{"id":145384,"date":"1969-04-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1969-04-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chithra-ghosh-another-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-25-april-1969"},"modified":"2015-07-19T01:05:06","modified_gmt":"2015-07-18T19:35:06","slug":"chithra-ghosh-another-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-25-april-1969","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chithra-ghosh-another-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-25-april-1969","title":{"rendered":"Chithra Ghosh & Another vs Union Of India And Others on 25 April, 1969"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Chithra Ghosh & Another vs Union Of India And Others on 25 April, 1969<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 35, \t\t 1970 SCR (1) 413<\/div>\n
Author: A Grover<\/div>\n
Bench: Hidayatullah, M. (Cj), Shelat, J.M., Bhargava, Vishishtha, Hegde, K.S., Grover, A.N.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCHITHRA GHOSH & ANOTHER\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n25\/04\/1969\n\nBENCH:\nGROVER, A.N.\nBENCH:\nGROVER, A.N.\nHIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ)\nSHELAT, J.M.\nBHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA\nHEGDE, K.S.\n\nCITATION:\n 1970 AIR   35\t\t  1970 SCR  (1) 413\n 1969 SCC  (2) 228\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1971 SC1439\t (4,7)\n R\t    1971 SC1762\t (22,42,48,49)\n R\t    1971 SC2560\t (13)\n RF\t    1972 SC  13\t (12)\n D\t    1972 SC1375\t (35)\n R\t    1975 SC 563\t (38)\n R\t    1979 SC 765\t (20)\n RF\t    1980 SC1255\t (21)\n RF\t    1983 SC1235\t (5)\n R\t    1989 SC 903\t (21,22,23)\n RF\t    1992 SC   1\t (119)\n\n\nACT:\nConstitution  of  India Arts. 14, 15(1) and (2)\t and  29(2)-\nRules  of  centrally  Administered  college  providing\t for\nreservation  of seats for specified categories of  students-\nPower to Central Government to nominate students to seats on\nthe basis of classification-If valid.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellants\t passed the pre-medical examination  of\t the\nDelhi University in April, 1968 and obtained over 62% marks,\nThey applied for admission to the first year M.B.B.S. Course\nat  the Maulana Azad Medical College which is a\t constituent\nof  the\t University  of Delhi and  was\testablished  by\t the\nGovernment  of\tIndia  in  1958.   The\tcollege\t  prospectus\ncontained  certain  rules  relating  to\t the  admission\t  of\nstudents which made reservations of places in the college in\nfavour\tof various categories of students and  provided\t for\nnominations  to\t be made by the Central Government  to\tfill\nsome  of the reserved places.  The appellants'\tapplications\nfor admission to the college were rejected.  Thereafter they\nfiled a writ petition challenging primarily the power of the\nCentral\t Government  to make the nominations  and  contended\nthat nine students nominated by the Government had  obtained\nlower  marks in the pre-medical examination so that if\tthey\nwere to be excluded, the appellants would be entitled to  be\nadmitted  in  the  college.  The High  Court  dismissed\t the\npetition.\nIt  \",as  contended  on behalf of the  appellants  that\t the\nprovisions  in the rules for reservation of seats  were\t not\nbased  on any reasonable classification and  were  therefore\nviolative of Art. 14 of the Constitution: further more, they\nalso  violated\tclauses (1) and (4) of Art. 15\tas  well  as\nclause\t(2)  of Art, 29. It was further contended  that\t the\nnominations to the reserved seats were\talso contrary to the\nrules.\nHELD :\t  dismissing the appeal\n(i) The\t  first\t group\tof  persons  for  whom\tseats\twere\nreserved  were the sons and daughters of residents of  Union\nterritories other than Delhi.  These areas are well known to\nbe comparatively backward and with the exception of Himachal\nPradesh\t they do not have any Medical College of their\town.\nIt was necessary that persons desirous of receiving  medical\neducation from these areas should be provided some  facility\nfor doing so.  As regards the sons and daughters of  Central\nGovernment servants posted in Indian Missions abroad, it  is\nequally\t well known that due to exigencies of service  these\npersons\t are  faced  with  difficulties\t in  the  matter  of\neducation.   Apart from the problems of language, it is\t not\neasy  or always possible to get admission into\tinstitutions\nimparting  medical  education  in  foreign  countries.\t The\nreservations  for  the cultural, Colombo Plan  and  Thailand\nscholars  were made by reason of reciprocal arrangements  of\neducational and cultural nature.  The reservations in favour\nof Jammu and Kashmir scholars were also justifiable as there\nwere  inadequate arrangements for medical education  in\t the\nState  itself.\t The classification in all these  cases\t was\nbased  on intelligible differentia which distinguished\tthem\nfrom the group to which the appellants belonged. [418C-F]\n414\nThe  object of the classification by the Central  Government\nwho  maintained\t and ran the institution was to\t select\t the\nbest  available students from sources as classified  in\t the\nrules and the classification therefore had a rational  nexus\nwith the object to be achieved. [419C]\nShri  Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S. R.\tTendolkar  &\nOthers<\/a>\t[1959]\tS.C.R. 279; Minor P. Rajendran v.  State  of\nMadras,<\/a>\t [1968]\t 2  S.C.R. 786; Umesh Ch.  Sinha  v.  V.  N.\nSingh, Principal P.M.C. & Hospital and Ors.  I.L.R. 46 Patna\n616 referred to.\nThere  was  no\tdiscrimination\tagainst\t the  appellants  on\ngrounds\t only  of religion, race, caste,  language,  sex  or\nplace of birth and therefore there was no violation of\tArt.\n15 or Art. 29.\n(ii) The appellants did not have any right to challenge\t the\nnominations made    by the Central Government.\tThey did not\ncompete for the reserved seats\t   and\thad no locus  standi\nin  the\t matter\t of  nomination\t of  two  such\tseats.\t The\ncontention that if nominations to reserved seats were not in\naccordance  with the rules, such seats must be\tregarded  as\nnot  having been properly filled and must be thrown open  to\nthe  general  pool,  was  wholly  unfounded.   The   Central\nGovernment was under no obligation to release those seats to\nthe general pool.  Although in the larger interest of giving\nmaximum benefit to candidates belonging to the\tnon-reserved\nseats,\tthe  Central Government could and did  release\tsome\nseats, if could not be compelled to do so at the instance of\nstudents  who  had  applied for admission from\tout  of\t the\ncategories' for whom seats had not been reserved. [42OC-E]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 452 of 1969.
\nAppeal from the judgment and order dated December 3, 1968 of
\nthe Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 817 of 1968.
\nB.   C. Misra and M. V. Goswami, for the appellants.
\nB.   Sen and S. P. Nayar, for respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nGrover, J. This is an appeal by certificate from a  judgment
\nof  the Delhi High Court dismissing a petition filed by\t the
\nappellants  under Arts. 226 and 227 of the  Constitution  in
\nthe  matter of their. admission to the Maulana Azad  Medical
\nCollege, New Delhi, hereinafter called the “Medical College”
\nThe appellants are residents of Delhi.\tThey passed the pre-
\nmedical\t examination of the Delhi University held  in  April
\n1968  and obtained 62.5% marks.\t In June 1968  they  applied
\nfor admission to the first year M.B., B.S. class at the Lady
\nHarding\t Medical  College,  New\t Delhi\tbut  they  were\t not
\nadmitted.   Thereafter\tthey applied for  admission  to\t the
\nMaulana\t Azad  Medical College.\t This college,\twhich  is  a
\nconstituent  of the University of Delhi, was established  by
\nthe  Government\t of India in June 1958.\t  According  to\t the
\ncollege prospectus, 125 students are admitted annually;\t 15%
\nseats are reserved for schedule caste candidates and
\n\t\t\t    415<\/span>
\n5%  for\t scheduled  tribes  candidates,\t 25%  of  the  seats
\n(excluding  the\t seats\treserved  for  Government  of  India
\nnominees)  are reserved for girl students who are  taken  on
\nthe  basis of merit.  The following categories\tof  students
\nonly are eligible for admission\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a) Residents of Delhi………………\n<\/p>\n
\t      (b)   (i) Sons\/Daughters of Central Government
\n\t      Servants\t posted in Delhi at the time, of the
\n\t      admission.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (ii)  Candidate  whose father is dead  and  is
\n\t      wholly  dependent on brother\/sister who  is  a
\n\t      Central Government Servant posted in Delhi  at
\n\t      the time of the admission.<\/p>\n
\t      (c)   Sons\/Daughters  of\tresidents  of  Union
\n\t      Territories    specified\t  below\t   including
\n\t      displaced\t  persons  registered  therein\t and
\n\t      sponsored\t by their respective  Administration
\n\t      of Territory :-<\/p>\n
\n\t      (i)   Himachal  Pradesh  (ii)  Tripura   (iii)\n\t      Manipur (iv)    Naga  Hills (v) N.E.F.A.\t(vi)\n\t      Andaman.\n<\/pre>\n
\t      (d)   Sons\/Daughters  of\tCentral\t  Government
\n\t      servants posted in Indian Missions abroad.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (e)   Cultural Scholars.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (f)   Colombo Plan Scholars.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (g)   Thailand Scholars.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (h)   Jammu & Kashmir State Scholars.\n<\/p>\n
According  to the note 23 seats are reserved for  categories\n<\/p>\n
(c)  to (h) above.  The minimum percentage of marks which  a
\ncandidate  seeking  admission  must  have  obtained  in\t the
\naggregate of compulsory subjects is 55.\n<\/p>\n
Now  the  appellants  had  obtained  62.5%  marks  and\twere
\ndomiciled in Delhi.  According to them they were entitled to
\nadmission   and\t would\thave  been  admitted  but  for\t the
\nreservation of the seats which were filled by nominations by
\nthe   Central  Government.   In\t the  year  1968  when\t the
\nappellants sought admission 9 students had been nominated by
\nthe  Central Government out of the 23 seats which had  ‘been
\nreserved  for categories (c) to (h) mentioned above.   These
\nstudents  had  obtained less percentage of  marks  than\t the
\nappellants.   The  appellants filed a writ petition  in\t the
\nHigh  Court challenging primarily the power of\tthe  Central
\nGovernment  to\tmake the nominations.  It  was\tprayed\tthat
\nthese nominations be struck down and the respondents  (Union
\nof  India,  Medical College, University of  Delhi  etc.)  be
\ndirected to admit the -appellants and all other students who
\nwere eligible strictly in
\n416<\/span>
\nthe order of merit.  The writ petition was disposed of by  a
\ndivision  bench\t of the High Court.  The  authority  of\t the
\nCentral\t Government  to select candidates for  the  reserved
\nseats  was  upheld.  It was, however, found that  among\t the
\nnine seats filled in the Medical College by the\t Government,
\ntwo  nominations  had been made contrary  to  the  admission
\nrules.\tThe High Court was of the view that these two  seats
\nwould  also become a part of the general pool for  admission
\nof  candidates on merit.  The order was, therefore, made  in
\nthe -following terms :\n<\/p>\n
“We,  therefore, direct the respondents 1 to 4 as follows  :
\ntwo  seats shall be filled immediately for admission to\t the
\nfirst  year M.B., B.S. Course of the College from the  merit
\nlist  in which petitioner No. 1 is number 4  and  petitioner
\nNo. 2 is number 9. The respondents 1 to 4 shall\t immediately
\nenquire from the candidates who are above the petitioners in
\norder of merit whether they want the admissions and on their
\nfailure\t to  reply in a short time or on  their\t refusal  to
\naccept the offer, the admission shall be made either of\t the
\npetitioners or of other candidates who are above them in the
\nmerit list within one week from today.”\n<\/p>\n
In  December 1968, the appellants filed a petition under  s.
\n114  and 0. 47, R. 1 read with s. 141, Civil Procedure\tCode
\nseeking a review of the judgment and order dated December 3,
\n1968.\tThis petition was dismissed by the High Court  by  a
\ndetailed order dated January 27, 1969.\tOn February 1, 1969,
\na  petition was filed under Arts. 133 (1) (c) and 132(1)  of
\nthe Constitution for leave to appeal to this Court.  In\t the
\nprayer leave was sought against the judgment dismissing\t the
\nwrit  petition\t-as  also  the order  by  which\t the  review
\npetition  was disposed of.  In the certificate, however,  in
\nthe heading only the judgment dated December 3, 1968 is men-
\ntioned.\t It would appear that the certificate was limited to
\nthe  appeal  against the writ petition.\t This  would  be  so
\nbecause\t under 0. 47, R. 7 the order of the court  rejecting
\nthe  application  for  review is  not  appealable.   If\t the
\nappellants  desired  to challenge that order it\t could\thave
\nbeen done only by -asking for leave of this Court under Art.
\n136  which  was\t never done.   In  these  circumstances\t the
\narguments  of  Mr.  B.\tC. Misra  for  the  appellants\twere
\nconfirmed  to  the  matters decided by\tthe  judgment  dated
\nDecember 3, 1968.\n<\/p>\n
It  is\tcommon\tground that the University  of\tDelhi  is  a
\nstatutory  body incorporated by the Delhi University Act  of
\n1922 as amended from time to time.  Under S. 30 of that\t Act
\nOrdinances  can be made providing for various matters  which
\ninclude\t the  admission of students to\tthe  University\t and
\ntheir  enrolment as such.  Ordinance 11 provides that  there
\nshall be a Medical Courses Admission
\n417<\/span>
\nCommittee.  It -is this committee which finalises the  cases
\nof  admission except those which are to be referred  to\t the
\nStanding Committee on -account of any special features.\t The
\nMedical\t Courses Admission Committee at its meeting held  on
\nNovember  5, 1965, recognised that 23 seats in\tthe  Medical
\nCollege\t shall\tbe  reserved  for  certain  categories\t for
\nnomination.   This reservation was approved by the  Standing
\nCommittee  of the Academic Council of the  Delhi  University
\nand  finally  by the Academic Council itself by means  of  a
\nresolution  dated  March  3, 1966.  In the  High  Court\t and
\nbefore\tus both sides argued on the footing that  the  rules
\nset out in the prospectus of the Medical College relating to
\nadmission  have statutory sanction and are not of  a  purely
\nadministrative nature.\n<\/p>\n
Before\tthe High Court only two questions were raised.\t The
\nfirst was whether the provision for reservation of seats was
\nunconstitutional.  The second was whether the nominations to
\nthe reserved seats had been made contrary to the rules.\t Mr.
\nMisra has amplified the first submission-by urging that\t the
\nreservation  of seats for admission to the  Medical  College
\nwas not based on any reasonable classification and  suffered
\nfrom  the  vice of discrimination.  According  to  him\tsuch
\nreservation was hit by Art. 14 read with clauses (1) and (4)
\nof  Art. 15 and clause (2) of Art.- 29 of the  Constitution.
\nIn  addition  the system of nominations being  made  by\t the
\nGovernment  and\t not by the Admission Committee was  per  se
\ndiscriminatory.\n<\/p>\n
Article 29(2) may be read first.  It says, no citizen  shall
\nbe   denied  admission\tinto  any  educational\t institution
\nmaintained by the State-or receiving aid out of State  funds
\non grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of
\nthem.\tUnder  clause  (1)  of\tArt.  15  the  State  cannot
\ndiscriminate   against\tany  citizen  on  grounds  only\t  of
\nreligion, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.  Clause
\n(4),  however,\tprovides that nothing in the  Article  shall
\nprevent the State from making any special provision for\t the
\nadvancement  of\t any  socially\tand  educationally  backward
\nclasses of citizens or for the scheduled castes and  tribes.
\nAccording  to Mr. Misra the categories (c) to (h)  contained
\nin  Rule  4 relating to eligibility for admission  for\twhom
\nseats  are  reserved  do  not  fall  within  the   exception
\ncontained  in  cl.  4  of Art. 15.   The  persons  in  these
\ncategories, it is said, cannot be regarded -as socially\t and
\neducationally  backward\t classes of citizens nor can  it  be
\nsupposed that all of them must belong to schedule castes and
\ntribes.\n<\/p>\n
We  are unable to see how Art. 15(1) can be invoked  in\t the
\npresent\t case.\t The rules do not discriminate\tbetween\t any
\ncitizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place
\nof birth or any of them.  Nor is Art 29(2) of any assistance
\nto the appellants.  They are not being denied admission into
\nthe Medical College on
\n418<\/span>
\ngrounds\t only of religion, race, caste, language or  any  of
\nthem.  This brings us to Art. 14.  It is claimed that  merit
\nshould\tbe the sole criterion and as soon as  other  factors
\nlike  those  mentioned in clauses (c) to (h) of Rule  4\t are
\nintroduced, discrimination becomes apparent.
\nAs  laid down in Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice  S.
\nR. Tendolkar & Others<\/a>(1), Art. 14 forbids class\t legislation
\nit  does not forbid reasonable classification.\tIn order  to
\npass  the test of permissible classification two  conditions
\nmust be fulfilled, (i) that the classification is founded on
\nintelligible  differentia  which  distinguishes\t persons  or
\nthings that are grouped together from others left out of the
\ngroup  and, (ii) that that differentia must have a  rational
\nrelation  to the object sought to be achieved.\t The  .first
\ngroup  of persons for whom seats have been reserved are\t the
\nsons  and daughters of residents of Union territories  other
\nthan Delhi.  These areas are well known to be  comparatively
\nbackward and with the exception of Himachal Pradesh they  do
\nnot have any Medical College of their own.  It was necessary
\nthat  persons desirous of receiving medical  education\tfrom
\nthese  areas should be provided some facility for doing\t so.
\nAs  regards  the sons and daughters  of\t Central  Government
\nservants posted in Indian Missions abroad it is equally well
\nknown that due to exigencies of their service these  persons
\nare  faced  with  lot  of  difficulties\t in  the  matter  of
\neducation.   Apart from the problems of language, it is\t not
\neasy  or always possible to get admission into\tinstitutions
\nimparting  medical  education  in  foreign  countries.\t The
\ncultural,  Colombo  Plan  and Thailand\tscholars  are  given
\nadmission in medical institutions in this country by  reason
\nof  reciprocal\tarrangements  of  educational  and  cultural
\nnature.\t  Regarding  Jammu  & Kashmir scholars\tit  must  be
\nremembered  that  the  problems relating to them  are  of  a
\npeculiar nature and there do not exist adequate arrangements
\nfor medical education in the State itself for its residents.
\nThe   classification  in  all  these  cases  is\t  based\t  on
\nintelligible  differentia which distinguishes them from\t the
\ngroup to which the appellants belong.\n<\/p>\n
It  is\tthe  Central Government which  bears  the  financial
\nburden of running the medical college.\tIt is for it to\t lay
\ndown the criteria for eligibility.  From the very nature  of
\nthings\tit  is not possible to throw the admission  open  to
\nstudents  from all over the country.  The Government  cannot
\nbe  denied  the\t right\tto  decide  from  what\tsources\t the\n<\/p>\n
-admission will be made.  That essentially is a question  of
\npolicy\tand depends inter-alia on an overall assessment\t and
\nsurvey\tof  the\t requirements  of  residents  of  particular
\nterritories  and other categories of Persons for whom it  is
\nessential to provide facilities for medical education. ,  If
\nthe sources are properly
\n(1)  [1959] S.C.R. 279.\n<\/p>\n
419<\/span><\/p>\n
     classified\t whether  on  territorial,  geographical  or
\nother reasonable basis it is not for the courts to interfere
\nwith the manner and method of making the classification.
\nThe  next question that has to be determined is whether\t the
\ndifferentia  on\t which\tclassification\thas  been  made\t has
\nrational relation with the object to be -achieved.  The main
\npurpose\t of  admission\tto a medical college  is  to  impart
\neducation  in’\tthe  theory and practice  of  medicine.\t  As
\nnoticed\t before the sources from which students have  to  be
\ndrawn  are  primarily-\tdetermined by  the  authorities\t who
\nmaintain  and  run the institution, e.g,  the  Central\tGov-
\nernment in the present case.  In Minor P. Rajendran v. State
\nof Madras<\/a>(1) it has been stated that the object of selection
\nfor admission is to secure the best possible material.\tThis
\ncan surely be achieved by making proper rules in the  matter
\nof  selection but there can be no doubt that such  selection
\nhas  to\t be confined to, the sources that  are\tintended  to
\nsupply the material.  If the sources have been classified in
\nthe  manner done in the present case it is difficult to\t see
\nhow  that  classification  has no rational  nexus  with\t the
\nobject of imparting medical education and also of selection,
\nfor the purpose.\n<\/p>\n
The    case   of   Minor   P.\tRajendran(1)   is    clearly
\ndistinguishable,  because there the classification had\tbeen
\nmade   district-wise  which  was  considered  to   have\t  no
\nreasonable  relation with the object sought to be  achieved.
\nNor can the decision of a full bench of’the Patna High Court
\nin  Umesh  Ch.\tSinha v. V. N. Singh,  Principal,  P.M.C.  &
\nHospital  & Ors. (2) be of any avail to the appellants.\t  In
\nthat  case  preferential  treatment had been  given  to\t the
\nchildren..  of the employees of the Patna University in\t the
\nmatter\tof admission to the Patna Medical College.   It\t was
\nheld  that  there  was no,,  reasonable\t nexus\tbetween\t the
\nprinciple  governing  -admission to the college on  the\t one
\nhand  and  the\tpecuniary difficulties\tor  the\t meritorious
\nservices  rendered by the employees of the  University\ton,,
\nthe other and that preferential treatment to the children of
\nthese  employees would amount to favoritism  and  patronage.
\nThere,.\t is no question of any preferential treatment  being
\naccorded  to  any particular category or  class\t of  persons
\ndesirous  of  -receiving medical education  in\tthe  present
\ncase.  The mete fact that the Central Government has to make
\nthe nominations with regard to the reserved seats cannot  be
\nconsidered to be preferential treatment of any kind.  As the
\ncandidates  for\t the reserved seats have to  be\t drawn\tfrom
\ndifferent  sources it would be difficult to have  uniformity
\nin  the\t matter of selection from amongst  them.   The\tHigh
\nCourt  was  right  in  saying  that  the  standards  of\t the
\nexaminations  passed by them, the subjects studied  by\tthem
\nand the educational back–\n<\/p>\n
(1) [1968] 2 S.C.R. 786.\n<\/p>\n
(2) I.L.R. 46 Patna. 616′
\n420<\/span>
\nground of each of them would be different and divergent\t and
\ntherefore   the\t Central  Government  was  the\t appropriate
\nauthority  which could make a proper selection out of  those
\ncategories.   Moreover\tthis is being done  with  the  tacit
\napproval  and  consent\tof  the\t Medical  Courses  Admission
\nCommittee. -It appears that the Central Government has\tbeen
\nacting in a very reasonable way inasmuch as when nominations
\nwere  made only to nine seats the rest were thrown  open  to
\nthe general pool.\n<\/p>\n
The other question which was canvassed before the High Court
\nand  which has been pressed before us relates to the  merits
\nof the nominations made to the reserved seats.\tIt seems  to
\nus  that the appellants do not have -any right to  challenge
\nthe nominations made by the Central Government.\t They do not
\ncompete\t for the reserved seats and have no locus standi  in
\nthe matter of nomination to such seats.\t The assumption that
\nif nominations to reserved seats are not in accordance\twith
\nthe rules all such seats as have not been properly filled up
\nwould  be  thrown  open\t to  the  general  pool\t is   wholly
\nunfounded.  The Central Government is under no obligation to
\nrelease\t those\tseats to the general pool.  It\tmay  in\t the
\nlarger\tinterest  of giving maximum  benefit  to  candidates
\nbelonging  to  the non-reserved seats release  them  but  it
\ncannot\tbe compelled to do so -at the instance\tof  students
\nwho  have applied for admission from out of  the  categories
\nfor  whom seats have not been reserved.\t In our opinion\t the
\nHigh  Court  was  in error in going into  the  question\t and
\nholding that out of the nine seats filled by nomination\t two
\nhad  been filled contrary to the admission rules  and  these
\nwould  be converted into the general pool.  Since no  appeal
\nhas  been  filed against that part of the order\t we  refrain
\nfrom making any further observations in the matter.
\nFinally Mr. Misra attempted to agitate the question of\tsome
\nof  the nominations being illegal as the candidates who\t had
\nbeen  nominated had not applied in time-the prescribed\tdate
\nbeing August 1, 1968.  This contention cannot be entertained
\nfor two reasons.  The first is that no such point appears to
\nhave  been  raised  before  the High  Court  when  the\twrit
\npetition was disposed of on December 3, 1968.  It is only at
\nthe  stage  of review that this matter seems  to  have\tbeen
\npressed.   Secondly  it\t has  been  held  by  us  that\t the
\nappellants  had no right to challenge the nominations  which
\nhad  been  made\t by the Central\t Government.   It  was\tnot,
\ntherefore,  open  to them to assail any of  the\t nominations
\nwhich had been made.\n<\/p>\n
The  appeal  fails and it is dismissed with no order  as  to
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
R.K.P.S.\t       Appeal dismissed.\n421<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Chithra Ghosh & Another vs Union Of India And Others on 25 April, 1969 Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 35, 1970 SCR (1) 413 Author: A Grover Bench: Hidayatullah, M. (Cj), Shelat, J.M., Bhargava, Vishishtha, Hegde, K.S., Grover, A.N. PETITIONER: CHITHRA GHOSH & ANOTHER Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS DATE […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-145384","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nChithra Ghosh & Another vs Union Of India And Others on 25 April, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chithra-ghosh-another-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-25-april-1969\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chithra Ghosh & Another vs Union Of India And Others on 25 April, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chithra-ghosh-another-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-25-april-1969\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1969-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-18T19:35:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chithra-ghosh-another-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-25-april-1969#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chithra-ghosh-another-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-25-april-1969\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chithra Ghosh & Another vs Union Of India And Others on 25 April, 1969\",\"datePublished\":\"1969-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-18T19:35:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chithra-ghosh-another-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-25-april-1969\"},\"wordCount\":2870,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chithra-ghosh-another-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-25-april-1969#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chithra-ghosh-another-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-25-april-1969\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chithra-ghosh-another-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-25-april-1969\",\"name\":\"Chithra Ghosh & Another vs Union Of India And Others on 25 April, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1969-04-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-18T19:35:06+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chithra-ghosh-another-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-25-april-1969#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chithra-ghosh-another-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-25-april-1969\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chithra-ghosh-another-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-25-april-1969#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chithra Ghosh & Another vs Union Of India And Others on 25 April, 1969\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Chithra Ghosh & Another vs Union Of India And Others on 25 April, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chithra-ghosh-another-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-25-april-1969","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chithra Ghosh & Another vs Union Of India And Others on 25 April, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chithra-ghosh-another-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-25-april-1969","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1969-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-18T19:35:06+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chithra-ghosh-another-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-25-april-1969#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chithra-ghosh-another-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-25-april-1969"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chithra Ghosh & Another vs Union Of India And Others on 25 April, 1969","datePublished":"1969-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-18T19:35:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chithra-ghosh-another-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-25-april-1969"},"wordCount":2870,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chithra-ghosh-another-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-25-april-1969#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chithra-ghosh-another-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-25-april-1969","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chithra-ghosh-another-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-25-april-1969","name":"Chithra Ghosh & Another vs Union Of India And Others on 25 April, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1969-04-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-18T19:35:06+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chithra-ghosh-another-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-25-april-1969#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chithra-ghosh-another-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-25-april-1969"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chithra-ghosh-another-vs-union-of-india-and-others-on-25-april-1969#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chithra Ghosh & Another vs Union Of India And Others on 25 April, 1969"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/145384","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=145384"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/145384\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=145384"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=145384"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=145384"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}