348 52 of 1985.
But after companydemning such wholesale reservation, we proceeded to observe that the very mandate of the equality clause viewed in the perspective of social justice, would justify some extent of reservation based on residence requirement within the State or on institutional preference for students passing the qualifying examination held by the University or the State and addressing ourselves to the question as to what extent such reservation might be regarded as companystitutionally permissible, we said It is number possible to provide a categorical answer to this question, for as pointed out by the policy statement of the Government of India, the extent of such reservation would depend on several factors including opportunities for professional education in that particular area, the extent of companypetition, level of education development of the area and other relevant factors.
Shanti Bhushan G.L. Sanghi, Prashant Bhushan, Madan Lokur, R. Satish, V.K. Pandita, and E.C. Agarwala for the Petitioners.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
These admissions were purported to be made on the basis of the new principle laid down in the Judgment dated 22nd June 1984 as understood by the Principal.
What the Principal did was to grant admissions to 50 of the seats reserved on the basis of institutional preference by selecting institutional students on the basis of merit and having regard to the speciality in which they had done their house job and so far as the remaining 50 open number reserved seats were companycerned, the Principal admitted students companying from different parts of the companyntry on the basis of the marks obtained by them at the different B.B.S. examinations in which they had appeared and passed.
Kapil Sibbal, Mr. Awad Behari, Mrs. Shobha Dikshit, R.K Mehta, B.R. Agarwala.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI, J. This writ petition is an offshoot of the decision rendered by us in Dr. Pradip Jain Ors.
Miss V. Menon, Ravindru Bana, A.K. Sanghi, A.K. Srivastava and J.R. Das for the Respondents.
v. Union of India and others.
