BHAWNA GARG & ANR.versusUNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.

                       [2012] 10 S.C.R. 512

A                    BHAWNA GARG & ANR.
                                  v.
                  UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.
              (Civil Appeal Nos. 6304-6305 of 2012)
                       SEPTEMBER 5, 2012
B
        [A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.]

         Education/Educational Institutions - Admission - To
   MBBS course - In three medical colleges - In one of the
C colleges (LHMC) only female candidates were to be admitted
   - Admission to be on the basis of Delhi University Medical
   and Dental Entrance Test (DUMET) - 15% seats to be filled
   directly on the basis of CBSE examination - 36 seats (30 in
   the college LHMC and 6 in another) reserved for Nominees
o  of Government (NGO/) - Candidates from NGO/ exempted
   from taking DUMET - Female candidates who cleared
   DUMET but did not get admission due to their lower merit,
   filing writ petition challenging the reservation of 30 seats for
   NGO/, as unconstitutional and as violative of Regulation 5 of
E MC/ Regulations - High Court dismissing the petition - On
   appeal, held: The reservation of 30 seats for NGO/ is not
   unconstitutional -- Exemption from taking DUMET to the NGO/
   candidates is not ultra vires the MCI Regulations - The
   validity and constitutionality of the policy of Central
F Government to reserve some seats on rational basis cannot
  'be questioned - The seats reserved for NGO/ constitute
    separate source and selection on merits is to be confined to
    each separate source - However, directions for the University
    to issue instructions in future that candidates failing in
    DUMET would not be eligible for admission through NGO/
G quota - Reservation of 30 seats out of 150 seats is excessive
    - However, Central Government has taken steps to reduce
    the number to 15 from 30 in phases - Direction to Central
    Government to retook the extent of seats reserved for NGO/

H                                512
 SHAWNA GARG 8. ANR. v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & 513
                    ORS.
in view of establishment of Medical Colleges in the States! A
UTs for which the seats are allocated from NGO/ quota -
Direction to the University to give admission on the basis of
DUMET, on the vacant seats in NGO/ quota - Medical
Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education,
1997 - Regulation 5.                                          B

      The University of Delhi issued Bulletin for admission
 to undergraduate degree courses including MBBS
 course for the academic session 2011-12. The Bulletin
 stated that the MBBS course was conducted in three
 Government Colleges i.e. Lady Harding Medical College C
 (LHMC), Maulana Azad Medical· College (MAMC) and
 University College of Medical Sciences (UCMS). In LHMC
·only female candidates were to be admitted. In the three
 colleges there were 500 seats for MBBS course. 15% of
 the seats were to be filled up directly on the basis of D
 CBSE examination. 36 seats (30 seats in LHMC and 6 in
 MAMC) were reserved for Nominees of Government of
 India (NGOI). The candidates from NGOI quota were
 exempted from taking the DUMET. All other candidates ·
 were to get admission to the course, on the basis of Delhi E
 University Medical and Dental Entrance Test (DUMET).
 LHMC was to admit only female students.

     The appellants had applied as female general
category candidates and also cleared the DUMET. As they F
did not get admission in any of the three colleges, they '
filed writ petitions before High Court for a direction to
quash the Bulletin, insofar as it provided for filling of 30
seats out of 150 seats in the MBBS course in LHMC by
NGOI and for a direction to the authorities to fill up the G
30 seats from the general category candidates and that
they be considered for such admission. The High Court
relying on the judgment passed in *Kumari Chitra Ghosh
and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors. 1969 (2) SCC 228
dismissed the petitions. Hence the present appeals.
                                                             H
    514      SUPREME COURT REPORTS          [2012] 10 S.C.R.

A         Disposing of the appeals, the Court

       HELD: 1. The Central Government reserved 260
  seats in the MBBS course for the Central Pool and
  classified the sources from which admissions were to be
8 made to the 260 seats on geographical and other basis.
  It has not been shown by the appellants that the
  classification of the sources from which admissions are
  to be made has no rational nexus with the objects
  sought to be achieved by the policy of the Central
C Government Hence, the validity and constitutionality of
  the policy of the Central Government to reserve some
  seats on geographical and some other rational basis
  cannot be questioned. However, reservation of as many
  as 260 seats may not be justifiable in the changed
  circumstances. The Bulletin insofar as it reserves 30 seats
D in the MBBS course in LHMC for NGOI is not ultra vires
  the Constitution and in so far it exempts candidates to
  be admitted to these 30 seats from taking the DUMET is
  not ultra vires the MCI Regulations. [Para 11 & 18] [530-
  D-F; 538-B-C]
E
      2. The selection of candidates for the seats reserved
  for NGOI has been done either on the basis of marks in
  the Joint Entrance Examination or marks in the 10+2
  examinations. Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations
F provides for determining the merit on the basis of marks
  obtained in Physics, Chemistry, Biology and English in
  the qualifying examination where one University/Board/
  Examining Body conducts the qualifying examination or
  on the basis of a competitive entrance examination
G where more than one University/Board/ Examining Body
  conducts the qualifying examination. Unless a candidate
  who had applied to any of the allocated seats and who
  had not been selected for nomination comes to court and
  places materials before the court to show that the
  selection has not been made in accordance with
H
SHAWNA GARG & ANR. v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & 515
                  ORS.
Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations or that his merit has        A
been by-passed while making the selection, the court
cannot disturb the selection. In the present case, the
candidates who had applied for the seats allocated to the
beneficiary States/Union Territories/Ministries/Agencies
have not approached the court with their grievance that          B
their merit has been bypassed or that the selection has
not been made In accordance with Regulation 5 of the
MCI Regulations. [Para 14) (533-D-H; 534-A]

     3. The appellants, who have not applied for the 30
seats reserved for the NGOI, could not challenge the             C
selection of the candidates to the 30 seats reserved for
the NGOI on the ground that merit as provided in
Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations or as laid down in
**T.M.A. Pai Foundation has not been considered while
making selection for nomination of these reserved seats.         D
[Para 14) [534-B-C]

    *Kumari Chitra Ghosh and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
1969(2) SCC 228: 1970 (1) SCR 413- followed.
                                                                 E
    ** T. M.A. Pai Foundation and Ors. vs. State of karanataka
and Ors. (2002) 8 sec 481: 2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587 -
referred to.

     4. Even if some of the students may have been
selected for admission to the seats reserved for NGOI not F
on merit as determined strictly in accordance with
Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations, the court is not
inclined to disturb their admissions in exercise of its
power under Article 142 of the Constitution. However, if
there are vacant seats in the two Government medical G
colleges, namely, LHMC or MAMC, for the academic year
2011-2012 out of the quota for NGOI, then the petitioners
should be given admission to these vacant seats on the
basis of their merit in the DUMET 2011-2012 during the
academic year 2012-2013. The provisions of Regulation H
   516     SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2012) 10 S.C.R.


A 5 of the MCI Regulations for selection for admission to
  the MBBS course solely on the basis of merit have to be
  followed by the beneficiary States/Union Territories/
  Ministries /Agencies, while selecting the students who
  apply for the seats reserved or allocated for the
B concerned State/Union Territory/ Ministry/Agency. [Paras
  14 and 18] (534-E-G; 538-C-D]

      5. The candidates who have applied for the quota for
  the seats reserved for NGOI, constitute separate sources
  from which admissions are to be made and the selection
C on the basis of merit is to be confined to each separate
  source from which the admissions are to be made and
  they are not required to take the DUMET. Hence, even if
  they have failed in DUMET, they are still entitled to be
  admitted to the seats reserved for NGOI, if they are
D selected on the basis of merit from amongst all the
  candidates who have applied from the aforesaid separate
  sources for admission. [Para 15] [535-B-C]

       6. If the candidates who have failed in the DUMET are
E admitted through a separate source of admission, as in
  the present case, this may result in lot of heart-burn
  amongst the students who have cleared the DUMET but
  have not got the admission to a seat in the MBBS course
  on account of their lower rank in the merit list. Hence, in
F future, the Delhi University must stipulate in the Bulletin
  and the Government of India must issue instructions that
  candidates who opt to take the DUMET but do not qualify,
  will not be eligible for admission to the quota reserved
  for NGOI. This anomaly, however, has been addressed by
  the MCI by making amendments to the MCI Regulations
G and by providing therein that from the academic year
  2013-2014 every candidate seeking admission to the
  MBBS course must obtain a minimum marks of 50% in
  the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test in the MBBS
  course if he is a general category candidate and must
H
SHAWNA GARG & ANR. v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & 517
                  ORS.
secure a minimum marks of 40% in the National                   A
Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test if he is a candidate
belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or
Other Backward Classes. From the academic year 2013-
2014, therefore, NGOI applying for the reserved seats will
have to secure the aforesaid minimum marks in the               B
National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for MBBS course.
It is directed that with effect from the academic year 2012-
2013, no admission will be made to any of the seats
reserved for NGOI In LHMC, MAMC and UCMS of any
student who has failed in the DUMET. It is further directed     c
that for the academic year 2013-2014 onwards, the
candidate applying for seats reserved for NGOI have to
obtain the minimum marks in the All India National
Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for admission to the MBBS
course as provided in the amended MCI Regulations and           0
the admissions will be made on merit after calling for
applicants through advertisement in the newspapers,
having wide circulation. [Para 15 and 18) [535-C-H; 538-
F-H; 539-A-B]
      7. So far as the plea that the reservation of seats for   E
NGOI in LHMC Is excessive and when taken together with
the quota of seats for SC, ST, OBC and 15% of all-India
even exceeds the 50% ceiling of reservation fixed by this
Court, is concerned, Government of India by taking steps
to reduce the number of seats in phases from 30 to 15           F
for NGOI in LHMC, has taken care of the grievance that
there has been excessive reservation for NGOI in LHMC.
That apart, for students of Delhi, UCMS and MAMC are
also other institutions where MBBS course can be
pursued by the general candidates including general             G
female candidates and the total number of seats In these
institutions are 200 and 150 respectively out of which only
6 are reserved for NGOI. [Para 16). (536-A; 537-C-E]
    Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) Suppl. 3 SCC         H
   518      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 10 S.C.R.


A 217: 1992 (2) Suppl. SCR 454; Post Graduate Institute of
   Medical Education and Research v. Faculty Association
  ( 1998) 4 SCC 1: 1998 ( 2) SCR 845 ; Union of India v.
  Ramesh Ram and Ors. 2010 (7) SC::C 234: 2010 (6) SCR
  698; Indian Medical Association v. Union of India 2010 (7)
B SCC 179: 2011 (6) SCR 599 - distinguished.

         Mridul Dhar (Minor) and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors.
   (2005) 2 SCC 65: 2005 (1) SCR 380 - referred to.

       8. The High Court was correct in holding that even if
C there was a justification as offered by the Government of
  India that many States/Union Territories did not have
  medical institutions of their own, particularly in North-
  Eastern States, there has been an overall economic
  development in the country and a number of State-
D funded and private medical and other institutions have
  been established in the meanwhile in the country and,
  therefore, a re-look by the Government of India at the
  extent of the seats reserved for the NGOI was necessary.
  The Central Government should review and find out the
E number of seats in MBBS course available in the State-
  funded and the private medical colleges in the States/
  Union Territories for which seats are being allocated from
  the quota for NGOI and decide afresh as to how many
  seats should be allocated to these States/Union
F Territories. It is directed that the Central Government will
  make a review of the government and private medical
  colleges which have been established in the meanwhile
  in the States/Union Territories to which seats are being
  allocated under the quota for NGOI and if they find that
G additional Intake capacity for the MBBS course has been
  created in these States/Union Territories, the Central
  Government will take a fresh decision on the number of
  seats in the MBBS course to be reserved for NGOI for
  these States with effect from the academic year 2013-
H 2014. [Paras 17 and 18) [537-F-H; 538-A; 539-B-DJ
SHAWNA GARG & ANR. v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & 519
                  ORS.
    9. It is directed that if there are vacant seats in the     A
quota for NGOI in the LHMC and MAMC for the academic
year 2011-2012, the petitioners will be given admission to
these vacant seats on the basis of their merit in DUMET
2011-2012, during the academic year 2012-2013. [Para 18]
[539-D-E]                                                       B

                     Case Law Reference:
    1970 (1) SCR 413              Referred to     Para 5
    2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587 Referred to           Para 6
                                                                c
    2005 (1) SCR 380              Referred to     Para 6
    1970 (1) SCR 413              Followed        Para 14
    1992 (2) Suppl. SCR 454       Distinguished Para 16
                                                                D
    1998 (2) SCR 845              Distinguished Para 16
    2010 (6) SCR 698              Distinguished Para 16
    2011 (6) SCR 599              Distinguished Para 16
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.             E
6304-6305 of 2012.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 23.12.2011 of the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 7103 and 4299 of
2011.                                                           F

                           WITH
C.A. No. 6306 of 2012
    lndu Malhotra, Mohit Goel, Sidhant Goel, Chinmayee,         G
Mishra Saurabh, Sakesh Kumar, Anuradha Mutatkar for the
Appellants.
    Siddharth Luthra, ASG, Ashok Bhan, Nidesh Gupta, R.l<.
Rathore, Sushma Suri, Rekha Pandey, Amit Kumar, Res~a
Bakshi, Atul Kumar, Avijit Mani Tripathi, Mohinder Jit Singh,   H
    520      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012) 10 S.C.R.


A   D.S. Mahra for the Respondent.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          A.K. PATNAIK, J. 1. Leave granted.

B        2. These are appeals against the common judgment and
    order dated 23.12.2011 of the Division Bench of the High Court
    of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.7103 of 2011 and Writ Petition
    (C) No.4299 of 2011 declining to grant relief to the appellants
    in the matter of admission to the MBBS course in the medical
c   colleges under Delhi University for the academic session 2011-
    2012.

         3. The facts very briefly are that the Delhi University issued
    a Bulletin of Information for admissions to the Under-Graduate
    Degree Courses for the academic session 2011-2012 (for
D   short 'the Bulletin'). Para 2 of the Bulletin dealt with admissions
    to MBBS course. Para 2.1.1 of the Bulletin stated that the
    university conducts the MBBS course in three Medical Colleges,
    namely, Lady Hardinge Medical College (LHMC), Maulana
    Azad Medical College (MAMC) and University College of
E   Medical Sciences (UCMS). Para 2.1.1 of the Bulletin further
    stated that only female candidates were to be admitted in
    LHMC. Para 2.1.2 of the Bulletin stated that candidates for 15%
    seats were to be selected directly by the Directorate General
    of Health Sciences (DGHS) based on the result of the
F   examination conducted by the CBSE, New Delhi, as per the
    directions of this Court. Para 2.1.3 of the Bulletin deals with
    admissions to seats by Nominees of Government of India
    (NGOI) and it states that candidates who wish to be considered
    for admission to this category of seats need not appear in the
G   Delhi University Medical and Dental Entrance Test (DUMEn
    and they will correspond directly with the authorities listed in
    Appendix-II to the Bulletin. Para 2.1.6 of the Bulletin furnishes
    the statement of total number of seats in Under-Graduate
    Courses for the session 2011-2012. The statement is extracted
H   hereunder:
 SHAWNA GARG & ANR. v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & 521
           ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
                                                                         A
Name      Seats to be filled in on   Seats to        Seats to    Total
of the    the basis of DUMET         be filled       be filled   Seats
Medical                              in by           in by
College                              OOHS            the Gove-
                                                     mment
                                                     of India            B
                                                     Nominees
                             MBBS Course
          General SC sr OBC           15%        NGOI
                                      Quota                              c
LHMC      55       19 10 14           22         30              150
MAMC      113      25 12 14           30         6               200
UCMS      66       19 9 34            22         Nil             150
Total     234      63 31 62           74         36              500     D

      The aforesaid statement shows that 30 out of 150 seats
in LHMC and 6 out of 200 seats in MAMC in the MBBS course
are reserved for NGOI. The aforesaid statement further shows
that out of a total of 500 MBBS seats in the three government            E
colleges of the university, 36 seats are reserved for NGOI. The
Bulletin further provides that besides the 15% seats directly
filled up by the DGHS based on the examination conducted by
the CBSE, New Delhi, and the NGOI, all other candidates have
to appear in the DUMET and will be admitted to the MBBS                  F
course on the basis of their merit in the category in which they
have applied.
     4. The appellants applied as female general category
candidates and also took and cleared the DUMET. However,                 G
on account of their lower rank in the merit list of candidates who
cleared the DUMET, the appellants could not be admitted to
any of the seats in the three government medical colleges under
the university. Aggrieved, the appellants filed Writ Petition (C)
No. 7103 of 2011 and Writ Petition (C) No.4299 of 2011 before            H
    522     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 10 S.C.R.

A the High Court of Delhi praying for a direction to quash the
  Bulletin insofar as it provides for filling up of 30 seats out of
  the 150 seats in the MBBS course in LHMC by NGOI and
  praying for a direction to the authorities to fill up these 30 MBBS
  seats earmarked for the NGOI for the academic session 2011-
B 2012 from the general category candidates and the appellants
  be considered for such admission to the 30 seats as general
  category candidates. Before the High Court, the appellants
  contended that the reservation of as many as 30 seats in the
  MBBS course in LHMC was violative of Article 14 of the
c Constitution and that the procedure adopted by the Government
  of India in nominating the candidates for the 30 seats without
  holding a common entrance test for determination of their merit
  was contrary to the Medical Council of India Regulations on
  Graduate Medical Education, 1997 (for short 'the MCI
  Regulations').
0
        5. In the impugned judgment and order, the High Court held
  that in Kumari Chitra Ghosh & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
  [1969 (2) SCC 228] a Constitution Bench of this Court has
  considered the challenge to reservation of seats for certain
E categories of students on the ground that it is violative of Article
   14 of the Constitution and has held the reservation to be
  constitutionally valid. The High Court further held that even
  though a sea-change may have taken place since the judgment
  was delivered by this Court in Kumari Chitra Ghosh (supra), it
F is only for this Court to hold that the ratio of Kumari Chitra
   Ghosh (supra) has become irrelevant. The High Court has also
  held that as the nominations have already been made by the
  Government of India to the 30 seats in LHMC in the MBBS
  course and the nominated students have taken admission and
G are undergoing the course, it may not be appropriate to disturb
  their admission. The High Court also found that the appellant
   had filed the writ petitions in June, 2011 and writ petitions could
   not be decided by 30th September, 2011 which was the last
  date within which admissions were to be made to tt,e MBBS
H course for the academic session 2011-2012 as per the .
BHAWNA GARG & ANR. v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & 52:3
          ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
directions of this Court in Mridul Dhar (Minor) & Anr. v. Union    A
of India & Ors. [(2005) 2  sec   65] and hence no relief could
be granted to the appellants after the 30th September, 2011.

      6. Ms. lndu Malhotra, learned senior counsel for the
appellants, submitted that the Constitution Bench judgment of      B
this Court in Kumari Chitra Ghosh (supra) has lost its relevance
inasmuch as the entire procedure for medical admissions has
undergone a sea-change during the past four decades after the
aforesaid judgment was rendered in 1969. She submitted that
the MCI Regulations and in particular Regulation 5 thereof         C
mandates that the selection of students to medical coileges
shall be based solely on merit of the candidate and for
determination of merit the criteria laid down in Regulation 5 of
the MCI Regulations has to be adopted uniformly throughout the
country. She submitted that Regulation 5(2) of the MCI
Regulations provides that in States having more than one           D
University/Board/Examining Body conducting the qualifying
examination, a competitive entrance examination should be
held so as to achieve a uniform evaluation and Regulation 5(4)
of the MCI Regulations provides that a competitive entrance
examination is absolutely necessary in the cases of institutions   E
of all-India character. She vehemently argued that there are no
exceptions provided in Regulation 5 to holding of a competitive
entrance examination and even candidates belonging to the
reserved categories including the physically handicapped with
70% disability are required to appear in the competitive           F
entrance examination to secure admission to the medical
courses. She argued that the Bulletin, therefore, could not have
exempted the NGOI candidates from appearing in the DUMET
and in fact the Bulletin by so exempting the NGOI candidates
from appearing in the DUMET has clearly violated Regulation        G
5 of the MCI Regulations and on this ground, Para 2.1.3 of the
Bulletin providing that candidates who wish to be considered
for admission in the category of NGOI need not appear in the
DUMET is ultra vires Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations. She
submitted that after the Constitution Bench judgment of this       H
    524      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 10 S.C.R.


A Court in Kumari Chitra Ghosh (supra), the Constitution Bench
  of this Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of
  Kamataka & Ors. [(2002) 8 SCC 481] has also emphasized
  the need for admissions to professional courses solely on the
  basis of merit even in private unaided colleges that enjoy
B maximum autonol'T)y in choosing their candidates for
  admissions under their fundamental right guaranteed by Article
  19(1)(g} of the Constitution. She submitted that in T.M.A. Pai
  Foundation (supra}, this Court has also held that the merit of
  the candidates seeking admission may be determined either
c through a common entrance test conducted by the University
  or the Government, followed by counselling. She submitted that
  LHMC is not a private medical college but a government
  college and enjoyed much lesser autonomy in matters of
  admission and admissions to all the 150 seats in LHMC
  including the 30 seats reserved for NGOI should have only been
0
  made on the basis of merit as determined in a competitive
  entrance examination or a common entrance test. She
  submitted that contrary to this law which now holds the field, the
  admission to the seats reserved for the NGOI has been given
  during the academic session 2011-2012 to four candidates
E who have even failed in the DUMET examination. She cited a
  recent judgment of this Court in Asha vs. Pt. B.D. Sharma
  University of Health Sciences & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.5055
  of 2012) to the effect that the criteria for selection for admission
  into MBBS course has to be on merit alone.
F
        7. Ms. Malhotra next submitted that the appellants are not
  claiming admissions under the quota reserved for NGOI but they
  are claiming admission to seats in general pool of candidates
  on the basis of their merit in the competitive examination. In this
G context, she submitted that the quota reserved for NGOI has
  been taken out from the seats earmarked for the common pool
  of seats and if admissions to the NGOI quota are held to be
  illegal then these seats have to be filled up on the basis of their
  merit amongst the general category candidates. She further
H submitted that the quota for NGOI is not a reservation under
  SHAWNA GARG & ANR. v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & 525
            ORS. [AK. PATNAIK, J.]
 Article 15 of the Constitution and yet as many as 30 out of 150      A
 seats in LHMC have been reserved for the NGOI and this quota
 is as high as 20% of the total seats. According to her, such
 reservation when considered along with the reservation of seats
 in favour of SC/ST/OBC candidates exceeds the ceiling of 50%
 for all reserved category fixed by the Constitution Bench of this    B
 Court in Indira Sawhney v. Union of India [(1992) Suppl.3 SCC
 217] and is unconstitutional. She also relied on the decisions
 of this Court in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education
 and Research v. Faculty Association [(1998) 4 SCC 1], Union
 of India v. Ramesh Ram & Ors. [(2010) 7 SCC 234] and Indian          c
 Medical Association vs. Union of India [(2011) 7 SCC 179).
       8. In reply, Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Additional Solicitor
  General appearing for Union of India, submitted that the
  Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, has
  issued guidelines for selection of candidates to be nominated       D
  for the quota of seats reserved for NGOI and the guidelines
  would show that the selection is to be based on academic merit
  of the candidates. These guidelines are contained in the letter
  dated 09.12.1986 of the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Health and
  Family Welfare, Government of India, to all the States/Union        E
  Territories. He further submitted relying on paragraph 4 of the
  affidavit of the Union of India filed on 16.07.2012 that the
  purpose of allotting the seats under the Central Pool Scheme
  for NGOI is that students from States and Union Territories
  where there are no adequate medical colleges need support           F
  for medical education and wards of Defence/Paramilitary
  Forces who have sacrificed their lives or have been
  permanently disabled in war/terrorism also need similar
  support for medical education. He further submitted that the
  Central Pool Scheme is run on the basis of voluntary                G
  contributions from the States/Union Territories/Ministries/
  Agencies for the students nominated by them. He submitted
. that these seats are only allocated to the beneficiary States/
  Union Territories/Ministries/Agencies and the allocation letters
  sent to the States/Union Territories/Ministries/Agencies like the   H
    526     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012] 10 S.C.R.

A Defence Ministry, MHA, MEA and HRD Ministries contain the
  guidelines indicating the eligibility and the method of selection
  to be followed at the time of selection of candidates against
  the Central Pool Schemes. He explained that the beneficiary
  States/Union Territories/Ministries/Agencies prepare a list of
B eligible candidates on the basis of either the State Level
  Entrance Test or on the basis of academic merit and conduct
  counselling sessions for the available seats of the Central Pool
  and after the list of candidates is finalized, the States/Union
  Territories/Ministries/Agencies inform the successful candidates
c to report to the medical college in question for admission. He
  submitted that the Central Government, therefore, has actually
  no role in preparation of merit list of eligible candidates and
  its role is confined to only allocating the seats to the States/
  Union Territories/Ministries/Agencies.
D      9. Mr. Luthra submitted that the issues raised by the
  appellants have been considered by the Constitution Bench of
  this Court in Kumari Chitra Ghosh (supra) but decided in favour
  of the Central Government. He submitted that the Medical
  Council of India has amended the MCI Regulations by the
E Regulation on Graduate Medical Education (Amendment 2012)
  and these amended Regulations will be applicable from the
  academic year commencing from 2013-2014. He submitted that
  a reading of these amendments to Regulation 5 of the MCI
  Regulations would show that in order to be eligible for
F admission in MBBS course for a particular year, it shall be
  necessary for a candidate to obtain minimum marks in the
  National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test to MBBS course held for
  that academic year and such minimum marks would be 50%
  for general candidates and 40% for SC/ST/OBC.
G
       10. We have considered the submissions of the learned
  counsel for the parties and we find that in Kumari Chitra Ghosh
  (supra) the facts were that in LHMC 23 seats were reserved
  by the Central Government for students of the following
H categories:
SHAWNA GARG & ANR. v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & 527
          ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
    "(a) Residents of Delhi ....... .                                 A
      (b)    (i) Sons/Daughters of Central Government
             servants posted in Delhi at the time of admission.

      (ii)   Candidate whose father is dead and is wholly
             dependent on brother/sister who is a Central             B
             Government servant posted in Delhi at the time of
             admission.

     (c) Sons/Daughters of residents of Union Territories
     specified below including displaced persons registered           c
     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
     (d) Sons/Daughters of Central Government servants
     posted in Indian Missions abroad.

      (e)    Cultural Scholars.

      (f)    Colombo Plan Scholars.                                   E

      (g)    Thailand Scholars.

      (h)    Jammu and Kashmir State Scholars."

     A candidate seeking admission in any of the reserved             F
seats must have obtained a minimum of 55 per cent aggregate
marks in the compulsory subjects. This reservation of 23 seats
was challenged before the High Court of Delhi as inter-a/ia
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and the nomination of
the candidates to the reserved seats was also challenged as           G
contrary to the rules. The Delhi High Court rejected the
challenge and Kumari Chitra Ghosh carried the appeal to this
Court. A Constitution Bench of this Court held that the
reservation of 23 seats by the Central Government in favour of
                                                                      H
    528       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 10 S.C.R.

A specific categories of candidates was constitutionally valid.
  Paragraph 9 of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this
  Court in Kumari Chitra Ghosh (supra) is quoted herein below:
          "9. It is the Central Government which bears the financial
          burden of running the medical college. It is for it to lay down
8
          the criteria for eligibility. From the very nature of things it
          is not possible to throw the admission open to students
          from all over the country. The Government cannot be
          denied the right to decide from what sources the admission
          will be made. That essentially is a question of policy and
c         depends inter-alia on an overall assessment and survey
          of the requirements of residents of particular territories and
          other categories of persons for whom it is necessary to
          provide facilities for medical education. If the sources are
          properly classified whether on territorial, geographical or
D         other reasonable basis it is not for the courts to interfere
          with the manner and method of making the classification.•
       Thus, this Court has held in Kumari Chitra Ghosh (supra)
  that it is for the Central Government which bears the financial
E burden of running the medical college to take a policy decision
  on the basis of over all assessment and survey of requirements
  of residents of particular territories and other categories of
  persons and the sources from which admissions are to be
  made in the medical college and so long as the sources are
F properly classified whether on territorial, geographical or other
  reasonable basis, the Court will not strike down the policy
  decision of the Central Government on the ground that it is
  violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
       11. We may now examine the policy decision of the
G Central Government in reserving the seats in favour of the NGOI.
  In the affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India dated
  16.07.2012, it is stated that there are a number of States or
  the Union Territories which do not have medical/dental colleges
  of their own and the majority of such States are in the North-
H Eastern Region and in order to meet the requirements of these
SHAWNA GARG & ANR. v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & 529
          ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
States/Union Territories and for some Central Government              A
Ministries/Agencies and to fulfill some national and international
obligations, a Central pool of MBBS/BDS seats is being
maintained by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Along
with the affidavit, a list of beneficiary States/Union Territories/
Ministries/Agencies and the distribution of seats of the Central      B
Pool for the academic year 2011-2012 to the beneficiary Sates/
Union Territories/Ministries/Agencies has also been furnished,
which is extracted hereinbelow:

                                                     2011-12          c
S.No. Beneficiary Sates/UT/Agency              MBBS      BOS
1.      Tripura                                  7         2
2.      Manipur                                 24         2
3.      Mizoram                                 27         2          D
4.      Meghalaya                               22         2
5.      Sikkim                                   8         2
6.      Arunachal Pradesh                       26         2
7.      Nagaland                                24         2          E
8.      Lakshadweep                             13         2
9.      A& N Islands                            18         2
10.     Daman & Diu                              7         2
11.     Dadra & Nagar Haveli                     8         2          F
12.     J&K                                      4         -
13.     Ministry of Defence                     25         2
14.     Cabinet Secretariat (For SSF,
        RAW, ARC Dte.)                           5         1          G
15.     Ministry of Home Affairs (for BSF,
        CRPF, ITBP, CISF, Assam Rifles,
        SSB Etc.)                                7         2

                                                                      H
    530      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 10 S.C.R.


    16.     Ministry of External Affairs
            (i) For Indian Mission                 4
                 Staff posted abroad.
            (ii) For Self financing foreign        26        1
B   17.     Ministry of HRD (for Tibetan           1         -
            Refugees)
    18.     Indian Council for Child Welfare
            (for National Bravery Award            2         -
c           Winners)
    19.     Ministry of Home Affairs (Civil
            Terrorist Victims)                     2         -
            Total:                                260       28
D
  The Central Government has, therefore, reserved 260 seats in
  the MBBS course for the Central Pool and has classified the
  sources from which admissions were to be made to these 260
  seats on geographical and other basis. It has not been shown
E by the appellants that the classification of the sources from
  which admissions are to be made has no rational nexus with
  the objects sought to be achieved by the policy of the Central
  Government. Hence, the validity and constitutionality of the
  policy of the Central Government to reserve some seats on
F geographical and some other rational basis cannot be
  questioned. However, reservation of as many as 260 seats may
  not be justifiable in the changed circumstances discussed
  hereinafter in this judgment.
G      12. In fact, the main contention of the appellants is that the
  policy of the Central Government to reserve seats in favour of
  the NGOI is in breach of the principle of selection solely on the
  basis of merit as laid down by the Constitution Bench of this
  Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra) and as provided in
H Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations. It has, however, been held
BHAWNA GARG & ANR. v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & 531
          ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Kumari Chitra Ghosh      A
(supra) that where some seats are reserved to be filled up only
from properly classified sources, the selection on the· basis of
merit has to be confined to the sources from which the seats
are to be filled up. Relevant extract from Paragraph 10 of the
judgment of this Court in Kumari Chitra Ghosh (supra) is            B
quoted hereunder:

    •As noticed before the sources from which students have
    to be drawn are primarily- determined by the authorities
     who maintain and run the institution, e.g, the Central         C
     Government in the present case. In Minor P. Rajendran
     v. State of Madras [AIR (1968) SC 1012) it has been
    stated that the object of selection for admission is to
    secure the best possible material. This can surely be
    achieved by making proper rules in the matter of selection
    but there can be no doubt that such selection has to be         D
    confined to the sources that are intended to supply the
    material.·

                                           [Emphasis supplied]
                                                                    E
     Accordingly, the seats which are reserved for a particular
source, i.e., the beneficiary State/Union Territory/Ministry/
Agency are to be filled up by selection on the basis of merit of
candidates who have applied as candidates of that particular
source, i.e., that beneficiary State/Union Territory/Ministry/ F
Agency. Thus, these candidates who constitute separate·
sources from which admissions are to be made to the seats
allocated to the sources are not required to take the DUMET.
They must go through the selection on the basis of merit as laid
down in T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra) and as provided in
Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations but such selection has to G
be confined to the candidates of the respective sources.
    13. In Annexure - R/3 to the affidavit filed on behalf of the
Union of India filed on 16.07.2012, the particulars of the
candidates who have been nominated to the seats allocated           H
   532      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012) 10 S.C.R.

A to the beneficiary States/Union Territories/Ministries/Agencies
  have been given. It has been stated in Annexure - R/3 that for
  the 26 seats allocated to the State of Arunachal Pradesh, the
  candidates were nominated on the basis of Joint Entrance
  Examination held by the State Government; to the 24 seats
B allocated to the State of Nagaland, the candidates have been
  nominated on the basis of Joint Entrance Examination
  conducted by the State Government; to the 27 seats allocated
  to the State of Mizoram, the candidates have been nominated
  on the basis of the State Technical Entrance Examination
c conducted by the State Government; to the 22 seats allocated
  to the State of Meghalaya, the candidates have been
  nominated on the basis of academic merit in 10+2; to the 8
  seats allocated to the State of Sikkim, the candidates have
  been nominated on the basis of common entrance examination
D conducted by the State Government; to the 7 seats allocated
  to the State of Tripura, the candidates have been nominated
  on the basis of Common Entrance Examination conducted by
  the State Government; to the 24 seats allocated to the State
  of Manipur, the candidates have been nominated on the basis
  of the Common Entrance Examination conducted by the State
E Government; to the 13 seats allocated to the Union Territory of
  Lakshadweep, the candidates have been nominated on the
  basis of Medical Entrance Examination conducted by the Union
  Territory Government; to the 18 seats allocated to the Union
  Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands, the candidates have
F been nominated on the basis of marks obtained in 10th (20%
  weightage) and 12th (80% weightage): to the 8 seats allocated
  to the Union Territory of Dadar and Nagar Haveli, the
  candidates have been nominated on the basis of percentage
  of marks obtained in 10+2; to the 7 seats allocated to the Union
G Territory of Daman & Diu, candidates have been nominated on
  the basis of the percentage of marks obtained in 10+2; to the
  4 seats allocated to the State of J & K, the candidates have
  been nominated on the basis of Professional Entrance
  Examination conducted by the State Government; to the 25
H seats allocated to the Ministry of Defence, the candidates have
SHAWNA GARG & ANR. v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & 533
          ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
been nominated on the basis of marks obtained in the 10th A
(20% weightage) and 12th (80% weightage); to the 5 seats
allocated to the Cabinet Secretariat, candidates have been
nominated on the basis of marks obtained in 10th (20%
weightage) and 12th (80% weightage); to the 7 seats allocated
to the Ministry of Home Affairs, candidates have been B
nominated on the basis of marks obtained in 10th (20%
weightage) and 12th (80% weightage); to the 4 seats allocated
to the Ministry of External Affairs (Mission Staff), candidates
have been nominated on the basis of marks obtained in 10+2;
to the 26 seats allocated to the Ministry of External Affairs c
(Foreigners), candidates have been nominated on the basis of
marks obtained in 10+2; to the one seat allocated to the Central
Tibetan Administration, candidates have been nominated on
the basis of marks obtained in 10+2; to the two seats allocated
to the Indian Council for Child Welfare, candidates have been 0
nominated on the basis of marks obtained in 10+2 and to the
two seats allocated to the Ministry of Home Affairs, candidates
have been nominated on the basis of marks obtained in 10+2.
     14. The selection of candidates for the seats reserved for
NGOI thus has been done either on the basis of marks in the E
Joint Entrance Examination or marks in the 10+2 examinations.
Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations provides for determining
the merit on the basis of marks obtained in Physics, Chemistry,
Biology and English in the qualifying examination where one
University/Board/Examining Body conducts the qualifying F
examination or on the basis of a competitive entrance
examination where more than one University/Board/ Examining
Body conducts the qualifying examination. Unless a candidate
who had applied to any of the allocated seats and who had not
been selected for nomination comes to Court and places G
materials before the Court to show that the selection has not
been made in accordance with Regulation 5 of the MCI
Regulations or that his merit has been by-passed while making
the selection, the Court cannot disturb the selection. In this case,
the candidates who had applied for the seats allocated to the H
    534      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012] 10 S.C.R.

A   beneficiary States/Union Territories/Ministries/Agencies have
    not approached the Court with their grievance that their merit
    has been bypassed or that the selection has not been made
    in accordance with Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations. Instead
    the appellants who had not applied for the 30 seats reserved
B   in LHMC for the NGOI have come before this Court with their
    grievance that they ought to have been selected and admitted
    to some of those 30 seats. The appellants, who have not
    applied for the 30 seats reserved for the NGOI, could not
    challenge the selection of the candidates to the 30 seats
c   reserved for the NGOI on the ground that merit as provided in
    Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations or as laid down in T.M.A.
    Pai Foundation has not been considered while making
    selection for nomination of these reserved seats. In taking this
    view, we are supported by the judgment of the Constitution
0   Bench of this Court in Kumari Chitra Ghosh (supra), wherein
    it has been observed:
          •....... It seems to us that the appellants do not have any
          right to challenge the nominations made by the Central
          Government. They do not compete for the reserved seats
E         and have no locus standi in the matter of nomination to
          such seats ... ."
        Hence, even if some of the students may have been
  selected for admission to the seats reserved for NGOI not on
F merit as determined strictly in accordance with Regulation 5 of
  the MCI Regulations, we are not inclined to disturb their
  admissions in exercise of our power under Article 142 of the
  Constitution. However, if there are vacant seats in the two
  government medical colleges, namely, LHMC or MAMC, for the
G academic year 2011-2012 out of the quota for NGOI, then the
  petitioners should be given admission to these vacant seats
  on the basis of their merit in the DU MET 2011-2012 during the
  academic year 2012-2013.
          15. The appellants, however, have contended that 4
H
SHAWNA GARG & ANR. v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & 535
          ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
candidates, who have been given admission in the seats A
reserved for NGOI in LHMC and MAMC during the academic
year 2011-2012, have even failed in the DUMET and to grant
admission to such failed candidates is making a mockery of
the entire system of medical admissions. As we have already
held, the candidates who have applied for the quota for the B
seats reserved for NGOI constitute separate sources from which
admissions are to be made and the selection on the basis of
merit is to be confined to each separate source from which the
admissions are to be made and they are not required to take
the DUMET. Hence, even if they have failed in DUMET, they c
are still entitled to be admitted to the seats reserved for NGOI,
if they are selected on the basis of merit from amongst all the
candidates who have applied from the aforesaid separate
sources for admission. Nonetheless, if the candidates who
have failed in the DUMET are admitted through a separate D
source of admission, as in the present case, this may result in
lot of heart bum amongst the students who have cleared the
DUMET but have not got the admission to a seat in the MBBS
course on account of their lower rank in the merit list. Hence,
in future the Delhi University must stipulate in the Bulletin and E
the Government of India must issue instructions that candidates
who opt to take the DUMET but do not qualify will not be eligible
for admission to the quota reserved for NGOI. This anomaly,
however, has been addressed by the MCI by making
amendments to the MCI Regulations and by providing therein
that from the academic year 2013-2014 every candidate F
seeking admission to the MBBS course must obtain a
minimum marks of 50% in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance
Test in the MBBS course if he is a general category candidate
and must secure a minimum marks of 40% in the National
Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test if he is a candidate belonging to G
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward
Classes. From the academic year 2013-2014, therefore, NGOI
applying for the reserved seats will have to secure the aforesaid
minimum marks in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for
MBBS course.                                                      H
    536      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 10 S.C.R.


A         16. We may now deal with the contention of the appellants
    that the reservations of seats for NGOI in LHMC is excessive
    and when taken together with the quota of seats for SC, ST,
    OBC and 15% of all-India even exceeds the 50% ceiling of
    reservation fixed by this Court. We have perused the decisions
B   in Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, Post Graduate Institute
    of Medical Education and Research v. Faculty Association
    and Union of India v. Ramesh Ram & Ors. (supra) cited by
    Ms. Malhotra and we find that the aforesaid decisions do not
    relate to reservations of seats for admission in medical colleges
c   or other educational institutions, but they relate to reservations
    of posts in favour of SC, ST and Other Backward Classes in
    public services. We have also perused the decision of this
    Court in Indian Medical Association vs. Union of India (supra)
    cited by Ms. Malhotra and we find that the aforesaid decision
    holds that in the case of non-minority private unaided
0
    professional institutions when the candidates are to be selected
    from the source of general pool, selection has to be based on
    inter se rank of students, who have qualified and applied or
    opted to choose to be admitted to such non-minority private
    unaided professional institutions, whereas in the case of
E   minority educational institutions the source can be delimited to
    the particular minority the institution belongs to. The aforesaid
    decision in the case of Indian Medical Association vs. Union
    of India (supra), therefore, has no application to the facts of this
    case as LHMC is not a private unaided medical college.
F   Instead, it is a college of the Central Government. In any case,
    the total number of seats in MBBS course in the LHMC is 150
    out of which 55 seats are filled up from general candidates on
    the basis of their inter se merit in DUMET and 22 more seats
    are filled up by candidates on the basis of their inter se rank in
G   the merit list pursuant to an all-India examination conducted by
    the CBSE. Moreover, in para 13 of the affidavit filed on behalf
    of the Union of India on 16.07.2010, it is stated that LHMC had
    earlier an overall intake of 150 students which has been
    increased to 200 students from the academic year 2011-2012
H   and despite the increase of 50 seats, the number of seats for
SHAWNA GARG & ANR. v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & 537
          ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
NGOI for the academic year 2011-2012 was fixed at 30. It is           A
further stated in para 13 of the aforesaid affidavit that the seats
reserved for NGOI in LHMC has been reduced to 20 during the
academic year 2012-2013, to 17 during the academic year
2013-2014 and to 15 for the academic year 2014-2015, as it
will be clear from the letter dated 25.04.2012 of the Union of        B
India to LHMC. It is also stated in para 13 of the aforesaid
affidavit that while LHMC is a Central Government institution,
UCMS and MAMC are institutions controlled by the Government
of NCT Delhi and the Government of India cannot demand
surrender of seats towards Central Pool and further LHMC is           c
the only college which specializes in medical education for the
girl students and the Government wants to propagate medical
education among the girls, particularly in the North-Eastern
region. Considering the aforesaid steps taken by the
Government of India to reduce the number of seats in phases           0
from 30 to 15 for NGOI in LHMC, we think that the grievance
that there has been excessive reservation for NGOI in LHMC,
if any, has been taken care of. That apart, for students of Delhi,
UCMS and MAMC are also other institutions where MBBS
course can be pursued by the general candidates including
general female candidates and the total number of seats in            E
these institutions are 200 and 150 respectively out of which only
6 are reserved for NGOI.

      17. We, however, find that in para 31 of the impugned
judgment, the High Court has held that even if there was a            F
justification as offered by the Government of India that many
States/Union Territories did not have medical institutions of their
own, particularly in North-Easter States, there has been an
overall economic development in the country and a number of
State-funded and private medical and other institutions have          G
been established in the meanwhile in the country and, therefore,
a re-look by the Government of India at the extent of the seats
reserved for the NGOI was necessary. We agree with this view
of the High Court in the impugned judgment and we are of the
considered opinion that the Central Government should review          H
    538       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 10 S.C.R.

A and find out the number of seats in MBBS course available in
  the State-funded and the private medical colleges in the States/
  Union Territories for which seats are being allocated from the
  quota for NGOI and decide afresh as to how many seats should
  be allocated to these States/Union Territories.
B
          18. In the result, we:

          (i) hold that the Bulletin insofar as it reserves 30 seats in
          the MBBS course in LHMC for NGOI is not ultra vires the
          Constitution and in so far it exempts candidates to be
c         admitted to these 30 seats from taking the DUMET is not
          ultra vires the MCI Regulations.
          (ii) hold that the provisions of Regulation 5 of the MCI
          Regulations for selection for admission to the MBBS
D         course solely on the basis of merit have to be followed by
          the beneficiary States/Union Territories/Ministries I
          Agencies while selecting the students who apply for the
          seats reserved or allocated for the concerned State/Union
          Territory/ Ministry/Agency.
E         (iii) hold that even if merit of the applicants may not have
          been determined strictly in accordance with Regulation 5
          of the MCI Regulations by the beneficiary States/Union
          Territories/Ministries/Agencies while selecting some of the
          students for the seats reserved for NGOI for the academic
F         session 2011-2012, we are not inclined to disturb their
          admissions in exercise of our powers under Article 142
          of the Constitution.
          (iv} direct that with effect from the academic year 2012-
G         2013, no admission will be made to any of the seats
          reserved for NGOI in LHMC, MAMC and UCMS of any
          student who has failed in the DUMET.
          (v} direct that for the academic year 2013-2014 onwards,
          the candidate applying for seats reserved for NGOI have
H
SHAWNA GARG & ANR. v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & 539
          ORS. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
    to obtain the minimum marks in the All India National A
    Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for admission to the MBBS
    course as provided in the amended MCI Regulations and
    the admissions will be made on merit after calling for
    applicants through advertisement in the newspapers
    having wide circulation.                                B

    (vi) direct that the Central Government will make a review
    of the government and private medical colleges which
    have been established in the meanwhile in the States/
    Union Territories to which seats are being allocated under C
    the quota for NGOI and if they find that additional intake
    capacity for the MBBS course has been created in these
    States/Union Territories, the Central Government will take
    a fresh decision on the number of seats in the MBB,S
    course to be reserved for NGOI for these States with effect
    from the academic year 2013-2014.                           D

    (vii) direct that if there are vacant seats in the quota for
    NGOI in the LHMC and MAMC for the academic year
    2011-2012, the petitioners will be given admission to these
    vacant seats on the basis of their merit in DUMET 2011-        E
    2012 during the academic year 2012-2013.
     19. With the aforesaid directions, the appeals are
disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
K.K.T.                                  Appeals disposed of.
                                                                   F