Case Note & Summary
The writ petition under Article 32 arose from the rejection of the petitioner's application for admission to the Pre-Professional/B.Sc. Part I Course leading to M.B.B.S. in the Government Medical Colleges of Mysore State. The State of Mysore had framed Selection Rules on 4 July 1970, Rule 3 of which required that a candidate be a citizen of India, domiciled and resident in the State of Mysore for not less than ten years prior to the application, with certain exceptions for reserved categories, children of Central Government employees serving in the State, and children of Mysore Government employees on deputation. The petitioner had passed the Pre-University Examination of Bangalore University with 78% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology, but her application was rejected because she had not resided in Mysore for ten years. She challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 3 on the ground that it violated Article 14. The petitioner applied for admission and was interviewed on 14 September 1970. The Selection Committee rejected her application solely on the residence ground. It was undisputed that but for the ten-year residence condition she was otherwise eligible. The rule required domicile and ten years' residence, with exceptions. The petitioner argued that the residence condition created artificial classification among Indian citizens domiciled in Mysore based solely on length of residence and that ten years was arbitrary, particularly since students typically finish pre-university at age 16-17, and children of domiciled citizens compelled to reside outside due to livelihood would be deprived. The core issue was whether Rule 3 violated the right to equality under Article 14 by imposing an unreasonable residence requirement in addition to domicile. A secondary issue was whether the selection of a ten-year period was arbitrary and without rational nexus to the object of selecting best talent for medical education. The petitioner's counsel contended that the rule discriminated between citizens domiciled in Mysore based only on duration of residence, that ten years was fanciful, and that if all States adopted similar rules, mobile citizens would never qualify anywhere. The Attorney-General, for the State, argued that the rule was intended to select students more likely to serve as doctors in the State after graduation, that the State was entitled to determine the sources of selection, and cited Chitra Ghosh v. Union of India and K. Shivashankar v. University of Mysore. The Court also considered D.P. Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat, which upheld residence-based classification. The Court observed that the word 'domicile' in Rule 3 conveyed intention to reside or remain in Mysore. It held that if classification based on residence does not impinge on equality, then a further condition of residence for ten years is equally valid unless the period is shown to be arbitrary and without substantial basis. The object of the impugned rule was to impart medical education to the best talent among persons likely to serve as doctors for the State's inhabitants. The Court distinguished Minor P. Rajendran v. State of Madras, which struck down district-wise allocation for lack of nexus, but noted that territorial classification is not always bad. In Chitra Ghosh, the principle was that selection must be confined to sources intended to supply material and classification with rational nexus to imparting medical education is valid. The State had to formulate with reasonable foresight a just scheme of classification, and proper classification inspired by this consideration, with selection on merit from such groups, could not be challenged under Article 14. The petitioner had not shown that the rule suffered from vice of unreasonableness. Hardships in some cases were likely in any rule selecting limited candidates, but that did not render the rule unconstitutional. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the constitutional validity of Rule 3. The ten-year residence requirement, combined with domicile, was held to be a reasonable classification under Article 14, rationally connected to the State's objective of securing doctors likely to serve its people. No order as to costs was mentioned.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Equality before Law - Reasonable classification based on domicile and residence - Constitution of India, Article 14 - Rule 3 required both domicile and ten years' residence in Mysore State for MBBS admission, and petitioner challenged it as arbitrary discrimination among citizens domiciled in the State differing only in length of residence. The Court held that if classification based on residence does not impinge on equality as per D.P. Joshi, then the further condition of ten years is equally valid unless the period is arbitrary. The object of the rule was to impart medical education to those likely to serve as doctors in the State, providing a rational nexus. Held that Rule 3 did not suffer from unconstitutional discrimination (Paras 1-5). B) Constitutional Law - Medical Education and State Policy - State's power to determine selection sources - Constitution of India, Article 14 - The State argued it attempted to select students more likely to serve as doctors in the State after passing out, and that it was for the State to determine the sources from which to select candidates. Relying on Chitra Ghosh and Minor P. Rajendran, the Court observed that selection must be confined to sources intended to supply material and that classification based on such consideration, with merit selection from classified groups, could not be challenged under Article 14. Held that the State had a legitimate interest in formulating a scheme for broad-based medical aid and education (Paras 4-8). C) Constitutional Law - Arbitrariness and Hardship - Validity despite individual hardship - Constitution of India, Article 14 - The Court acknowledged that some cases of hardship were likely under any rule selecting limited candidates from a long list, but this did not render the rule unconstitutional. The petitioner failed to show that the ten-year period made the classification so unreasonable as to be arbitrary and without intelligible differentia. Held that hardship alone was insufficient to invalidate the impugned rule (Paras 8-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Rule 3 of the Selection Rules for admission to Pre-Professional/B.Sc. Part I Course leading to M.B.B.S. in Government Medical Colleges of Mysore State, which required domicile and ten years' residence, violated Article 14 of the Constitution.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed; Rule 3 held constitutionally valid; the requirement of domicile and ten years' residence in Mysore for medical college admission did not violate Article 14 as it constituted reasonable classification with nexus to State's objective of securing doctors likely to serve its people.
Law Points
- Article 14 permits reasonable classification based on domicile and residence
- Residence requirement of ten years for medical admission not arbitrary
- State may determine sources from which to select candidates
- Classification must have nexus with object of selection
- Hardship to individuals does not invalidate rule
- Domicile conveys intention to reside in State
