AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Judgment Pronounced by N.K. Jain, A.C.J.
All these appeals involve the same question of fact and law. As agreed, they are being heard together.
In the Writ Appeal No: 1082 of 1992 a Division Bench of this Court considered the question of the implication of reservation of certain seats
for children of inter-caste marriages with preference to children born to spouses to whom one is a member of a Schedule Caste or a Schedule
Tribe.
While considering the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court in S. Hari Ganesh and Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, , the
Division Bench thought that another view also would be possible taking into view the following points:
I. When a child born of a forward and the schedule caste spouse ordinarily will take the interior caste (See Maine''s Hindu Law) and thus shall be
entitled to the reservation for the class under which the Schedule Caste belongs. Will then the reservation of seat for the reason of such a child born
to a spouse of whom one or the other member is a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe not mean a further reservation besides the reser-vation
based on caste and thus violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
II. Can there be any preference for one inter-caste over other for such preference will not be possible without referring to the caste of one or the
other spouse for which the reservation benefit is already in exist-ence.
III. Is reservation for children born to intercaste marriages a reasonable classi-fication and not a class legislation forbidden by Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
In other writ appeals are being preferred against the orders of the learned single Judges of this Court, who have decided the case following the
decision reported in Hari Ganesh''s case, 1987 Mad. 55.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that pending decision, though the period of academic year had come to an end in respective cases,
and the writ petitions/appeals have become infructuous, it is necessary to decide the issue to get an authoritative opinion, as in every year the same
controversy arises for consideration. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellants got admission on merits and the course was also
completed. Their grievance is that every year the Government of Tamil Nadu select candidates only from the first category and is not considering
the candidates from categories ''B'' and ''C'' which according to them is discriminatory.
On the other hand the learned Government Pleader submitted that the issue on hand had already been settled in the decision reported in S. Hari
Ganesh and Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, . It is submitted that since a Division Bench opined that some other view is also
possible, for an authoritative pronouncement by this Court, the matters are placed. More over, every year the same controversy had crept in.
Therefore, it will be proper to decide the controversy.
Necessary facts for the disposal of this reference and these appeals, are as follows:
The Government of Tamil Nadu issued prospects of department of medical education for admission to professional courses - M.B.B.S. for 1997-
98 session. In that they have provided clause 3.5. (viii) in which ''seats reserved for children born of intercaste marriage'' had been mentioned. For
the purpose of the deciding the issue, the same is extracted below:
3.5 (viii) Seats reserved for children born of inter-caste marriage.
Number of seats reserved in M.B.B.S.: 12
Candidates claiming admission against the reservation for the children born of intercaste marriage should submit a certificate from the Tahsildar of
me respective area regarding the castes of the parents vide G.O.Ms.No: 477, Social Welfare Department, dated 27.6.1975. The following order
of preference shall be followed for selection of candidates from this category.
(a) The children born of inter-caste marriage between SC/ST and Forward community.
(b) The children born of inter-caste marriage between SC/ST and backward community.
(c) The children born of inter-caste marriage between SC/ST and MBC and denotified community.
Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the provision of special clause offends Article 14 of the Constitution. It is contended that no
discrimination should be shown between the parents of intercaste marriage and the differential shown in the above mentioned provision, has no
nexus to the objects sought to be achieved. The decision in Miduna Nathan v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, 1995 W.L.R. 851 had
been relied on for this proposition.
Learned counsel appearing for the Selection Committee reiterated the submission that the issue had already been decided by this Court in S.
Hari Ganesh and Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, . He submitted that the same had been followed in other decisions of this Court.
We have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials on records and case laws also.
In Minor P. Rajendran Vs. State of Madras and Others, the Rules were promulgated, by the State of Madras, for selection of candidates for
admission to the I year Intergrade M.B.B.S. course. In that case it has been held that Rule 5 providing reservation for Socially and educationally
backward classes as specified in Group III of the revised Appendix 17-A is not violative of Article 15(1) of the Constitution of India. It was also
observed that a caste is also a class of citizens and if the caste as a whole is socially and educationally backward, reservation can be made in
favour of such a caste on the ground that it is a socially and educationally backward class of citizens within the meaning of Article 15(4). In our
humble opinion, the facts of the above mentioned case are not at all applicable to the facts of the case on hand. As such, no advantage can be
given to the case of the appellants.
The appellants then relied on the decision reported in Miduna Nathan v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, 1995 W.L.R. 85 wherein
the selection of candidates for M.B.B.S. course under the category of seats reserved for eminent sportsmen was challenged. In that case, Rules
and norms fixed therein, were violated as classifying sportsman as nationwise, statewise, districtwise, etc. As such, it was held that there cannot be
selection on the basis of communal reservation from among the eminent sportsmen. As stated above, this case also is not helpful to the facts of this
case.
The question to be decided in this case is as to what is the position of children born of inter-caste marriage.
It is settled that reasonable classification is not discriminatory unless there is no nexus between the classification and the object sought to be
achieved. Reserving some of the seats for the children born of the inter-caste marriage between SC/ST and forward community cannot be said to
be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as it comes within the purview of the reasonable classification which is permissible and therefore it is
not discriminatory.
In this case, there is no question of further reservation. It is only a concession to the children born of inter-caste marriage. So the argument that
there is a reservation in reservation and it is bad and it has no nexus is not tennable. As already stated, it reveals from the G.O. itself that if no
candidate of first category is available, then the chance will go to the members of the second category and then to the members of the third
category. So argument that there is a further reservation is not acceptable and on this ground it cannot be said that it violates Article 14 of the
Constitution.
More so, the appellants have not been able to satisfy this Court that the concession/classification given is tainted with mala fide, as the burden
of proof of hostile discrimination falls on the appellants. The only argument that the said concession is hit by Article 14, which appeared as
averments in the affidavit, cannot be accepted, as stated, in view of the fact that nothing has been placed to substantiated the same. As stated
above, we find that clause I providing seats for the children born of inter-caste marriage between SC/ST and towards community is provided for
the valid purpose and to promote the educational and economic status of such children.
We have given our careful consideration to the elaborate reasoning given in the decision in S. Hari Ganesh and Another Vs. State of Tamil
Nadu and Another, which considered the same issue, wherein also, G.O.Ms. No. 477 S.W. Department dated 27.6.1975 appeared and the
status of preference given to the children born of intercaste marriage between SC/ST and forward communities that of other children born of inter-
caste marriage between. SC/ST and Most Backward Class/Backward communities also was considered.
It will be apt to repeat the observations made in that case S. Hari Ganesh and Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, which runs as
follows:
The State is bound legally and morally to give special recognition to marriages of the so-called caste Hindus with members of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes because such marriages remove the imbalances and inequalities in society to a greater degree than marriages
between members of the Forward Communities and members of the Backward Class. Any welfare and secular State, committed to abolition of
untouchability and to the ushering in of an egalitarian society, rid of caste and communal barriers, has necessarily to give greater weight age and
preference to a marriage in which a member of Forward community or a backward class marries a member of a Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes. It therefore follows that though the State has reserved certain seats under the category of ''children born of intercaste marriages'', it is
entitled to give preference to (i) children born of intercaste marriages between members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and members of
Forward communities and (ii) children born of intercaste marriages between members of the most Backward Class/Backward Class. The status of
the children born of such marriage is undoubtedly different from status given by Society to children born of intercaste marriages between members
belonging to the Forward Communities and Backward Classes.
In view of our discussion and the decision of the Division Bench mentioned above, we fully agree with the reasoning given in the said decision
and, we answer the reference in the negative. The decision rendered in S. Hari Ganesh and Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, stands
approved.
Since the period of the academic year has already expired, it is not necessary to refer the matters to the concerned Division Bench again. As
such all the writ appeals fail. The writ petition is also dismissed. There will be no order asto costs.