Civil No 1050 of 1986
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
AC Gulati SK Goel SK Bansal and LC Goyal for the Petitioner
TSK Iyer Mariarputham Ms A Mathut M Veerappa Pramod Swarup K Ramkumar R Bana A Subba Rao SK Bhattacharya Ms Urmila Kapoor and Ms Janki for the Re spondents
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 petition er Meenakshi Malik in one of the three Delhi Medical Colleges in the first year course prescribed for the MBBS Degree
We said that the reasons would be pro nounced later
We proceed to do so now
The petitioner was born in Delhi on 8 September 1967
Her father Shri OP Malik was employed in the National Council of Educational Research and Training Sri Aurobindo Marg New Delhi 860 and her mother Smt
Kanta Devi Malik was employed in the Government Girls Senior Secondary School Mehrauli New Delhi
The petitioner attended the Junior Public School Shakti Nagar upto Class II and the Cambridge School Siri niwaspuri New Delhi upto Class IX until 19 January 1982
The petitioner s father was placed on deputation in January 1982 with the Government of Nigeria to serve in its 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 to 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 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 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 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 seven ty per cent of the seats reserved for candidates who had passed the 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 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 admis sion to a Medical College in Delhi should have received the last two years of education in a school in Delhi is unrea sonable when applied in the case of those candidates who were compelled to leave India for a foreign country by 861 reason of the posting of the parent by the Government to such foreign 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 stu dent 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 condition prescribing that the last two years of education should be received 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 rea sonable and should take into account the variety of circum stances in which those whom the rules seek to govern find themselves
We are of opinion that the condition in the prescription of qualifications for admission to a medical college in Delhi providing that the last two years of educa tion 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 coun try 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 would be entitled to admission in a Medical College in Delhi
In the circumstances the petitioner is entitled to an order di recting the respondents to admit her to one of the Medical Colleges in Delhi
TNA Petition Allowed


Summary:
The assessee Company had a glass factory besides other business
Since the glass factory business had been suffer ing losses for several years resulting in increasing debt the assessee took loans from the State Government and mort gaged the land buildings and machinery
Later under a deed executed by it the assessee allowed the State Government to take over running of the glass factory for a period of 20 years and permitted it to have a share of the business if and when they exceeded a prescribed limit as conditions for guaranteeing repayment of a loan of Rs20 lakhs granted by the Industrial Finance Corporation
During assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1962 63 the assessee contended that the profits earned by the glass factory business during that period were not assessable in its hands but in the hands of the State Government which had taken over the factory and was running the business and that in any event only half of the profit could be included in its assessment as the State Government was entitled to 50 per cent of profits under the deed
Rejecting the contentions the Income tax officer held that the assessee was liable to be assessed in respect of the entire profits earned by the glass factory
The assessee s appeals were dismissed by both the Appel late Assistant Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal
On a reference made at assessee s instance the High Court af firmed the Tribunal s finding that the entire profits of the factory and not half of them accrued to the assessee
It also rejected assessee s contention that the income was diverted through an overriding title before it reached the assessee
Dismissing the appeal of the assessee this Court 798 HELD The present case is one where the income accrued to the assessee directly and was merely upon such accrual applied to discharge an obligation of the assessee
801B Although the Deed executed by the assessee is described as a lease deed and provides that the glass factory is demised to the State Government in substance possession of the factory was transferred to the State Government only for the purpose of enabling it to manage and run the business
800F The entire income earned during the year under consider ation was the income of the assesee and was merely applied by the managing State Government for the payment of the assessee s debt and there was no over riding title
The profits earned during the year under consideration were not sufficient for the State Government to enjoy a share in the profits in accordance with the terms of the Deed and there fore no part of the profits could be regarded as assessable in the hands of the State Government
In point of fact no part of the profits was actually taken by the State Govern ment
801C D Commissioner of Income tax Bombay City H vs Sitaldas Tirathdas  relied on