Holding

The requirement that a candidate must have completed the last two years of schooling in a Delhi school is unreasonable and inapplicable to students compelled to leave India due to a parental government posting, making the denial of admission unlawful.

Summary

Meenakshi Malik, a Delhi-born student, completed part of her education abroad because her father was deputed to Nigeria. Upon returning, she passed the All India Senior School Certificate Examination and the medical entrance test, but was denied admission to a Delhi medical college because she had not completed the last two years of schooling in a Delhi school, as required by the admission rules. The Supreme Court held that such a rule must be reasonable and consider the circumstances of candidates forced to leave India due to parental government posting. It found the two‑year Delhi schooling condition unreasonable and inapplicable to her situation, thereby rendering the denial of admission unlawful. Consequently, the Court ordered the respondents to admit her to one of the Delhi medical colleges.

Issues considered

Whether the qualification condition requiring the last two years of education to be in a Delhi school is unreasonable when applied to candidates whose parents are deputed abroad.
Whether the denial of admission on that basis violates the petitioner's fundamental rights under Article 32 of the Constitution.

Subjects

Article 32AdmissionMedical CollegeReservation of seatsReasonablenessAdministrative lawEqualityGovernment deputationEducational qualificationsDelhi University

Judgment

MEENAKSHI MALIK
A
v.
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.

MAY 1, 1989

B [R.S. PATHAK, CJ, RANGANATH MISRA AND
MURARI MOHON DUTT, JJ.)
,>.....
Constitution of India: Article 32-Universities-Medicalcolleges_.
Admission-Local candidates-Reservation of seats-Condition-Last

c
two years of education in a school in Delhi-Whether unreasonable and
in-applicable to students leaving India with their parents on the parent
being deputed to a foreign country.
-
Administrative Law: Rules-Reasonableness-Necessity of. ~

The petitioner was born and studied upto class IX in Delhi. In
D 1982 she left for Nigeria, along with her parents, where her father went
on deputation. There she passed the General Certificate of Education
Ordinary Level, conducted by University of London, which was recog-
nised by the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi as
equivalent to Class XI in India. She returned to India along with her
family in 1984. -~
E
After passing the All India Senior School Certificate Examination
in 1985, she appeared for entrance examination for admission to one of
the three Medical Colleges in Delhi and passed the test. But she was
denied admission because she had not satisfied the further condition
that the last two years of edncation should be had in a school in Delhi.
F Aggrieved by the denial of admission, the petitioner filed a writ petition
in this Court. By an order dated 31st July, 1987 this Court allowed the ""'-
Writ Petition and directed the respondents to admit her in one of the
three Delhi Medical Colleges in the first year course prescribed for the ,.
M.B.B.S. Degree.

G Giving reasons for the said order, this Court,

HELD: I. Rules are intended to be reasonable, and should take k
into account the variety of circumstances in which those whom the rules
seek to govern find themselves. [861C]

H 2. The qualifying condition that a candidate appearing for the
858
MEENAKSHI MALIK v. DELHI UNIVERSITY [PATHAK, CJ.] 859

). entrance examination for admission to a Medical College in Delhi
shonld have received the last two years of education in a school in Delhi A
is unreasonable when applied in the case of those candidates who were
) compelled to leave India for a foreign country by reason of the posting
of the parent by the Government to such foreign country. There is no
real choice in the matter for snch a student, and in many cases the
circumstances of the student do not permit her to continue schooling in B
_., India. Theoretically it is possible for a student to he put into a hostel to
tontinue her schooling in Delhi but in many cases this may not be
feasible and the student must accompany the parent to the foreign
country. [llOOH, 861A]

3. The rigour of the condition prescribing that the last two years
of education should be. received in a school in Delhi should be relaxed, c
t- and there should be no insistence on the fultilment of that condition, in
the case of students of parents who are transferred to a foreign country
by· the Government and who are therefore required to leave India alOng
with them. Therefore, the denial of admission to the petitioner to a seat
in one of the Medical Colleges in Delhi was unreasonable. [861B, 861E] D

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1050 of
1986.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
E
A.C. Gulati, S.K. Goel, S.K. Bansal and L.C. Goyal for the
• Petitioner.

T.S.K. Iyer, Mariarputham, Ms. A. Mathur, M. Veerappa,
Pramod Swarup, K. Ramkumar, R. Bana, A. Subba Rao, S.K. Bhat-
tacharya, Ms Urmila Kapoor and Ms. Janki for the Respondents. F

..... The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

PATHAK, CJ, On 31 July, 1987, we allowed this writ petition
and directed the respondents to admit the petitioner, Meenakshi
Malik, in one of the three Delhi Medical Colleges in the first year G
course prescribed for the M.B.B.S. Degree. We said that the reasons
would be pronounced later. We proceed to do so now.

The petitioner was born in Delhi on 8 September, 1967. Her
father, Shri O.P. Malik, was employed in the National Council of
Educational Research and Training, Sri Aurobindo ·Marg, New Delhi H
860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 2 S.C.R.

A
and her mother, Smt. Kanta Devi Malik was employed in the Govern- A
ment Girls Senior SeCot!dary School, Mehrauli, New Delhi. The
petitioner attended the Junior Public School, Shakti Nagar, upto Class
II and the Cambridge School, Siriniwaspuri, New Delhi, upto Class IX
until 19 January, 1982. The petitioner's father was placed on deputa-
tion in January 1982 with the Government of Nigeria to serve in its
B Ministry of Education through the Ministry of Home Affairs, Depart-
ment of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of India,
New Delhi. The petitioner, who was a minor at the time, had tot
accompany her parents along with her minor brother. In Nigeria, the
petitioner continued her education as an overseas candidate and
appeared for the examination conducted by the University of London
in Kanduna, Nigeria, and she passed the General Certificate of
c Education Ordinary level (GCE- 'O' level) which is recognised by the
Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi, as equivalent to
Class XI in India.

On completing the period of his deputation on 8 April, 1984 the
D petitioner's father returned to India with his.family. The petitioner was
admitted to Class XII in the Delhi Public School, Mathura Road, New
Delhi. The Central Board of Secondary Education permitted her
admission to that Class. The petitioner appeared in the All India Senior
School Certificate Examination conducted by the Central Board of
Secondary Education, New Delhi, in March, 1985 and passed the
E examination. The petitioner then sat for the Entrance Examination for
admission to one of the three Medical Colleges in,Delhi, and she
obtained 750 marks. The candidates who obtained an equal number of
the marks or even less were granted admission, but the petitioner was
denied admission. She fell for consideration in the quota of seventy
per cent of the seats reserved for candidates who had passed the
F qualifying examination from the University of Delhi or the Central
Board of Secondary Education or the Council for the Indian School
Certificate Examination from recognised schools conducting regular
classes in the Union Territory of Delhi. But she was denied admission
because she had not satisfied the further condition that the last two
years of education should be had in a school in Delhi. Aggrieved by
c:; the denial of admission, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
It seems to us that the qualifying condition that a candidate
appearing for the Entrance Examination for admission to a Medical
College in Delhi should have received the last two years of education
in a school in Delhi is unreasonable when applied in the case of those
fl candidates who were compelled to leave India for a foreign country by
MEENAKSHI MALIK v. DELHI UNIVERSITY [PATHAK, CJ.] 861

_A reason of the posting of the parent by the Government to such foreign A
country. There is no real choice in the matter for such a student, and in
many cases the circumstances of the student do not permit her to
continue schooling in India. It is, of course, theoretically possible for a
student to be put into a hostel to continue her schooling in Delhi. But
in many cases this may not be feasible and the student must accompany
a parent to the foreign country. It appears to us that the rigour of the B
... _../,
condition prescribing that the last two years of education should be
llJreceived in a school in Delhi should be relaxed, and there should be no
insistence on the fulfilment of that condition, in the case of students of
parents who are transferred to a foreign country by the Government
and who are therefore required to leave India along with them. Rules
are intended to be reasonable, and should take into account the c
variety of circumstances in which those whom the rules seek to govern
find themselves. We are of opinion that the condition in the prescrip-
tion of qualifications for admission to a medical college in Delhi pro-
viding that the last two years of education should be in a school in
Delhi should be construed as not applicable to students who have to
leave India with their parents on the parent being posted to a foreign D
country by the Government.

Accordingly, the denial of admission to the petitioner to a seat in
one of the Medical Colleges in Delhi must be held to be unreasonable.
It is not disputed that if the condition of schooling for the last two
years in a school in Delhi is removed from the way, the petitioner E
would be entitled to admission in a Medical College in Delhi. In the
circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to an order directing the
respondents to admit her to one of the Medical Colleges in Delhi.

T.N.A. Petition Allowed.
F

,·.)