Grover, J. - (1.) This is an appeal by certificate from a judgment of the Delhi High Court dismissing a petition filed by the appellants under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in the matter of their admission to the Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi, hereinafter called the "Medical College."
(2.) The appellants are residents of Delhi. They passed the pre-medical examination of the Delhi University held in April 1968 and obtained 62.5 per cent marks. In June 1968 they applied for admission to the first year M. B.B. S. class at the Lady Hardinge Medical College, New Delhi but they were not admitted. Thereafter they applied for admission to the Maulana Azad Medical College. This college, which is a constituent of the University of Delhi, was established by the Government of India in June 1958, According to the college prospectus, 125 student are admitted annually; 15 per cent seats are reserved for scheduled caste candidates and 5 per cent for scheduled tribes candidates. 25 per cent of the seats (excluding the seats reserved for Government of India nominees) are reserved for girl students who are taken on the basis of merit. The following categories of students only are eligible for admission: (a) Residents of Delhi ......... (b) (i) Sons/Daughters of Central Government Servants posted in Delhi at the time of the admission. (ii) Candidate whose father is dead and is wholly dependent on brother/sister who is a Central Government Servant posted in Delhi at the time of the admission. (c) Sons/Daughters of residents of Union Territories specified below including displaced persons registered therein and sponsored by their respective Administration of Territory:- (i) Himachal Pradesh (ii) Tripura (iii) Manipur (iv) Naga Hills (v) N.E.F.A. (vi) Andaman. (d) Sons/daughters of Central Government servants posted in Indian Missions abroad. (e) Cultural Scholars. (f) Colombo Plan Scholars. (g) Thailand Scholars. (h) Jammu and Kashmir State Scholars. According to the note 23 seats are reserved for categories (c) to (h) above. The minimum percentage of marks which a candidate seeking admission must have obtained in the aggregate of compulsory subjects is 55.
(3.) Now the appellants had obtained 62.5 per cent marks and were domiciled in Delhi. According to them they were entitled to admission and would have been admitted but for the reservation of the seats which were filled by nominations by the Central Government. In the year 1968 when the appellants sought admission 9 students had been nominated by the Central Government out of the 23 seats which had been reserved for categories (c) to (h) mentioned above. These students had obtained less percentage of marks than the appellants. The appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging primarily the power of the Central Government to make the nominations. It was prayed that these nominations be struck down and the respondents (Union of India, Medical College, University of Delhi etc.) be directed to admit the appellants and all other students who were eligible strictly in the order of merit. The writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of the High Court. The authority of the Central Government to select candidates for the reserved seats was upheld. It was however, found that among the nine seats filled in the Medical College by the Government, two nominations had been made contrary to the admission rules. The High Court was of the view that these two seats would also become a part of the general pool for admission of candidates on merit. The order was, therefore, made in the following terms: "We, therefore, direct the respondents 1 to 4 as follows:two seats shall be filled immediately for admission to the first year M.B.B.S. Course of the College from the merit list in which petitioner No. 1 is number 4 and petitioner No. 2 is number 9. The respondents 1 to 4 shall immediately enquire from the candidates who are above the petitioners in order of merit whether they want the admissions and on their failure to reply in a short time or on their refusal to accept the offer, the admission shall be made either of the petitioners or of other candidates who are above them in the merit list within one week from today." In December 1968, the appellants filed a petition under Section 114 and Order 47, Rule 1 read with Section 141, Civil Procedure Code seeking a review of the judgment and order dated December 3, 1968, This petition was dismissed by the High Court by a detailed order dated January 27, 1969. On February 1, 1969, a petition was filed under Article 133 (1) (c) and 132 (1) of the Constitution for leave to appeal to this Court. In the prayer leave was sought against the judgment dismissing the writ petition as also the order by which the review petition was disposed of. In the certificate, however, in the heading only the judgment dated December 3, 1968 is mentioned. It would appear that the Certificate was limited to the appeal against the writ petition. This would be so because under Order 47, Rule 7 the order of the Court rejecting the application for review is not appealable. If the appellants desired to challenge that order it could have been done only by asking for leave of this Court under Article 136 which was never done. In these circumstances the arguments of Mr. B. C. Misra for the appellants were confined to the matters decided by the judgment dated December 3, 1968.;