each of these sources separately. That is exactly what has been done in the present case. We do not think that it would be fair or proper to compare the merit of the petitioner with the merits of the last boy admitted hailing from Andhra Pradesh. No material is forthcoming from the papers before us whether the standards of education and teaching provided in the Andhra Pradesh University were in any way equal to those provided in the Bangalore University. For the same reason, it cannot be predicated that the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules envisages in any manner equal treatment of candidates coming from different Universities either in the State or elsewhere in India. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to certain observations of the Supreme Court made in Writ Petns. Nos. 618 to 622 of 1970, in which judgment was pronounced on 3-5-1971 (reported in : AIR1971SC1762 } D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore. His Lordship, Shelat, J-speaking for the Bench, while disposing of W. P. No. 621 of 1970, V. Soudhamini v. State of Mysore, has observed thus: </p><p>'.....There was thus no comparison between persons equally situated even as regards the number of marks secured by them. But apart from that, the result obtained by a student in an examination held by one University cannot be regarded as comparable with the result obtained by another candidate in an examination held by another University. Even assuming that a conscious effort is made to equalise standards obtaining in different unversities. such standards depend on several human factors, methods of teaching and examining, the syllabus in such universities etc., even though the subjects taught and examined were to be the same. It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. That the petitioner and those whom the Selection Committee selected were equally situated cannot, from the facts above stated, be assumed.....' </p><p>7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail. </p><p>8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed, but without costs. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant37; AIR1972Mys37; (1971)2MysLJ361',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372401',
	(int) 1 => 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372401/lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

venkataswami, j. 1. the petitioner herein has sought for the issue of a writ or direction or order against the respondents, to consider her case for admission to the first year m. b. b. s. course of the karnatak medical college, hubli, or any other of the government medical colleges and select her for the said course. 2. the petitioner passed her pre-university examination of the bangalore university in the year 1969 and secured 66.67% in the relevant optional subjects. she hag also passed what is known as b. sc., part i examination of the karnatak university, which would enable her to seek admission for the first year m. b. b. s. course. according to the relevant' rules for selection of candidates for admission, the qualification prescribed for admission is a pass in the pre-university.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Lalithamma Vs Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges Bangalore and ors - Citation 372401 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372401',
			'acts' => 'Admission to Medical Colleges in the State of Mysore Rules - Rules 9 and 10(8)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 5209 of 1970',
			'appellant' => 'Lalithamma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Lalithamma Vs. Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - INCOME TAX ACT,1961[C.A.No.43/1961]-- Section 143 (1)(A): [K.L. Manjunath & A.S. Bopanna, JJ] Income arising out of leasing of hotel building - Assessee, carrying on hotel business  Assessees Licence Agreement with Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. -  Question whether amount received by the Assessee from the company, be treated s the income from other sources or a business income  Finding of the assessing officer that the income received from the company is income from other sources  Challenge as to assessment  Held, The transaction is in the nature of lease and the intention of the assessee is not to revive/restart business. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has been managing the hotel through M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., The transaction between assesses and M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. is in the nature of lease and the income from such hotel building is business income -  It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. ..7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R.U. Goulay, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'R.S. Mahendra, High Court Govt. Pleader for Govt. Adv. and ;S.G. Goddakale Gowda, High Court Govt. Pleader for ;H.K. Vasudeva Reddy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1971-07-06',
			'deposition' => ' Petition dismissed ',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B. Venkataswami and ;E.S. Venkataramiah, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkataswami, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner herein has sought for the issue of a Writ or Direction or Order against the respondents, to consider her case for admission to the First Year M. B. B. S. Course of the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli, or any other of the Government Medical Colleges and select her for the said course. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Petitioner passed her Pre-University Examination of the Bangalore University in the year 1969 and secured 66.67% in the relevant optional subjects. She hag also passed what is known as B. Sc., Part I Examination of the Karnatak University, which would enable her to seek admission for the First Year M. B. B. S. course. According to the relevant' Rules for selection of candidates for admission, the qualification prescribed for admission is a pass in the Pre-University Examination. She, therefore, applied for admission to any of the Medical Colleges under the control of any of the Universities in Mysore for the year 1970-71. She was not selected by the first respondent-Selection Committee, constituted for the purpose of the said Rules. Hence the petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It is not disputed that the qualifying examination was a pass in the Pre-University Examination in any of the Universities. It is further undisputed that In so far as the Universities of Bangalore and Mysore are concerned, any selection for admission would enable a candidate to get himself admitted to the Pre-Professional Course leading to medicine. It is only thereafter a candidate would regularly enter into the First Year Medical Course. In so far as the Karnatak University Is concerned, the course, corresponding to the aforesaid Pre-Professional, is B. Sc., Part I of that University. It is only after passing the said B. Sc., Part I can a candidate of that University enter the First Year Medical Course leading to M. B. B. S. It is, therefore, clear that the qualifying examination for all the Universities is a Pre-University course. In the instant case, all that the candidate had claimed was admission to any of the Medical Colleges within the jurisdiction of any of the said three Universities. The marks secured by the last candidate admitted in all these Universities, in the category of the general pool, in which alone the petitioner was entitled to be considered, had secured marks higher than that of the petitioner. The petitioner would have no grievance in this behalf. Indeed, the case was not pressed on behalf of the petitioner in regard to this aspect of the matter. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Sri R. U. Goulay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however urged that the petitioner should have been considered for the seats reserved, under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules for selection of candidates for admission, which provided for allotment of not more than 20% of the seats in Colleges affiliated to any University, in the discretion of the Selection Committee, for candidates passing from Colleges affiliated to any other University in the State or elsewhere in India. His contention is that according to Sub-rule (8) of Rule 10 the process of selection should conform to the other provisions made in the said rule. In other words, the contention is that all those seats so reserved should have been dealt with in one compartment and, if so dealt with, the petitioner would be entitled to be preferred. The foundation for this argument is based on the following facts: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. By virtue of the discretion vested under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules governing the matter, the Selection Committee has selected candidates from the Universities of Shiva.ji, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Poona and Venkateswara. The last candidates admitted from each of these Universities except that of Andhra Pradesh have secured more marks than the petitioner. Hence the petitioner could not have any grievance in regard to them even assuming that the contention urged on her behalf of Sri Goulay had to be accepted. But, in regard to Andhra Pradesh, two candidates have been admitted and one of them has secured only 66%. in the relevant optionals. that is less than 66.67% secured by the petitioner in her Pre-University course Examination. The case on behalf of the petitioner was strenuously urged on the basis of this fact, </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are, however, not persuaded to accept the contention urged on be- half of the petitioner, Proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules conferred discretion on the Selection Committee to allot not more than 20% of the seats to persons belonging to Universities other than the one to which admission is sought by the petitioner, which in the instant case is the Karnatak University. What the Selection Committee, in our opinion, had done is to draw candidates from different sources. Therefore, what the Committee has to do is to compare the merits of the candidates belonging to each of these sources separately. That is exactly what has been done in the present case. We do not think that it would be fair or proper to compare the merit of the petitioner with the merits of the last boy admitted hailing from Andhra Pradesh. No material is forthcoming from the papers before us whether the standards of education and teaching provided in the Andhra Pradesh University were in any way equal to those provided in the Bangalore University. For the same reason, it cannot be predicated that the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules envisages in any manner equal treatment of candidates coming from different Universities either in the State or elsewhere in India. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to certain observations of the Supreme Court made in Writ Petns. Nos. 618 to 622 of 1970, in which judgment was pronounced on 3-5-1971 (reported in : AIR1971SC1762 } D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore. His Lordship, Shelat, J-speaking for the Bench, while disposing of W. P. No. 621 of 1970, V. Soudhamini v. State of Mysore, has observed thus: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'.....There was thus no comparison between persons equally situated even as regards the number of marks secured by them. But apart from that, the result obtained by a student in an examination held by one University cannot be regarded as comparable with the result obtained by another candidate in an examination held by another University. Even assuming that a conscious effort is made to equalise standards obtaining in different unversities. such standards depend on several human factors, methods of teaching and examining, the syllabus in such universities etc., even though the subjects taught and examined were to be the same. It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. That the petitioner and those whom the Selection Committee selected were equally situated cannot, from the facts above stated, be assumed.....' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed, but without costs. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant37; AIR1972Mys37; (1971)2MysLJ361',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372401',
		(int) 1 => 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Lalithamma Vs Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges Bangalore and ors - Citation 372401 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372401',
		'acts' => 'Admission to Medical Colleges in the State of Mysore Rules - Rules 9 and 10(8)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 5209 of 1970',
		'appellant' => 'Lalithamma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Lalithamma Vs. Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - INCOME TAX ACT,1961[C.A.No.43/1961]-- Section 143 (1)(A): [K.L. Manjunath & A.S. Bopanna, JJ] Income arising out of leasing of hotel building - Assessee, carrying on hotel business  Assessees Licence Agreement with Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. -  Question whether amount received by the Assessee from the company, be treated s the income from other sources or a business income  Finding of the assessing officer that the income received from the company is income from other sources  Challenge as to assessment  Held, The transaction is in the nature of lease and the intention of the assessee is not to revive/restart business. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has been managing the hotel through M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., The transaction between assesses and M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. is in the nature of lease and the income from such hotel building is business income -  It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. ..7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R.U. Goulay, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'R.S. Mahendra, High Court Govt. Pleader for Govt. Adv. and ;S.G. Goddakale Gowda, High Court Govt. Pleader for ;H.K. Vasudeva Reddy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1971-07-06',
		'deposition' => ' Petition dismissed ',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B. Venkataswami and ;E.S. Venkataramiah, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Venkataswami, J. </p><p>1. The petitioner herein has sought for the issue of a Writ or Direction or Order against the respondents, to consider her case for admission to the First Year M. B. B. S. Course of the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli, or any other of the Government Medical Colleges and select her for the said course. </p><p>2. The Petitioner passed her Pre-University Examination of the Bangalore University in the year 1969 and secured 66.67% in the relevant optional subjects. She hag also passed what is known as B. Sc., Part I Examination of the Karnatak University, which would enable her to seek admission for the First Year M. B. B. S. course. According to the relevant' Rules for selection of candidates for admission, the qualification prescribed for admission is a pass in the Pre-University Examination. She, therefore, applied for admission to any of the Medical Colleges under the control of any of the Universities in Mysore for the year 1970-71. She was not selected by the first respondent-Selection Committee, constituted for the purpose of the said Rules. Hence the petition. </p><p>3. It is not disputed that the qualifying examination was a pass in the Pre-University Examination in any of the Universities. It is further undisputed that In so far as the Universities of Bangalore and Mysore are concerned, any selection for admission would enable a candidate to get himself admitted to the Pre-Professional Course leading to medicine. It is only thereafter a candidate would regularly enter into the First Year Medical Course. In so far as the Karnatak University Is concerned, the course, corresponding to the aforesaid Pre-Professional, is B. Sc., Part I of that University. It is only after passing the said B. Sc., Part I can a candidate of that University enter the First Year Medical Course leading to M. B. B. S. It is, therefore, clear that the qualifying examination for all the Universities is a Pre-University course. In the instant case, all that the candidate had claimed was admission to any of the Medical Colleges within the jurisdiction of any of the said three Universities. The marks secured by the last candidate admitted in all these Universities, in the category of the general pool, in which alone the petitioner was entitled to be considered, had secured marks higher than that of the petitioner. The petitioner would have no grievance in this behalf. Indeed, the case was not pressed on behalf of the petitioner in regard to this aspect of the matter. </p><p>4. Sri R. U. Goulay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however urged that the petitioner should have been considered for the seats reserved, under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules for selection of candidates for admission, which provided for allotment of not more than 20% of the seats in Colleges affiliated to any University, in the discretion of the Selection Committee, for candidates passing from Colleges affiliated to any other University in the State or elsewhere in India. His contention is that according to Sub-rule (8) of Rule 10 the process of selection should conform to the other provisions made in the said rule. In other words, the contention is that all those seats so reserved should have been dealt with in one compartment and, if so dealt with, the petitioner would be entitled to be preferred. The foundation for this argument is based on the following facts: </p><p>5. By virtue of the discretion vested under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules governing the matter, the Selection Committee has selected candidates from the Universities of Shiva.ji, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Poona and Venkateswara. The last candidates admitted from each of these Universities except that of Andhra Pradesh have secured more marks than the petitioner. Hence the petitioner could not have any grievance in regard to them even assuming that the contention urged on her behalf of Sri Goulay had to be accepted. But, in regard to Andhra Pradesh, two candidates have been admitted and one of them has secured only 66%. in the relevant optionals. that is less than 66.67% secured by the petitioner in her Pre-University course Examination. The case on behalf of the petitioner was strenuously urged on the basis of this fact, </p><p>6. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are, however, not persuaded to accept the contention urged on be- half of the petitioner, Proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules conferred discretion on the Selection Committee to allot not more than 20% of the seats to persons belonging to Universities other than the one to which admission is sought by the petitioner, which in the instant case is the Karnatak University. What the Selection Committee, in our opinion, had done is to draw candidates from different sources. Therefore, what the Committee has to do is to compare the merits of the candidates belonging to each of these sources separately. That is exactly what has been done in the present case. We do not think that it would be fair or proper to compare the merit of the petitioner with the merits of the last boy admitted hailing from Andhra Pradesh. No material is forthcoming from the papers before us whether the standards of education and teaching provided in the Andhra Pradesh University were in any way equal to those provided in the Bangalore University. For the same reason, it cannot be predicated that the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules envisages in any manner equal treatment of candidates coming from different Universities either in the State or elsewhere in India. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to certain observations of the Supreme Court made in Writ Petns. Nos. 618 to 622 of 1970, in which judgment was pronounced on 3-5-1971 (reported in : AIR1971SC1762 } D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore. His Lordship, Shelat, J-speaking for the Bench, while disposing of W. P. No. 621 of 1970, V. Soudhamini v. State of Mysore, has observed thus: </p><p>'.....There was thus no comparison between persons equally situated even as regards the number of marks secured by them. But apart from that, the result obtained by a student in an examination held by one University cannot be regarded as comparable with the result obtained by another candidate in an examination held by another University. Even assuming that a conscious effort is made to equalise standards obtaining in different unversities. such standards depend on several human factors, methods of teaching and examining, the syllabus in such universities etc., even though the subjects taught and examined were to be the same. It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. That the petitioner and those whom the Selection Committee selected were equally situated cannot, from the facts above stated, be assumed.....' </p><p>7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail. </p><p>8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed, but without costs. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant37; AIR1972Mys37; (1971)2MysLJ361',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372401',
	(int) 1 => 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372401/lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Venkataswami, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner herein has sought for the issue of a Writ or Direction or Order against the respondents, to consider her case for admission to the First Year M. B. B. S. Course of the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli, or any other of the Government Medical Colleges and select her for the said course. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The Petitioner passed her Pre-University Examination of the Bangalore University in the year 1969 and secured 66.67% in the relevant optional subjects. She hag also passed what is known as B. Sc., Part I Examination of the Karnatak University, which would enable her to seek admission for the First Year M. B. B. S. course. According to the relevant' Rules for selection of candidates for admission, the qualification prescribed for admission is a pass in the Pre-University Examination. She, therefore, applied for admission to any of the Medical Colleges under the control of any of the Universities in Mysore for the year 1970-71. She was not selected by the first respondent-Selection Committee, constituted for the purpose of the said Rules. Hence the petition. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. It is not disputed that the qualifying examination was a pass in the Pre-University Examination in any of the Universities. It is further undisputed that In so far as the Universities of Bangalore and Mysore are concerned, any selection for admission would enable a candidate to get himself admitted to the Pre-Professional Course leading to medicine. It is only thereafter a candidate would regularly enter into the First Year Medical Course. In so far as the Karnatak University Is concerned, the course, corresponding to the aforesaid Pre-Professional, is B. Sc., Part I of that University. It is only after passing the said B. Sc., Part I can a candidate of that University enter the First Year Medical Course leading to M. B. B. S. It is, therefore, clear that the qualifying examination for all the Universities is a Pre-University course. In the instant case, all that the candidate had claimed was admission to any of the Medical Colleges within the jurisdiction of any of the said three Universities. The marks secured by the last candidate admitted in all these Universities, in the category of the general pool, in which alone the petitioner was entitled to be considered, had secured marks higher than that of the petitioner. The petitioner would have no grievance in this behalf. Indeed, the case was not pressed on behalf of the petitioner in regard to this aspect of the matter. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Sri R. U. Goulay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however urged that the petitioner should have been considered for the seats reserved, under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules for selection of candidates for admission, which provided for allotment of not more than 20% of the seats in Colleges affiliated to any University, in the discretion of the Selection Committee, for candidates passing from Colleges affiliated to any other University in the State or elsewhere in India. His contention is that according to Sub-rule (8) of Rule 10 the process of selection should conform to the other provisions made in the said rule. In other words, the contention is that all those seats so reserved should have been dealt with in one compartment and, if so dealt with, the petitioner would be entitled to be preferred. The foundation for this argument is based on the following facts: ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. By virtue of the discretion vested under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules governing the matter, the Selection Committee has selected candidates from the Universities of Shiva.ji, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Poona and Venkateswara. The last candidates admitted from each of these Universities except that of Andhra Pradesh have secured more marks than the petitioner. Hence the petitioner could not have any grievance in regard to them even assuming that the contention urged on her behalf of Sri Goulay had to be accepted. But, in regard to Andhra Pradesh, two candidates have been admitted and one of them has secured only 66%. in the relevant optionals. that is less than 66.67% secured by the petitioner in her Pre-University course Examination. The case on behalf of the petitioner was strenuously urged on the basis of this fact, ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are, however, not persuaded to accept the contention urged on be- half of the petitioner, Proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules conferred discretion on the Selection Committee to allot not more than 20% of the seats to persons belonging to Universities other than the one to which admission is sought by the petitioner, which in the instant case is the Karnatak University. What the Selection Committee, in our opinion, had done is to draw candidates from different sources. Therefore, what the Committee has to do is to compare the merits of the candidates belonging to each of these sources separately. That is exactly what has been done in the present case. We do not think that it would be fair or proper to compare the merit of the petitioner with the merits of the last boy admitted hailing from Andhra Pradesh. No material is forthcoming from the papers before us whether the standards of education and teaching provided in the Andhra Pradesh University were in any way equal to those provided in the Bangalore University. For the same reason, it cannot be predicated that the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules envisages in any manner equal treatment of candidates coming from different Universities either in the State or elsewhere in India. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to certain observations of the Supreme Court made in Writ Petns. Nos. 618 to 622 of 1970, in which judgment was pronounced on 3-5-1971 (reported in : AIR1971SC1762 } D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore. His Lordship, Shelat, J-speaking for the Bench, while disposing of W. P. No. 621 of 1970, V. Soudhamini v. State of Mysore, has observed thus: ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'.....There was thus no comparison between persons equally situated even as regards the number of marks secured by them. But apart from that, the result obtained by a student in an examination held by one University cannot be regarded as comparable with the result obtained by another candidate in an examination held by another University. Even assuming that a conscious effort is made to equalise standards obtaining in different unversities. such standards depend on several human factors, methods of teaching and examining, the syllabus in such universities etc., even though the subjects taught and examined were to be the same. It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. That the petitioner and those whom the Selection Committee selected were equally situated cannot, from the facts above stated, be assumed.....' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed, but without costs. <p>',
	(int) 10 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 11
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Venkataswami, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Lalithamma Vs Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges Bangalore and ors - Citation 372401 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372401',
			'acts' => 'Admission to Medical Colleges in the State of Mysore Rules - Rules 9 and 10(8)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 5209 of 1970',
			'appellant' => 'Lalithamma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Lalithamma Vs. Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - INCOME TAX ACT,1961[C.A.No.43/1961]-- Section 143 (1)(A): [K.L. Manjunath & A.S. Bopanna, JJ] Income arising out of leasing of hotel building - Assessee, carrying on hotel business  Assessees Licence Agreement with Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. -  Question whether amount received by the Assessee from the company, be treated s the income from other sources or a business income  Finding of the assessing officer that the income received from the company is income from other sources  Challenge as to assessment  Held, The transaction is in the nature of lease and the intention of the assessee is not to revive/restart business. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has been managing the hotel through M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., The transaction between assesses and M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. is in the nature of lease and the income from such hotel building is business income -  It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. ..7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R.U. Goulay, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'R.S. Mahendra, High Court Govt. Pleader for Govt. Adv. and ;S.G. Goddakale Gowda, High Court Govt. Pleader for ;H.K. Vasudeva Reddy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1971-07-06',
			'deposition' => ' Petition dismissed ',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B. Venkataswami and ;E.S. Venkataramiah, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkataswami, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner herein has sought for the issue of a Writ or Direction or Order against the respondents, to consider her case for admission to the First Year M. B. B. S. Course of the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli, or any other of the Government Medical Colleges and select her for the said course. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Petitioner passed her Pre-University Examination of the Bangalore University in the year 1969 and secured 66.67% in the relevant optional subjects. She hag also passed what is known as B. Sc., Part I Examination of the Karnatak University, which would enable her to seek admission for the First Year M. B. B. S. course. According to the relevant' Rules for selection of candidates for admission, the qualification prescribed for admission is a pass in the Pre-University Examination. She, therefore, applied for admission to any of the Medical Colleges under the control of any of the Universities in Mysore for the year 1970-71. She was not selected by the first respondent-Selection Committee, constituted for the purpose of the said Rules. Hence the petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It is not disputed that the qualifying examination was a pass in the Pre-University Examination in any of the Universities. It is further undisputed that In so far as the Universities of Bangalore and Mysore are concerned, any selection for admission would enable a candidate to get himself admitted to the Pre-Professional Course leading to medicine. It is only thereafter a candidate would regularly enter into the First Year Medical Course. In so far as the Karnatak University Is concerned, the course, corresponding to the aforesaid Pre-Professional, is B. Sc., Part I of that University. It is only after passing the said B. Sc., Part I can a candidate of that University enter the First Year Medical Course leading to M. B. B. S. It is, therefore, clear that the qualifying examination for all the Universities is a Pre-University course. In the instant case, all that the candidate had claimed was admission to any of the Medical Colleges within the jurisdiction of any of the said three Universities. The marks secured by the last candidate admitted in all these Universities, in the category of the general pool, in which alone the petitioner was entitled to be considered, had secured marks higher than that of the petitioner. The petitioner would have no grievance in this behalf. Indeed, the case was not pressed on behalf of the petitioner in regard to this aspect of the matter. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Sri R. U. Goulay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however urged that the petitioner should have been considered for the seats reserved, under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules for selection of candidates for admission, which provided for allotment of not more than 20% of the seats in Colleges affiliated to any University, in the discretion of the Selection Committee, for candidates passing from Colleges affiliated to any other University in the State or elsewhere in India. His contention is that according to Sub-rule (8) of Rule 10 the process of selection should conform to the other provisions made in the said rule. In other words, the contention is that all those seats so reserved should have been dealt with in one compartment and, if so dealt with, the petitioner would be entitled to be preferred. The foundation for this argument is based on the following facts: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. By virtue of the discretion vested under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules governing the matter, the Selection Committee has selected candidates from the Universities of Shiva.ji, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Poona and Venkateswara. The last candidates admitted from each of these Universities except that of Andhra Pradesh have secured more marks than the petitioner. Hence the petitioner could not have any grievance in regard to them even assuming that the contention urged on her behalf of Sri Goulay had to be accepted. But, in regard to Andhra Pradesh, two candidates have been admitted and one of them has secured only 66%. in the relevant optionals. that is less than 66.67% secured by the petitioner in her Pre-University course Examination. The case on behalf of the petitioner was strenuously urged on the basis of this fact, </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are, however, not persuaded to accept the contention urged on be- half of the petitioner, Proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules conferred discretion on the Selection Committee to allot not more than 20% of the seats to persons belonging to Universities other than the one to which admission is sought by the petitioner, which in the instant case is the Karnatak University. What the Selection Committee, in our opinion, had done is to draw candidates from different sources. Therefore, what the Committee has to do is to compare the merits of the candidates belonging to each of these sources separately. That is exactly what has been done in the present case. We do not think that it would be fair or proper to compare the merit of the petitioner with the merits of the last boy admitted hailing from Andhra Pradesh. No material is forthcoming from the papers before us whether the standards of education and teaching provided in the Andhra Pradesh University were in any way equal to those provided in the Bangalore University. For the same reason, it cannot be predicated that the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules envisages in any manner equal treatment of candidates coming from different Universities either in the State or elsewhere in India. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to certain observations of the Supreme Court made in Writ Petns. Nos. 618 to 622 of 1970, in which judgment was pronounced on 3-5-1971 (reported in : AIR1971SC1762 } D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore. His Lordship, Shelat, J-speaking for the Bench, while disposing of W. P. No. 621 of 1970, V. Soudhamini v. State of Mysore, has observed thus: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'.....There was thus no comparison between persons equally situated even as regards the number of marks secured by them. But apart from that, the result obtained by a student in an examination held by one University cannot be regarded as comparable with the result obtained by another candidate in an examination held by another University. Even assuming that a conscious effort is made to equalise standards obtaining in different unversities. such standards depend on several human factors, methods of teaching and examining, the syllabus in such universities etc., even though the subjects taught and examined were to be the same. It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. That the petitioner and those whom the Selection Committee selected were equally situated cannot, from the facts above stated, be assumed.....' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed, but without costs. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant37; AIR1972Mys37; (1971)2MysLJ361',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372401',
		(int) 1 => 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Lalithamma Vs Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges Bangalore and ors - Citation 372401 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372401',
		'acts' => 'Admission to Medical Colleges in the State of Mysore Rules - Rules 9 and 10(8)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 5209 of 1970',
		'appellant' => 'Lalithamma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Lalithamma Vs. Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - INCOME TAX ACT,1961[C.A.No.43/1961]-- Section 143 (1)(A): [K.L. Manjunath & A.S. Bopanna, JJ] Income arising out of leasing of hotel building - Assessee, carrying on hotel business  Assessees Licence Agreement with Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. -  Question whether amount received by the Assessee from the company, be treated s the income from other sources or a business income  Finding of the assessing officer that the income received from the company is income from other sources  Challenge as to assessment  Held, The transaction is in the nature of lease and the intention of the assessee is not to revive/restart business. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has been managing the hotel through M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., The transaction between assesses and M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. is in the nature of lease and the income from such hotel building is business income -  It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. ..7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R.U. Goulay, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'R.S. Mahendra, High Court Govt. Pleader for Govt. Adv. and ;S.G. Goddakale Gowda, High Court Govt. Pleader for ;H.K. Vasudeva Reddy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1971-07-06',
		'deposition' => ' Petition dismissed ',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B. Venkataswami and ;E.S. Venkataramiah, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Venkataswami, J. </p><p>1. The petitioner herein has sought for the issue of a Writ or Direction or Order against the respondents, to consider her case for admission to the First Year M. B. B. S. Course of the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli, or any other of the Government Medical Colleges and select her for the said course. </p><p>2. The Petitioner passed her Pre-University Examination of the Bangalore University in the year 1969 and secured 66.67% in the relevant optional subjects. She hag also passed what is known as B. Sc., Part I Examination of the Karnatak University, which would enable her to seek admission for the First Year M. B. B. S. course. According to the relevant' Rules for selection of candidates for admission, the qualification prescribed for admission is a pass in the Pre-University Examination. She, therefore, applied for admission to any of the Medical Colleges under the control of any of the Universities in Mysore for the year 1970-71. She was not selected by the first respondent-Selection Committee, constituted for the purpose of the said Rules. Hence the petition. </p><p>3. It is not disputed that the qualifying examination was a pass in the Pre-University Examination in any of the Universities. It is further undisputed that In so far as the Universities of Bangalore and Mysore are concerned, any selection for admission would enable a candidate to get himself admitted to the Pre-Professional Course leading to medicine. It is only thereafter a candidate would regularly enter into the First Year Medical Course. In so far as the Karnatak University Is concerned, the course, corresponding to the aforesaid Pre-Professional, is B. Sc., Part I of that University. It is only after passing the said B. Sc., Part I can a candidate of that University enter the First Year Medical Course leading to M. B. B. S. It is, therefore, clear that the qualifying examination for all the Universities is a Pre-University course. In the instant case, all that the candidate had claimed was admission to any of the Medical Colleges within the jurisdiction of any of the said three Universities. The marks secured by the last candidate admitted in all these Universities, in the category of the general pool, in which alone the petitioner was entitled to be considered, had secured marks higher than that of the petitioner. The petitioner would have no grievance in this behalf. Indeed, the case was not pressed on behalf of the petitioner in regard to this aspect of the matter. </p><p>4. Sri R. U. Goulay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however urged that the petitioner should have been considered for the seats reserved, under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules for selection of candidates for admission, which provided for allotment of not more than 20% of the seats in Colleges affiliated to any University, in the discretion of the Selection Committee, for candidates passing from Colleges affiliated to any other University in the State or elsewhere in India. His contention is that according to Sub-rule (8) of Rule 10 the process of selection should conform to the other provisions made in the said rule. In other words, the contention is that all those seats so reserved should have been dealt with in one compartment and, if so dealt with, the petitioner would be entitled to be preferred. The foundation for this argument is based on the following facts: </p><p>5. By virtue of the discretion vested under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules governing the matter, the Selection Committee has selected candidates from the Universities of Shiva.ji, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Poona and Venkateswara. The last candidates admitted from each of these Universities except that of Andhra Pradesh have secured more marks than the petitioner. Hence the petitioner could not have any grievance in regard to them even assuming that the contention urged on her behalf of Sri Goulay had to be accepted. But, in regard to Andhra Pradesh, two candidates have been admitted and one of them has secured only 66%. in the relevant optionals. that is less than 66.67% secured by the petitioner in her Pre-University course Examination. The case on behalf of the petitioner was strenuously urged on the basis of this fact, </p><p>6. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are, however, not persuaded to accept the contention urged on be- half of the petitioner, Proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules conferred discretion on the Selection Committee to allot not more than 20% of the seats to persons belonging to Universities other than the one to which admission is sought by the petitioner, which in the instant case is the Karnatak University. What the Selection Committee, in our opinion, had done is to draw candidates from different sources. Therefore, what the Committee has to do is to compare the merits of the candidates belonging to each of these sources separately. That is exactly what has been done in the present case. We do not think that it would be fair or proper to compare the merit of the petitioner with the merits of the last boy admitted hailing from Andhra Pradesh. No material is forthcoming from the papers before us whether the standards of education and teaching provided in the Andhra Pradesh University were in any way equal to those provided in the Bangalore University. For the same reason, it cannot be predicated that the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules envisages in any manner equal treatment of candidates coming from different Universities either in the State or elsewhere in India. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to certain observations of the Supreme Court made in Writ Petns. Nos. 618 to 622 of 1970, in which judgment was pronounced on 3-5-1971 (reported in : AIR1971SC1762 } D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore. His Lordship, Shelat, J-speaking for the Bench, while disposing of W. P. No. 621 of 1970, V. Soudhamini v. State of Mysore, has observed thus: </p><p>'.....There was thus no comparison between persons equally situated even as regards the number of marks secured by them. But apart from that, the result obtained by a student in an examination held by one University cannot be regarded as comparable with the result obtained by another candidate in an examination held by another University. Even assuming that a conscious effort is made to equalise standards obtaining in different unversities. such standards depend on several human factors, methods of teaching and examining, the syllabus in such universities etc., even though the subjects taught and examined were to be the same. It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. That the petitioner and those whom the Selection Committee selected were equally situated cannot, from the facts above stated, be assumed.....' </p><p>7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail. </p><p>8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed, but without costs. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant37; AIR1972Mys37; (1971)2MysLJ361',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372401',
	(int) 1 => 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372401/lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Venkataswami, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner herein has sought for the issue of a Writ or Direction or Order against the respondents, to consider her case for admission to the First Year M. B. B. S. Course of the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli, or any other of the Government Medical Colleges and select her for the said course. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The Petitioner passed her Pre-University Examination of the Bangalore University in the year 1969 and secured 66.67% in the relevant optional subjects. She hag also passed what is known as B. Sc., Part I Examination of the Karnatak University, which would enable her to seek admission for the First Year M. B. B. S. course. According to the relevant' Rules for selection of candidates for admission, the qualification prescribed for admission is a pass in the Pre-University Examination. She, therefore, applied for admission to any of the Medical Colleges under the control of any of the Universities in Mysore for the year 1970-71. She was not selected by the first respondent-Selection Committee, constituted for the purpose of the said Rules. Hence the petition. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. It is not disputed that the qualifying examination was a pass in the Pre-University Examination in any of the Universities. It is further undisputed that In so far as the Universities of Bangalore and Mysore are concerned, any selection for admission would enable a candidate to get himself admitted to the Pre-Professional Course leading to medicine. It is only thereafter a candidate would regularly enter into the First Year Medical Course. In so far as the Karnatak University Is concerned, the course, corresponding to the aforesaid Pre-Professional, is B. Sc., Part I of that University. It is only after passing the said B. Sc., Part I can a candidate of that University enter the First Year Medical Course leading to M. B. B. S. It is, therefore, clear that the qualifying examination for all the Universities is a Pre-University course. In the instant case, all that the candidate had claimed was admission to any of the Medical Colleges within the jurisdiction of any of the said three Universities. The marks secured by the last candidate admitted in all these Universities, in the category of the general pool, in which alone the petitioner was entitled to be considered, had secured marks higher than that of the petitioner. The petitioner would have no grievance in this behalf. Indeed, the case was not pressed on behalf of the petitioner in regard to this aspect of the matter. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Sri R. U. Goulay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however urged that the petitioner should have been considered for the seats reserved, under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules for selection of candidates for admission, which provided for allotment of not more than 20% of the seats in Colleges affiliated to any University, in the discretion of the Selection Committee, for candidates passing from Colleges affiliated to any other University in the State or elsewhere in India. His contention is that according to Sub-rule (8) of Rule 10 the process of selection should conform to the other provisions made in the said rule. In other words, the contention is that all those seats so reserved should have been dealt with in one compartment and, if so dealt with, the petitioner would be entitled to be preferred. The foundation for this argument is based on the following facts: ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. By virtue of the discretion vested under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules governing the matter, the Selection Committee has selected candidates from the Universities of Shiva.ji, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Poona and Venkateswara. The last candidates admitted from each of these Universities except that of Andhra Pradesh have secured more marks than the petitioner. Hence the petitioner could not have any grievance in regard to them even assuming that the contention urged on her behalf of Sri Goulay had to be accepted. But, in regard to Andhra Pradesh, two candidates have been admitted and one of them has secured only 66%. in the relevant optionals. that is less than 66.67% secured by the petitioner in her Pre-University course Examination. The case on behalf of the petitioner was strenuously urged on the basis of this fact, ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are, however, not persuaded to accept the contention urged on be- half of the petitioner, Proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules conferred discretion on the Selection Committee to allot not more than 20% of the seats to persons belonging to Universities other than the one to which admission is sought by the petitioner, which in the instant case is the Karnatak University. What the Selection Committee, in our opinion, had done is to draw candidates from different sources. Therefore, what the Committee has to do is to compare the merits of the candidates belonging to each of these sources separately. That is exactly what has been done in the present case. We do not think that it would be fair or proper to compare the merit of the petitioner with the merits of the last boy admitted hailing from Andhra Pradesh. No material is forthcoming from the papers before us whether the standards of education and teaching provided in the Andhra Pradesh University were in any way equal to those provided in the Bangalore University. For the same reason, it cannot be predicated that the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules envisages in any manner equal treatment of candidates coming from different Universities either in the State or elsewhere in India. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to certain observations of the Supreme Court made in Writ Petns. Nos. 618 to 622 of 1970, in which judgment was pronounced on 3-5-1971 (reported in : AIR1971SC1762 } D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore. His Lordship, Shelat, J-speaking for the Bench, while disposing of W. P. No. 621 of 1970, V. Soudhamini v. State of Mysore, has observed thus: ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'.....There was thus no comparison between persons equally situated even as regards the number of marks secured by them. But apart from that, the result obtained by a student in an examination held by one University cannot be regarded as comparable with the result obtained by another candidate in an examination held by another University. Even assuming that a conscious effort is made to equalise standards obtaining in different unversities. such standards depend on several human factors, methods of teaching and examining, the syllabus in such universities etc., even though the subjects taught and examined were to be the same. It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. That the petitioner and those whom the Selection Committee selected were equally situated cannot, from the facts above stated, be assumed.....' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed, but without costs. <p>',
	(int) 10 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 11
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. The petitioner herein has sought for the issue of a Writ or Direction or Order against the respondents, to consider her case for admission to the First Year M. B. B. S. Course of the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli, or any other of the Government Medical Colleges and select her for the said course.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Lalithamma Vs Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges Bangalore and ors - Citation 372401 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372401',
			'acts' => 'Admission to Medical Colleges in the State of Mysore Rules - Rules 9 and 10(8)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 5209 of 1970',
			'appellant' => 'Lalithamma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Lalithamma Vs. Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - INCOME TAX ACT,1961[C.A.No.43/1961]-- Section 143 (1)(A): [K.L. Manjunath & A.S. Bopanna, JJ] Income arising out of leasing of hotel building - Assessee, carrying on hotel business  Assessees Licence Agreement with Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. -  Question whether amount received by the Assessee from the company, be treated s the income from other sources or a business income  Finding of the assessing officer that the income received from the company is income from other sources  Challenge as to assessment  Held, The transaction is in the nature of lease and the intention of the assessee is not to revive/restart business. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has been managing the hotel through M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., The transaction between assesses and M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. is in the nature of lease and the income from such hotel building is business income -  It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. ..7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R.U. Goulay, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'R.S. Mahendra, High Court Govt. Pleader for Govt. Adv. and ;S.G. Goddakale Gowda, High Court Govt. Pleader for ;H.K. Vasudeva Reddy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1971-07-06',
			'deposition' => ' Petition dismissed ',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B. Venkataswami and ;E.S. Venkataramiah, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkataswami, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner herein has sought for the issue of a Writ or Direction or Order against the respondents, to consider her case for admission to the First Year M. B. B. S. Course of the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli, or any other of the Government Medical Colleges and select her for the said course. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Petitioner passed her Pre-University Examination of the Bangalore University in the year 1969 and secured 66.67% in the relevant optional subjects. She hag also passed what is known as B. Sc., Part I Examination of the Karnatak University, which would enable her to seek admission for the First Year M. B. B. S. course. According to the relevant' Rules for selection of candidates for admission, the qualification prescribed for admission is a pass in the Pre-University Examination. She, therefore, applied for admission to any of the Medical Colleges under the control of any of the Universities in Mysore for the year 1970-71. She was not selected by the first respondent-Selection Committee, constituted for the purpose of the said Rules. Hence the petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It is not disputed that the qualifying examination was a pass in the Pre-University Examination in any of the Universities. It is further undisputed that In so far as the Universities of Bangalore and Mysore are concerned, any selection for admission would enable a candidate to get himself admitted to the Pre-Professional Course leading to medicine. It is only thereafter a candidate would regularly enter into the First Year Medical Course. In so far as the Karnatak University Is concerned, the course, corresponding to the aforesaid Pre-Professional, is B. Sc., Part I of that University. It is only after passing the said B. Sc., Part I can a candidate of that University enter the First Year Medical Course leading to M. B. B. S. It is, therefore, clear that the qualifying examination for all the Universities is a Pre-University course. In the instant case, all that the candidate had claimed was admission to any of the Medical Colleges within the jurisdiction of any of the said three Universities. The marks secured by the last candidate admitted in all these Universities, in the category of the general pool, in which alone the petitioner was entitled to be considered, had secured marks higher than that of the petitioner. The petitioner would have no grievance in this behalf. Indeed, the case was not pressed on behalf of the petitioner in regard to this aspect of the matter. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Sri R. U. Goulay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however urged that the petitioner should have been considered for the seats reserved, under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules for selection of candidates for admission, which provided for allotment of not more than 20% of the seats in Colleges affiliated to any University, in the discretion of the Selection Committee, for candidates passing from Colleges affiliated to any other University in the State or elsewhere in India. His contention is that according to Sub-rule (8) of Rule 10 the process of selection should conform to the other provisions made in the said rule. In other words, the contention is that all those seats so reserved should have been dealt with in one compartment and, if so dealt with, the petitioner would be entitled to be preferred. The foundation for this argument is based on the following facts: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. By virtue of the discretion vested under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules governing the matter, the Selection Committee has selected candidates from the Universities of Shiva.ji, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Poona and Venkateswara. The last candidates admitted from each of these Universities except that of Andhra Pradesh have secured more marks than the petitioner. Hence the petitioner could not have any grievance in regard to them even assuming that the contention urged on her behalf of Sri Goulay had to be accepted. But, in regard to Andhra Pradesh, two candidates have been admitted and one of them has secured only 66%. in the relevant optionals. that is less than 66.67% secured by the petitioner in her Pre-University course Examination. The case on behalf of the petitioner was strenuously urged on the basis of this fact, </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are, however, not persuaded to accept the contention urged on be- half of the petitioner, Proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules conferred discretion on the Selection Committee to allot not more than 20% of the seats to persons belonging to Universities other than the one to which admission is sought by the petitioner, which in the instant case is the Karnatak University. What the Selection Committee, in our opinion, had done is to draw candidates from different sources. Therefore, what the Committee has to do is to compare the merits of the candidates belonging to each of these sources separately. That is exactly what has been done in the present case. We do not think that it would be fair or proper to compare the merit of the petitioner with the merits of the last boy admitted hailing from Andhra Pradesh. No material is forthcoming from the papers before us whether the standards of education and teaching provided in the Andhra Pradesh University were in any way equal to those provided in the Bangalore University. For the same reason, it cannot be predicated that the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules envisages in any manner equal treatment of candidates coming from different Universities either in the State or elsewhere in India. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to certain observations of the Supreme Court made in Writ Petns. Nos. 618 to 622 of 1970, in which judgment was pronounced on 3-5-1971 (reported in : AIR1971SC1762 } D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore. His Lordship, Shelat, J-speaking for the Bench, while disposing of W. P. No. 621 of 1970, V. Soudhamini v. State of Mysore, has observed thus: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'.....There was thus no comparison between persons equally situated even as regards the number of marks secured by them. But apart from that, the result obtained by a student in an examination held by one University cannot be regarded as comparable with the result obtained by another candidate in an examination held by another University. Even assuming that a conscious effort is made to equalise standards obtaining in different unversities. such standards depend on several human factors, methods of teaching and examining, the syllabus in such universities etc., even though the subjects taught and examined were to be the same. It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. That the petitioner and those whom the Selection Committee selected were equally situated cannot, from the facts above stated, be assumed.....' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed, but without costs. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant37; AIR1972Mys37; (1971)2MysLJ361',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372401',
		(int) 1 => 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Lalithamma Vs Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges Bangalore and ors - Citation 372401 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372401',
		'acts' => 'Admission to Medical Colleges in the State of Mysore Rules - Rules 9 and 10(8)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 5209 of 1970',
		'appellant' => 'Lalithamma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Lalithamma Vs. Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - INCOME TAX ACT,1961[C.A.No.43/1961]-- Section 143 (1)(A): [K.L. Manjunath & A.S. Bopanna, JJ] Income arising out of leasing of hotel building - Assessee, carrying on hotel business  Assessees Licence Agreement with Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. -  Question whether amount received by the Assessee from the company, be treated s the income from other sources or a business income  Finding of the assessing officer that the income received from the company is income from other sources  Challenge as to assessment  Held, The transaction is in the nature of lease and the intention of the assessee is not to revive/restart business. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has been managing the hotel through M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., The transaction between assesses and M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. is in the nature of lease and the income from such hotel building is business income -  It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. ..7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R.U. Goulay, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'R.S. Mahendra, High Court Govt. Pleader for Govt. Adv. and ;S.G. Goddakale Gowda, High Court Govt. Pleader for ;H.K. Vasudeva Reddy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1971-07-06',
		'deposition' => ' Petition dismissed ',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B. Venkataswami and ;E.S. Venkataramiah, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Venkataswami, J. </p><p>1. The petitioner herein has sought for the issue of a Writ or Direction or Order against the respondents, to consider her case for admission to the First Year M. B. B. S. Course of the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli, or any other of the Government Medical Colleges and select her for the said course. </p><p>2. The Petitioner passed her Pre-University Examination of the Bangalore University in the year 1969 and secured 66.67% in the relevant optional subjects. She hag also passed what is known as B. Sc., Part I Examination of the Karnatak University, which would enable her to seek admission for the First Year M. B. B. S. course. According to the relevant' Rules for selection of candidates for admission, the qualification prescribed for admission is a pass in the Pre-University Examination. She, therefore, applied for admission to any of the Medical Colleges under the control of any of the Universities in Mysore for the year 1970-71. She was not selected by the first respondent-Selection Committee, constituted for the purpose of the said Rules. Hence the petition. </p><p>3. It is not disputed that the qualifying examination was a pass in the Pre-University Examination in any of the Universities. It is further undisputed that In so far as the Universities of Bangalore and Mysore are concerned, any selection for admission would enable a candidate to get himself admitted to the Pre-Professional Course leading to medicine. It is only thereafter a candidate would regularly enter into the First Year Medical Course. In so far as the Karnatak University Is concerned, the course, corresponding to the aforesaid Pre-Professional, is B. Sc., Part I of that University. It is only after passing the said B. Sc., Part I can a candidate of that University enter the First Year Medical Course leading to M. B. B. S. It is, therefore, clear that the qualifying examination for all the Universities is a Pre-University course. In the instant case, all that the candidate had claimed was admission to any of the Medical Colleges within the jurisdiction of any of the said three Universities. The marks secured by the last candidate admitted in all these Universities, in the category of the general pool, in which alone the petitioner was entitled to be considered, had secured marks higher than that of the petitioner. The petitioner would have no grievance in this behalf. Indeed, the case was not pressed on behalf of the petitioner in regard to this aspect of the matter. </p><p>4. Sri R. U. Goulay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however urged that the petitioner should have been considered for the seats reserved, under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules for selection of candidates for admission, which provided for allotment of not more than 20% of the seats in Colleges affiliated to any University, in the discretion of the Selection Committee, for candidates passing from Colleges affiliated to any other University in the State or elsewhere in India. His contention is that according to Sub-rule (8) of Rule 10 the process of selection should conform to the other provisions made in the said rule. In other words, the contention is that all those seats so reserved should have been dealt with in one compartment and, if so dealt with, the petitioner would be entitled to be preferred. The foundation for this argument is based on the following facts: </p><p>5. By virtue of the discretion vested under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules governing the matter, the Selection Committee has selected candidates from the Universities of Shiva.ji, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Poona and Venkateswara. The last candidates admitted from each of these Universities except that of Andhra Pradesh have secured more marks than the petitioner. Hence the petitioner could not have any grievance in regard to them even assuming that the contention urged on her behalf of Sri Goulay had to be accepted. But, in regard to Andhra Pradesh, two candidates have been admitted and one of them has secured only 66%. in the relevant optionals. that is less than 66.67% secured by the petitioner in her Pre-University course Examination. The case on behalf of the petitioner was strenuously urged on the basis of this fact, </p><p>6. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are, however, not persuaded to accept the contention urged on be- half of the petitioner, Proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules conferred discretion on the Selection Committee to allot not more than 20% of the seats to persons belonging to Universities other than the one to which admission is sought by the petitioner, which in the instant case is the Karnatak University. What the Selection Committee, in our opinion, had done is to draw candidates from different sources. Therefore, what the Committee has to do is to compare the merits of the candidates belonging to each of these sources separately. That is exactly what has been done in the present case. We do not think that it would be fair or proper to compare the merit of the petitioner with the merits of the last boy admitted hailing from Andhra Pradesh. No material is forthcoming from the papers before us whether the standards of education and teaching provided in the Andhra Pradesh University were in any way equal to those provided in the Bangalore University. For the same reason, it cannot be predicated that the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules envisages in any manner equal treatment of candidates coming from different Universities either in the State or elsewhere in India. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to certain observations of the Supreme Court made in Writ Petns. Nos. 618 to 622 of 1970, in which judgment was pronounced on 3-5-1971 (reported in : AIR1971SC1762 } D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore. His Lordship, Shelat, J-speaking for the Bench, while disposing of W. P. No. 621 of 1970, V. Soudhamini v. State of Mysore, has observed thus: </p><p>'.....There was thus no comparison between persons equally situated even as regards the number of marks secured by them. But apart from that, the result obtained by a student in an examination held by one University cannot be regarded as comparable with the result obtained by another candidate in an examination held by another University. Even assuming that a conscious effort is made to equalise standards obtaining in different unversities. such standards depend on several human factors, methods of teaching and examining, the syllabus in such universities etc., even though the subjects taught and examined were to be the same. It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. That the petitioner and those whom the Selection Committee selected were equally situated cannot, from the facts above stated, be assumed.....' </p><p>7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail. </p><p>8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed, but without costs. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant37; AIR1972Mys37; (1971)2MysLJ361',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372401',
	(int) 1 => 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372401/lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Venkataswami, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner herein has sought for the issue of a Writ or Direction or Order against the respondents, to consider her case for admission to the First Year M. B. B. S. Course of the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli, or any other of the Government Medical Colleges and select her for the said course. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The Petitioner passed her Pre-University Examination of the Bangalore University in the year 1969 and secured 66.67% in the relevant optional subjects. She hag also passed what is known as B. Sc., Part I Examination of the Karnatak University, which would enable her to seek admission for the First Year M. B. B. S. course. According to the relevant' Rules for selection of candidates for admission, the qualification prescribed for admission is a pass in the Pre-University Examination. She, therefore, applied for admission to any of the Medical Colleges under the control of any of the Universities in Mysore for the year 1970-71. She was not selected by the first respondent-Selection Committee, constituted for the purpose of the said Rules. Hence the petition. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. It is not disputed that the qualifying examination was a pass in the Pre-University Examination in any of the Universities. It is further undisputed that In so far as the Universities of Bangalore and Mysore are concerned, any selection for admission would enable a candidate to get himself admitted to the Pre-Professional Course leading to medicine. It is only thereafter a candidate would regularly enter into the First Year Medical Course. In so far as the Karnatak University Is concerned, the course, corresponding to the aforesaid Pre-Professional, is B. Sc., Part I of that University. It is only after passing the said B. Sc., Part I can a candidate of that University enter the First Year Medical Course leading to M. B. B. S. It is, therefore, clear that the qualifying examination for all the Universities is a Pre-University course. In the instant case, all that the candidate had claimed was admission to any of the Medical Colleges within the jurisdiction of any of the said three Universities. The marks secured by the last candidate admitted in all these Universities, in the category of the general pool, in which alone the petitioner was entitled to be considered, had secured marks higher than that of the petitioner. The petitioner would have no grievance in this behalf. Indeed, the case was not pressed on behalf of the petitioner in regard to this aspect of the matter. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Sri R. U. Goulay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however urged that the petitioner should have been considered for the seats reserved, under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules for selection of candidates for admission, which provided for allotment of not more than 20% of the seats in Colleges affiliated to any University, in the discretion of the Selection Committee, for candidates passing from Colleges affiliated to any other University in the State or elsewhere in India. His contention is that according to Sub-rule (8) of Rule 10 the process of selection should conform to the other provisions made in the said rule. In other words, the contention is that all those seats so reserved should have been dealt with in one compartment and, if so dealt with, the petitioner would be entitled to be preferred. The foundation for this argument is based on the following facts: ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. By virtue of the discretion vested under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules governing the matter, the Selection Committee has selected candidates from the Universities of Shiva.ji, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Poona and Venkateswara. The last candidates admitted from each of these Universities except that of Andhra Pradesh have secured more marks than the petitioner. Hence the petitioner could not have any grievance in regard to them even assuming that the contention urged on her behalf of Sri Goulay had to be accepted. But, in regard to Andhra Pradesh, two candidates have been admitted and one of them has secured only 66%. in the relevant optionals. that is less than 66.67% secured by the petitioner in her Pre-University course Examination. The case on behalf of the petitioner was strenuously urged on the basis of this fact, ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are, however, not persuaded to accept the contention urged on be- half of the petitioner, Proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules conferred discretion on the Selection Committee to allot not more than 20% of the seats to persons belonging to Universities other than the one to which admission is sought by the petitioner, which in the instant case is the Karnatak University. What the Selection Committee, in our opinion, had done is to draw candidates from different sources. Therefore, what the Committee has to do is to compare the merits of the candidates belonging to each of these sources separately. That is exactly what has been done in the present case. We do not think that it would be fair or proper to compare the merit of the petitioner with the merits of the last boy admitted hailing from Andhra Pradesh. No material is forthcoming from the papers before us whether the standards of education and teaching provided in the Andhra Pradesh University were in any way equal to those provided in the Bangalore University. For the same reason, it cannot be predicated that the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules envisages in any manner equal treatment of candidates coming from different Universities either in the State or elsewhere in India. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to certain observations of the Supreme Court made in Writ Petns. Nos. 618 to 622 of 1970, in which judgment was pronounced on 3-5-1971 (reported in : AIR1971SC1762 } D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore. His Lordship, Shelat, J-speaking for the Bench, while disposing of W. P. No. 621 of 1970, V. Soudhamini v. State of Mysore, has observed thus: ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'.....There was thus no comparison between persons equally situated even as regards the number of marks secured by them. But apart from that, the result obtained by a student in an examination held by one University cannot be regarded as comparable with the result obtained by another candidate in an examination held by another University. Even assuming that a conscious effort is made to equalise standards obtaining in different unversities. such standards depend on several human factors, methods of teaching and examining, the syllabus in such universities etc., even though the subjects taught and examined were to be the same. It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. That the petitioner and those whom the Selection Committee selected were equally situated cannot, from the facts above stated, be assumed.....' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed, but without costs. <p>',
	(int) 10 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 11
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. The Petitioner passed her Pre-University Examination of the Bangalore University in the year 1969 and secured 66.67% in the relevant optional subjects. She hag also passed what is known as B. Sc., Part I Examination of the Karnatak University, which would enable her to seek admission for the First Year M. B. B. S. course. According to the relevant' Rules for selection of candidates for admission, the qualification prescribed for admission is a pass in the Pre-University Examination. She, therefore, applied for admission to any of the Medical Colleges under the control of any of the Universities in Mysore for the year 1970-71. She was not selected by the first respondent-Selection Committee, constituted for the purpose of the said Rules. Hence the petition.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Lalithamma Vs Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges Bangalore and ors - Citation 372401 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372401',
			'acts' => 'Admission to Medical Colleges in the State of Mysore Rules - Rules 9 and 10(8)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 5209 of 1970',
			'appellant' => 'Lalithamma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Lalithamma Vs. Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - INCOME TAX ACT,1961[C.A.No.43/1961]-- Section 143 (1)(A): [K.L. Manjunath & A.S. Bopanna, JJ] Income arising out of leasing of hotel building - Assessee, carrying on hotel business  Assessees Licence Agreement with Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. -  Question whether amount received by the Assessee from the company, be treated s the income from other sources or a business income  Finding of the assessing officer that the income received from the company is income from other sources  Challenge as to assessment  Held, The transaction is in the nature of lease and the intention of the assessee is not to revive/restart business. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has been managing the hotel through M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., The transaction between assesses and M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. is in the nature of lease and the income from such hotel building is business income -  It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. ..7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R.U. Goulay, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'R.S. Mahendra, High Court Govt. Pleader for Govt. Adv. and ;S.G. Goddakale Gowda, High Court Govt. Pleader for ;H.K. Vasudeva Reddy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1971-07-06',
			'deposition' => ' Petition dismissed ',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B. Venkataswami and ;E.S. Venkataramiah, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkataswami, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner herein has sought for the issue of a Writ or Direction or Order against the respondents, to consider her case for admission to the First Year M. B. B. S. Course of the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli, or any other of the Government Medical Colleges and select her for the said course. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Petitioner passed her Pre-University Examination of the Bangalore University in the year 1969 and secured 66.67% in the relevant optional subjects. She hag also passed what is known as B. Sc., Part I Examination of the Karnatak University, which would enable her to seek admission for the First Year M. B. B. S. course. According to the relevant' Rules for selection of candidates for admission, the qualification prescribed for admission is a pass in the Pre-University Examination. She, therefore, applied for admission to any of the Medical Colleges under the control of any of the Universities in Mysore for the year 1970-71. She was not selected by the first respondent-Selection Committee, constituted for the purpose of the said Rules. Hence the petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It is not disputed that the qualifying examination was a pass in the Pre-University Examination in any of the Universities. It is further undisputed that In so far as the Universities of Bangalore and Mysore are concerned, any selection for admission would enable a candidate to get himself admitted to the Pre-Professional Course leading to medicine. It is only thereafter a candidate would regularly enter into the First Year Medical Course. In so far as the Karnatak University Is concerned, the course, corresponding to the aforesaid Pre-Professional, is B. Sc., Part I of that University. It is only after passing the said B. Sc., Part I can a candidate of that University enter the First Year Medical Course leading to M. B. B. S. It is, therefore, clear that the qualifying examination for all the Universities is a Pre-University course. In the instant case, all that the candidate had claimed was admission to any of the Medical Colleges within the jurisdiction of any of the said three Universities. The marks secured by the last candidate admitted in all these Universities, in the category of the general pool, in which alone the petitioner was entitled to be considered, had secured marks higher than that of the petitioner. The petitioner would have no grievance in this behalf. Indeed, the case was not pressed on behalf of the petitioner in regard to this aspect of the matter. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Sri R. U. Goulay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however urged that the petitioner should have been considered for the seats reserved, under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules for selection of candidates for admission, which provided for allotment of not more than 20% of the seats in Colleges affiliated to any University, in the discretion of the Selection Committee, for candidates passing from Colleges affiliated to any other University in the State or elsewhere in India. His contention is that according to Sub-rule (8) of Rule 10 the process of selection should conform to the other provisions made in the said rule. In other words, the contention is that all those seats so reserved should have been dealt with in one compartment and, if so dealt with, the petitioner would be entitled to be preferred. The foundation for this argument is based on the following facts: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. By virtue of the discretion vested under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules governing the matter, the Selection Committee has selected candidates from the Universities of Shiva.ji, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Poona and Venkateswara. The last candidates admitted from each of these Universities except that of Andhra Pradesh have secured more marks than the petitioner. Hence the petitioner could not have any grievance in regard to them even assuming that the contention urged on her behalf of Sri Goulay had to be accepted. But, in regard to Andhra Pradesh, two candidates have been admitted and one of them has secured only 66%. in the relevant optionals. that is less than 66.67% secured by the petitioner in her Pre-University course Examination. The case on behalf of the petitioner was strenuously urged on the basis of this fact, </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are, however, not persuaded to accept the contention urged on be- half of the petitioner, Proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules conferred discretion on the Selection Committee to allot not more than 20% of the seats to persons belonging to Universities other than the one to which admission is sought by the petitioner, which in the instant case is the Karnatak University. What the Selection Committee, in our opinion, had done is to draw candidates from different sources. Therefore, what the Committee has to do is to compare the merits of the candidates belonging to each of these sources separately. That is exactly what has been done in the present case. We do not think that it would be fair or proper to compare the merit of the petitioner with the merits of the last boy admitted hailing from Andhra Pradesh. No material is forthcoming from the papers before us whether the standards of education and teaching provided in the Andhra Pradesh University were in any way equal to those provided in the Bangalore University. For the same reason, it cannot be predicated that the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules envisages in any manner equal treatment of candidates coming from different Universities either in the State or elsewhere in India. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to certain observations of the Supreme Court made in Writ Petns. Nos. 618 to 622 of 1970, in which judgment was pronounced on 3-5-1971 (reported in : AIR1971SC1762 } D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore. His Lordship, Shelat, J-speaking for the Bench, while disposing of W. P. No. 621 of 1970, V. Soudhamini v. State of Mysore, has observed thus: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'.....There was thus no comparison between persons equally situated even as regards the number of marks secured by them. But apart from that, the result obtained by a student in an examination held by one University cannot be regarded as comparable with the result obtained by another candidate in an examination held by another University. Even assuming that a conscious effort is made to equalise standards obtaining in different unversities. such standards depend on several human factors, methods of teaching and examining, the syllabus in such universities etc., even though the subjects taught and examined were to be the same. It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. That the petitioner and those whom the Selection Committee selected were equally situated cannot, from the facts above stated, be assumed.....' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed, but without costs. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant37; AIR1972Mys37; (1971)2MysLJ361',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372401',
		(int) 1 => 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Lalithamma Vs Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges Bangalore and ors - Citation 372401 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372401',
		'acts' => 'Admission to Medical Colleges in the State of Mysore Rules - Rules 9 and 10(8)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 5209 of 1970',
		'appellant' => 'Lalithamma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Lalithamma Vs. Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - INCOME TAX ACT,1961[C.A.No.43/1961]-- Section 143 (1)(A): [K.L. Manjunath & A.S. Bopanna, JJ] Income arising out of leasing of hotel building - Assessee, carrying on hotel business  Assessees Licence Agreement with Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. -  Question whether amount received by the Assessee from the company, be treated s the income from other sources or a business income  Finding of the assessing officer that the income received from the company is income from other sources  Challenge as to assessment  Held, The transaction is in the nature of lease and the intention of the assessee is not to revive/restart business. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has been managing the hotel through M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., The transaction between assesses and M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. is in the nature of lease and the income from such hotel building is business income -  It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. ..7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R.U. Goulay, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'R.S. Mahendra, High Court Govt. Pleader for Govt. Adv. and ;S.G. Goddakale Gowda, High Court Govt. Pleader for ;H.K. Vasudeva Reddy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1971-07-06',
		'deposition' => ' Petition dismissed ',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B. Venkataswami and ;E.S. Venkataramiah, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Venkataswami, J. </p><p>1. The petitioner herein has sought for the issue of a Writ or Direction or Order against the respondents, to consider her case for admission to the First Year M. B. B. S. Course of the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli, or any other of the Government Medical Colleges and select her for the said course. </p><p>2. The Petitioner passed her Pre-University Examination of the Bangalore University in the year 1969 and secured 66.67% in the relevant optional subjects. She hag also passed what is known as B. Sc., Part I Examination of the Karnatak University, which would enable her to seek admission for the First Year M. B. B. S. course. According to the relevant' Rules for selection of candidates for admission, the qualification prescribed for admission is a pass in the Pre-University Examination. She, therefore, applied for admission to any of the Medical Colleges under the control of any of the Universities in Mysore for the year 1970-71. She was not selected by the first respondent-Selection Committee, constituted for the purpose of the said Rules. Hence the petition. </p><p>3. It is not disputed that the qualifying examination was a pass in the Pre-University Examination in any of the Universities. It is further undisputed that In so far as the Universities of Bangalore and Mysore are concerned, any selection for admission would enable a candidate to get himself admitted to the Pre-Professional Course leading to medicine. It is only thereafter a candidate would regularly enter into the First Year Medical Course. In so far as the Karnatak University Is concerned, the course, corresponding to the aforesaid Pre-Professional, is B. Sc., Part I of that University. It is only after passing the said B. Sc., Part I can a candidate of that University enter the First Year Medical Course leading to M. B. B. S. It is, therefore, clear that the qualifying examination for all the Universities is a Pre-University course. In the instant case, all that the candidate had claimed was admission to any of the Medical Colleges within the jurisdiction of any of the said three Universities. The marks secured by the last candidate admitted in all these Universities, in the category of the general pool, in which alone the petitioner was entitled to be considered, had secured marks higher than that of the petitioner. The petitioner would have no grievance in this behalf. Indeed, the case was not pressed on behalf of the petitioner in regard to this aspect of the matter. </p><p>4. Sri R. U. Goulay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however urged that the petitioner should have been considered for the seats reserved, under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules for selection of candidates for admission, which provided for allotment of not more than 20% of the seats in Colleges affiliated to any University, in the discretion of the Selection Committee, for candidates passing from Colleges affiliated to any other University in the State or elsewhere in India. His contention is that according to Sub-rule (8) of Rule 10 the process of selection should conform to the other provisions made in the said rule. In other words, the contention is that all those seats so reserved should have been dealt with in one compartment and, if so dealt with, the petitioner would be entitled to be preferred. The foundation for this argument is based on the following facts: </p><p>5. By virtue of the discretion vested under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules governing the matter, the Selection Committee has selected candidates from the Universities of Shiva.ji, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Poona and Venkateswara. The last candidates admitted from each of these Universities except that of Andhra Pradesh have secured more marks than the petitioner. Hence the petitioner could not have any grievance in regard to them even assuming that the contention urged on her behalf of Sri Goulay had to be accepted. But, in regard to Andhra Pradesh, two candidates have been admitted and one of them has secured only 66%. in the relevant optionals. that is less than 66.67% secured by the petitioner in her Pre-University course Examination. The case on behalf of the petitioner was strenuously urged on the basis of this fact, </p><p>6. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are, however, not persuaded to accept the contention urged on be- half of the petitioner, Proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules conferred discretion on the Selection Committee to allot not more than 20% of the seats to persons belonging to Universities other than the one to which admission is sought by the petitioner, which in the instant case is the Karnatak University. What the Selection Committee, in our opinion, had done is to draw candidates from different sources. Therefore, what the Committee has to do is to compare the merits of the candidates belonging to each of these sources separately. That is exactly what has been done in the present case. We do not think that it would be fair or proper to compare the merit of the petitioner with the merits of the last boy admitted hailing from Andhra Pradesh. No material is forthcoming from the papers before us whether the standards of education and teaching provided in the Andhra Pradesh University were in any way equal to those provided in the Bangalore University. For the same reason, it cannot be predicated that the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules envisages in any manner equal treatment of candidates coming from different Universities either in the State or elsewhere in India. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to certain observations of the Supreme Court made in Writ Petns. Nos. 618 to 622 of 1970, in which judgment was pronounced on 3-5-1971 (reported in : AIR1971SC1762 } D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore. His Lordship, Shelat, J-speaking for the Bench, while disposing of W. P. No. 621 of 1970, V. Soudhamini v. State of Mysore, has observed thus: </p><p>'.....There was thus no comparison between persons equally situated even as regards the number of marks secured by them. But apart from that, the result obtained by a student in an examination held by one University cannot be regarded as comparable with the result obtained by another candidate in an examination held by another University. Even assuming that a conscious effort is made to equalise standards obtaining in different unversities. such standards depend on several human factors, methods of teaching and examining, the syllabus in such universities etc., even though the subjects taught and examined were to be the same. It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. That the petitioner and those whom the Selection Committee selected were equally situated cannot, from the facts above stated, be assumed.....' </p><p>7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail. </p><p>8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed, but without costs. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant37; AIR1972Mys37; (1971)2MysLJ361',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372401',
	(int) 1 => 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372401/lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Venkataswami, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner herein has sought for the issue of a Writ or Direction or Order against the respondents, to consider her case for admission to the First Year M. B. B. S. Course of the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli, or any other of the Government Medical Colleges and select her for the said course. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The Petitioner passed her Pre-University Examination of the Bangalore University in the year 1969 and secured 66.67% in the relevant optional subjects. She hag also passed what is known as B. Sc., Part I Examination of the Karnatak University, which would enable her to seek admission for the First Year M. B. B. S. course. According to the relevant' Rules for selection of candidates for admission, the qualification prescribed for admission is a pass in the Pre-University Examination. She, therefore, applied for admission to any of the Medical Colleges under the control of any of the Universities in Mysore for the year 1970-71. She was not selected by the first respondent-Selection Committee, constituted for the purpose of the said Rules. Hence the petition. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. It is not disputed that the qualifying examination was a pass in the Pre-University Examination in any of the Universities. It is further undisputed that In so far as the Universities of Bangalore and Mysore are concerned, any selection for admission would enable a candidate to get himself admitted to the Pre-Professional Course leading to medicine. It is only thereafter a candidate would regularly enter into the First Year Medical Course. In so far as the Karnatak University Is concerned, the course, corresponding to the aforesaid Pre-Professional, is B. Sc., Part I of that University. It is only after passing the said B. Sc., Part I can a candidate of that University enter the First Year Medical Course leading to M. B. B. S. It is, therefore, clear that the qualifying examination for all the Universities is a Pre-University course. In the instant case, all that the candidate had claimed was admission to any of the Medical Colleges within the jurisdiction of any of the said three Universities. The marks secured by the last candidate admitted in all these Universities, in the category of the general pool, in which alone the petitioner was entitled to be considered, had secured marks higher than that of the petitioner. The petitioner would have no grievance in this behalf. Indeed, the case was not pressed on behalf of the petitioner in regard to this aspect of the matter. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Sri R. U. Goulay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however urged that the petitioner should have been considered for the seats reserved, under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules for selection of candidates for admission, which provided for allotment of not more than 20% of the seats in Colleges affiliated to any University, in the discretion of the Selection Committee, for candidates passing from Colleges affiliated to any other University in the State or elsewhere in India. His contention is that according to Sub-rule (8) of Rule 10 the process of selection should conform to the other provisions made in the said rule. In other words, the contention is that all those seats so reserved should have been dealt with in one compartment and, if so dealt with, the petitioner would be entitled to be preferred. The foundation for this argument is based on the following facts: ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. By virtue of the discretion vested under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules governing the matter, the Selection Committee has selected candidates from the Universities of Shiva.ji, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Poona and Venkateswara. The last candidates admitted from each of these Universities except that of Andhra Pradesh have secured more marks than the petitioner. Hence the petitioner could not have any grievance in regard to them even assuming that the contention urged on her behalf of Sri Goulay had to be accepted. But, in regard to Andhra Pradesh, two candidates have been admitted and one of them has secured only 66%. in the relevant optionals. that is less than 66.67% secured by the petitioner in her Pre-University course Examination. The case on behalf of the petitioner was strenuously urged on the basis of this fact, ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are, however, not persuaded to accept the contention urged on be- half of the petitioner, Proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules conferred discretion on the Selection Committee to allot not more than 20% of the seats to persons belonging to Universities other than the one to which admission is sought by the petitioner, which in the instant case is the Karnatak University. What the Selection Committee, in our opinion, had done is to draw candidates from different sources. Therefore, what the Committee has to do is to compare the merits of the candidates belonging to each of these sources separately. That is exactly what has been done in the present case. We do not think that it would be fair or proper to compare the merit of the petitioner with the merits of the last boy admitted hailing from Andhra Pradesh. No material is forthcoming from the papers before us whether the standards of education and teaching provided in the Andhra Pradesh University were in any way equal to those provided in the Bangalore University. For the same reason, it cannot be predicated that the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules envisages in any manner equal treatment of candidates coming from different Universities either in the State or elsewhere in India. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to certain observations of the Supreme Court made in Writ Petns. Nos. 618 to 622 of 1970, in which judgment was pronounced on 3-5-1971 (reported in : AIR1971SC1762 } D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore. His Lordship, Shelat, J-speaking for the Bench, while disposing of W. P. No. 621 of 1970, V. Soudhamini v. State of Mysore, has observed thus: ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'.....There was thus no comparison between persons equally situated even as regards the number of marks secured by them. But apart from that, the result obtained by a student in an examination held by one University cannot be regarded as comparable with the result obtained by another candidate in an examination held by another University. Even assuming that a conscious effort is made to equalise standards obtaining in different unversities. such standards depend on several human factors, methods of teaching and examining, the syllabus in such universities etc., even though the subjects taught and examined were to be the same. It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. That the petitioner and those whom the Selection Committee selected were equally situated cannot, from the facts above stated, be assumed.....' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed, but without costs. <p>',
	(int) 10 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 11
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. It is not disputed that the qualifying examination was a pass in the Pre-University Examination in any of the Universities. It is further undisputed that In so far as the Universities of Bangalore and Mysore are concerned, any selection for admission would enable a candidate to get himself admitted to the Pre-Professional Course leading to medicine. It is only thereafter a candidate would regularly enter into the First Year Medical Course. In so far as the Karnatak University Is concerned, the course, corresponding to the aforesaid Pre-Professional, is B. Sc., Part I of that University. It is only after passing the said B. Sc., Part I can a candidate of that University enter the First Year Medical Course leading to M. B. B. S. It is, therefore, clear that the qualifying examination for all the Universities is a Pre-University course. In the instant case, all that the candidate had claimed was admission to any of the Medical Colleges within the jurisdiction of any of the said three Universities. The marks secured by the last candidate admitted in all these Universities, in the category of the general pool, in which alone the petitioner was entitled to be considered, had secured marks higher than that of the petitioner. The petitioner would have no grievance in this behalf. Indeed, the case was not pressed on behalf of the petitioner in regard to this aspect of the matter.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Lalithamma Vs Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges Bangalore and ors - Citation 372401 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372401',
			'acts' => 'Admission to Medical Colleges in the State of Mysore Rules - Rules 9 and 10(8)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 5209 of 1970',
			'appellant' => 'Lalithamma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Lalithamma Vs. Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - INCOME TAX ACT,1961[C.A.No.43/1961]-- Section 143 (1)(A): [K.L. Manjunath & A.S. Bopanna, JJ] Income arising out of leasing of hotel building - Assessee, carrying on hotel business  Assessees Licence Agreement with Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. -  Question whether amount received by the Assessee from the company, be treated s the income from other sources or a business income  Finding of the assessing officer that the income received from the company is income from other sources  Challenge as to assessment  Held, The transaction is in the nature of lease and the intention of the assessee is not to revive/restart business. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has been managing the hotel through M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., The transaction between assesses and M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. is in the nature of lease and the income from such hotel building is business income -  It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. ..7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R.U. Goulay, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'R.S. Mahendra, High Court Govt. Pleader for Govt. Adv. and ;S.G. Goddakale Gowda, High Court Govt. Pleader for ;H.K. Vasudeva Reddy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1971-07-06',
			'deposition' => ' Petition dismissed ',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B. Venkataswami and ;E.S. Venkataramiah, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkataswami, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner herein has sought for the issue of a Writ or Direction or Order against the respondents, to consider her case for admission to the First Year M. B. B. S. Course of the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli, or any other of the Government Medical Colleges and select her for the said course. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Petitioner passed her Pre-University Examination of the Bangalore University in the year 1969 and secured 66.67% in the relevant optional subjects. She hag also passed what is known as B. Sc., Part I Examination of the Karnatak University, which would enable her to seek admission for the First Year M. B. B. S. course. According to the relevant' Rules for selection of candidates for admission, the qualification prescribed for admission is a pass in the Pre-University Examination. She, therefore, applied for admission to any of the Medical Colleges under the control of any of the Universities in Mysore for the year 1970-71. She was not selected by the first respondent-Selection Committee, constituted for the purpose of the said Rules. Hence the petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It is not disputed that the qualifying examination was a pass in the Pre-University Examination in any of the Universities. It is further undisputed that In so far as the Universities of Bangalore and Mysore are concerned, any selection for admission would enable a candidate to get himself admitted to the Pre-Professional Course leading to medicine. It is only thereafter a candidate would regularly enter into the First Year Medical Course. In so far as the Karnatak University Is concerned, the course, corresponding to the aforesaid Pre-Professional, is B. Sc., Part I of that University. It is only after passing the said B. Sc., Part I can a candidate of that University enter the First Year Medical Course leading to M. B. B. S. It is, therefore, clear that the qualifying examination for all the Universities is a Pre-University course. In the instant case, all that the candidate had claimed was admission to any of the Medical Colleges within the jurisdiction of any of the said three Universities. The marks secured by the last candidate admitted in all these Universities, in the category of the general pool, in which alone the petitioner was entitled to be considered, had secured marks higher than that of the petitioner. The petitioner would have no grievance in this behalf. Indeed, the case was not pressed on behalf of the petitioner in regard to this aspect of the matter. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Sri R. U. Goulay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however urged that the petitioner should have been considered for the seats reserved, under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules for selection of candidates for admission, which provided for allotment of not more than 20% of the seats in Colleges affiliated to any University, in the discretion of the Selection Committee, for candidates passing from Colleges affiliated to any other University in the State or elsewhere in India. His contention is that according to Sub-rule (8) of Rule 10 the process of selection should conform to the other provisions made in the said rule. In other words, the contention is that all those seats so reserved should have been dealt with in one compartment and, if so dealt with, the petitioner would be entitled to be preferred. The foundation for this argument is based on the following facts: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. By virtue of the discretion vested under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules governing the matter, the Selection Committee has selected candidates from the Universities of Shiva.ji, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Poona and Venkateswara. The last candidates admitted from each of these Universities except that of Andhra Pradesh have secured more marks than the petitioner. Hence the petitioner could not have any grievance in regard to them even assuming that the contention urged on her behalf of Sri Goulay had to be accepted. But, in regard to Andhra Pradesh, two candidates have been admitted and one of them has secured only 66%. in the relevant optionals. that is less than 66.67% secured by the petitioner in her Pre-University course Examination. The case on behalf of the petitioner was strenuously urged on the basis of this fact, </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are, however, not persuaded to accept the contention urged on be- half of the petitioner, Proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules conferred discretion on the Selection Committee to allot not more than 20% of the seats to persons belonging to Universities other than the one to which admission is sought by the petitioner, which in the instant case is the Karnatak University. What the Selection Committee, in our opinion, had done is to draw candidates from different sources. Therefore, what the Committee has to do is to compare the merits of the candidates belonging to each of these sources separately. That is exactly what has been done in the present case. We do not think that it would be fair or proper to compare the merit of the petitioner with the merits of the last boy admitted hailing from Andhra Pradesh. No material is forthcoming from the papers before us whether the standards of education and teaching provided in the Andhra Pradesh University were in any way equal to those provided in the Bangalore University. For the same reason, it cannot be predicated that the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules envisages in any manner equal treatment of candidates coming from different Universities either in the State or elsewhere in India. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to certain observations of the Supreme Court made in Writ Petns. Nos. 618 to 622 of 1970, in which judgment was pronounced on 3-5-1971 (reported in : AIR1971SC1762 } D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore. His Lordship, Shelat, J-speaking for the Bench, while disposing of W. P. No. 621 of 1970, V. Soudhamini v. State of Mysore, has observed thus: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'.....There was thus no comparison between persons equally situated even as regards the number of marks secured by them. But apart from that, the result obtained by a student in an examination held by one University cannot be regarded as comparable with the result obtained by another candidate in an examination held by another University. Even assuming that a conscious effort is made to equalise standards obtaining in different unversities. such standards depend on several human factors, methods of teaching and examining, the syllabus in such universities etc., even though the subjects taught and examined were to be the same. It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. That the petitioner and those whom the Selection Committee selected were equally situated cannot, from the facts above stated, be assumed.....' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed, but without costs. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant37; AIR1972Mys37; (1971)2MysLJ361',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372401',
		(int) 1 => 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Lalithamma Vs Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges Bangalore and ors - Citation 372401 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372401',
		'acts' => 'Admission to Medical Colleges in the State of Mysore Rules - Rules 9 and 10(8)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 5209 of 1970',
		'appellant' => 'Lalithamma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Lalithamma Vs. Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - INCOME TAX ACT,1961[C.A.No.43/1961]-- Section 143 (1)(A): [K.L. Manjunath & A.S. Bopanna, JJ] Income arising out of leasing of hotel building - Assessee, carrying on hotel business  Assessees Licence Agreement with Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. -  Question whether amount received by the Assessee from the company, be treated s the income from other sources or a business income  Finding of the assessing officer that the income received from the company is income from other sources  Challenge as to assessment  Held, The transaction is in the nature of lease and the intention of the assessee is not to revive/restart business. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has been managing the hotel through M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., The transaction between assesses and M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. is in the nature of lease and the income from such hotel building is business income -  It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. ..7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R.U. Goulay, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'R.S. Mahendra, High Court Govt. Pleader for Govt. Adv. and ;S.G. Goddakale Gowda, High Court Govt. Pleader for ;H.K. Vasudeva Reddy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1971-07-06',
		'deposition' => ' Petition dismissed ',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B. Venkataswami and ;E.S. Venkataramiah, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Venkataswami, J. </p><p>1. The petitioner herein has sought for the issue of a Writ or Direction or Order against the respondents, to consider her case for admission to the First Year M. B. B. S. Course of the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli, or any other of the Government Medical Colleges and select her for the said course. </p><p>2. The Petitioner passed her Pre-University Examination of the Bangalore University in the year 1969 and secured 66.67% in the relevant optional subjects. She hag also passed what is known as B. Sc., Part I Examination of the Karnatak University, which would enable her to seek admission for the First Year M. B. B. S. course. According to the relevant' Rules for selection of candidates for admission, the qualification prescribed for admission is a pass in the Pre-University Examination. She, therefore, applied for admission to any of the Medical Colleges under the control of any of the Universities in Mysore for the year 1970-71. She was not selected by the first respondent-Selection Committee, constituted for the purpose of the said Rules. Hence the petition. </p><p>3. It is not disputed that the qualifying examination was a pass in the Pre-University Examination in any of the Universities. It is further undisputed that In so far as the Universities of Bangalore and Mysore are concerned, any selection for admission would enable a candidate to get himself admitted to the Pre-Professional Course leading to medicine. It is only thereafter a candidate would regularly enter into the First Year Medical Course. In so far as the Karnatak University Is concerned, the course, corresponding to the aforesaid Pre-Professional, is B. Sc., Part I of that University. It is only after passing the said B. Sc., Part I can a candidate of that University enter the First Year Medical Course leading to M. B. B. S. It is, therefore, clear that the qualifying examination for all the Universities is a Pre-University course. In the instant case, all that the candidate had claimed was admission to any of the Medical Colleges within the jurisdiction of any of the said three Universities. The marks secured by the last candidate admitted in all these Universities, in the category of the general pool, in which alone the petitioner was entitled to be considered, had secured marks higher than that of the petitioner. The petitioner would have no grievance in this behalf. Indeed, the case was not pressed on behalf of the petitioner in regard to this aspect of the matter. </p><p>4. Sri R. U. Goulay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however urged that the petitioner should have been considered for the seats reserved, under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules for selection of candidates for admission, which provided for allotment of not more than 20% of the seats in Colleges affiliated to any University, in the discretion of the Selection Committee, for candidates passing from Colleges affiliated to any other University in the State or elsewhere in India. His contention is that according to Sub-rule (8) of Rule 10 the process of selection should conform to the other provisions made in the said rule. In other words, the contention is that all those seats so reserved should have been dealt with in one compartment and, if so dealt with, the petitioner would be entitled to be preferred. The foundation for this argument is based on the following facts: </p><p>5. By virtue of the discretion vested under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules governing the matter, the Selection Committee has selected candidates from the Universities of Shiva.ji, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Poona and Venkateswara. The last candidates admitted from each of these Universities except that of Andhra Pradesh have secured more marks than the petitioner. Hence the petitioner could not have any grievance in regard to them even assuming that the contention urged on her behalf of Sri Goulay had to be accepted. But, in regard to Andhra Pradesh, two candidates have been admitted and one of them has secured only 66%. in the relevant optionals. that is less than 66.67% secured by the petitioner in her Pre-University course Examination. The case on behalf of the petitioner was strenuously urged on the basis of this fact, </p><p>6. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are, however, not persuaded to accept the contention urged on be- half of the petitioner, Proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules conferred discretion on the Selection Committee to allot not more than 20% of the seats to persons belonging to Universities other than the one to which admission is sought by the petitioner, which in the instant case is the Karnatak University. What the Selection Committee, in our opinion, had done is to draw candidates from different sources. Therefore, what the Committee has to do is to compare the merits of the candidates belonging to each of these sources separately. That is exactly what has been done in the present case. We do not think that it would be fair or proper to compare the merit of the petitioner with the merits of the last boy admitted hailing from Andhra Pradesh. No material is forthcoming from the papers before us whether the standards of education and teaching provided in the Andhra Pradesh University were in any way equal to those provided in the Bangalore University. For the same reason, it cannot be predicated that the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules envisages in any manner equal treatment of candidates coming from different Universities either in the State or elsewhere in India. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to certain observations of the Supreme Court made in Writ Petns. Nos. 618 to 622 of 1970, in which judgment was pronounced on 3-5-1971 (reported in : AIR1971SC1762 } D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore. His Lordship, Shelat, J-speaking for the Bench, while disposing of W. P. No. 621 of 1970, V. Soudhamini v. State of Mysore, has observed thus: </p><p>'.....There was thus no comparison between persons equally situated even as regards the number of marks secured by them. But apart from that, the result obtained by a student in an examination held by one University cannot be regarded as comparable with the result obtained by another candidate in an examination held by another University. Even assuming that a conscious effort is made to equalise standards obtaining in different unversities. such standards depend on several human factors, methods of teaching and examining, the syllabus in such universities etc., even though the subjects taught and examined were to be the same. It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. That the petitioner and those whom the Selection Committee selected were equally situated cannot, from the facts above stated, be assumed.....' </p><p>7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail. </p><p>8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed, but without costs. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant37; AIR1972Mys37; (1971)2MysLJ361',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372401',
	(int) 1 => 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372401/lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Venkataswami, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner herein has sought for the issue of a Writ or Direction or Order against the respondents, to consider her case for admission to the First Year M. B. B. S. Course of the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli, or any other of the Government Medical Colleges and select her for the said course. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The Petitioner passed her Pre-University Examination of the Bangalore University in the year 1969 and secured 66.67% in the relevant optional subjects. She hag also passed what is known as B. Sc., Part I Examination of the Karnatak University, which would enable her to seek admission for the First Year M. B. B. S. course. According to the relevant' Rules for selection of candidates for admission, the qualification prescribed for admission is a pass in the Pre-University Examination. She, therefore, applied for admission to any of the Medical Colleges under the control of any of the Universities in Mysore for the year 1970-71. She was not selected by the first respondent-Selection Committee, constituted for the purpose of the said Rules. Hence the petition. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. It is not disputed that the qualifying examination was a pass in the Pre-University Examination in any of the Universities. It is further undisputed that In so far as the Universities of Bangalore and Mysore are concerned, any selection for admission would enable a candidate to get himself admitted to the Pre-Professional Course leading to medicine. It is only thereafter a candidate would regularly enter into the First Year Medical Course. In so far as the Karnatak University Is concerned, the course, corresponding to the aforesaid Pre-Professional, is B. Sc., Part I of that University. It is only after passing the said B. Sc., Part I can a candidate of that University enter the First Year Medical Course leading to M. B. B. S. It is, therefore, clear that the qualifying examination for all the Universities is a Pre-University course. In the instant case, all that the candidate had claimed was admission to any of the Medical Colleges within the jurisdiction of any of the said three Universities. The marks secured by the last candidate admitted in all these Universities, in the category of the general pool, in which alone the petitioner was entitled to be considered, had secured marks higher than that of the petitioner. The petitioner would have no grievance in this behalf. Indeed, the case was not pressed on behalf of the petitioner in regard to this aspect of the matter. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Sri R. U. Goulay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however urged that the petitioner should have been considered for the seats reserved, under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules for selection of candidates for admission, which provided for allotment of not more than 20% of the seats in Colleges affiliated to any University, in the discretion of the Selection Committee, for candidates passing from Colleges affiliated to any other University in the State or elsewhere in India. His contention is that according to Sub-rule (8) of Rule 10 the process of selection should conform to the other provisions made in the said rule. In other words, the contention is that all those seats so reserved should have been dealt with in one compartment and, if so dealt with, the petitioner would be entitled to be preferred. The foundation for this argument is based on the following facts: ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. By virtue of the discretion vested under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules governing the matter, the Selection Committee has selected candidates from the Universities of Shiva.ji, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Poona and Venkateswara. The last candidates admitted from each of these Universities except that of Andhra Pradesh have secured more marks than the petitioner. Hence the petitioner could not have any grievance in regard to them even assuming that the contention urged on her behalf of Sri Goulay had to be accepted. But, in regard to Andhra Pradesh, two candidates have been admitted and one of them has secured only 66%. in the relevant optionals. that is less than 66.67% secured by the petitioner in her Pre-University course Examination. The case on behalf of the petitioner was strenuously urged on the basis of this fact, ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are, however, not persuaded to accept the contention urged on be- half of the petitioner, Proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules conferred discretion on the Selection Committee to allot not more than 20% of the seats to persons belonging to Universities other than the one to which admission is sought by the petitioner, which in the instant case is the Karnatak University. What the Selection Committee, in our opinion, had done is to draw candidates from different sources. Therefore, what the Committee has to do is to compare the merits of the candidates belonging to each of these sources separately. That is exactly what has been done in the present case. We do not think that it would be fair or proper to compare the merit of the petitioner with the merits of the last boy admitted hailing from Andhra Pradesh. No material is forthcoming from the papers before us whether the standards of education and teaching provided in the Andhra Pradesh University were in any way equal to those provided in the Bangalore University. For the same reason, it cannot be predicated that the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules envisages in any manner equal treatment of candidates coming from different Universities either in the State or elsewhere in India. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to certain observations of the Supreme Court made in Writ Petns. Nos. 618 to 622 of 1970, in which judgment was pronounced on 3-5-1971 (reported in : AIR1971SC1762 } D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore. His Lordship, Shelat, J-speaking for the Bench, while disposing of W. P. No. 621 of 1970, V. Soudhamini v. State of Mysore, has observed thus: ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'.....There was thus no comparison between persons equally situated even as regards the number of marks secured by them. But apart from that, the result obtained by a student in an examination held by one University cannot be regarded as comparable with the result obtained by another candidate in an examination held by another University. Even assuming that a conscious effort is made to equalise standards obtaining in different unversities. such standards depend on several human factors, methods of teaching and examining, the syllabus in such universities etc., even though the subjects taught and examined were to be the same. It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. That the petitioner and those whom the Selection Committee selected were equally situated cannot, from the facts above stated, be assumed.....' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed, but without costs. <p>',
	(int) 10 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 11
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. Sri R. U. Goulay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however urged that the petitioner should have been considered for the seats reserved, under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules for selection of candidates for admission, which provided for allotment of not more than 20% of the seats in Colleges affiliated to any University, in the discretion of the Selection Committee, for candidates passing from Colleges affiliated to any other University in the State or elsewhere in India. His contention is that according to Sub-rule (8) of Rule 10 the process of selection should conform to the other provisions made in the said rule. In other words, the contention is that all those seats so reserved should have been dealt with in one compartment and, if so dealt with, the petitioner would be entitled to be preferred. The foundation for this argument is based on the following facts:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Lalithamma Vs Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges Bangalore and ors - Citation 372401 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372401',
			'acts' => 'Admission to Medical Colleges in the State of Mysore Rules - Rules 9 and 10(8)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 5209 of 1970',
			'appellant' => 'Lalithamma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Lalithamma Vs. Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - INCOME TAX ACT,1961[C.A.No.43/1961]-- Section 143 (1)(A): [K.L. Manjunath & A.S. Bopanna, JJ] Income arising out of leasing of hotel building - Assessee, carrying on hotel business  Assessees Licence Agreement with Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. -  Question whether amount received by the Assessee from the company, be treated s the income from other sources or a business income  Finding of the assessing officer that the income received from the company is income from other sources  Challenge as to assessment  Held, The transaction is in the nature of lease and the intention of the assessee is not to revive/restart business. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has been managing the hotel through M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., The transaction between assesses and M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. is in the nature of lease and the income from such hotel building is business income -  It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. ..7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R.U. Goulay, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'R.S. Mahendra, High Court Govt. Pleader for Govt. Adv. and ;S.G. Goddakale Gowda, High Court Govt. Pleader for ;H.K. Vasudeva Reddy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1971-07-06',
			'deposition' => ' Petition dismissed ',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B. Venkataswami and ;E.S. Venkataramiah, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkataswami, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner herein has sought for the issue of a Writ or Direction or Order against the respondents, to consider her case for admission to the First Year M. B. B. S. Course of the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli, or any other of the Government Medical Colleges and select her for the said course. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Petitioner passed her Pre-University Examination of the Bangalore University in the year 1969 and secured 66.67% in the relevant optional subjects. She hag also passed what is known as B. Sc., Part I Examination of the Karnatak University, which would enable her to seek admission for the First Year M. B. B. S. course. According to the relevant' Rules for selection of candidates for admission, the qualification prescribed for admission is a pass in the Pre-University Examination. She, therefore, applied for admission to any of the Medical Colleges under the control of any of the Universities in Mysore for the year 1970-71. She was not selected by the first respondent-Selection Committee, constituted for the purpose of the said Rules. Hence the petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It is not disputed that the qualifying examination was a pass in the Pre-University Examination in any of the Universities. It is further undisputed that In so far as the Universities of Bangalore and Mysore are concerned, any selection for admission would enable a candidate to get himself admitted to the Pre-Professional Course leading to medicine. It is only thereafter a candidate would regularly enter into the First Year Medical Course. In so far as the Karnatak University Is concerned, the course, corresponding to the aforesaid Pre-Professional, is B. Sc., Part I of that University. It is only after passing the said B. Sc., Part I can a candidate of that University enter the First Year Medical Course leading to M. B. B. S. It is, therefore, clear that the qualifying examination for all the Universities is a Pre-University course. In the instant case, all that the candidate had claimed was admission to any of the Medical Colleges within the jurisdiction of any of the said three Universities. The marks secured by the last candidate admitted in all these Universities, in the category of the general pool, in which alone the petitioner was entitled to be considered, had secured marks higher than that of the petitioner. The petitioner would have no grievance in this behalf. Indeed, the case was not pressed on behalf of the petitioner in regard to this aspect of the matter. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Sri R. U. Goulay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however urged that the petitioner should have been considered for the seats reserved, under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules for selection of candidates for admission, which provided for allotment of not more than 20% of the seats in Colleges affiliated to any University, in the discretion of the Selection Committee, for candidates passing from Colleges affiliated to any other University in the State or elsewhere in India. His contention is that according to Sub-rule (8) of Rule 10 the process of selection should conform to the other provisions made in the said rule. In other words, the contention is that all those seats so reserved should have been dealt with in one compartment and, if so dealt with, the petitioner would be entitled to be preferred. The foundation for this argument is based on the following facts: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. By virtue of the discretion vested under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules governing the matter, the Selection Committee has selected candidates from the Universities of Shiva.ji, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Poona and Venkateswara. The last candidates admitted from each of these Universities except that of Andhra Pradesh have secured more marks than the petitioner. Hence the petitioner could not have any grievance in regard to them even assuming that the contention urged on her behalf of Sri Goulay had to be accepted. But, in regard to Andhra Pradesh, two candidates have been admitted and one of them has secured only 66%. in the relevant optionals. that is less than 66.67% secured by the petitioner in her Pre-University course Examination. The case on behalf of the petitioner was strenuously urged on the basis of this fact, </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are, however, not persuaded to accept the contention urged on be- half of the petitioner, Proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules conferred discretion on the Selection Committee to allot not more than 20% of the seats to persons belonging to Universities other than the one to which admission is sought by the petitioner, which in the instant case is the Karnatak University. What the Selection Committee, in our opinion, had done is to draw candidates from different sources. Therefore, what the Committee has to do is to compare the merits of the candidates belonging to each of these sources separately. That is exactly what has been done in the present case. We do not think that it would be fair or proper to compare the merit of the petitioner with the merits of the last boy admitted hailing from Andhra Pradesh. No material is forthcoming from the papers before us whether the standards of education and teaching provided in the Andhra Pradesh University were in any way equal to those provided in the Bangalore University. For the same reason, it cannot be predicated that the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules envisages in any manner equal treatment of candidates coming from different Universities either in the State or elsewhere in India. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to certain observations of the Supreme Court made in Writ Petns. Nos. 618 to 622 of 1970, in which judgment was pronounced on 3-5-1971 (reported in : AIR1971SC1762 } D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore. His Lordship, Shelat, J-speaking for the Bench, while disposing of W. P. No. 621 of 1970, V. Soudhamini v. State of Mysore, has observed thus: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'.....There was thus no comparison between persons equally situated even as regards the number of marks secured by them. But apart from that, the result obtained by a student in an examination held by one University cannot be regarded as comparable with the result obtained by another candidate in an examination held by another University. Even assuming that a conscious effort is made to equalise standards obtaining in different unversities. such standards depend on several human factors, methods of teaching and examining, the syllabus in such universities etc., even though the subjects taught and examined were to be the same. It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. That the petitioner and those whom the Selection Committee selected were equally situated cannot, from the facts above stated, be assumed.....' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed, but without costs. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant37; AIR1972Mys37; (1971)2MysLJ361',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372401',
		(int) 1 => 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Lalithamma Vs Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges Bangalore and ors - Citation 372401 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372401',
		'acts' => 'Admission to Medical Colleges in the State of Mysore Rules - Rules 9 and 10(8)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 5209 of 1970',
		'appellant' => 'Lalithamma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Lalithamma Vs. Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - INCOME TAX ACT,1961[C.A.No.43/1961]-- Section 143 (1)(A): [K.L. Manjunath & A.S. Bopanna, JJ] Income arising out of leasing of hotel building - Assessee, carrying on hotel business  Assessees Licence Agreement with Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. -  Question whether amount received by the Assessee from the company, be treated s the income from other sources or a business income  Finding of the assessing officer that the income received from the company is income from other sources  Challenge as to assessment  Held, The transaction is in the nature of lease and the intention of the assessee is not to revive/restart business. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has been managing the hotel through M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., The transaction between assesses and M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. is in the nature of lease and the income from such hotel building is business income -  It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. ..7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R.U. Goulay, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'R.S. Mahendra, High Court Govt. Pleader for Govt. Adv. and ;S.G. Goddakale Gowda, High Court Govt. Pleader for ;H.K. Vasudeva Reddy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1971-07-06',
		'deposition' => ' Petition dismissed ',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B. Venkataswami and ;E.S. Venkataramiah, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Venkataswami, J. </p><p>1. The petitioner herein has sought for the issue of a Writ or Direction or Order against the respondents, to consider her case for admission to the First Year M. B. B. S. Course of the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli, or any other of the Government Medical Colleges and select her for the said course. </p><p>2. The Petitioner passed her Pre-University Examination of the Bangalore University in the year 1969 and secured 66.67% in the relevant optional subjects. She hag also passed what is known as B. Sc., Part I Examination of the Karnatak University, which would enable her to seek admission for the First Year M. B. B. S. course. According to the relevant' Rules for selection of candidates for admission, the qualification prescribed for admission is a pass in the Pre-University Examination. She, therefore, applied for admission to any of the Medical Colleges under the control of any of the Universities in Mysore for the year 1970-71. She was not selected by the first respondent-Selection Committee, constituted for the purpose of the said Rules. Hence the petition. </p><p>3. It is not disputed that the qualifying examination was a pass in the Pre-University Examination in any of the Universities. It is further undisputed that In so far as the Universities of Bangalore and Mysore are concerned, any selection for admission would enable a candidate to get himself admitted to the Pre-Professional Course leading to medicine. It is only thereafter a candidate would regularly enter into the First Year Medical Course. In so far as the Karnatak University Is concerned, the course, corresponding to the aforesaid Pre-Professional, is B. Sc., Part I of that University. It is only after passing the said B. Sc., Part I can a candidate of that University enter the First Year Medical Course leading to M. B. B. S. It is, therefore, clear that the qualifying examination for all the Universities is a Pre-University course. In the instant case, all that the candidate had claimed was admission to any of the Medical Colleges within the jurisdiction of any of the said three Universities. The marks secured by the last candidate admitted in all these Universities, in the category of the general pool, in which alone the petitioner was entitled to be considered, had secured marks higher than that of the petitioner. The petitioner would have no grievance in this behalf. Indeed, the case was not pressed on behalf of the petitioner in regard to this aspect of the matter. </p><p>4. Sri R. U. Goulay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however urged that the petitioner should have been considered for the seats reserved, under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules for selection of candidates for admission, which provided for allotment of not more than 20% of the seats in Colleges affiliated to any University, in the discretion of the Selection Committee, for candidates passing from Colleges affiliated to any other University in the State or elsewhere in India. His contention is that according to Sub-rule (8) of Rule 10 the process of selection should conform to the other provisions made in the said rule. In other words, the contention is that all those seats so reserved should have been dealt with in one compartment and, if so dealt with, the petitioner would be entitled to be preferred. The foundation for this argument is based on the following facts: </p><p>5. By virtue of the discretion vested under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules governing the matter, the Selection Committee has selected candidates from the Universities of Shiva.ji, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Poona and Venkateswara. The last candidates admitted from each of these Universities except that of Andhra Pradesh have secured more marks than the petitioner. Hence the petitioner could not have any grievance in regard to them even assuming that the contention urged on her behalf of Sri Goulay had to be accepted. But, in regard to Andhra Pradesh, two candidates have been admitted and one of them has secured only 66%. in the relevant optionals. that is less than 66.67% secured by the petitioner in her Pre-University course Examination. The case on behalf of the petitioner was strenuously urged on the basis of this fact, </p><p>6. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are, however, not persuaded to accept the contention urged on be- half of the petitioner, Proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules conferred discretion on the Selection Committee to allot not more than 20% of the seats to persons belonging to Universities other than the one to which admission is sought by the petitioner, which in the instant case is the Karnatak University. What the Selection Committee, in our opinion, had done is to draw candidates from different sources. Therefore, what the Committee has to do is to compare the merits of the candidates belonging to each of these sources separately. That is exactly what has been done in the present case. We do not think that it would be fair or proper to compare the merit of the petitioner with the merits of the last boy admitted hailing from Andhra Pradesh. No material is forthcoming from the papers before us whether the standards of education and teaching provided in the Andhra Pradesh University were in any way equal to those provided in the Bangalore University. For the same reason, it cannot be predicated that the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules envisages in any manner equal treatment of candidates coming from different Universities either in the State or elsewhere in India. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to certain observations of the Supreme Court made in Writ Petns. Nos. 618 to 622 of 1970, in which judgment was pronounced on 3-5-1971 (reported in : AIR1971SC1762 } D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore. His Lordship, Shelat, J-speaking for the Bench, while disposing of W. P. No. 621 of 1970, V. Soudhamini v. State of Mysore, has observed thus: </p><p>'.....There was thus no comparison between persons equally situated even as regards the number of marks secured by them. But apart from that, the result obtained by a student in an examination held by one University cannot be regarded as comparable with the result obtained by another candidate in an examination held by another University. Even assuming that a conscious effort is made to equalise standards obtaining in different unversities. such standards depend on several human factors, methods of teaching and examining, the syllabus in such universities etc., even though the subjects taught and examined were to be the same. It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. That the petitioner and those whom the Selection Committee selected were equally situated cannot, from the facts above stated, be assumed.....' </p><p>7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail. </p><p>8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed, but without costs. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant37; AIR1972Mys37; (1971)2MysLJ361',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372401',
	(int) 1 => 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372401/lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Venkataswami, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner herein has sought for the issue of a Writ or Direction or Order against the respondents, to consider her case for admission to the First Year M. B. B. S. Course of the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli, or any other of the Government Medical Colleges and select her for the said course. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The Petitioner passed her Pre-University Examination of the Bangalore University in the year 1969 and secured 66.67% in the relevant optional subjects. She hag also passed what is known as B. Sc., Part I Examination of the Karnatak University, which would enable her to seek admission for the First Year M. B. B. S. course. According to the relevant' Rules for selection of candidates for admission, the qualification prescribed for admission is a pass in the Pre-University Examination. She, therefore, applied for admission to any of the Medical Colleges under the control of any of the Universities in Mysore for the year 1970-71. She was not selected by the first respondent-Selection Committee, constituted for the purpose of the said Rules. Hence the petition. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. It is not disputed that the qualifying examination was a pass in the Pre-University Examination in any of the Universities. It is further undisputed that In so far as the Universities of Bangalore and Mysore are concerned, any selection for admission would enable a candidate to get himself admitted to the Pre-Professional Course leading to medicine. It is only thereafter a candidate would regularly enter into the First Year Medical Course. In so far as the Karnatak University Is concerned, the course, corresponding to the aforesaid Pre-Professional, is B. Sc., Part I of that University. It is only after passing the said B. Sc., Part I can a candidate of that University enter the First Year Medical Course leading to M. B. B. S. It is, therefore, clear that the qualifying examination for all the Universities is a Pre-University course. In the instant case, all that the candidate had claimed was admission to any of the Medical Colleges within the jurisdiction of any of the said three Universities. The marks secured by the last candidate admitted in all these Universities, in the category of the general pool, in which alone the petitioner was entitled to be considered, had secured marks higher than that of the petitioner. The petitioner would have no grievance in this behalf. Indeed, the case was not pressed on behalf of the petitioner in regard to this aspect of the matter. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Sri R. U. Goulay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however urged that the petitioner should have been considered for the seats reserved, under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules for selection of candidates for admission, which provided for allotment of not more than 20% of the seats in Colleges affiliated to any University, in the discretion of the Selection Committee, for candidates passing from Colleges affiliated to any other University in the State or elsewhere in India. His contention is that according to Sub-rule (8) of Rule 10 the process of selection should conform to the other provisions made in the said rule. In other words, the contention is that all those seats so reserved should have been dealt with in one compartment and, if so dealt with, the petitioner would be entitled to be preferred. The foundation for this argument is based on the following facts: ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. By virtue of the discretion vested under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules governing the matter, the Selection Committee has selected candidates from the Universities of Shiva.ji, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Poona and Venkateswara. The last candidates admitted from each of these Universities except that of Andhra Pradesh have secured more marks than the petitioner. Hence the petitioner could not have any grievance in regard to them even assuming that the contention urged on her behalf of Sri Goulay had to be accepted. But, in regard to Andhra Pradesh, two candidates have been admitted and one of them has secured only 66%. in the relevant optionals. that is less than 66.67% secured by the petitioner in her Pre-University course Examination. The case on behalf of the petitioner was strenuously urged on the basis of this fact, ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are, however, not persuaded to accept the contention urged on be- half of the petitioner, Proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules conferred discretion on the Selection Committee to allot not more than 20% of the seats to persons belonging to Universities other than the one to which admission is sought by the petitioner, which in the instant case is the Karnatak University. What the Selection Committee, in our opinion, had done is to draw candidates from different sources. Therefore, what the Committee has to do is to compare the merits of the candidates belonging to each of these sources separately. That is exactly what has been done in the present case. We do not think that it would be fair or proper to compare the merit of the petitioner with the merits of the last boy admitted hailing from Andhra Pradesh. No material is forthcoming from the papers before us whether the standards of education and teaching provided in the Andhra Pradesh University were in any way equal to those provided in the Bangalore University. For the same reason, it cannot be predicated that the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules envisages in any manner equal treatment of candidates coming from different Universities either in the State or elsewhere in India. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to certain observations of the Supreme Court made in Writ Petns. Nos. 618 to 622 of 1970, in which judgment was pronounced on 3-5-1971 (reported in : AIR1971SC1762 } D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore. His Lordship, Shelat, J-speaking for the Bench, while disposing of W. P. No. 621 of 1970, V. Soudhamini v. State of Mysore, has observed thus: ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'.....There was thus no comparison between persons equally situated even as regards the number of marks secured by them. But apart from that, the result obtained by a student in an examination held by one University cannot be regarded as comparable with the result obtained by another candidate in an examination held by another University. Even assuming that a conscious effort is made to equalise standards obtaining in different unversities. such standards depend on several human factors, methods of teaching and examining, the syllabus in such universities etc., even though the subjects taught and examined were to be the same. It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. That the petitioner and those whom the Selection Committee selected were equally situated cannot, from the facts above stated, be assumed.....' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed, but without costs. <p>',
	(int) 10 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 11
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. By virtue of the discretion vested under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules governing the matter, the Selection Committee has selected candidates from the Universities of Shiva.ji, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Poona and Venkateswara. The last candidates admitted from each of these Universities except that of Andhra Pradesh have secured more marks than the petitioner. Hence the petitioner could not have any grievance in regard to them even assuming that the contention urged on her behalf of Sri Goulay had to be accepted. But, in regard to Andhra Pradesh, two candidates have been admitted and one of them has secured only 66%. in the relevant optionals. that is less than 66.67% secured by the petitioner in her Pre-University course Examination. The case on behalf of the petitioner was strenuously urged on the basis of this fact,

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Lalithamma Vs Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges Bangalore and ors - Citation 372401 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372401',
			'acts' => 'Admission to Medical Colleges in the State of Mysore Rules - Rules 9 and 10(8)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 5209 of 1970',
			'appellant' => 'Lalithamma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Lalithamma Vs. Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - INCOME TAX ACT,1961[C.A.No.43/1961]-- Section 143 (1)(A): [K.L. Manjunath & A.S. Bopanna, JJ] Income arising out of leasing of hotel building - Assessee, carrying on hotel business  Assessees Licence Agreement with Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. -  Question whether amount received by the Assessee from the company, be treated s the income from other sources or a business income  Finding of the assessing officer that the income received from the company is income from other sources  Challenge as to assessment  Held, The transaction is in the nature of lease and the intention of the assessee is not to revive/restart business. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has been managing the hotel through M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., The transaction between assesses and M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. is in the nature of lease and the income from such hotel building is business income -  It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. ..7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R.U. Goulay, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'R.S. Mahendra, High Court Govt. Pleader for Govt. Adv. and ;S.G. Goddakale Gowda, High Court Govt. Pleader for ;H.K. Vasudeva Reddy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1971-07-06',
			'deposition' => ' Petition dismissed ',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B. Venkataswami and ;E.S. Venkataramiah, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkataswami, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner herein has sought for the issue of a Writ or Direction or Order against the respondents, to consider her case for admission to the First Year M. B. B. S. Course of the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli, or any other of the Government Medical Colleges and select her for the said course. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Petitioner passed her Pre-University Examination of the Bangalore University in the year 1969 and secured 66.67% in the relevant optional subjects. She hag also passed what is known as B. Sc., Part I Examination of the Karnatak University, which would enable her to seek admission for the First Year M. B. B. S. course. According to the relevant' Rules for selection of candidates for admission, the qualification prescribed for admission is a pass in the Pre-University Examination. She, therefore, applied for admission to any of the Medical Colleges under the control of any of the Universities in Mysore for the year 1970-71. She was not selected by the first respondent-Selection Committee, constituted for the purpose of the said Rules. Hence the petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It is not disputed that the qualifying examination was a pass in the Pre-University Examination in any of the Universities. It is further undisputed that In so far as the Universities of Bangalore and Mysore are concerned, any selection for admission would enable a candidate to get himself admitted to the Pre-Professional Course leading to medicine. It is only thereafter a candidate would regularly enter into the First Year Medical Course. In so far as the Karnatak University Is concerned, the course, corresponding to the aforesaid Pre-Professional, is B. Sc., Part I of that University. It is only after passing the said B. Sc., Part I can a candidate of that University enter the First Year Medical Course leading to M. B. B. S. It is, therefore, clear that the qualifying examination for all the Universities is a Pre-University course. In the instant case, all that the candidate had claimed was admission to any of the Medical Colleges within the jurisdiction of any of the said three Universities. The marks secured by the last candidate admitted in all these Universities, in the category of the general pool, in which alone the petitioner was entitled to be considered, had secured marks higher than that of the petitioner. The petitioner would have no grievance in this behalf. Indeed, the case was not pressed on behalf of the petitioner in regard to this aspect of the matter. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Sri R. U. Goulay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however urged that the petitioner should have been considered for the seats reserved, under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules for selection of candidates for admission, which provided for allotment of not more than 20% of the seats in Colleges affiliated to any University, in the discretion of the Selection Committee, for candidates passing from Colleges affiliated to any other University in the State or elsewhere in India. His contention is that according to Sub-rule (8) of Rule 10 the process of selection should conform to the other provisions made in the said rule. In other words, the contention is that all those seats so reserved should have been dealt with in one compartment and, if so dealt with, the petitioner would be entitled to be preferred. The foundation for this argument is based on the following facts: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. By virtue of the discretion vested under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules governing the matter, the Selection Committee has selected candidates from the Universities of Shiva.ji, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Poona and Venkateswara. The last candidates admitted from each of these Universities except that of Andhra Pradesh have secured more marks than the petitioner. Hence the petitioner could not have any grievance in regard to them even assuming that the contention urged on her behalf of Sri Goulay had to be accepted. But, in regard to Andhra Pradesh, two candidates have been admitted and one of them has secured only 66%. in the relevant optionals. that is less than 66.67% secured by the petitioner in her Pre-University course Examination. The case on behalf of the petitioner was strenuously urged on the basis of this fact, </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are, however, not persuaded to accept the contention urged on be- half of the petitioner, Proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules conferred discretion on the Selection Committee to allot not more than 20% of the seats to persons belonging to Universities other than the one to which admission is sought by the petitioner, which in the instant case is the Karnatak University. What the Selection Committee, in our opinion, had done is to draw candidates from different sources. Therefore, what the Committee has to do is to compare the merits of the candidates belonging to each of these sources separately. That is exactly what has been done in the present case. We do not think that it would be fair or proper to compare the merit of the petitioner with the merits of the last boy admitted hailing from Andhra Pradesh. No material is forthcoming from the papers before us whether the standards of education and teaching provided in the Andhra Pradesh University were in any way equal to those provided in the Bangalore University. For the same reason, it cannot be predicated that the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules envisages in any manner equal treatment of candidates coming from different Universities either in the State or elsewhere in India. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to certain observations of the Supreme Court made in Writ Petns. Nos. 618 to 622 of 1970, in which judgment was pronounced on 3-5-1971 (reported in : AIR1971SC1762 } D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore. His Lordship, Shelat, J-speaking for the Bench, while disposing of W. P. No. 621 of 1970, V. Soudhamini v. State of Mysore, has observed thus: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'.....There was thus no comparison between persons equally situated even as regards the number of marks secured by them. But apart from that, the result obtained by a student in an examination held by one University cannot be regarded as comparable with the result obtained by another candidate in an examination held by another University. Even assuming that a conscious effort is made to equalise standards obtaining in different unversities. such standards depend on several human factors, methods of teaching and examining, the syllabus in such universities etc., even though the subjects taught and examined were to be the same. It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. That the petitioner and those whom the Selection Committee selected were equally situated cannot, from the facts above stated, be assumed.....' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed, but without costs. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant37; AIR1972Mys37; (1971)2MysLJ361',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372401',
		(int) 1 => 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Lalithamma Vs Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges Bangalore and ors - Citation 372401 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372401',
		'acts' => 'Admission to Medical Colleges in the State of Mysore Rules - Rules 9 and 10(8)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 5209 of 1970',
		'appellant' => 'Lalithamma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Lalithamma Vs. Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - INCOME TAX ACT,1961[C.A.No.43/1961]-- Section 143 (1)(A): [K.L. Manjunath & A.S. Bopanna, JJ] Income arising out of leasing of hotel building - Assessee, carrying on hotel business  Assessees Licence Agreement with Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. -  Question whether amount received by the Assessee from the company, be treated s the income from other sources or a business income  Finding of the assessing officer that the income received from the company is income from other sources  Challenge as to assessment  Held, The transaction is in the nature of lease and the intention of the assessee is not to revive/restart business. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has been managing the hotel through M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., The transaction between assesses and M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. is in the nature of lease and the income from such hotel building is business income -  It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. ..7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R.U. Goulay, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'R.S. Mahendra, High Court Govt. Pleader for Govt. Adv. and ;S.G. Goddakale Gowda, High Court Govt. Pleader for ;H.K. Vasudeva Reddy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1971-07-06',
		'deposition' => ' Petition dismissed ',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B. Venkataswami and ;E.S. Venkataramiah, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Venkataswami, J. </p><p>1. The petitioner herein has sought for the issue of a Writ or Direction or Order against the respondents, to consider her case for admission to the First Year M. B. B. S. Course of the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli, or any other of the Government Medical Colleges and select her for the said course. </p><p>2. The Petitioner passed her Pre-University Examination of the Bangalore University in the year 1969 and secured 66.67% in the relevant optional subjects. She hag also passed what is known as B. Sc., Part I Examination of the Karnatak University, which would enable her to seek admission for the First Year M. B. B. S. course. According to the relevant' Rules for selection of candidates for admission, the qualification prescribed for admission is a pass in the Pre-University Examination. She, therefore, applied for admission to any of the Medical Colleges under the control of any of the Universities in Mysore for the year 1970-71. She was not selected by the first respondent-Selection Committee, constituted for the purpose of the said Rules. Hence the petition. </p><p>3. It is not disputed that the qualifying examination was a pass in the Pre-University Examination in any of the Universities. It is further undisputed that In so far as the Universities of Bangalore and Mysore are concerned, any selection for admission would enable a candidate to get himself admitted to the Pre-Professional Course leading to medicine. It is only thereafter a candidate would regularly enter into the First Year Medical Course. In so far as the Karnatak University Is concerned, the course, corresponding to the aforesaid Pre-Professional, is B. Sc., Part I of that University. It is only after passing the said B. Sc., Part I can a candidate of that University enter the First Year Medical Course leading to M. B. B. S. It is, therefore, clear that the qualifying examination for all the Universities is a Pre-University course. In the instant case, all that the candidate had claimed was admission to any of the Medical Colleges within the jurisdiction of any of the said three Universities. The marks secured by the last candidate admitted in all these Universities, in the category of the general pool, in which alone the petitioner was entitled to be considered, had secured marks higher than that of the petitioner. The petitioner would have no grievance in this behalf. Indeed, the case was not pressed on behalf of the petitioner in regard to this aspect of the matter. </p><p>4. Sri R. U. Goulay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however urged that the petitioner should have been considered for the seats reserved, under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules for selection of candidates for admission, which provided for allotment of not more than 20% of the seats in Colleges affiliated to any University, in the discretion of the Selection Committee, for candidates passing from Colleges affiliated to any other University in the State or elsewhere in India. His contention is that according to Sub-rule (8) of Rule 10 the process of selection should conform to the other provisions made in the said rule. In other words, the contention is that all those seats so reserved should have been dealt with in one compartment and, if so dealt with, the petitioner would be entitled to be preferred. The foundation for this argument is based on the following facts: </p><p>5. By virtue of the discretion vested under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules governing the matter, the Selection Committee has selected candidates from the Universities of Shiva.ji, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Poona and Venkateswara. The last candidates admitted from each of these Universities except that of Andhra Pradesh have secured more marks than the petitioner. Hence the petitioner could not have any grievance in regard to them even assuming that the contention urged on her behalf of Sri Goulay had to be accepted. But, in regard to Andhra Pradesh, two candidates have been admitted and one of them has secured only 66%. in the relevant optionals. that is less than 66.67% secured by the petitioner in her Pre-University course Examination. The case on behalf of the petitioner was strenuously urged on the basis of this fact, </p><p>6. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are, however, not persuaded to accept the contention urged on be- half of the petitioner, Proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules conferred discretion on the Selection Committee to allot not more than 20% of the seats to persons belonging to Universities other than the one to which admission is sought by the petitioner, which in the instant case is the Karnatak University. What the Selection Committee, in our opinion, had done is to draw candidates from different sources. Therefore, what the Committee has to do is to compare the merits of the candidates belonging to each of these sources separately. That is exactly what has been done in the present case. We do not think that it would be fair or proper to compare the merit of the petitioner with the merits of the last boy admitted hailing from Andhra Pradesh. No material is forthcoming from the papers before us whether the standards of education and teaching provided in the Andhra Pradesh University were in any way equal to those provided in the Bangalore University. For the same reason, it cannot be predicated that the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules envisages in any manner equal treatment of candidates coming from different Universities either in the State or elsewhere in India. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to certain observations of the Supreme Court made in Writ Petns. Nos. 618 to 622 of 1970, in which judgment was pronounced on 3-5-1971 (reported in : AIR1971SC1762 } D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore. His Lordship, Shelat, J-speaking for the Bench, while disposing of W. P. No. 621 of 1970, V. Soudhamini v. State of Mysore, has observed thus: </p><p>'.....There was thus no comparison between persons equally situated even as regards the number of marks secured by them. But apart from that, the result obtained by a student in an examination held by one University cannot be regarded as comparable with the result obtained by another candidate in an examination held by another University. Even assuming that a conscious effort is made to equalise standards obtaining in different unversities. such standards depend on several human factors, methods of teaching and examining, the syllabus in such universities etc., even though the subjects taught and examined were to be the same. It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. That the petitioner and those whom the Selection Committee selected were equally situated cannot, from the facts above stated, be assumed.....' </p><p>7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail. </p><p>8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed, but without costs. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant37; AIR1972Mys37; (1971)2MysLJ361',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372401',
	(int) 1 => 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372401/lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Venkataswami, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner herein has sought for the issue of a Writ or Direction or Order against the respondents, to consider her case for admission to the First Year M. B. B. S. Course of the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli, or any other of the Government Medical Colleges and select her for the said course. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The Petitioner passed her Pre-University Examination of the Bangalore University in the year 1969 and secured 66.67% in the relevant optional subjects. She hag also passed what is known as B. Sc., Part I Examination of the Karnatak University, which would enable her to seek admission for the First Year M. B. B. S. course. According to the relevant' Rules for selection of candidates for admission, the qualification prescribed for admission is a pass in the Pre-University Examination. She, therefore, applied for admission to any of the Medical Colleges under the control of any of the Universities in Mysore for the year 1970-71. She was not selected by the first respondent-Selection Committee, constituted for the purpose of the said Rules. Hence the petition. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. It is not disputed that the qualifying examination was a pass in the Pre-University Examination in any of the Universities. It is further undisputed that In so far as the Universities of Bangalore and Mysore are concerned, any selection for admission would enable a candidate to get himself admitted to the Pre-Professional Course leading to medicine. It is only thereafter a candidate would regularly enter into the First Year Medical Course. In so far as the Karnatak University Is concerned, the course, corresponding to the aforesaid Pre-Professional, is B. Sc., Part I of that University. It is only after passing the said B. Sc., Part I can a candidate of that University enter the First Year Medical Course leading to M. B. B. S. It is, therefore, clear that the qualifying examination for all the Universities is a Pre-University course. In the instant case, all that the candidate had claimed was admission to any of the Medical Colleges within the jurisdiction of any of the said three Universities. The marks secured by the last candidate admitted in all these Universities, in the category of the general pool, in which alone the petitioner was entitled to be considered, had secured marks higher than that of the petitioner. The petitioner would have no grievance in this behalf. Indeed, the case was not pressed on behalf of the petitioner in regard to this aspect of the matter. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Sri R. U. Goulay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however urged that the petitioner should have been considered for the seats reserved, under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules for selection of candidates for admission, which provided for allotment of not more than 20% of the seats in Colleges affiliated to any University, in the discretion of the Selection Committee, for candidates passing from Colleges affiliated to any other University in the State or elsewhere in India. His contention is that according to Sub-rule (8) of Rule 10 the process of selection should conform to the other provisions made in the said rule. In other words, the contention is that all those seats so reserved should have been dealt with in one compartment and, if so dealt with, the petitioner would be entitled to be preferred. The foundation for this argument is based on the following facts: ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. By virtue of the discretion vested under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules governing the matter, the Selection Committee has selected candidates from the Universities of Shiva.ji, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Poona and Venkateswara. The last candidates admitted from each of these Universities except that of Andhra Pradesh have secured more marks than the petitioner. Hence the petitioner could not have any grievance in regard to them even assuming that the contention urged on her behalf of Sri Goulay had to be accepted. But, in regard to Andhra Pradesh, two candidates have been admitted and one of them has secured only 66%. in the relevant optionals. that is less than 66.67% secured by the petitioner in her Pre-University course Examination. The case on behalf of the petitioner was strenuously urged on the basis of this fact, ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are, however, not persuaded to accept the contention urged on be- half of the petitioner, Proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules conferred discretion on the Selection Committee to allot not more than 20% of the seats to persons belonging to Universities other than the one to which admission is sought by the petitioner, which in the instant case is the Karnatak University. What the Selection Committee, in our opinion, had done is to draw candidates from different sources. Therefore, what the Committee has to do is to compare the merits of the candidates belonging to each of these sources separately. That is exactly what has been done in the present case. We do not think that it would be fair or proper to compare the merit of the petitioner with the merits of the last boy admitted hailing from Andhra Pradesh. No material is forthcoming from the papers before us whether the standards of education and teaching provided in the Andhra Pradesh University were in any way equal to those provided in the Bangalore University. For the same reason, it cannot be predicated that the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules envisages in any manner equal treatment of candidates coming from different Universities either in the State or elsewhere in India. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to certain observations of the Supreme Court made in Writ Petns. Nos. 618 to 622 of 1970, in which judgment was pronounced on 3-5-1971 (reported in : AIR1971SC1762 } D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore. His Lordship, Shelat, J-speaking for the Bench, while disposing of W. P. No. 621 of 1970, V. Soudhamini v. State of Mysore, has observed thus: ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'.....There was thus no comparison between persons equally situated even as regards the number of marks secured by them. But apart from that, the result obtained by a student in an examination held by one University cannot be regarded as comparable with the result obtained by another candidate in an examination held by another University. Even assuming that a conscious effort is made to equalise standards obtaining in different unversities. such standards depend on several human factors, methods of teaching and examining, the syllabus in such universities etc., even though the subjects taught and examined were to be the same. It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. That the petitioner and those whom the Selection Committee selected were equally situated cannot, from the facts above stated, be assumed.....' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed, but without costs. <p>',
	(int) 10 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 11
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are, however, not persuaded to accept the contention urged on be- half of the petitioner, Proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules conferred discretion on the Selection Committee to allot not more than 20% of the seats to persons belonging to Universities other than the one to which admission is sought by the petitioner, which in the instant case is the Karnatak University. What the Selection Committee, in our opinion, had done is to draw candidates from different sources. Therefore, what the Committee has to do is to compare the merits of the candidates belonging to each of these sources separately. That is exactly what has been done in the present case. We do not think that it would be fair or proper to compare the merit of the petitioner with the merits of the last boy admitted hailing from Andhra Pradesh. No material is forthcoming from the papers before us whether the standards of education and teaching provided in the Andhra Pradesh University were in any way equal to those provided in the Bangalore University. For the same reason, it cannot be predicated that the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules envisages in any manner equal treatment of candidates coming from different Universities either in the State or elsewhere in India. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to certain observations of the Supreme Court made in Writ Petns. Nos. 618 to 622 of 1970, in which judgment was pronounced on 3-5-1971 (reported in : AIR1971SC1762 } D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore. His Lordship, Shelat, J-speaking for the Bench, while disposing of W. P. No. 621 of 1970, V. Soudhamini v. State of Mysore, has observed thus:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Lalithamma Vs Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges Bangalore and ors - Citation 372401 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372401',
			'acts' => 'Admission to Medical Colleges in the State of Mysore Rules - Rules 9 and 10(8)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 5209 of 1970',
			'appellant' => 'Lalithamma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Lalithamma Vs. Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - INCOME TAX ACT,1961[C.A.No.43/1961]-- Section 143 (1)(A): [K.L. Manjunath & A.S. Bopanna, JJ] Income arising out of leasing of hotel building - Assessee, carrying on hotel business  Assessees Licence Agreement with Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. -  Question whether amount received by the Assessee from the company, be treated s the income from other sources or a business income  Finding of the assessing officer that the income received from the company is income from other sources  Challenge as to assessment  Held, The transaction is in the nature of lease and the intention of the assessee is not to revive/restart business. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has been managing the hotel through M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., The transaction between assesses and M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. is in the nature of lease and the income from such hotel building is business income -  It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. ..7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R.U. Goulay, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'R.S. Mahendra, High Court Govt. Pleader for Govt. Adv. and ;S.G. Goddakale Gowda, High Court Govt. Pleader for ;H.K. Vasudeva Reddy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1971-07-06',
			'deposition' => ' Petition dismissed ',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B. Venkataswami and ;E.S. Venkataramiah, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkataswami, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner herein has sought for the issue of a Writ or Direction or Order against the respondents, to consider her case for admission to the First Year M. B. B. S. Course of the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli, or any other of the Government Medical Colleges and select her for the said course. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Petitioner passed her Pre-University Examination of the Bangalore University in the year 1969 and secured 66.67% in the relevant optional subjects. She hag also passed what is known as B. Sc., Part I Examination of the Karnatak University, which would enable her to seek admission for the First Year M. B. B. S. course. According to the relevant' Rules for selection of candidates for admission, the qualification prescribed for admission is a pass in the Pre-University Examination. She, therefore, applied for admission to any of the Medical Colleges under the control of any of the Universities in Mysore for the year 1970-71. She was not selected by the first respondent-Selection Committee, constituted for the purpose of the said Rules. Hence the petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It is not disputed that the qualifying examination was a pass in the Pre-University Examination in any of the Universities. It is further undisputed that In so far as the Universities of Bangalore and Mysore are concerned, any selection for admission would enable a candidate to get himself admitted to the Pre-Professional Course leading to medicine. It is only thereafter a candidate would regularly enter into the First Year Medical Course. In so far as the Karnatak University Is concerned, the course, corresponding to the aforesaid Pre-Professional, is B. Sc., Part I of that University. It is only after passing the said B. Sc., Part I can a candidate of that University enter the First Year Medical Course leading to M. B. B. S. It is, therefore, clear that the qualifying examination for all the Universities is a Pre-University course. In the instant case, all that the candidate had claimed was admission to any of the Medical Colleges within the jurisdiction of any of the said three Universities. The marks secured by the last candidate admitted in all these Universities, in the category of the general pool, in which alone the petitioner was entitled to be considered, had secured marks higher than that of the petitioner. The petitioner would have no grievance in this behalf. Indeed, the case was not pressed on behalf of the petitioner in regard to this aspect of the matter. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Sri R. U. Goulay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however urged that the petitioner should have been considered for the seats reserved, under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules for selection of candidates for admission, which provided for allotment of not more than 20% of the seats in Colleges affiliated to any University, in the discretion of the Selection Committee, for candidates passing from Colleges affiliated to any other University in the State or elsewhere in India. His contention is that according to Sub-rule (8) of Rule 10 the process of selection should conform to the other provisions made in the said rule. In other words, the contention is that all those seats so reserved should have been dealt with in one compartment and, if so dealt with, the petitioner would be entitled to be preferred. The foundation for this argument is based on the following facts: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. By virtue of the discretion vested under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules governing the matter, the Selection Committee has selected candidates from the Universities of Shiva.ji, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Poona and Venkateswara. The last candidates admitted from each of these Universities except that of Andhra Pradesh have secured more marks than the petitioner. Hence the petitioner could not have any grievance in regard to them even assuming that the contention urged on her behalf of Sri Goulay had to be accepted. But, in regard to Andhra Pradesh, two candidates have been admitted and one of them has secured only 66%. in the relevant optionals. that is less than 66.67% secured by the petitioner in her Pre-University course Examination. The case on behalf of the petitioner was strenuously urged on the basis of this fact, </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are, however, not persuaded to accept the contention urged on be- half of the petitioner, Proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules conferred discretion on the Selection Committee to allot not more than 20% of the seats to persons belonging to Universities other than the one to which admission is sought by the petitioner, which in the instant case is the Karnatak University. What the Selection Committee, in our opinion, had done is to draw candidates from different sources. Therefore, what the Committee has to do is to compare the merits of the candidates belonging to each of these sources separately. That is exactly what has been done in the present case. We do not think that it would be fair or proper to compare the merit of the petitioner with the merits of the last boy admitted hailing from Andhra Pradesh. No material is forthcoming from the papers before us whether the standards of education and teaching provided in the Andhra Pradesh University were in any way equal to those provided in the Bangalore University. For the same reason, it cannot be predicated that the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules envisages in any manner equal treatment of candidates coming from different Universities either in the State or elsewhere in India. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to certain observations of the Supreme Court made in Writ Petns. Nos. 618 to 622 of 1970, in which judgment was pronounced on 3-5-1971 (reported in : AIR1971SC1762 } D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore. His Lordship, Shelat, J-speaking for the Bench, while disposing of W. P. No. 621 of 1970, V. Soudhamini v. State of Mysore, has observed thus: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'.....There was thus no comparison between persons equally situated even as regards the number of marks secured by them. But apart from that, the result obtained by a student in an examination held by one University cannot be regarded as comparable with the result obtained by another candidate in an examination held by another University. Even assuming that a conscious effort is made to equalise standards obtaining in different unversities. such standards depend on several human factors, methods of teaching and examining, the syllabus in such universities etc., even though the subjects taught and examined were to be the same. It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. That the petitioner and those whom the Selection Committee selected were equally situated cannot, from the facts above stated, be assumed.....' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed, but without costs. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant37; AIR1972Mys37; (1971)2MysLJ361',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372401',
		(int) 1 => 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Lalithamma Vs Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges Bangalore and ors - Citation 372401 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372401',
		'acts' => 'Admission to Medical Colleges in the State of Mysore Rules - Rules 9 and 10(8)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 5209 of 1970',
		'appellant' => 'Lalithamma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Lalithamma Vs. Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - INCOME TAX ACT,1961[C.A.No.43/1961]-- Section 143 (1)(A): [K.L. Manjunath & A.S. Bopanna, JJ] Income arising out of leasing of hotel building - Assessee, carrying on hotel business  Assessees Licence Agreement with Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. -  Question whether amount received by the Assessee from the company, be treated s the income from other sources or a business income  Finding of the assessing officer that the income received from the company is income from other sources  Challenge as to assessment  Held, The transaction is in the nature of lease and the intention of the assessee is not to revive/restart business. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has been managing the hotel through M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., The transaction between assesses and M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. is in the nature of lease and the income from such hotel building is business income -  It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. ..7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R.U. Goulay, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'R.S. Mahendra, High Court Govt. Pleader for Govt. Adv. and ;S.G. Goddakale Gowda, High Court Govt. Pleader for ;H.K. Vasudeva Reddy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1971-07-06',
		'deposition' => ' Petition dismissed ',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B. Venkataswami and ;E.S. Venkataramiah, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Venkataswami, J. </p><p>1. The petitioner herein has sought for the issue of a Writ or Direction or Order against the respondents, to consider her case for admission to the First Year M. B. B. S. Course of the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli, or any other of the Government Medical Colleges and select her for the said course. </p><p>2. The Petitioner passed her Pre-University Examination of the Bangalore University in the year 1969 and secured 66.67% in the relevant optional subjects. She hag also passed what is known as B. Sc., Part I Examination of the Karnatak University, which would enable her to seek admission for the First Year M. B. B. S. course. According to the relevant' Rules for selection of candidates for admission, the qualification prescribed for admission is a pass in the Pre-University Examination. She, therefore, applied for admission to any of the Medical Colleges under the control of any of the Universities in Mysore for the year 1970-71. She was not selected by the first respondent-Selection Committee, constituted for the purpose of the said Rules. Hence the petition. </p><p>3. It is not disputed that the qualifying examination was a pass in the Pre-University Examination in any of the Universities. It is further undisputed that In so far as the Universities of Bangalore and Mysore are concerned, any selection for admission would enable a candidate to get himself admitted to the Pre-Professional Course leading to medicine. It is only thereafter a candidate would regularly enter into the First Year Medical Course. In so far as the Karnatak University Is concerned, the course, corresponding to the aforesaid Pre-Professional, is B. Sc., Part I of that University. It is only after passing the said B. Sc., Part I can a candidate of that University enter the First Year Medical Course leading to M. B. B. S. It is, therefore, clear that the qualifying examination for all the Universities is a Pre-University course. In the instant case, all that the candidate had claimed was admission to any of the Medical Colleges within the jurisdiction of any of the said three Universities. The marks secured by the last candidate admitted in all these Universities, in the category of the general pool, in which alone the petitioner was entitled to be considered, had secured marks higher than that of the petitioner. The petitioner would have no grievance in this behalf. Indeed, the case was not pressed on behalf of the petitioner in regard to this aspect of the matter. </p><p>4. Sri R. U. Goulay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however urged that the petitioner should have been considered for the seats reserved, under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules for selection of candidates for admission, which provided for allotment of not more than 20% of the seats in Colleges affiliated to any University, in the discretion of the Selection Committee, for candidates passing from Colleges affiliated to any other University in the State or elsewhere in India. His contention is that according to Sub-rule (8) of Rule 10 the process of selection should conform to the other provisions made in the said rule. In other words, the contention is that all those seats so reserved should have been dealt with in one compartment and, if so dealt with, the petitioner would be entitled to be preferred. The foundation for this argument is based on the following facts: </p><p>5. By virtue of the discretion vested under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules governing the matter, the Selection Committee has selected candidates from the Universities of Shiva.ji, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Poona and Venkateswara. The last candidates admitted from each of these Universities except that of Andhra Pradesh have secured more marks than the petitioner. Hence the petitioner could not have any grievance in regard to them even assuming that the contention urged on her behalf of Sri Goulay had to be accepted. But, in regard to Andhra Pradesh, two candidates have been admitted and one of them has secured only 66%. in the relevant optionals. that is less than 66.67% secured by the petitioner in her Pre-University course Examination. The case on behalf of the petitioner was strenuously urged on the basis of this fact, </p><p>6. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are, however, not persuaded to accept the contention urged on be- half of the petitioner, Proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules conferred discretion on the Selection Committee to allot not more than 20% of the seats to persons belonging to Universities other than the one to which admission is sought by the petitioner, which in the instant case is the Karnatak University. What the Selection Committee, in our opinion, had done is to draw candidates from different sources. Therefore, what the Committee has to do is to compare the merits of the candidates belonging to each of these sources separately. That is exactly what has been done in the present case. We do not think that it would be fair or proper to compare the merit of the petitioner with the merits of the last boy admitted hailing from Andhra Pradesh. No material is forthcoming from the papers before us whether the standards of education and teaching provided in the Andhra Pradesh University were in any way equal to those provided in the Bangalore University. For the same reason, it cannot be predicated that the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules envisages in any manner equal treatment of candidates coming from different Universities either in the State or elsewhere in India. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to certain observations of the Supreme Court made in Writ Petns. Nos. 618 to 622 of 1970, in which judgment was pronounced on 3-5-1971 (reported in : AIR1971SC1762 } D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore. His Lordship, Shelat, J-speaking for the Bench, while disposing of W. P. No. 621 of 1970, V. Soudhamini v. State of Mysore, has observed thus: </p><p>'.....There was thus no comparison between persons equally situated even as regards the number of marks secured by them. But apart from that, the result obtained by a student in an examination held by one University cannot be regarded as comparable with the result obtained by another candidate in an examination held by another University. Even assuming that a conscious effort is made to equalise standards obtaining in different unversities. such standards depend on several human factors, methods of teaching and examining, the syllabus in such universities etc., even though the subjects taught and examined were to be the same. It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. That the petitioner and those whom the Selection Committee selected were equally situated cannot, from the facts above stated, be assumed.....' </p><p>7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail. </p><p>8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed, but without costs. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant37; AIR1972Mys37; (1971)2MysLJ361',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372401',
	(int) 1 => 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372401/lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Venkataswami, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner herein has sought for the issue of a Writ or Direction or Order against the respondents, to consider her case for admission to the First Year M. B. B. S. Course of the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli, or any other of the Government Medical Colleges and select her for the said course. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The Petitioner passed her Pre-University Examination of the Bangalore University in the year 1969 and secured 66.67% in the relevant optional subjects. She hag also passed what is known as B. Sc., Part I Examination of the Karnatak University, which would enable her to seek admission for the First Year M. B. B. S. course. According to the relevant' Rules for selection of candidates for admission, the qualification prescribed for admission is a pass in the Pre-University Examination. She, therefore, applied for admission to any of the Medical Colleges under the control of any of the Universities in Mysore for the year 1970-71. She was not selected by the first respondent-Selection Committee, constituted for the purpose of the said Rules. Hence the petition. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. It is not disputed that the qualifying examination was a pass in the Pre-University Examination in any of the Universities. It is further undisputed that In so far as the Universities of Bangalore and Mysore are concerned, any selection for admission would enable a candidate to get himself admitted to the Pre-Professional Course leading to medicine. It is only thereafter a candidate would regularly enter into the First Year Medical Course. In so far as the Karnatak University Is concerned, the course, corresponding to the aforesaid Pre-Professional, is B. Sc., Part I of that University. It is only after passing the said B. Sc., Part I can a candidate of that University enter the First Year Medical Course leading to M. B. B. S. It is, therefore, clear that the qualifying examination for all the Universities is a Pre-University course. In the instant case, all that the candidate had claimed was admission to any of the Medical Colleges within the jurisdiction of any of the said three Universities. The marks secured by the last candidate admitted in all these Universities, in the category of the general pool, in which alone the petitioner was entitled to be considered, had secured marks higher than that of the petitioner. The petitioner would have no grievance in this behalf. Indeed, the case was not pressed on behalf of the petitioner in regard to this aspect of the matter. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Sri R. U. Goulay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however urged that the petitioner should have been considered for the seats reserved, under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules for selection of candidates for admission, which provided for allotment of not more than 20% of the seats in Colleges affiliated to any University, in the discretion of the Selection Committee, for candidates passing from Colleges affiliated to any other University in the State or elsewhere in India. His contention is that according to Sub-rule (8) of Rule 10 the process of selection should conform to the other provisions made in the said rule. In other words, the contention is that all those seats so reserved should have been dealt with in one compartment and, if so dealt with, the petitioner would be entitled to be preferred. The foundation for this argument is based on the following facts: ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. By virtue of the discretion vested under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules governing the matter, the Selection Committee has selected candidates from the Universities of Shiva.ji, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Poona and Venkateswara. The last candidates admitted from each of these Universities except that of Andhra Pradesh have secured more marks than the petitioner. Hence the petitioner could not have any grievance in regard to them even assuming that the contention urged on her behalf of Sri Goulay had to be accepted. But, in regard to Andhra Pradesh, two candidates have been admitted and one of them has secured only 66%. in the relevant optionals. that is less than 66.67% secured by the petitioner in her Pre-University course Examination. The case on behalf of the petitioner was strenuously urged on the basis of this fact, ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are, however, not persuaded to accept the contention urged on be- half of the petitioner, Proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules conferred discretion on the Selection Committee to allot not more than 20% of the seats to persons belonging to Universities other than the one to which admission is sought by the petitioner, which in the instant case is the Karnatak University. What the Selection Committee, in our opinion, had done is to draw candidates from different sources. Therefore, what the Committee has to do is to compare the merits of the candidates belonging to each of these sources separately. That is exactly what has been done in the present case. We do not think that it would be fair or proper to compare the merit of the petitioner with the merits of the last boy admitted hailing from Andhra Pradesh. No material is forthcoming from the papers before us whether the standards of education and teaching provided in the Andhra Pradesh University were in any way equal to those provided in the Bangalore University. For the same reason, it cannot be predicated that the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules envisages in any manner equal treatment of candidates coming from different Universities either in the State or elsewhere in India. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to certain observations of the Supreme Court made in Writ Petns. Nos. 618 to 622 of 1970, in which judgment was pronounced on 3-5-1971 (reported in : AIR1971SC1762 } D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore. His Lordship, Shelat, J-speaking for the Bench, while disposing of W. P. No. 621 of 1970, V. Soudhamini v. State of Mysore, has observed thus: ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'.....There was thus no comparison between persons equally situated even as regards the number of marks secured by them. But apart from that, the result obtained by a student in an examination held by one University cannot be regarded as comparable with the result obtained by another candidate in an examination held by another University. Even assuming that a conscious effort is made to equalise standards obtaining in different unversities. such standards depend on several human factors, methods of teaching and examining, the syllabus in such universities etc., even though the subjects taught and examined were to be the same. It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. That the petitioner and those whom the Selection Committee selected were equally situated cannot, from the facts above stated, be assumed.....' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed, but without costs. <p>',
	(int) 10 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 11
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'.....There was thus no comparison between persons equally situated even as regards the number of marks secured by them. But apart from that, the result obtained by a student in an examination held by one University cannot be regarded as comparable with the result obtained by another candidate in an examination held by another University. Even assuming that a conscious effort is made to equalise standards obtaining in different unversities. such standards depend on several human factors, methods of teaching and examining, the syllabus in such universities etc., even though the subjects taught and examined were to be the same. It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. That the petitioner and those whom the Selection Committee selected were equally situated cannot, from the facts above stated, be assumed.....'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Lalithamma Vs Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges Bangalore and ors - Citation 372401 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372401',
			'acts' => 'Admission to Medical Colleges in the State of Mysore Rules - Rules 9 and 10(8)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 5209 of 1970',
			'appellant' => 'Lalithamma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Lalithamma Vs. Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - INCOME TAX ACT,1961[C.A.No.43/1961]-- Section 143 (1)(A): [K.L. Manjunath & A.S. Bopanna, JJ] Income arising out of leasing of hotel building - Assessee, carrying on hotel business  Assessees Licence Agreement with Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. -  Question whether amount received by the Assessee from the company, be treated s the income from other sources or a business income  Finding of the assessing officer that the income received from the company is income from other sources  Challenge as to assessment  Held, The transaction is in the nature of lease and the intention of the assessee is not to revive/restart business. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has been managing the hotel through M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., The transaction between assesses and M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. is in the nature of lease and the income from such hotel building is business income -  It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. ..7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R.U. Goulay, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'R.S. Mahendra, High Court Govt. Pleader for Govt. Adv. and ;S.G. Goddakale Gowda, High Court Govt. Pleader for ;H.K. Vasudeva Reddy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1971-07-06',
			'deposition' => ' Petition dismissed ',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B. Venkataswami and ;E.S. Venkataramiah, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkataswami, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner herein has sought for the issue of a Writ or Direction or Order against the respondents, to consider her case for admission to the First Year M. B. B. S. Course of the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli, or any other of the Government Medical Colleges and select her for the said course. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Petitioner passed her Pre-University Examination of the Bangalore University in the year 1969 and secured 66.67% in the relevant optional subjects. She hag also passed what is known as B. Sc., Part I Examination of the Karnatak University, which would enable her to seek admission for the First Year M. B. B. S. course. According to the relevant' Rules for selection of candidates for admission, the qualification prescribed for admission is a pass in the Pre-University Examination. She, therefore, applied for admission to any of the Medical Colleges under the control of any of the Universities in Mysore for the year 1970-71. She was not selected by the first respondent-Selection Committee, constituted for the purpose of the said Rules. Hence the petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It is not disputed that the qualifying examination was a pass in the Pre-University Examination in any of the Universities. It is further undisputed that In so far as the Universities of Bangalore and Mysore are concerned, any selection for admission would enable a candidate to get himself admitted to the Pre-Professional Course leading to medicine. It is only thereafter a candidate would regularly enter into the First Year Medical Course. In so far as the Karnatak University Is concerned, the course, corresponding to the aforesaid Pre-Professional, is B. Sc., Part I of that University. It is only after passing the said B. Sc., Part I can a candidate of that University enter the First Year Medical Course leading to M. B. B. S. It is, therefore, clear that the qualifying examination for all the Universities is a Pre-University course. In the instant case, all that the candidate had claimed was admission to any of the Medical Colleges within the jurisdiction of any of the said three Universities. The marks secured by the last candidate admitted in all these Universities, in the category of the general pool, in which alone the petitioner was entitled to be considered, had secured marks higher than that of the petitioner. The petitioner would have no grievance in this behalf. Indeed, the case was not pressed on behalf of the petitioner in regard to this aspect of the matter. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Sri R. U. Goulay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however urged that the petitioner should have been considered for the seats reserved, under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules for selection of candidates for admission, which provided for allotment of not more than 20% of the seats in Colleges affiliated to any University, in the discretion of the Selection Committee, for candidates passing from Colleges affiliated to any other University in the State or elsewhere in India. His contention is that according to Sub-rule (8) of Rule 10 the process of selection should conform to the other provisions made in the said rule. In other words, the contention is that all those seats so reserved should have been dealt with in one compartment and, if so dealt with, the petitioner would be entitled to be preferred. The foundation for this argument is based on the following facts: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. By virtue of the discretion vested under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules governing the matter, the Selection Committee has selected candidates from the Universities of Shiva.ji, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Poona and Venkateswara. The last candidates admitted from each of these Universities except that of Andhra Pradesh have secured more marks than the petitioner. Hence the petitioner could not have any grievance in regard to them even assuming that the contention urged on her behalf of Sri Goulay had to be accepted. But, in regard to Andhra Pradesh, two candidates have been admitted and one of them has secured only 66%. in the relevant optionals. that is less than 66.67% secured by the petitioner in her Pre-University course Examination. The case on behalf of the petitioner was strenuously urged on the basis of this fact, </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are, however, not persuaded to accept the contention urged on be- half of the petitioner, Proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules conferred discretion on the Selection Committee to allot not more than 20% of the seats to persons belonging to Universities other than the one to which admission is sought by the petitioner, which in the instant case is the Karnatak University. What the Selection Committee, in our opinion, had done is to draw candidates from different sources. Therefore, what the Committee has to do is to compare the merits of the candidates belonging to each of these sources separately. That is exactly what has been done in the present case. We do not think that it would be fair or proper to compare the merit of the petitioner with the merits of the last boy admitted hailing from Andhra Pradesh. No material is forthcoming from the papers before us whether the standards of education and teaching provided in the Andhra Pradesh University were in any way equal to those provided in the Bangalore University. For the same reason, it cannot be predicated that the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules envisages in any manner equal treatment of candidates coming from different Universities either in the State or elsewhere in India. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to certain observations of the Supreme Court made in Writ Petns. Nos. 618 to 622 of 1970, in which judgment was pronounced on 3-5-1971 (reported in : AIR1971SC1762 } D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore. His Lordship, Shelat, J-speaking for the Bench, while disposing of W. P. No. 621 of 1970, V. Soudhamini v. State of Mysore, has observed thus: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'.....There was thus no comparison between persons equally situated even as regards the number of marks secured by them. But apart from that, the result obtained by a student in an examination held by one University cannot be regarded as comparable with the result obtained by another candidate in an examination held by another University. Even assuming that a conscious effort is made to equalise standards obtaining in different unversities. such standards depend on several human factors, methods of teaching and examining, the syllabus in such universities etc., even though the subjects taught and examined were to be the same. It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. That the petitioner and those whom the Selection Committee selected were equally situated cannot, from the facts above stated, be assumed.....' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed, but without costs. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant37; AIR1972Mys37; (1971)2MysLJ361',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372401',
		(int) 1 => 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Lalithamma Vs Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges Bangalore and ors - Citation 372401 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372401',
		'acts' => 'Admission to Medical Colleges in the State of Mysore Rules - Rules 9 and 10(8)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 5209 of 1970',
		'appellant' => 'Lalithamma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Lalithamma Vs. Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - INCOME TAX ACT,1961[C.A.No.43/1961]-- Section 143 (1)(A): [K.L. Manjunath & A.S. Bopanna, JJ] Income arising out of leasing of hotel building - Assessee, carrying on hotel business  Assessees Licence Agreement with Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. -  Question whether amount received by the Assessee from the company, be treated s the income from other sources or a business income  Finding of the assessing officer that the income received from the company is income from other sources  Challenge as to assessment  Held, The transaction is in the nature of lease and the intention of the assessee is not to revive/restart business. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has been managing the hotel through M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., The transaction between assesses and M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. is in the nature of lease and the income from such hotel building is business income -  It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. ..7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R.U. Goulay, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'R.S. Mahendra, High Court Govt. Pleader for Govt. Adv. and ;S.G. Goddakale Gowda, High Court Govt. Pleader for ;H.K. Vasudeva Reddy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1971-07-06',
		'deposition' => ' Petition dismissed ',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B. Venkataswami and ;E.S. Venkataramiah, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Venkataswami, J. </p><p>1. The petitioner herein has sought for the issue of a Writ or Direction or Order against the respondents, to consider her case for admission to the First Year M. B. B. S. Course of the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli, or any other of the Government Medical Colleges and select her for the said course. </p><p>2. The Petitioner passed her Pre-University Examination of the Bangalore University in the year 1969 and secured 66.67% in the relevant optional subjects. She hag also passed what is known as B. Sc., Part I Examination of the Karnatak University, which would enable her to seek admission for the First Year M. B. B. S. course. According to the relevant' Rules for selection of candidates for admission, the qualification prescribed for admission is a pass in the Pre-University Examination. She, therefore, applied for admission to any of the Medical Colleges under the control of any of the Universities in Mysore for the year 1970-71. She was not selected by the first respondent-Selection Committee, constituted for the purpose of the said Rules. Hence the petition. </p><p>3. It is not disputed that the qualifying examination was a pass in the Pre-University Examination in any of the Universities. It is further undisputed that In so far as the Universities of Bangalore and Mysore are concerned, any selection for admission would enable a candidate to get himself admitted to the Pre-Professional Course leading to medicine. It is only thereafter a candidate would regularly enter into the First Year Medical Course. In so far as the Karnatak University Is concerned, the course, corresponding to the aforesaid Pre-Professional, is B. Sc., Part I of that University. It is only after passing the said B. Sc., Part I can a candidate of that University enter the First Year Medical Course leading to M. B. B. S. It is, therefore, clear that the qualifying examination for all the Universities is a Pre-University course. In the instant case, all that the candidate had claimed was admission to any of the Medical Colleges within the jurisdiction of any of the said three Universities. The marks secured by the last candidate admitted in all these Universities, in the category of the general pool, in which alone the petitioner was entitled to be considered, had secured marks higher than that of the petitioner. The petitioner would have no grievance in this behalf. Indeed, the case was not pressed on behalf of the petitioner in regard to this aspect of the matter. </p><p>4. Sri R. U. Goulay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however urged that the petitioner should have been considered for the seats reserved, under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules for selection of candidates for admission, which provided for allotment of not more than 20% of the seats in Colleges affiliated to any University, in the discretion of the Selection Committee, for candidates passing from Colleges affiliated to any other University in the State or elsewhere in India. His contention is that according to Sub-rule (8) of Rule 10 the process of selection should conform to the other provisions made in the said rule. In other words, the contention is that all those seats so reserved should have been dealt with in one compartment and, if so dealt with, the petitioner would be entitled to be preferred. The foundation for this argument is based on the following facts: </p><p>5. By virtue of the discretion vested under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules governing the matter, the Selection Committee has selected candidates from the Universities of Shiva.ji, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Poona and Venkateswara. The last candidates admitted from each of these Universities except that of Andhra Pradesh have secured more marks than the petitioner. Hence the petitioner could not have any grievance in regard to them even assuming that the contention urged on her behalf of Sri Goulay had to be accepted. But, in regard to Andhra Pradesh, two candidates have been admitted and one of them has secured only 66%. in the relevant optionals. that is less than 66.67% secured by the petitioner in her Pre-University course Examination. The case on behalf of the petitioner was strenuously urged on the basis of this fact, </p><p>6. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are, however, not persuaded to accept the contention urged on be- half of the petitioner, Proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules conferred discretion on the Selection Committee to allot not more than 20% of the seats to persons belonging to Universities other than the one to which admission is sought by the petitioner, which in the instant case is the Karnatak University. What the Selection Committee, in our opinion, had done is to draw candidates from different sources. Therefore, what the Committee has to do is to compare the merits of the candidates belonging to each of these sources separately. That is exactly what has been done in the present case. We do not think that it would be fair or proper to compare the merit of the petitioner with the merits of the last boy admitted hailing from Andhra Pradesh. No material is forthcoming from the papers before us whether the standards of education and teaching provided in the Andhra Pradesh University were in any way equal to those provided in the Bangalore University. For the same reason, it cannot be predicated that the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules envisages in any manner equal treatment of candidates coming from different Universities either in the State or elsewhere in India. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to certain observations of the Supreme Court made in Writ Petns. Nos. 618 to 622 of 1970, in which judgment was pronounced on 3-5-1971 (reported in : AIR1971SC1762 } D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore. His Lordship, Shelat, J-speaking for the Bench, while disposing of W. P. No. 621 of 1970, V. Soudhamini v. State of Mysore, has observed thus: </p><p>'.....There was thus no comparison between persons equally situated even as regards the number of marks secured by them. But apart from that, the result obtained by a student in an examination held by one University cannot be regarded as comparable with the result obtained by another candidate in an examination held by another University. Even assuming that a conscious effort is made to equalise standards obtaining in different unversities. such standards depend on several human factors, methods of teaching and examining, the syllabus in such universities etc., even though the subjects taught and examined were to be the same. It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. That the petitioner and those whom the Selection Committee selected were equally situated cannot, from the facts above stated, be assumed.....' </p><p>7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail. </p><p>8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed, but without costs. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant37; AIR1972Mys37; (1971)2MysLJ361',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372401',
	(int) 1 => 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372401/lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Venkataswami, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner herein has sought for the issue of a Writ or Direction or Order against the respondents, to consider her case for admission to the First Year M. B. B. S. Course of the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli, or any other of the Government Medical Colleges and select her for the said course. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The Petitioner passed her Pre-University Examination of the Bangalore University in the year 1969 and secured 66.67% in the relevant optional subjects. She hag also passed what is known as B. Sc., Part I Examination of the Karnatak University, which would enable her to seek admission for the First Year M. B. B. S. course. According to the relevant' Rules for selection of candidates for admission, the qualification prescribed for admission is a pass in the Pre-University Examination. She, therefore, applied for admission to any of the Medical Colleges under the control of any of the Universities in Mysore for the year 1970-71. She was not selected by the first respondent-Selection Committee, constituted for the purpose of the said Rules. Hence the petition. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. It is not disputed that the qualifying examination was a pass in the Pre-University Examination in any of the Universities. It is further undisputed that In so far as the Universities of Bangalore and Mysore are concerned, any selection for admission would enable a candidate to get himself admitted to the Pre-Professional Course leading to medicine. It is only thereafter a candidate would regularly enter into the First Year Medical Course. In so far as the Karnatak University Is concerned, the course, corresponding to the aforesaid Pre-Professional, is B. Sc., Part I of that University. It is only after passing the said B. Sc., Part I can a candidate of that University enter the First Year Medical Course leading to M. B. B. S. It is, therefore, clear that the qualifying examination for all the Universities is a Pre-University course. In the instant case, all that the candidate had claimed was admission to any of the Medical Colleges within the jurisdiction of any of the said three Universities. The marks secured by the last candidate admitted in all these Universities, in the category of the general pool, in which alone the petitioner was entitled to be considered, had secured marks higher than that of the petitioner. The petitioner would have no grievance in this behalf. Indeed, the case was not pressed on behalf of the petitioner in regard to this aspect of the matter. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Sri R. U. Goulay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however urged that the petitioner should have been considered for the seats reserved, under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules for selection of candidates for admission, which provided for allotment of not more than 20% of the seats in Colleges affiliated to any University, in the discretion of the Selection Committee, for candidates passing from Colleges affiliated to any other University in the State or elsewhere in India. His contention is that according to Sub-rule (8) of Rule 10 the process of selection should conform to the other provisions made in the said rule. In other words, the contention is that all those seats so reserved should have been dealt with in one compartment and, if so dealt with, the petitioner would be entitled to be preferred. The foundation for this argument is based on the following facts: ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. By virtue of the discretion vested under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules governing the matter, the Selection Committee has selected candidates from the Universities of Shiva.ji, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Poona and Venkateswara. The last candidates admitted from each of these Universities except that of Andhra Pradesh have secured more marks than the petitioner. Hence the petitioner could not have any grievance in regard to them even assuming that the contention urged on her behalf of Sri Goulay had to be accepted. But, in regard to Andhra Pradesh, two candidates have been admitted and one of them has secured only 66%. in the relevant optionals. that is less than 66.67% secured by the petitioner in her Pre-University course Examination. The case on behalf of the petitioner was strenuously urged on the basis of this fact, ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are, however, not persuaded to accept the contention urged on be- half of the petitioner, Proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules conferred discretion on the Selection Committee to allot not more than 20% of the seats to persons belonging to Universities other than the one to which admission is sought by the petitioner, which in the instant case is the Karnatak University. What the Selection Committee, in our opinion, had done is to draw candidates from different sources. Therefore, what the Committee has to do is to compare the merits of the candidates belonging to each of these sources separately. That is exactly what has been done in the present case. We do not think that it would be fair or proper to compare the merit of the petitioner with the merits of the last boy admitted hailing from Andhra Pradesh. No material is forthcoming from the papers before us whether the standards of education and teaching provided in the Andhra Pradesh University were in any way equal to those provided in the Bangalore University. For the same reason, it cannot be predicated that the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules envisages in any manner equal treatment of candidates coming from different Universities either in the State or elsewhere in India. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to certain observations of the Supreme Court made in Writ Petns. Nos. 618 to 622 of 1970, in which judgment was pronounced on 3-5-1971 (reported in : AIR1971SC1762 } D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore. His Lordship, Shelat, J-speaking for the Bench, while disposing of W. P. No. 621 of 1970, V. Soudhamini v. State of Mysore, has observed thus: ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'.....There was thus no comparison between persons equally situated even as regards the number of marks secured by them. But apart from that, the result obtained by a student in an examination held by one University cannot be regarded as comparable with the result obtained by another candidate in an examination held by another University. Even assuming that a conscious effort is made to equalise standards obtaining in different unversities. such standards depend on several human factors, methods of teaching and examining, the syllabus in such universities etc., even though the subjects taught and examined were to be the same. It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. That the petitioner and those whom the Selection Committee selected were equally situated cannot, from the facts above stated, be assumed.....' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed, but without costs. <p>',
	(int) 10 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 11
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Lalithamma Vs Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges Bangalore and ors - Citation 372401 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372401',
			'acts' => 'Admission to Medical Colleges in the State of Mysore Rules - Rules 9 and 10(8)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 5209 of 1970',
			'appellant' => 'Lalithamma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Lalithamma Vs. Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - INCOME TAX ACT,1961[C.A.No.43/1961]-- Section 143 (1)(A): [K.L. Manjunath & A.S. Bopanna, JJ] Income arising out of leasing of hotel building - Assessee, carrying on hotel business  Assessees Licence Agreement with Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. -  Question whether amount received by the Assessee from the company, be treated s the income from other sources or a business income  Finding of the assessing officer that the income received from the company is income from other sources  Challenge as to assessment  Held, The transaction is in the nature of lease and the intention of the assessee is not to revive/restart business. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has been managing the hotel through M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., The transaction between assesses and M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. is in the nature of lease and the income from such hotel building is business income -  It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. ..7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R.U. Goulay, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'R.S. Mahendra, High Court Govt. Pleader for Govt. Adv. and ;S.G. Goddakale Gowda, High Court Govt. Pleader for ;H.K. Vasudeva Reddy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1971-07-06',
			'deposition' => ' Petition dismissed ',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B. Venkataswami and ;E.S. Venkataramiah, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkataswami, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner herein has sought for the issue of a Writ or Direction or Order against the respondents, to consider her case for admission to the First Year M. B. B. S. Course of the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli, or any other of the Government Medical Colleges and select her for the said course. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Petitioner passed her Pre-University Examination of the Bangalore University in the year 1969 and secured 66.67% in the relevant optional subjects. She hag also passed what is known as B. Sc., Part I Examination of the Karnatak University, which would enable her to seek admission for the First Year M. B. B. S. course. According to the relevant' Rules for selection of candidates for admission, the qualification prescribed for admission is a pass in the Pre-University Examination. She, therefore, applied for admission to any of the Medical Colleges under the control of any of the Universities in Mysore for the year 1970-71. She was not selected by the first respondent-Selection Committee, constituted for the purpose of the said Rules. Hence the petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It is not disputed that the qualifying examination was a pass in the Pre-University Examination in any of the Universities. It is further undisputed that In so far as the Universities of Bangalore and Mysore are concerned, any selection for admission would enable a candidate to get himself admitted to the Pre-Professional Course leading to medicine. It is only thereafter a candidate would regularly enter into the First Year Medical Course. In so far as the Karnatak University Is concerned, the course, corresponding to the aforesaid Pre-Professional, is B. Sc., Part I of that University. It is only after passing the said B. Sc., Part I can a candidate of that University enter the First Year Medical Course leading to M. B. B. S. It is, therefore, clear that the qualifying examination for all the Universities is a Pre-University course. In the instant case, all that the candidate had claimed was admission to any of the Medical Colleges within the jurisdiction of any of the said three Universities. The marks secured by the last candidate admitted in all these Universities, in the category of the general pool, in which alone the petitioner was entitled to be considered, had secured marks higher than that of the petitioner. The petitioner would have no grievance in this behalf. Indeed, the case was not pressed on behalf of the petitioner in regard to this aspect of the matter. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Sri R. U. Goulay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however urged that the petitioner should have been considered for the seats reserved, under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules for selection of candidates for admission, which provided for allotment of not more than 20% of the seats in Colleges affiliated to any University, in the discretion of the Selection Committee, for candidates passing from Colleges affiliated to any other University in the State or elsewhere in India. His contention is that according to Sub-rule (8) of Rule 10 the process of selection should conform to the other provisions made in the said rule. In other words, the contention is that all those seats so reserved should have been dealt with in one compartment and, if so dealt with, the petitioner would be entitled to be preferred. The foundation for this argument is based on the following facts: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. By virtue of the discretion vested under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules governing the matter, the Selection Committee has selected candidates from the Universities of Shiva.ji, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Poona and Venkateswara. The last candidates admitted from each of these Universities except that of Andhra Pradesh have secured more marks than the petitioner. Hence the petitioner could not have any grievance in regard to them even assuming that the contention urged on her behalf of Sri Goulay had to be accepted. But, in regard to Andhra Pradesh, two candidates have been admitted and one of them has secured only 66%. in the relevant optionals. that is less than 66.67% secured by the petitioner in her Pre-University course Examination. The case on behalf of the petitioner was strenuously urged on the basis of this fact, </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are, however, not persuaded to accept the contention urged on be- half of the petitioner, Proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules conferred discretion on the Selection Committee to allot not more than 20% of the seats to persons belonging to Universities other than the one to which admission is sought by the petitioner, which in the instant case is the Karnatak University. What the Selection Committee, in our opinion, had done is to draw candidates from different sources. Therefore, what the Committee has to do is to compare the merits of the candidates belonging to each of these sources separately. That is exactly what has been done in the present case. We do not think that it would be fair or proper to compare the merit of the petitioner with the merits of the last boy admitted hailing from Andhra Pradesh. No material is forthcoming from the papers before us whether the standards of education and teaching provided in the Andhra Pradesh University were in any way equal to those provided in the Bangalore University. For the same reason, it cannot be predicated that the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules envisages in any manner equal treatment of candidates coming from different Universities either in the State or elsewhere in India. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to certain observations of the Supreme Court made in Writ Petns. Nos. 618 to 622 of 1970, in which judgment was pronounced on 3-5-1971 (reported in : AIR1971SC1762 } D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore. His Lordship, Shelat, J-speaking for the Bench, while disposing of W. P. No. 621 of 1970, V. Soudhamini v. State of Mysore, has observed thus: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'.....There was thus no comparison between persons equally situated even as regards the number of marks secured by them. But apart from that, the result obtained by a student in an examination held by one University cannot be regarded as comparable with the result obtained by another candidate in an examination held by another University. Even assuming that a conscious effort is made to equalise standards obtaining in different unversities. such standards depend on several human factors, methods of teaching and examining, the syllabus in such universities etc., even though the subjects taught and examined were to be the same. It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. That the petitioner and those whom the Selection Committee selected were equally situated cannot, from the facts above stated, be assumed.....' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed, but without costs. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant37; AIR1972Mys37; (1971)2MysLJ361',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372401',
		(int) 1 => 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Lalithamma Vs Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges Bangalore and ors - Citation 372401 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372401',
		'acts' => 'Admission to Medical Colleges in the State of Mysore Rules - Rules 9 and 10(8)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 5209 of 1970',
		'appellant' => 'Lalithamma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Lalithamma Vs. Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - INCOME TAX ACT,1961[C.A.No.43/1961]-- Section 143 (1)(A): [K.L. Manjunath & A.S. Bopanna, JJ] Income arising out of leasing of hotel building - Assessee, carrying on hotel business  Assessees Licence Agreement with Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. -  Question whether amount received by the Assessee from the company, be treated s the income from other sources or a business income  Finding of the assessing officer that the income received from the company is income from other sources  Challenge as to assessment  Held, The transaction is in the nature of lease and the intention of the assessee is not to revive/restart business. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has been managing the hotel through M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., The transaction between assesses and M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. is in the nature of lease and the income from such hotel building is business income -  It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. ..7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R.U. Goulay, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'R.S. Mahendra, High Court Govt. Pleader for Govt. Adv. and ;S.G. Goddakale Gowda, High Court Govt. Pleader for ;H.K. Vasudeva Reddy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1971-07-06',
		'deposition' => ' Petition dismissed ',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B. Venkataswami and ;E.S. Venkataramiah, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Venkataswami, J. </p><p>1. The petitioner herein has sought for the issue of a Writ or Direction or Order against the respondents, to consider her case for admission to the First Year M. B. B. S. Course of the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli, or any other of the Government Medical Colleges and select her for the said course. </p><p>2. The Petitioner passed her Pre-University Examination of the Bangalore University in the year 1969 and secured 66.67% in the relevant optional subjects. She hag also passed what is known as B. Sc., Part I Examination of the Karnatak University, which would enable her to seek admission for the First Year M. B. B. S. course. According to the relevant' Rules for selection of candidates for admission, the qualification prescribed for admission is a pass in the Pre-University Examination. She, therefore, applied for admission to any of the Medical Colleges under the control of any of the Universities in Mysore for the year 1970-71. She was not selected by the first respondent-Selection Committee, constituted for the purpose of the said Rules. Hence the petition. </p><p>3. It is not disputed that the qualifying examination was a pass in the Pre-University Examination in any of the Universities. It is further undisputed that In so far as the Universities of Bangalore and Mysore are concerned, any selection for admission would enable a candidate to get himself admitted to the Pre-Professional Course leading to medicine. It is only thereafter a candidate would regularly enter into the First Year Medical Course. In so far as the Karnatak University Is concerned, the course, corresponding to the aforesaid Pre-Professional, is B. Sc., Part I of that University. It is only after passing the said B. Sc., Part I can a candidate of that University enter the First Year Medical Course leading to M. B. B. S. It is, therefore, clear that the qualifying examination for all the Universities is a Pre-University course. In the instant case, all that the candidate had claimed was admission to any of the Medical Colleges within the jurisdiction of any of the said three Universities. The marks secured by the last candidate admitted in all these Universities, in the category of the general pool, in which alone the petitioner was entitled to be considered, had secured marks higher than that of the petitioner. The petitioner would have no grievance in this behalf. Indeed, the case was not pressed on behalf of the petitioner in regard to this aspect of the matter. </p><p>4. Sri R. U. Goulay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however urged that the petitioner should have been considered for the seats reserved, under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules for selection of candidates for admission, which provided for allotment of not more than 20% of the seats in Colleges affiliated to any University, in the discretion of the Selection Committee, for candidates passing from Colleges affiliated to any other University in the State or elsewhere in India. His contention is that according to Sub-rule (8) of Rule 10 the process of selection should conform to the other provisions made in the said rule. In other words, the contention is that all those seats so reserved should have been dealt with in one compartment and, if so dealt with, the petitioner would be entitled to be preferred. The foundation for this argument is based on the following facts: </p><p>5. By virtue of the discretion vested under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules governing the matter, the Selection Committee has selected candidates from the Universities of Shiva.ji, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Poona and Venkateswara. The last candidates admitted from each of these Universities except that of Andhra Pradesh have secured more marks than the petitioner. Hence the petitioner could not have any grievance in regard to them even assuming that the contention urged on her behalf of Sri Goulay had to be accepted. But, in regard to Andhra Pradesh, two candidates have been admitted and one of them has secured only 66%. in the relevant optionals. that is less than 66.67% secured by the petitioner in her Pre-University course Examination. The case on behalf of the petitioner was strenuously urged on the basis of this fact, </p><p>6. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are, however, not persuaded to accept the contention urged on be- half of the petitioner, Proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules conferred discretion on the Selection Committee to allot not more than 20% of the seats to persons belonging to Universities other than the one to which admission is sought by the petitioner, which in the instant case is the Karnatak University. What the Selection Committee, in our opinion, had done is to draw candidates from different sources. Therefore, what the Committee has to do is to compare the merits of the candidates belonging to each of these sources separately. That is exactly what has been done in the present case. We do not think that it would be fair or proper to compare the merit of the petitioner with the merits of the last boy admitted hailing from Andhra Pradesh. No material is forthcoming from the papers before us whether the standards of education and teaching provided in the Andhra Pradesh University were in any way equal to those provided in the Bangalore University. For the same reason, it cannot be predicated that the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules envisages in any manner equal treatment of candidates coming from different Universities either in the State or elsewhere in India. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to certain observations of the Supreme Court made in Writ Petns. Nos. 618 to 622 of 1970, in which judgment was pronounced on 3-5-1971 (reported in : AIR1971SC1762 } D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore. His Lordship, Shelat, J-speaking for the Bench, while disposing of W. P. No. 621 of 1970, V. Soudhamini v. State of Mysore, has observed thus: </p><p>'.....There was thus no comparison between persons equally situated even as regards the number of marks secured by them. But apart from that, the result obtained by a student in an examination held by one University cannot be regarded as comparable with the result obtained by another candidate in an examination held by another University. Even assuming that a conscious effort is made to equalise standards obtaining in different unversities. such standards depend on several human factors, methods of teaching and examining, the syllabus in such universities etc., even though the subjects taught and examined were to be the same. It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. That the petitioner and those whom the Selection Committee selected were equally situated cannot, from the facts above stated, be assumed.....' </p><p>7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail. </p><p>8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed, but without costs. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant37; AIR1972Mys37; (1971)2MysLJ361',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372401',
	(int) 1 => 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372401/lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Venkataswami, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner herein has sought for the issue of a Writ or Direction or Order against the respondents, to consider her case for admission to the First Year M. B. B. S. Course of the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli, or any other of the Government Medical Colleges and select her for the said course. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The Petitioner passed her Pre-University Examination of the Bangalore University in the year 1969 and secured 66.67% in the relevant optional subjects. She hag also passed what is known as B. Sc., Part I Examination of the Karnatak University, which would enable her to seek admission for the First Year M. B. B. S. course. According to the relevant' Rules for selection of candidates for admission, the qualification prescribed for admission is a pass in the Pre-University Examination. She, therefore, applied for admission to any of the Medical Colleges under the control of any of the Universities in Mysore for the year 1970-71. She was not selected by the first respondent-Selection Committee, constituted for the purpose of the said Rules. Hence the petition. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. It is not disputed that the qualifying examination was a pass in the Pre-University Examination in any of the Universities. It is further undisputed that In so far as the Universities of Bangalore and Mysore are concerned, any selection for admission would enable a candidate to get himself admitted to the Pre-Professional Course leading to medicine. It is only thereafter a candidate would regularly enter into the First Year Medical Course. In so far as the Karnatak University Is concerned, the course, corresponding to the aforesaid Pre-Professional, is B. Sc., Part I of that University. It is only after passing the said B. Sc., Part I can a candidate of that University enter the First Year Medical Course leading to M. B. B. S. It is, therefore, clear that the qualifying examination for all the Universities is a Pre-University course. In the instant case, all that the candidate had claimed was admission to any of the Medical Colleges within the jurisdiction of any of the said three Universities. The marks secured by the last candidate admitted in all these Universities, in the category of the general pool, in which alone the petitioner was entitled to be considered, had secured marks higher than that of the petitioner. The petitioner would have no grievance in this behalf. Indeed, the case was not pressed on behalf of the petitioner in regard to this aspect of the matter. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Sri R. U. Goulay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however urged that the petitioner should have been considered for the seats reserved, under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules for selection of candidates for admission, which provided for allotment of not more than 20% of the seats in Colleges affiliated to any University, in the discretion of the Selection Committee, for candidates passing from Colleges affiliated to any other University in the State or elsewhere in India. His contention is that according to Sub-rule (8) of Rule 10 the process of selection should conform to the other provisions made in the said rule. In other words, the contention is that all those seats so reserved should have been dealt with in one compartment and, if so dealt with, the petitioner would be entitled to be preferred. The foundation for this argument is based on the following facts: ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. By virtue of the discretion vested under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules governing the matter, the Selection Committee has selected candidates from the Universities of Shiva.ji, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Poona and Venkateswara. The last candidates admitted from each of these Universities except that of Andhra Pradesh have secured more marks than the petitioner. Hence the petitioner could not have any grievance in regard to them even assuming that the contention urged on her behalf of Sri Goulay had to be accepted. But, in regard to Andhra Pradesh, two candidates have been admitted and one of them has secured only 66%. in the relevant optionals. that is less than 66.67% secured by the petitioner in her Pre-University course Examination. The case on behalf of the petitioner was strenuously urged on the basis of this fact, ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are, however, not persuaded to accept the contention urged on be- half of the petitioner, Proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules conferred discretion on the Selection Committee to allot not more than 20% of the seats to persons belonging to Universities other than the one to which admission is sought by the petitioner, which in the instant case is the Karnatak University. What the Selection Committee, in our opinion, had done is to draw candidates from different sources. Therefore, what the Committee has to do is to compare the merits of the candidates belonging to each of these sources separately. That is exactly what has been done in the present case. We do not think that it would be fair or proper to compare the merit of the petitioner with the merits of the last boy admitted hailing from Andhra Pradesh. No material is forthcoming from the papers before us whether the standards of education and teaching provided in the Andhra Pradesh University were in any way equal to those provided in the Bangalore University. For the same reason, it cannot be predicated that the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules envisages in any manner equal treatment of candidates coming from different Universities either in the State or elsewhere in India. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to certain observations of the Supreme Court made in Writ Petns. Nos. 618 to 622 of 1970, in which judgment was pronounced on 3-5-1971 (reported in : AIR1971SC1762 } D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore. His Lordship, Shelat, J-speaking for the Bench, while disposing of W. P. No. 621 of 1970, V. Soudhamini v. State of Mysore, has observed thus: ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'.....There was thus no comparison between persons equally situated even as regards the number of marks secured by them. But apart from that, the result obtained by a student in an examination held by one University cannot be regarded as comparable with the result obtained by another candidate in an examination held by another University. Even assuming that a conscious effort is made to equalise standards obtaining in different unversities. such standards depend on several human factors, methods of teaching and examining, the syllabus in such universities etc., even though the subjects taught and examined were to be the same. It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. That the petitioner and those whom the Selection Committee selected were equally situated cannot, from the facts above stated, be assumed.....' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed, but without costs. <p>',
	(int) 10 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 11
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed, but without costs.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Lalithamma Vs Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges Bangalore and ors - Citation 372401 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '372401',
			'acts' => 'Admission to Medical Colleges in the State of Mysore Rules - Rules 9 and 10(8)',
			'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 5209 of 1970',
			'appellant' => 'Lalithamma',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Lalithamma Vs. Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
			'casenote' => ' - INCOME TAX ACT,1961[C.A.No.43/1961]-- Section 143 (1)(A): [K.L. Manjunath & A.S. Bopanna, JJ] Income arising out of leasing of hotel building - Assessee, carrying on hotel business  Assessees Licence Agreement with Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. -  Question whether amount received by the Assessee from the company, be treated s the income from other sources or a business income  Finding of the assessing officer that the income received from the company is income from other sources  Challenge as to assessment  Held, The transaction is in the nature of lease and the intention of the assessee is not to revive/restart business. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has been managing the hotel through M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., The transaction between assesses and M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. is in the nature of lease and the income from such hotel building is business income -  It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. ..7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R.U. Goulay, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'R.S. Mahendra, High Court Govt. Pleader for Govt. Adv. and ;S.G. Goddakale Gowda, High Court Govt. Pleader for ;H.K. Vasudeva Reddy, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1971-07-06',
			'deposition' => ' Petition dismissed ',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'B. Venkataswami and ;E.S. Venkataramiah, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Venkataswami, J. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The petitioner herein has sought for the issue of a Writ or Direction or Order against the respondents, to consider her case for admission to the First Year M. B. B. S. Course of the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli, or any other of the Government Medical Colleges and select her for the said course. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The Petitioner passed her Pre-University Examination of the Bangalore University in the year 1969 and secured 66.67% in the relevant optional subjects. She hag also passed what is known as B. Sc., Part I Examination of the Karnatak University, which would enable her to seek admission for the First Year M. B. B. S. course. According to the relevant' Rules for selection of candidates for admission, the qualification prescribed for admission is a pass in the Pre-University Examination. She, therefore, applied for admission to any of the Medical Colleges under the control of any of the Universities in Mysore for the year 1970-71. She was not selected by the first respondent-Selection Committee, constituted for the purpose of the said Rules. Hence the petition. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. It is not disputed that the qualifying examination was a pass in the Pre-University Examination in any of the Universities. It is further undisputed that In so far as the Universities of Bangalore and Mysore are concerned, any selection for admission would enable a candidate to get himself admitted to the Pre-Professional Course leading to medicine. It is only thereafter a candidate would regularly enter into the First Year Medical Course. In so far as the Karnatak University Is concerned, the course, corresponding to the aforesaid Pre-Professional, is B. Sc., Part I of that University. It is only after passing the said B. Sc., Part I can a candidate of that University enter the First Year Medical Course leading to M. B. B. S. It is, therefore, clear that the qualifying examination for all the Universities is a Pre-University course. In the instant case, all that the candidate had claimed was admission to any of the Medical Colleges within the jurisdiction of any of the said three Universities. The marks secured by the last candidate admitted in all these Universities, in the category of the general pool, in which alone the petitioner was entitled to be considered, had secured marks higher than that of the petitioner. The petitioner would have no grievance in this behalf. Indeed, the case was not pressed on behalf of the petitioner in regard to this aspect of the matter. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Sri R. U. Goulay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however urged that the petitioner should have been considered for the seats reserved, under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules for selection of candidates for admission, which provided for allotment of not more than 20% of the seats in Colleges affiliated to any University, in the discretion of the Selection Committee, for candidates passing from Colleges affiliated to any other University in the State or elsewhere in India. His contention is that according to Sub-rule (8) of Rule 10 the process of selection should conform to the other provisions made in the said rule. In other words, the contention is that all those seats so reserved should have been dealt with in one compartment and, if so dealt with, the petitioner would be entitled to be preferred. The foundation for this argument is based on the following facts: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. By virtue of the discretion vested under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules governing the matter, the Selection Committee has selected candidates from the Universities of Shiva.ji, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Poona and Venkateswara. The last candidates admitted from each of these Universities except that of Andhra Pradesh have secured more marks than the petitioner. Hence the petitioner could not have any grievance in regard to them even assuming that the contention urged on her behalf of Sri Goulay had to be accepted. But, in regard to Andhra Pradesh, two candidates have been admitted and one of them has secured only 66%. in the relevant optionals. that is less than 66.67% secured by the petitioner in her Pre-University course Examination. The case on behalf of the petitioner was strenuously urged on the basis of this fact, </p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are, however, not persuaded to accept the contention urged on be- half of the petitioner, Proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules conferred discretion on the Selection Committee to allot not more than 20% of the seats to persons belonging to Universities other than the one to which admission is sought by the petitioner, which in the instant case is the Karnatak University. What the Selection Committee, in our opinion, had done is to draw candidates from different sources. Therefore, what the Committee has to do is to compare the merits of the candidates belonging to each of these sources separately. That is exactly what has been done in the present case. We do not think that it would be fair or proper to compare the merit of the petitioner with the merits of the last boy admitted hailing from Andhra Pradesh. No material is forthcoming from the papers before us whether the standards of education and teaching provided in the Andhra Pradesh University were in any way equal to those provided in the Bangalore University. For the same reason, it cannot be predicated that the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules envisages in any manner equal treatment of candidates coming from different Universities either in the State or elsewhere in India. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to certain observations of the Supreme Court made in Writ Petns. Nos. 618 to 622 of 1970, in which judgment was pronounced on 3-5-1971 (reported in : AIR1971SC1762 } D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore. His Lordship, Shelat, J-speaking for the Bench, while disposing of W. P. No. 621 of 1970, V. Soudhamini v. State of Mysore, has observed thus: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">'.....There was thus no comparison between persons equally situated even as regards the number of marks secured by them. But apart from that, the result obtained by a student in an examination held by one University cannot be regarded as comparable with the result obtained by another candidate in an examination held by another University. Even assuming that a conscious effort is made to equalise standards obtaining in different unversities. such standards depend on several human factors, methods of teaching and examining, the syllabus in such universities etc., even though the subjects taught and examined were to be the same. It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. That the petitioner and those whom the Selection Committee selected were equally situated cannot, from the facts above stated, be assumed.....' </p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed, but without costs. <p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant37; AIR1972Mys37; (1971)2MysLJ361',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Constitution',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '372401',
		(int) 1 => 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Lalithamma Vs Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges Bangalore and ors - Citation 372401 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '372401',
		'acts' => 'Admission to Medical Colleges in the State of Mysore Rules - Rules 9 and 10(8)',
		'appealno' => 'Writ Petn. No. 5209 of 1970',
		'appellant' => 'Lalithamma',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Lalithamma Vs. Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
		'casenote' => ' - INCOME TAX ACT,1961[C.A.No.43/1961]-- Section 143 (1)(A): [K.L. Manjunath & A.S. Bopanna, JJ] Income arising out of leasing of hotel building - Assessee, carrying on hotel business  Assessees Licence Agreement with Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. -  Question whether amount received by the Assessee from the company, be treated s the income from other sources or a business income  Finding of the assessing officer that the income received from the company is income from other sources  Challenge as to assessment  Held, The transaction is in the nature of lease and the intention of the assessee is not to revive/restart business. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has been managing the hotel through M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., The transaction between assesses and M/s Indian Hotels Co. Ltd. is in the nature of lease and the income from such hotel building is business income -  It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. ..7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R.U. Goulay, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'R.S. Mahendra, High Court Govt. Pleader for Govt. Adv. and ;S.G. Goddakale Gowda, High Court Govt. Pleader for ;H.K. Vasudeva Reddy, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1971-07-06',
		'deposition' => ' Petition dismissed ',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'B. Venkataswami and ;E.S. Venkataramiah, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Venkataswami, J. </p><p>1. The petitioner herein has sought for the issue of a Writ or Direction or Order against the respondents, to consider her case for admission to the First Year M. B. B. S. Course of the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli, or any other of the Government Medical Colleges and select her for the said course. </p><p>2. The Petitioner passed her Pre-University Examination of the Bangalore University in the year 1969 and secured 66.67% in the relevant optional subjects. She hag also passed what is known as B. Sc., Part I Examination of the Karnatak University, which would enable her to seek admission for the First Year M. B. B. S. course. According to the relevant' Rules for selection of candidates for admission, the qualification prescribed for admission is a pass in the Pre-University Examination. She, therefore, applied for admission to any of the Medical Colleges under the control of any of the Universities in Mysore for the year 1970-71. She was not selected by the first respondent-Selection Committee, constituted for the purpose of the said Rules. Hence the petition. </p><p>3. It is not disputed that the qualifying examination was a pass in the Pre-University Examination in any of the Universities. It is further undisputed that In so far as the Universities of Bangalore and Mysore are concerned, any selection for admission would enable a candidate to get himself admitted to the Pre-Professional Course leading to medicine. It is only thereafter a candidate would regularly enter into the First Year Medical Course. In so far as the Karnatak University Is concerned, the course, corresponding to the aforesaid Pre-Professional, is B. Sc., Part I of that University. It is only after passing the said B. Sc., Part I can a candidate of that University enter the First Year Medical Course leading to M. B. B. S. It is, therefore, clear that the qualifying examination for all the Universities is a Pre-University course. In the instant case, all that the candidate had claimed was admission to any of the Medical Colleges within the jurisdiction of any of the said three Universities. The marks secured by the last candidate admitted in all these Universities, in the category of the general pool, in which alone the petitioner was entitled to be considered, had secured marks higher than that of the petitioner. The petitioner would have no grievance in this behalf. Indeed, the case was not pressed on behalf of the petitioner in regard to this aspect of the matter. </p><p>4. Sri R. U. Goulay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however urged that the petitioner should have been considered for the seats reserved, under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules for selection of candidates for admission, which provided for allotment of not more than 20% of the seats in Colleges affiliated to any University, in the discretion of the Selection Committee, for candidates passing from Colleges affiliated to any other University in the State or elsewhere in India. His contention is that according to Sub-rule (8) of Rule 10 the process of selection should conform to the other provisions made in the said rule. In other words, the contention is that all those seats so reserved should have been dealt with in one compartment and, if so dealt with, the petitioner would be entitled to be preferred. The foundation for this argument is based on the following facts: </p><p>5. By virtue of the discretion vested under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules governing the matter, the Selection Committee has selected candidates from the Universities of Shiva.ji, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Poona and Venkateswara. The last candidates admitted from each of these Universities except that of Andhra Pradesh have secured more marks than the petitioner. Hence the petitioner could not have any grievance in regard to them even assuming that the contention urged on her behalf of Sri Goulay had to be accepted. But, in regard to Andhra Pradesh, two candidates have been admitted and one of them has secured only 66%. in the relevant optionals. that is less than 66.67% secured by the petitioner in her Pre-University course Examination. The case on behalf of the petitioner was strenuously urged on the basis of this fact, </p><p>6. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are, however, not persuaded to accept the contention urged on be- half of the petitioner, Proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules conferred discretion on the Selection Committee to allot not more than 20% of the seats to persons belonging to Universities other than the one to which admission is sought by the petitioner, which in the instant case is the Karnatak University. What the Selection Committee, in our opinion, had done is to draw candidates from different sources. Therefore, what the Committee has to do is to compare the merits of the candidates belonging to each of these sources separately. That is exactly what has been done in the present case. We do not think that it would be fair or proper to compare the merit of the petitioner with the merits of the last boy admitted hailing from Andhra Pradesh. No material is forthcoming from the papers before us whether the standards of education and teaching provided in the Andhra Pradesh University were in any way equal to those provided in the Bangalore University. For the same reason, it cannot be predicated that the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules envisages in any manner equal treatment of candidates coming from different Universities either in the State or elsewhere in India. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to certain observations of the Supreme Court made in Writ Petns. Nos. 618 to 622 of 1970, in which judgment was pronounced on 3-5-1971 (reported in : AIR1971SC1762 } D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore. His Lordship, Shelat, J-speaking for the Bench, while disposing of W. P. No. 621 of 1970, V. Soudhamini v. State of Mysore, has observed thus: </p><p>'.....There was thus no comparison between persons equally situated even as regards the number of marks secured by them. But apart from that, the result obtained by a student in an examination held by one University cannot be regarded as comparable with the result obtained by another candidate in an examination held by another University. Even assuming that a conscious effort is made to equalise standards obtaining in different unversities. such standards depend on several human factors, methods of teaching and examining, the syllabus in such universities etc., even though the subjects taught and examined were to be the same. It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. That the petitioner and those whom the Selection Committee selected were equally situated cannot, from the facts above stated, be assumed.....' </p><p>7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail. </p><p>8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed, but without costs. <p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => 'AIR1972Kant37; AIR1972Mys37; (1971)2MysLJ361',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Constitution',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '372401',
	(int) 1 => 'lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/372401/lalithamma-vs-selection-committee'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Venkataswami, J. ',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The petitioner herein has sought for the issue of a Writ or Direction or Order against the respondents, to consider her case for admission to the First Year M. B. B. S. Course of the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli, or any other of the Government Medical Colleges and select her for the said course. ',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The Petitioner passed her Pre-University Examination of the Bangalore University in the year 1969 and secured 66.67% in the relevant optional subjects. She hag also passed what is known as B. Sc., Part I Examination of the Karnatak University, which would enable her to seek admission for the First Year M. B. B. S. course. According to the relevant' Rules for selection of candidates for admission, the qualification prescribed for admission is a pass in the Pre-University Examination. She, therefore, applied for admission to any of the Medical Colleges under the control of any of the Universities in Mysore for the year 1970-71. She was not selected by the first respondent-Selection Committee, constituted for the purpose of the said Rules. Hence the petition. ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. It is not disputed that the qualifying examination was a pass in the Pre-University Examination in any of the Universities. It is further undisputed that In so far as the Universities of Bangalore and Mysore are concerned, any selection for admission would enable a candidate to get himself admitted to the Pre-Professional Course leading to medicine. It is only thereafter a candidate would regularly enter into the First Year Medical Course. In so far as the Karnatak University Is concerned, the course, corresponding to the aforesaid Pre-Professional, is B. Sc., Part I of that University. It is only after passing the said B. Sc., Part I can a candidate of that University enter the First Year Medical Course leading to M. B. B. S. It is, therefore, clear that the qualifying examination for all the Universities is a Pre-University course. In the instant case, all that the candidate had claimed was admission to any of the Medical Colleges within the jurisdiction of any of the said three Universities. The marks secured by the last candidate admitted in all these Universities, in the category of the general pool, in which alone the petitioner was entitled to be considered, had secured marks higher than that of the petitioner. The petitioner would have no grievance in this behalf. Indeed, the case was not pressed on behalf of the petitioner in regard to this aspect of the matter. ',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Sri R. U. Goulay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however urged that the petitioner should have been considered for the seats reserved, under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules for selection of candidates for admission, which provided for allotment of not more than 20% of the seats in Colleges affiliated to any University, in the discretion of the Selection Committee, for candidates passing from Colleges affiliated to any other University in the State or elsewhere in India. His contention is that according to Sub-rule (8) of Rule 10 the process of selection should conform to the other provisions made in the said rule. In other words, the contention is that all those seats so reserved should have been dealt with in one compartment and, if so dealt with, the petitioner would be entitled to be preferred. The foundation for this argument is based on the following facts: ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. By virtue of the discretion vested under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules governing the matter, the Selection Committee has selected candidates from the Universities of Shiva.ji, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Poona and Venkateswara. The last candidates admitted from each of these Universities except that of Andhra Pradesh have secured more marks than the petitioner. Hence the petitioner could not have any grievance in regard to them even assuming that the contention urged on her behalf of Sri Goulay had to be accepted. But, in regard to Andhra Pradesh, two candidates have been admitted and one of them has secured only 66%. in the relevant optionals. that is less than 66.67% secured by the petitioner in her Pre-University course Examination. The case on behalf of the petitioner was strenuously urged on the basis of this fact, ',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On a careful consideration of the matter, we are, however, not persuaded to accept the contention urged on be- half of the petitioner, Proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules conferred discretion on the Selection Committee to allot not more than 20% of the seats to persons belonging to Universities other than the one to which admission is sought by the petitioner, which in the instant case is the Karnatak University. What the Selection Committee, in our opinion, had done is to draw candidates from different sources. Therefore, what the Committee has to do is to compare the merits of the candidates belonging to each of these sources separately. That is exactly what has been done in the present case. We do not think that it would be fair or proper to compare the merit of the petitioner with the merits of the last boy admitted hailing from Andhra Pradesh. No material is forthcoming from the papers before us whether the standards of education and teaching provided in the Andhra Pradesh University were in any way equal to those provided in the Bangalore University. For the same reason, it cannot be predicated that the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules envisages in any manner equal treatment of candidates coming from different Universities either in the State or elsewhere in India. In this connection, it is relevant to refer to certain observations of the Supreme Court made in Writ Petns. Nos. 618 to 622 of 1970, in which judgment was pronounced on 3-5-1971 (reported in : AIR1971SC1762 } D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore. His Lordship, Shelat, J-speaking for the Bench, while disposing of W. P. No. 621 of 1970, V. Soudhamini v. State of Mysore, has observed thus: ',
	(int) 7 => '<p>'.....There was thus no comparison between persons equally situated even as regards the number of marks secured by them. But apart from that, the result obtained by a student in an examination held by one University cannot be regarded as comparable with the result obtained by another candidate in an examination held by another University. Even assuming that a conscious effort is made to equalise standards obtaining in different unversities. such standards depend on several human factors, methods of teaching and examining, the syllabus in such universities etc., even though the subjects taught and examined were to be the same. It is well settled that a question of discrimination can only arise in the case of persons equally situated. That the petitioner and those whom the Selection Committee selected were equally situated cannot, from the facts above stated, be assumed.....' ',
	(int) 8 => '<p>7. Viewed in the light of the above enunciation of the Supreme Court, also, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner should fail. ',
	(int) 9 => '<p>8. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed, but without costs. <p>',
	(int) 10 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 11
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Subject	Constitution
Court	Karnataka High Court
Decided On	Jul-06-1971
Case Number	Writ Petn. No. 5209 of 1970
Judge	B. Venkataswami and ;E.S. Venkataramiah, JJ.
Reported in	AIR1972Kant37; AIR1972Mys37; (1971)2MysLJ361
Acts	Admission to Medical Colleges in the State of Mysore Rules - Rules 9 and 10(8)
Appellant	Lalithamma
Respondent	Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors.
Appellant Advocate	R.U. Goulay, Adv.
Respondent Advocate	R.S. Mahendra, High Court Govt. Pleader for Govt. Adv. and ;S.G. Goddakale Gowda, High Court Govt. Pleader for ;H.K. Vasudeva Reddy, Adv.
Disposition	Petition dismissed

Lalithamma Vs. Selection Committee for Admission to Medical Colleges, Bangalore and ors. - Court Judgment