AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Judgement pronounced by K.Govindarajan , J.—The petitioner have filed the above writ petitions as Public Interest Litigation for the benefit
of the students who have studied in higher secondary schools located in town panchayats.
In WP No.3229 of 1998 the petitioner has challenged the order in G.O.Ms.No.600 Health & Family Welfare (MCA) Department dated
5.12.1997. The same writ petitioner has filed another Writ Petition in W.P.No.3230 of 1998 challenging another order issued in G.O.Ms.No.261
Department of Higher Education, dated 12.5.1997 under which the Government directed that 15% of total seats be reserved rural students who
have studied both plus one and plus two in higher secondary schools located in village panchayats for a total period of two years and subject to the
usual reservation laid down in the Government Order dated 9.5.1995.
The petitioners in WP No.4330 of 1998 have challenged the abovesaid two Government Orders and they are seeking a direction to the
respondents to include students studying in higher secondary schools in major panchayats also to avoid 15% reservation quota for being selected
to the notified Professional Courses, within the meaning of rural students so as to render social justice to the rural public.
Mr. V. K. Muthusamy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner in WP Nos.3229 and 3230 of 1998 has submitted that the
said Government Orders, as it is, cannot be sustained on the basis of the following grounds:- (1) The Government Orders do not define the ''rural
students'' and ''urban students''; (2) The students studied in schools located at town panchayats cannot be treated differently as they are also hailing
from rural areas. According to him equals cannot be treated as unequals; (3) While the report of the High Level Committee speaks only about the
rural students and when the Government accepts the recommendation of the Committee, in entirety, the Government should not be allowed to
restrict the benefits only to a class of persons, viz., the students who are studying in higher secondary schools located at village panchayats; (4)
There is no specific exclusion of the students studying in higher secondary schools located in town panchayats, in the said Government Orders.
Mr. Alagiriswamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP No.4330 of 1998 has submitted that the benefits have to be
extended to all rural students on the basis of their, domicile and not on the basis of the place of study. According to him even the rural students for
want of schools in the village panchayats are compelled to. Go to schools located in urban areas.
In reply to these submissions, the teamed Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has submitted that the said Government
Orders came to be passed to give benefit to students studying in the schools located in village panchayats. The said reservation is extended to them
exercising powers under Article 15(5) of the Constitution of India. It is the policy decision of the Government and the petitioners cannot invoke the
jurisdiction of this Court challenging the same under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. So the petitioners cannot allege any discrimination so
as to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India. as the students studying in higher secondary schools located in village panchayats themselves
form one category and the students who are studying in town panchayats form a separate category, and so both of them cannot be equated.
According to the Special Government Pleader, nobody can demand to give the benefits under Article 15(4) of the Constitution as a matter of right
and the Government is entitled to make such reservation on valid basis and so the petitioners cannot seek modification of the Government Orders
by extending the benefits, either to the students who are studying in higher secondary schools located in town panchayats or to all rural students in
common.
Both the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners have not challenged the power of the Government making reservation under the
impugned orders exercising powers under Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India. The only grievance of the petitioners is that the said
reservation should be extended even to the students who are studying in the higher secondary schools located in town panchayats and to the rural
students on their domicile basis.
The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP Nos.3229 and 3230 of 1998 has submitted that ""the rural students"" for whose
benefit the impugned orders came to be passed have not been defined in the Government Orders in question and so it will lead to some confusion
in enforcing the said Government Orders. We are not able to accept the said submission of the learned Senior Counsel. The impugned
Government Orders are very clear regarding the beneficiaries. In G.O.Ms.No.261, Department of Higher Education, dated 12.5.1997 it is stated
that ""the Government accept the above suggestion and direct that 15% of total seats be reserved to rural students who have studied both +1 and
+2 in Higher Secondary Schools located in Village Pinhead for a total period of two years and subject to usual reservation laid down in
Government Order first read above"" (Italics is ours). Even in G.O.Ms.No.600, Health and Family Welfare (MCA) Department, dated 5.12.1997
the beneficiaries have been identified as follows:-
(1) By allowing the mode of reservation now in existence, 15% out of the total seats shall be reserved for the rural students who studied llth and
12th standards in the Higher Secondary Schools located in village panchayats, for admission to MBBS/Dental Medicine in Government Medical
College/Self-fiancing and Dental Colleges; (2) The above Order will not be applicable to the students studying in the Higher Secondary Schools
situated in Corporations, Towns and the Urban areas surrounded there to throughout the State; (3) The urban area limits as far as the Chennai City
is concerned the limits of the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority. As far as the other . cities and Municipalities are concerned, the Urban
Land Ceiling limits of the respective urban areas; (4) The Selection Committee located in Kilpauk Medical College, Chennai Campus will prepare
the list of students of Village Panchayats based on the list prepared by Anna University.
From the above it can be seen that the urban area has also been defined. In the said Government Order the students studying in higher secondary
schools located in Corporation towns and urban areas are excluded. In view of the very clear identification of the beneficiaries, the submission of
the learned Senior Counsel that the rural students who are entitled for this benefit have not been defined and it will lead to confusion cannot be
accepted.
The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP Nos.3229 and 3230 of 1998 has further submitted that the Government Order
came to be passed only on the basis of the High Level Committee constituted by the Government and so while accepting the Committee''s
recommendation, it should be accepted in entirety as the Committee has distinguished only the urban and rural students and not village panchayats
and town panchayats. According to him, even the students who are studying in town panchayat schools are rural students. In support of his
submission, the learned Senior Counsel has sought to rely on Section 3-(18-A) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act which reads as
follows:-
3(18-A): ''panchayat town'' means an area in transition from a rural area to an urban area classified as Panchayat town u/s 3-B"".
On the basis of the abovesaid definition, the -learned Senior Counsel has submitted that even town panchayats have to be taken as rural areas as
they are only in transition stage and so they cannot be treated differently. According to him, equals cannot be treated as unequals.
In the report of the High Level Committee with respect to the issue in question, it is stated as follows:-
Experience has shown that the free seat quotas are cornered by the urban students because of their locational advantage with regard to school,
coaching for entrance examination etc. leaving the rural students the inevitability of payment seats. In order to help the bright students of rural area
the Committee recommended the reservation of 15% of total engineering seats to rural students subject to usual communal reservations.
On the basis of these recommendations, the Government examined the said suggestion in consultation with the Director of Technical Education and
thought it fit to reserve 15% of total seats to the students who studied two years in the higher secondary schools located in village panchayats. The
Government itself in its wisdom has taken a policy decision to give the said concession to the rural students who studied in higher secondary
schools located in village panchayats. If there is an objective and rational foundation for such classification, Court will not interfere with the exercise
of Governmental decision by itself undertaking an exercise to find out as to whether expansion of classification is possible or not. It is well settled
that in matters of economic rights and policy decision the scope of judicial review is limited and circumscribed. It is also well settled that the policy
of the Government cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution except if it is contrary to the constitutional scheme of reservation. In
the present case, it cannot be said that the Government has adopted a policy which is contrary to the constitutional scheme of reservation and the
said policy is within the four corners of Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India. While dealing with powers of judicial review regarding policy
matters, the Hon''ble Apex Court in M.P. Oil Extraction and Another Vs. State of M.P. and Others, has held as follows:-
The executive authority of the State must be held to be within it competence to frame a policy for the administration of the State. Unless the policy
framed is absolutely capricious and, not being informed by any reason whatsoever, can be clearly held to be arbitrary and founded on mere ipse
dixit of the executive functionaries thereby offending Article 14 of the Constitution or such policy offends other constitutional provisions or comes
into conflict with any statutory provision, the Court cannot and should not outstep its limit and tinker with the policy decision of the executive
functionary of the State. This Court, in no uncertain terms, has sounded a note of caution by indicating that policy decision is in the domain of the
executive authority of the State and the Court should not embark on the unchartered ocean of public policy and should not question the efficacy or
otherwise of such policy so long as the same does not offend any provision of the stature or the Constitution of India. The supremacy of each of
the three organs of the State i.e. legislature, executive and judiciary in their respective fields of operation needs to be emphasised. The power of
judicial review of the executive and legislative action must be kept within the bounds of constitutional scheme so that there may not be any occasion
to entertain misgivings about the role of judiciary in outstepping its limit by unwarranted judicial activism being very often talked of in these days.
The democratic set-up to which the polity is so deeply committed cannot function properly unless each of the three organs appreciate the need for
mutual respect and supremacy in their respective fields
The students studied in village panchayat schools will form class of their own. It is for the Government to decide as to whom the benefits
should be given by exercising the powers under Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India. The reason given for forming such a classification as
stated in the counter cannot be said to be unreasonable. Though the learned counsel has submitted that the students who are studying in town
panchayat schools should"" be treated as equals, no material is produced before this Court to substantiate the same, except relying on Section
3(18-A) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act. This definition is based on Article 243Q of the Constitution of India which reads as
follows:-
(1) There shall be constituted in every State:-
a) a Nagar Panchayat (by whatever name called) for a transitional area, that is to say, an area in transition from a rural area to an urban area;
(b).........;
(c).........; (2) In this article, ''a transitional area'', ''a smaller urban area'', or '' a larger urban area'' means such area as the Governor may, having
regard to the population of the area, the density of the population therein, the revenue generated for local administration, the percentage of employ-
ment in non-agricultural activities, the economic importance or such other factors as he may deem fit, specify by public notification for the purposes
of this part
From the said provisions it will be clear that the village, panchayat and panchayat town cannot be equated. The panchayat town constitutes
different classification in view of the features mentioned in Article 243(Q) of the Constitution of India.
In the absence of any particulars to show that the students who are studying in town panchayat schools and the students who are studying in
village panchayat schools are equals, the submission of the learned senior counsel on the basis of Article 14 of the Constitution of India cannot be
sustained. If cannot be said that the Government Orders impugned are in effect destroy. the guarantee Under Article 15(1) of the Constitution of
India. The learned senior counsel in, support of his submission has relied on the decisions in State of Andhra Pradesh and Another Vs. P. Sagar,
and in Dr. Jagadish Saran and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI), . As stated earlier there is no materials to find out discrimination as alleged. The
decisions cited above would not render any help to the petitioners case.
The learned Senior Counsel, in support of his submission that the classification should be reasonable, has relied on the decision reported in
Kerala Hotel and Restaurant Assn. v. State of Kerala, 1990 (2) SCC 520. In the said decision the Apex Court has held as follows:-
Reasonableness of the classification has to be decided with reference to the realities of life and not in the abstract. A discernible dissimilarity
between those grouped together and those excluded is a pragmatic, test, if there be a rational nexus of such classification with the object to be
achieved. In the abstract all cooked food may be the same since its efficacy is to appease the hunger of the consumer. But when the object is to
raise only limited revenue by taxing only some category of cooked food sold in eating houses and not all cooked food sold anywhere, it is
undoubtedly reasonable to tax only the more costly cooked food. The taxed cooked food being the more costly variety constitutes a distinct class
with a discernible difference from the remaining tax free cooked food. A blinkered perception of stark reality alone can equate caviar served with.
champagne in a luxury hotel with the gruel and buttermilk in a village hamlet on the unrealistic abstract hypothesis that both the means have the
equal efficacy to appease the hunger and quench the thirst of the consumer Validity of a classification under our Constitution does not require such
a blurred preception
Even in the said decision it is held that the classification has to be accepted if it is founded on intelligble differentia. The earlier discussions in this
order will clearly show that the classification made in this case cannot be said to be unreasonable or not on intelligible differentia.
The Apex Court in Jagdish Lal and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, while considering the scope of ""equality"" has held as follows: -
Equality must not remain mere idle incantation but must become a vibrant living reality for the large masses of people. In a hierarchial society with
an indelible feudal stamp and incurable actual inequality ft is absurd to Suggest that progressive measures to eliminate group disabilities and
promote collective equality are antagonistic to and anathema to equality on the ground that every individual is entitled to equality of opportunity
based purely on the merit mantra judged by the marks obtained by him. We cannot countenance such, a suggestion, for to do so would make the
equality clause sterile and perpetuate existing inequalities. Equality of opportunity, is not simply a matter of legal equality. Its existence depends not
merely on the absence of disabilities but on the presence of abilities and opportunity for excellence, in each cadre/grade. Where, therefore, there is
inequality, in fact, legal equality always tends to accentuate inequality. It is, therefore, necessary to take into account de facto inequalities which
exist in the society and in order to bring about real, equality, affirmative action fills the bill and allows to give preference to the socially and
economically disadvantaged persons by inflicting handicaps on those more advantageously placed. Such equality in results on a broader basis by
eliminating de facto inequalities and the stronger, more powerful and disadvantaged (sic) sections so that each member of the community, whatever
be his birth, occupation or social endowments of physique, character and intelligence. This principal was approved and reiterated by the
Constitution Bench in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao Vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College and Others, . It is, thus, settled constitutional principle
that facilities and opportunities should, be given to higher cadre or grade and gain accelerated seniority by delimiting the seniority of the erstwhile
general candidates in the lower cadre or grade in accordance with the roster point. Thereby, the Dalits and Tribes will be able to get an
accelerated placement in the higher echelons of a cadre or grade. It is constitutionally a permissible classification bearing reasonable nexus to the
object of equality in results as a component of economic and social empowerment. It is just and reasonable procedure prescribed to achieve the
constitutional objectives of equality of status and opportunity and dignity of person to integrate them in the mainstream of the national life, as per the
arch of the Constitution, i.e., the Constitution consistent with the efficiency of administration envisaged under Article 335 of the Constitution.
So, the submissions of Mr. Muthusamy, the learned Senior Counsel to substantiate the case of the petitioner cannot be countenanced.
Though the petitioners in WP No.4330 of 1998 have challenged in the writ petition that the benefits should be extended to the students who
are studying in town panchayat schools also, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the benefits should be given to all the rural students
irrespective of their place of study. The said submission is not only contrary to the prayer sought for but also cannot be accepted in view of the
settled principles of law. Admittedly, exercising powers under Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India, the Government has passed the Order,
forming one specific class.
According to Mr. Alagiriswami, the learned Senior Counsel, the recommendation is only to give benefit to all the rural students and it cannot be
restricted to a set of particular students who are studying in village panchayat schools by which it cannot be Said that the object has been achieved
in real sense. Though the report speaks about the rural students, on the basis of the report the Government has taken a policy decision. The reason
for the classification has been set out in the counter. When the said classification cannot be said to be unreasonable, the petitioners cannot ask the
Court to extend the scope of the Government Orders by, exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That being so, it
is not for the Court to ask the Government to extend the same benefit to other category of students, or to the other students on domicile basis.
In view of the above discussions, we do not find any merits in these writ petitions. Accordingly, they are dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
the connected WMPs. are closed.