Skip to content


State of Andhra Pradesh and anr. Vs. Kannan Narayan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWrit Appeal No.1437 of 1984
Judge
Reported inAIR1985AP343
ActsConstitution of India - Articles 14 and 371-D; Medical Colleges Government Dental Colleges Rules, 1983 - Rules 4 and 7(9); Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulations of Admissions) Order, 1974; Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 - Sections3 and 15(1)
AppellantState of Andhra Pradesh and anr.
RespondentKannan Narayan
Appellant AdvocateGovt. Pleader for ;Endowments
Respondent AdvocateH.S. Gururaja Rao, Adv.
Excerpt:
constitution - reservation - articles 14 and 371-d of constitution of india, rules 4 and 7 (9) of medical colleges government dental colleges rules, 1983, andhra pradesh educational institutions (regulations of admissions) order, 1974 and sections 3 and 15 (1) of andhra pradesh educational institutions (regulation of admission and prohibition of capitation fee) act, 1983 - whether a non resident candidate from out of state of andhra pradesh is entitled to take admission in medical college within meaning of 'non local' candidate while reading article 371-d and rules framed under section 3 read with section 15 (1) - the dominant question is whether 15% of seats after deducting 85% of seats available towards reserved candidates namely local candidates is open to all irrespective of residence.....seetharama reddy, j.1. the sole, short but highly sensitive question that arises for debate in this case is - whether a non-resident candidate from out of the state of andhra pradesh is entitled to admission to a seat in medical college within the meaning of 'non-local' candidate while reading in combination art. 371-d, the andhra pradesh educational institutions (regulation of admissions) order, 1974 and the rules framed under s.3 read with s.15 (1) of the a.p.educational institutions (regulation of admission and prohibition of capitationfee) act (a.p.act no.5 of 1983) issued under g.o.ms. no.351, m & h, dt. 10th june , 1983 as amended ing.o.ms.no. 502, m & h dt. 14th june, 1984.2. now, the brief format. the respondent herein is the writ petitioner. he passed intermediate examination.....
Judgment:

Seetharama Reddy, J.

1. The sole, short but highly sensitive question that arises for debate in this case is - whether a non-resident candidate from out of the State of Andhra Pradesh is entitled to admission to a seat in medical college within the meaning of 'non-local' candidate while reading in combination Art. 371-D, the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions) Order, 1974 and the Rules framed under S.3 read with S.15 (1) of the A.P.Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of CapitationFee) Act (A.P.Act No.5 of 1983) issued under G.O.Ms. No.351, M & H, dt. 10th June , 1983 as amended inG.O.Ms.No. 502, M & H dt. 14th June, 1984.

2. Now, the brief format. The respondent herein is the Writ Petitioner. He passed Intermediate examination during the academic year 1982-84 from Kendriya Vidyalayam Jyothipuram (J & K). He applied for admission to M.B.B.S. course pursuant toG.O.ms.No.502, M & H, dt. 14th June, 1984 issued by the Government of A.P. as a non-local as he did not belong to this area. Though an objection was raised at the time of receipt of the application itself, but however, by virtue of the court order he was permitted to appear for the entrance examination and the result, however, was not allowed to be published, and was subjected to the result of the Writ Petition. While impugning the validity of sub-rule (P) of R.7 of the Andhra Pradesh Regulation of Admission of Students into Medical Colleges/Govt. Dental College Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') which sought to restrict the unreserved quota to the residents of the State of Andhra Pradesh as violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution, it was stressed that the reservation was only with reference to 85% of the available seats under the Presidential Order of 1974. Therefore, neither the A.P.Act No.5 of 1983, nor the Presidential Order confer any power on the State Government to frame any rule in excess of the said provisions and so, R.7(9) of the Rules cannot create any bar. The argument no doubt, is attractive, and so has found favour with the learned single Judge Sri Anjaneyulu, J. before whom the Writ Petition came up for adjudication and consequently the Writ was made absolute. Hence the Government has come up in this appeal.

3. The main thrust of the appellant's case is that R.7(9) cannot be questioned as ultra vires in view of the provisions enacted in Art. 371D of the Constitution. Even otherwise, the rule is quite in accord with the provisions enacted both in the Presidential Order as well as Act 5 of 1983 read in the light of Art. 371D.

4. The counter case of the learned counsel for the respondent-candidate is that the Presidential Order deals only and exclusively in respect of 85% of the seats which are earmarked for local candidates, whereas the remaining 15% is open to all including local and non-local, which term must include candidates even from outside the State especially so when it has not been specifically earmarked to 'non-local' which has not been defined at all by the Order. Rule 7(9), therefore, is contrary to S.3 of the Act, which speaks of admission on the basis of merit only and, even if it is consistent with S.3, it will nevertheless be violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution for which reliance was placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Jagdish Saran v. Union of India, : [1980]2SCR831 , Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, AIR 1984, Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, : (1984)IILLJ481SC and Surendra Kumar v. State of Bihar, : [1985]2SCR19 .

5. Now the relevant Constitutional and Statutory provisions.

Article 371-D reads thus:

'371-D. Special provisions with respect of the State of Andhra Pradesh:- (I) The President may by order made with respect to the State of Andhra Pradesh provide, having regard to the requirements of the State as a whole, for equitable opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to different parts of the State, in the matter of public employment and in the matter of education, and different provisions may be made for various parts of the State.

(2) An order made under Cl.(I) may, in particular.-

(a) ... .... ... ... ... ....

(b) specify any part or parts of the State which shall be regarded a the local area-

(i) -(ii) ..... ..... .....

(iii) for the purposes of admission to any University within the State or to any other educational institution which is subject to the control of the State Government;

(c) specify the extent to which, the manner in which and the conditions subject to which, preference or reservation shall be given or made-

(i).....................

(ii) in the matter of admission to any such University or other educational institution referred to in sub-cl.(b) as maybe specified in this behalf in the order.

(iii) To or in favour of candidates who have resided or studied for any period specified

In the order in the local area in respect of such cadre, University or other educational institution, as the case may be.

... .... ... ... (10) The provisions of this article and of any order made by the President thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything in any other provision of this Constitution or in any other law for the time being in force.'

6. Now the relevant provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions) Order, 1974, as published inG.O.Ms.No.453, General Administration(SPF-B) dt. 3rd July, 1974.

Para 1 reads as under:

'1. Short title, extent and commencement:-

(1) This Order may be called the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions) Order, 1974.

(2) It extends to the whole of the State of Andhra Pradesh.

(3) It shall come into force on the 1st day of July 1974.'

Para 2 reads as under:

'2. Interpretation: (1) In this Order, unless the context otherwise requires,-

(a) 'available seats', in relation to any course of study, means the number of seats provided in that course for admission at any time after excluding those reserved for candidates form outside the State;

(b) 'local area', in respect of any University or other educational institution, means the local area specified in para 3 of this Order for the purposes of admission to such University or other educational institution;

(c) 'local candidate' in relation to any local area, means a candidate who qualifies under para 4 of this Order as a local candidate in relation to such local area.'

Para 3 of the Order reads:

'3. Local Area:- (I) The part of the State comprising the districts of Srikakulam, Visakhapatnam, West Godavari,East Godavari, Krishna, Guntur and Prakasam shall be regarded as the local area for the purposes of admission to the Andhra University and to any other educational institution (other than a Statewide University or Statewide educational institution) which is subject to the control of the State Government and is situated in that part.

(2) The part of the State comprising the districts of Adilabad, Hyderabad, Karimnagar, Khamman, Mahaboobnagar, Medak, Nalgonda, Nixamabad and Warangal shall be regarded as the local area for the purposes of admission to the Osmania University and to any other educational institution (other than a Statewide University or Statewide educational institution) which is subject to the control, of the State Government and is situated in that part.

(3) The part of the State comprising the districts of Anantapur, Cuddapah, Kurnool, Chittoor and Nellore shall be regarded as the local area for the purposes of admission to Sri Venkateswara University and to any other educational institution (other than a Statewide University or Statewide educational institution) which is subject to the control of the State Government and is situated in that part.'

Paras 4 and 5 read as under:

'4. Local Candidates:- A candidate for admission to any course of study shall be regarded as a local candidate in relation to a local area-

(a) if he has studied in an educational institution or educational institutions in such local area for a period of not less that four consecutive academic years ending with the academic year in which he appeared or, as the case may be, first appeared or, as the case may be, first appeared in the relevant qualifying examination; or

(b) where, during the whole or any part of the four consecutive academic years ending with the academic year in which he appeared or, as the case may be, first appeared for the relevant qualifying examination, he has not studied in any educational institution, if he has resided in that local area for a period of not less than four years immediately proceeding the date of commencement of the relevant qualifying examination in which he appeared or as the case may be, first appeared.

Explanation:- For the purposes of this paragraph.-

(i) 'educational institution' means a University or any educational institution recognised by the State Government , a University or other competent authority;

(ii) 'relevant qualifying examination', in relation to admission to any course of study, means the examination a pass in which is the minimum educational qualification for admission to such course of study:

(iii) in reckoning the consecutive academic years during which a candidate has studied, any period of interruption of his study by reason of his failure to pass any examination shall be disregarded.'

'5. Reservation in non-Statewide Universities and educational institutions:-

(1) Admissions to eighty-five per cent of the available seats in every course of study provided by the Andhra University, the Osmania University or Sri Venkateswara University or by any other educational institution (other than a State-wide University or a Statewide educational institution) which is subject to the control of the State Government shall be reserved in favour of he local candidates in relation to the local area in respect of such University or other educational institution.

(2) While determining under sub-para (1) the number of seats to be reserved in favour of local candidates any fraction of a seat shall be counted as one: Provided that there shall be at least one unreserved seat.'

7. Sections 3 and 15 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983, read as under:

'3 (1) Subject to such rules as may be made in this behalf, admission into educational institutions shall be made either on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examination or on the basis of the ranking assigned in the entrance test conducted by such authority and in such manner as may be prescribed:

Provided that admission into Medical and Engineering Colleges shall be made only on the basis of the ranking assigned in the common entrance test conducted as aforesaid. 2. The admission into educational institutions under sub-sec. (1) shall be subject to such rules as may be made by the Government in regard to reservation of seats to members belonging to Scheduled castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes and the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulations of Admissions) Order, 1974.'

's. 15(1) The Government may, by notification made rules for carrying out all or any of the purposes of this Act.'

8. Now, the Andhra Pradesh Regulation of Admission of Students into Medical Colleges/Govt. Dental College Rules, 1983, laid down in G.O.Ms.No.351, M & H , dt. 10th June, 1983 as amended in G.O.ms.No. 502, M&H; dt. 14th June, 1984.

Rule 4 runs as under:

'4. Reservations of M.B.B.S. Course:-

(1) Government of India Nominees:- 12 seats shall be reserved in the above Medical Colleges for the candidates nominated by the Government of India (2 seats each at Andhra Medical College, Visakapatnam, Guntur Medical College, Guntur, Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad and Kurnool Medical College, Kurnool and 1 seat each in other Government Medical Colleges.')

(2) The Government of India shall have the right to nominate candidates of their own choice.

(3) The reservation under R.4 (1) above shall be excluded from the purview of selection committee.

(4) The candidates for admission against the reservations under R.4 (1) shall possess the required minimum educational qualification and age prescribed for admission for the course as required under these rules. However, the State Government may relax the rule in respect of the age on the basis of individual merit.

(5) ... ... ... ...

Rule 7 reads as under:

'7. Reservation in Favour of Local Candidates:-

(1) Admissions to 85% of the seats in 1st year M.B.B.S. course after excluding the seats reserved for nominees of the Government of India under R.4(1) shall be reserved in favour of the local candidates in relation to the local area in respect of the educational institutions as specified in this rule and as provided in the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulations and Admissions) Order, 1974.

(2) ... ... ... .... ...

(3) Local area:- (a) The part of the State comprising the districts of Srikakulam, Vizianagaram, Visakapatnam, East Godavari , West Godavari, Krishna, Guntur , Prakasam (Andhra University area, Nagarjuna University area) shall be regarded as the local area for the purposes of admission to the Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam, Guntur Medical College at Guntur and Rangaraya Medical College at Kakinada.

(b) The part of the State comprising the districts of Adilabad, Hyderabad, (including twin cities) Rangareddy, Karimnagar, Khammam, Medak Mahaboobnagar, Nalgonda, Nizamabad and Warangal (Osmania University area Kakatiya University area) shall be regarded as the local area for the purposes of admission to the Osmania Medical College, Gandhi Medical College at Hyderabad and Kaktiya Medical College at Warangal.

(c) The part of the State comprising the districts of Anantapur, Kurnool, Chitoor, Cuddapah,and Nellore (Sri Venkateswara University area) shall be regarded as the local area for t4h purposes of admission to the Kurnool Medical College at Kurnool and Sri Venkateswara Medical College at Tirupathi.

(d) ......

(4) Local candidates: A candidate for admission shall be regarded as a local candidate in relating to a local area.

(a) If he has studied in educational institution or educational institutions in such local area for a period of not less than four consecutive academic years ending with the academic year in which he appeared or as the case may be, first appeared in the relevant qualifying examination; or

(b) Where, during the whole or any part of the four consecutive, academic years ending with the academic year in which he appeared or as the case may be first appeared for the relevant qualifying examination he has not studied in any educational institution, if he has resided in that local area for a period of not less than four years immediately preceding the date of commencement of relevant qualifying examination in which he appeared, or as the case may be, first appeared.

.. .... ..... .... (6) If a local candidate in respect of a local area is not available to fill any seat reserved or allocated in favour of a local candidate in respect of that local area, such seat shall be filled in as if it has not been reserved.

(7) (a) Applicants who claim to be local candidates with reference to R.7(40(a) shall produce evidence in that form of study certificate/certificates issued by the Heads of the Educational Institution/Institutions concerned, indicating the details of the year or years in which the candidate has studied in educational institutions, in such local area for a period of not less than four consecutive academic years ending with the academic year in which he appeared, or as the case may be, first appeared for the Intermediate examination or its equivalent. Those who do not qualify as local candidates under sub-rule 7(4) (a) but claim to qualify by virtue of residence under R.7(4)(b) shall produce a certificate issued by an officer of the Revenue Department not below the rank of a Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar in independent charge of sub-taluk in the form annexed in G.O.ms.No.628, Education dt. 25th July, 1973 (Appended to the application).

(c) Applicants who claim to be local candidates under R.7(5)(a) shall produce evidence in the form of study certificate issued by the Heads of the educational institution/Institutions concerned indicating the details of the year or years in which the candidate has studied in the respective educational institutions, for a period of not less than seven consecutive academic years ending with the academic year in which he appeared, or as the case may be, first appeared for the Intermediate examination or its equivalent. Those who do not qualify as local candidates under R.7(5)(a) but claim to qualify by virtue of residence under R.7(5) but claim to qualify by virtue of residence under R.7(5)(b) shall produce a certificate of residence issued by an officer of the Revenue Department not below the rank of Tahsildar, or Deputy Tahsildar in independent charge of Sub-Taluk in the form similar to that Annexed to G.O.Ms.No.628 Education, dt. 25th July, 1974 with necessary modifications (Appended to the application).

(8) The following categories of candidates are eligible to apply for admission to the remaining 15% of unreserved seats;

(a) All candidates defined under R.7(4) and 7(5) (study certificate/residence certificates should be enclosed).

(b) Candidates who have resided in the State for a total period of ten years excluding period of study outside the State; or either of whose parents has resided in the State for a period of ten years excluding periods of employment outside the State; (Certificate to the effect from Revenue Official not below the rank of Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar/in case of independent Sub-Taluk from where the candidate is claiming eligibility should be enclosed.)

(c) Candidates who are children of parents who are in the employment of this State or Central Government, Public Sector Corporations Local Bodies, Universities and other similar quasi-public Institution within the State. (Certificate from the Head of the Institution/Department should be enclosed.)

(d) Candidates who are spouses of those in the employment of the State or Central Government, Public Sector Corporations, Local bodies, Universities and educational Institutions recognised by the Government, a University or other competent authority and similar other quasi-Government Institution within the State. (Certificate from the Head of the Institution/department should be enclosed.)'

9. Before analysis of the arguments in the light of the aforesaid provisions, a word about the emergence of Art. 371D and the consequential Presidential Order and the rules which are axiomatic. The birth of the State of Andhra Pradesh on 1st Nov., 1956 is the result of the re-organization of the country on the basis of regional language. Therefore, a region which was part and parcel of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad called Telangana area was severed and thereafter was merged with the erstwhile Andhra area, composed of twin regions called Ceded districts, otherwise known as Rayalaseema comprising 4 districts; and Circar districts, comprising at that time 7 districts, resulting in the emergence of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Thereafter, owing to certain problems, pertaining to employment in the matter of recruitment to various services under the State and Public Undertakings and also pertaining to admission into various educational institutions in the three different areas, a formula popularly known as Six Point Formula was evolved.

Article 371D, so also the Presidential Order are the off-shoots of such formula. So, what becomes manifest from these emerging constitutional and statutory provisions is that owing to peculiar problems of different regions of the State and in order to safeguard the interests of the people, residing in the three different regions, both in the field of public employment as well as admissions to educational institutions, these were enacted. So, they are singular and unique in their pattern and application. Consequently they will have to be given a treatment not quite in line with the treatment which would otherwise normally be given in the matter of construction of these provisions.

10. Coming, therefore, at once to the position that the Presidential Order as also the statutory provisions in this behalf passed under Art. 371D cannot be question, even if these provisions are opposed to any other provision in the Constitution, by virtue of the non-obstante clause in sub-cl.(10) of Art. 371D which saves not only the provisions enacted in that very Article, but also any statutory provisions made thereunder the Provision being 'notwithstanding anything in any other provision of this Constitution or in any other law for the time being in force.' This position, however, is not disputed, as it has been fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the respondent.

11. The only question that remains is whether R.7(9) of the Rules is contrary to or far in excess of either S.3 of the Act 5 of 1983, or para 5 read with para 2(1) of the Presidential Order. In fact the dominant question is whether 15% of the seats after deducting 85% of the seats available towards the reserved candidates, namely, local candidates, is open to all irrespective of residence within the State because it is this position that has been vehemently canvassed by Sri H.S. Gurraj Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, stating that the 15% of the remaining seats, after giving due share to 85% of the local candidates in the matter of available seats, will be available to all candidates, irrespective of the fact whether they are locals or non-locals , including the candidates who are not residents of the State, but from outside the State. One should bear in mind the background under which the Presidential Order emerg3d and, therefore, we made a deliberate reference to the brief history of the events culminating in the issuance of the Presidential Order. The Order applies to the entire State of Andhra Pradesh only and it deals exclusively with matters pertaining to admissions into educational institutions of the State.

It defines 'available seats' under Para 2(1)(a) specifying thereby the number of seats provided for admission at any time in a course of study, after excluding those reserved for candidates from outside the State. It also defines - 'local area' under Para 2(1)(b0 which does not admittedly take in any area other than the three areas within the State. So also para 2(1)(c) defines - 'local candidate' in relation again to a local area which again admittedly takes in a candidate belonging to that area complying with certain criteria as laid down under Para 4 . If fact, Para 3 of the Order localises each area, which are in all 3 in number comprising certain districts in each area.

12. Now at Para 5 of the Order, which is rather important, as the argument to a great extent centres round the same, which provides that admissions to 85% of the available seats in every course of study provided by the Andhra University, the Osmania University and Sri Venkateswara University, shall be reserved in favour of the local candidates, in relation to the local area in respect of such University. It is true that we do not find any definition of 'non-local candidate'. But, contextually it is quite conspicuous that every candidate, who is not a 'local candidate' will be the non-local. That is, a candidate, who might not be in a position to satisfy the conditions laid down in Para 4, either with reference to his study in any educational institution in that area for the minimum period laid down, or with reference to his residence for the minimum period in that local area, will become 'non-local'.

We also find a clue to this construction in Para 2 (1)(a) of the Order as well, which says that the available seats are those after excluding such of the seats reserved for candidates from outside the State. In a given situation, certain seats might or might not have been reserved for candidates from outside the State. Be that as it may, this provision explicitly indicates that certain reservation could be made for candidates from outside the State. If the interpretation of 'non-local' candidate were to be that it would include not only the candidates who would have been otherwise local but for their inability to satisfy certain conditions laid down under Para 4 of the Order, but also those from outside the State also, then the provision under the definition 'available seats' in para 2(1)(a) of the Order will be otiose.

However, under R.4 of the Rules 12 seats have been reserved under the caption 'Government of India Nominees', which is indicative of the fact that the Government of India is at liberty to nominate any candidate more particularly candidates from outside the State . After deducting these 12 seats, 85% of the remaining seats will be available for local candidates. Apart from the dominant object to which we have already made a reference, this Order is meant only for the residents of the State of Andhra Pradesh conferring certain benefits exclusively for them and at the same time protecting the interests of those who resided and studied in each area for a particular period in preference to those who did not do so within the State. In other words, the dominant purpose is to safeguard the regional interest, which would otherwise be jeopardised if this Order, which is a beneficial provision to the residents of the State of Andhra Pradesh, is given a connotation which the learned counsel for the respondent wants us to give.

13. So, R.7(9) of the Rules categorises the candidates who are eligible to apply for admission to the remaining 15% of unreserved seats, and from all the 4 enumerated categories what is made explicit is that residence becomes the criterion. This, in our view, is quite in keeping with the aspirations laid down in the Presidential Order.

14. It is true that reservation of this nature on the basis of residence resulting in total exclusion of candidates from outside the State amounts to a blanket ban, and has come in for adverse commentary by the Supreme Court in such situations.

15. In Jagdish Saran v. Union of India, : [1980]2SCR831 , Krishna Iyer, J. observed:

'We recognise that institution-wise reservation is constitutionally circumscribed and may become ultra vires if recklessly resorted to. But even such rules, until revised by competent authority or struck down judicially, will rule the

. This is why we have to concede that until the signpost of 'no admission for outsiders' is removed from other universities and some fair percentage of seats in other universities and some fair percentage of seats in other universities is left for open competition the Delhi students cannot be made martyrs of the Constitution.'

In the same judgment R.S.Pathak, J. observed:

'The determining factor, it appears to me, is the measure of reciprocity prevailing between the different educational institutions in India regarding the availability of admission to graduates of other institutions............................This is a problem which can be tackled only on a national level, with all Universities and other medical institutions coming together around a common table with the object of fashioning out a mutual reasonable quota reservation.'

Also observed:

'A wise and far-sighted exercise, eschewing narrow parochial consideration, is called for . It is only by a joining of hands across the entire nation that a suitable and enduring solution can be evolved and the turbulence which disturbs the student body set at rest.'

Likewise in Pradeep Jain v. Union of India : (1984)IILLJ481SC it is observed (para 8):

'Now it is clear on a reading of the Constitution that it recognises only one domicile, namely, domicile in India.

... .... ... ... .... We think it highly detrimental to the concept of unity and integrity of India to think in terms of State domicile.

... ... .. .. We would , therefore, strongly urge upon the State Governments to exercise this wrong use of the expression 'domicile' from the rules regulating admissions to their educational institutions and particularly medical colleges and desist from introducing and maintaining domiciliary requirement as a condition of eligibility for such admissions.'

Then while referring to the two decisions in U.P.Rajendran v. State of Madras, : [1968]2SCR786 and Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu, : [1971]2SCR430 , their Lordships observed:

'They deal with two specific instances of intra-State discrimination between citizens residing within the same State and strike down such discrimination as violative of Art. 14 on the ground that it has no rational relation to the object of selection, namely, to get the best and most meritorious students and, in fact, tends to defeat such object. But, in taking this view, they clearly and categorically proceed on the basis of the principle that the object of any valid scheme of admissions must be to 'select the best candidates for begin admitted to medical colleges' and that if any departure is to be made 'from the principle of selection on the basis of merit' it must be justified on the touchstone of Art. 14.'

Also observed:

'The scheme of admission to medical colleges may, therefore, depart from the principle of selection based on merit, where it is necessary to do so for the purpose of bringing about real equality of opportunity between those who are unequals.'

Further held:

'The only question which remains to be considered is as to what should be the extent of reservation based on residence requirement and institutional preference. There can be no doubt that such reservation cannot completely exclude admission of students from other universities and States on the basis of merit judged in open competition......We agree wholly with these observations made by the learned Judge [Krishna Iyer, J. in Jagdish Saran v. Union of India. : [1980]2SCR831 ] and we unreservedly condemn wholesale reservation made by some of the State Governments on the basis of 'domicile' or residence requirement within the State or on the basis of institutional preference for students who have passed the qualifying examination held by the University or the State excluding all students not satisfying this requirement, regardless of merit. We declare such wholesale reservation to be unconstitutional and void as being in violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution.'

16. We may, however, refer to the later decision of the Supreme Court in Reita Nirankari v. University of Delhi, : AIR1984SC1569 in order to see whether the ratio decidendi laid down in the aforesaid two decisions get diluted, and if so, to what extent when it comes to the question of judging the impugned provisions in this case vis--vis the State of Andhra Pradesh. This judgment is a sequel to the judgment in Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, : (1984)IILLJ481SC . In this case, an application was made to the Court by some of the students seeking admission to the M.B.B.S. Course for the academic year 1984-85 that the judgment in Pradeep Jain v. Union of India may be given effect to only from the next academic year as by the date of the judgment, which was 22nd June, 1984, admissions to various medical colleges have already been made and also on the ground that some time would be required for the purpose of achieving uniformity in procedure relating to admissions in the various Universities. On that, it was clarified:

'We, therefore, direct that the judgment shall be implemented with effect from the next academic year 1985-86. Whatever admissions, provisional or otherwise, have been made for the academic year 1984-85, shall not be disturbed on the basis of the judgment. We may make it clear that the judgment will not apply to the States of Andhra Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir because at the time of hearing of the main writ petitions, it was pointed out to us by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of those States that there were special Constitutional provisions in regard to them which would need independent consideration by this court.'

17. It is , therefore, quite manifest from the aforesaid decision that the ratio laid down in the earlier decision Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, : (1984)IILLJ481SC has no application insofar as the States of Andhra Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir are concerned. This is not to speak of that even if for some reason the decision is to be attracted, it could be only with reference to the academic year 1985-86. Since we have already expressed our undoubted view that the impugned rule is quite in conformity with the Act and the Presidential Order, which is quite in consonance with the sprit of Art. 371D of the Constitution, therefore, R.7(9) of the Rules cannot be held to be ultra vires of either the statutory provisions or the Constitution. Even otherwise, it is immune from the attack as being violative of Ardt.14 by virtue of Cl.(10) of Art. 371D of the Constitution.

18. Before concluding, we, however, feel it germane to observe that the rule of reservation whether it is based on residence requirement or on the institution-wise, must be administered on moderation. More or so, in the matter of admission to institutions of medicine and technology. The rule of 'no admission for outsiders' is undoubtedly detrimental to the unity and integrity of the country, as it is a sure signpost leading the country to balkanisation. It is also a grave threat to the concept of quasi-federalism on which this country if edified and which is so delicately drafted and so engrained by the fathers of our Constitution, which should at any cost the zealously guarded. This reservation, therefore, must be brought about sooner than later so as to be implemented uniformly all over the country. Medical Council of India under the guidance of the Central Government will, we are sanguine, bring about a solution without any further delay.

19. In the result, the judgment under appeal is set aside and the Writ Appeal is allowed. No costs. Advocate's fee Rs.750.00 .

20. Appeal allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //