SHAJUL GEORGE Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. Y. F. Mehta appears and waives service of Rule on behalf of State authorities and Mr. H. M. Mehta, appears and waives service of Rule on behalf of Union of India. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of parties, the matters were taken up for final hearing.

(2.) All these petitions have been filed under Public Interest Litigation challenging legality and validity of certain Rules for admission to First M.B.B.S./First B.D.S./ First B. Physio. Courses at the Government Medical Colleges, Pramukh Swami Medical College, Karamsad, Government Dental Colleges and Schools of Physiotherapy for the academic year 1996-97. Reservation of 48% of total seats instead of available seats after deducting 15% of the total number of seats in all Medical Colleges to be filled in on the basis of All India Entrance Examination is challenged. A grievance is also made against twelve payment seats for Non-Resident Indians (N.R.I.) in Pramukh Swami Medical College, Karamsad, respondent No. 4 to be filled in by receiving minimum amount of 15,000 US Dollars per annum per student with no maximum limits. The validity of a rule by which the Central Government is permitted to nominate ten students at the First M.B.B.S. course at M. P. Shah Medical College, Jamnagar is also questioned on the ground that there cannot be any reservation of seats either for Central Government or for State Government not provided by Art. 15 of the Constitution.

(3.) To appreciate the controversy raised in this group of petitions, few relevant facts of the first petition, i.e. Spl. C.A. No. 5156 of 1996 may now be stated. The petitioner in this case is one Shajul George, who has approached this Court through his father and natural guardian M. J. George. The petitioner claims to have passed 12th standard Higher Secondary Certificate Examination conducted by the Gujarat Higher Secondary Examination Board at the first attempt in March 1996. He secured 394 marks out of 450 marks in Science Stream and thus secured about 87.55% of marks. The petitioner has stated that he aspires to pursue professional course of medicine or engineering and for that he filled in necessary form seeking admission. When he studied the Rules relating to admission to professional courses for the current academic year 1996-97, he found that they are arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of constitutional provisions. They are also inconsistent with various decisions of the Apex Court. He felt that if the rules framed by the respondent authorities would be implemented, he and other similarly situated persons would be deprived of their legitimate rights of getting admission to professional courses and, hence, as pro bono publico, he has filed this petition. Similar petitions are filed by other petitioners.