Skip to content


Heggade Janardhan Subbarye Vs. the State of Mysore and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1963SC702; [1963]Supp1SCR475
ActsConstitution of India - Articles 15(4) and 32
AppellantHeggade Janardhan Subbarye
RespondentThe State of Mysore and anr.
Cases ReferredM. R. Balaji v. State of Mysore
Excerpt:
.....a writ or order as prayed by them and the respondents were restricted from implementing the order by the state of mysore - it was also held that as the petition was against the additional reservation made in favour of the socially backward classes and has nothing to do with the reservations provided to schedule caste(sc) and scheduled tribes(st), therefore the reservation for the sc and st was upheld - rule 11(a): [dr.arijit pasayat & asok kumar ganguly,jj] cancellation of licence - natural justice held, order passed without notice and opportunity of hearing to contractor is liable to be set aside. state of orissa & ors. v balaram sahu. [c.a.nos. 444-445/2009, dd 27.1.2009].....admission to the said medical college but for the reservation directed to be made by the two impugned orders. they alleged that the orders were ultra vires, and so, they prayed for an appropriate writ or order restraining the respondents from giving effect to the said orders and requiring them to deal with the petitioners' applications on the merits. 2. the points raised by the present petitions are covered by the decision of this court in the case of m. r. balaji v. state of mysore [1963] supp. 1 s.c.r. 439, and so, it is common ground that the petitioners are entitled to an appropriate writ or order as claimed by them. 3. learned counsel for the respondents however, drew our attention to the fact that as a result of the decision of this court in the case of m. r. balaji [1963].....
Judgment:

Gajendragadkar, J.

1. These two writ petitions Nos. 130 of 1962 and 133 of 1962 have been filed by Heggade Janardhan Subbarye and Ravindra Prabhu respectively (hereinafter called the petitioners) under Art. 32 of the Constitution, challenging the validity of the orders issued by respondent No. 1, the State of Mysore, under Art. 15(4) of the Constitution on July 10, 1961 and July 31, 1962, respectively. Both the petitioners had applied for admission to the pre-Professional Class in Medicine in the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli, and the applications had been submitted to respondent No. 2, the Selection Committee appointed in that behalf by respondent No. 1. According to the petitioners, they would have secured admission to the said Medical College but for the reservation directed to be made by the two impugned orders. They alleged that the orders were ultra vires, and so, they prayed for an appropriate writ or order restraining the respondents from giving effect to the said orders and requiring them to deal with the petitioners' applications on the merits.

2. The points raised by the present petitions are covered by the decision of this Court in the case of M. R. Balaji v. State of Mysore [1963] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 439, and so, it is common ground that the petitioners are entitled to an appropriate writ or order as claimed by them.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents however, drew our attention to the fact that as a result of the decision of this Court in the case of M. R. Balaji [1963] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 439 respondent No. 1 was feeling some doubt as to whether the reservation made by the impugned orders in respect of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes was also struck down by this Court. As the judgment shows, respondent No. 1 has consistently fixed the percentage of reservation in respect of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes at 15% and 3% respectively. Five orders have been passed by respondent No. 1 one after the other under Art. 15(4), but the reservation fixed for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes has always remained the same. It is true that the judgment of this Court does not expressly say that the validity of the said reservation was not assailed before this Court and cannot, therefore, be deemed to have been affected by the decision. However, as the judgment shows, the only attack against the validity of the impugned orders was directed against the additional reservation made in favour of the socially and educationally Backward Classes of citizens in the State. The petitions filed in the said cases were confined to the said reservation and during the course of the arguments before this Court, it was not suggested by the petitioners' learned counsel that the reservation made in favour of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes was in any manner irregular or not justify by Art. 15(4). This position is not disputed by the petitioners' learned counsel before us. Therefore, we think that in order to avoid any doubt in the matter it is necessary to make it clear that our judgment in that case does not affect the validity of the said reservation whic h is distinct and separate from, and independent of, the other reservation which was challenged. The said reservation continues to be operative and the fact that the impugned orders have been quashed does not alter that position. The said orders have been quashed solely by reference to the additional reservation made by the impugned orders in regard to the socially and educationally Backward Classes, and so, respondent No. 1 would be justified in giving effect to the reservation made in respect of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

4. In the result, we allowed the petitions and direct that an appropriate writ or order should be issued restraining the respondents from giving effect to the two impugned orders. In the circumstances of these cases, we direct that the petitioners should get from the respondents costs incurred by them, except the hearing fee.

5. Petitions allowed.


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