AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Subba Rao, C.J.—This is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ calling for the records relating to the selection of medical students from region No. 1 of the former Telangana area, to set aside the selections illegally made and to order that fresh selections be made according to law.
The petitioner claims to belong to Munnuru Kapu community, which is one of the backward classes in the State. He passed the B.Sc. examination from the Osmania University Science College, Hyderabad in the year 1956 with Zoology main and Botany and Chemistry as subsidiaries. In the group, he secured 57.3 per cent of the marks in the final examination. He applied for admission into the Medical College. He was interviewed but was not selected though his name was put in the first waiting list. Claiming that his fundamental right guaranteed under Art. 29 (2) of the Constitution has been violated, he filed the application for the aforesaid relief.
The facts pertaining to the selection have been stated in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State. Under the scheme of selection propounded by the State, the total number of seats available both in the Osmania and the Gandhi Medical Colleges was 150. Of these, five seats were allotted to students under the Colombo plan Cultural Scholarships etc., and of the remaining 145 seats, 15 per cent were allotted to Karnataka, 10 per cent to Marathwada, 30 per cent to women, 15 per cent to backward classes, 15 per cent to scheduled castes and the remaining to candidates under the general pool.
Under this arrangement, the total number of seats available to the Telangana candidates was 110 excluding the reservations. This was divided between regions 1 and 2 on population basis. The total number of seats which became available for region No. 1 was 13, 10 for boys and 3 for girls. The said 13 seats had been distributed as follows:
Boys (General)
6
Boys (Backward classes)
2
Boys (Scheduled castes)
2
Girls (General)
1
Girls (Backward classes)
1
Girls (Scheduled castes)
1
13
The marks of the last candidate in the Boys'' (General) category was 62.5 per cent and that in the boys'' (backward classes) category 60.2 per cent. The marks secured by the single backward class-girl candidate was 62.1 per cent. The boys, who competed for the seat reserved for the backward classes, secured the following marks:
1.
K. Manohar
60.2%
2.
Syed Rahamat Hussain
60.2%
3.
Mohd. Bazlullah
57.7%
4.
Puppala Sudarsan (Petitioner)
57.3%
The aforesaid facts are not denied.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, if Manohar had been allowed to compete for the general pool, the petitioner would have got the seat under reservation for students of backward classes and therefore the selections made rejecting his claims violated his fundamental right under Art. 29 (2) of the Constitution of India.
From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that even if Manohar was allowed to compete for the general pool, the petitioner would not have secured a seat, for two other boys belonging to backward classes secured more marks than what the petitioner got. But it is said that one of the other two was allotted to the Gunfur College and, therefore, the petitioner would have been selected in his place.
We shall assume for the purpose of the application, though the supervening circumstances may not be of much relevance, that, if Manohar did not compete for the reserved seat, the petitioner would nave got in. The next question is whether the petitioner''s fundamental right has in any way, been violated in this case.
The material parts of the relevant Articles may be read:
Article 29:
(2) No citizen shall be denied admission in any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds (sic) grounds only of religion, race, caste, language any of them.
Article 15:
The state shall not discriminate again any citizen on grounds only of religion, ra(sic) caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.
(2) * * * *
(3) * * * *
(4) Nothing in this article or in Cl. (2) of Art. shall prevent the State from making any spe(sic) provisions for the advancement of any socially (sic) educationally backward classes of citizens or for scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes.
Construing the aforesaid provisions Division Bench of this Court of which one of was a member, in V. Raghuramulu and another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, , observed as follows :
Every individual citizen as a citizen where he belongs to the backward classes or not has right to get admission into an educational (sic)tution of the kind mentioned in clause 2 of (sic) 29. The said fundamental right is abridged (sic) the special provision made by the State for (sic) advancement of any socially and educational backward classes of citizens. If the provisional for the advancement of such classes, the fundamental right of a citizen is not infringed for(sic) right itself is reduced by the provision. If provision though it purports to be for the (sic)vancement of the backward classes in effect ridges their rights, the entire provision or part of it which abridges their rights would (sic)bad leaving untouched the fundamental right(sic) every citizen whether he is a member of (sic) backward classes or not.
In the light of these observations (sic) after considering the validity of the reserv(sic) made for backward classes, the Division (sic) proceeded to state:
Therefore, the effect of the provision in (sic) of advancing the cause of the backward of prevented some members of those classes getting seats which they would have other got if all the seats were brought under cor(sic)pool... It is, therefore, not necessa(sic) hold that the rule is bad but it would be e(sic) to confine the operation of that rule to a where the assumption underlying that rule a(sic) and to hold that in other cases where the (sic) does not operate for the advancement of the backward classes, the fundamental right of a (sic) of that class is unaffected by the provision.
We would suggest that the rule may be (sic) fled by substituting the words "minimum (sic) per cent" for the words "maximum of (sic) cent" or by any other appropriate'' way. It (sic) disputed that but for the provision, the (sic) of the two petitioners would have been cons(sic) along with the applicants selected from the(sic)ral pool and, if so considered, they would been selected.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the said decision accepts the principle (sic) selection of candidates in two compartments, (sic)e for the quota allotted for backward classes (sic)d the other for the general pool and, therefore, (sic)ys, belonging to the backward classes, who succeed in a competition held for the general pool, (sic)ust be excluded from the selections in the reser(sic)d field. No such principle was accepted in the (sic)oresaid decision.
It was there held that the rule, under the circumstances of that case, did not affect the fundamental right of a citizen belonging to the backward communities and that the petitioners therein having secured marks higher than the (sic)dents selected from the general pool were (sic)ected to be admitted. It was not argued there(sic) that if all the boys belonging to the backward classes were taken in the general pool, the petitioners would have been excluded, while pre(sic)ving the minimum guaranteed to backward (sic)sses students. We had no occasion therefore decide therein the question whether the selection should be made in compartments.
That question arises in this case. The fundamental right of a citizen whether he belongs to a backward community or not is to se(sic)e admission in any educational institution (sic)ntained by the State without his being discri(sic)ated on grounds only of religion, race, caste, (sic) any of them. The State may abridge this (sic)t by making a provision for the advancement (sic)ny socially and educationally backward class citizens.
Presumably in exercise of that power, the State (sic)ted that a maximum of 15 per cent of the (sic) in each faculty should be reserved for can(sic)tes from backward classes. If the boys belong to the backward classes by their merit (sic)e more than 15 per cent of the seats in the (sic)ral competition, this rule cannot be invoked subject the boys above the prescribed number; (sic)n that event their fundamental right under 29 (2) would be violated.
On the other hand, if the selection is made (sic)o different compartments in such a way some boys belonging to the backward classes allowed to compete for the general pool and for the reserved seats, it would cause great hip to the boys belonging to other communi(sic). The rule, therefore, can be worked out in (sic) a way as to protect the interests of students the backward classes without at the same time (sic)g prejudice to students of other communication (sic) his could be achieved by pooling all the can(sic)s together and guaranteeing minimum: seats (sic)ose belonging to the backward classes. To (sic)ate: If there are 100 applicants for selection the Medical College, they would be arrang(sic) the order of merit and even if more than (sic) cent of the candidates belonging to the (sic) and classes could be selected on merit alone, would be so selected.
(sic) they fell short of that number, they would (sic)cted to make up their number on the basis (sic)rit inter se between them, though they is marks than boys belonging to other com(sic)es. This process will protect students of (sic)rd classes without doing any injustice to (sic)ward ones. The rule with the modification (sic)ggested by this Court in the earlier judgment does not compel selection in different com(sic)nts but only reserves some seats to the (sic)lar communities. In this view as the petitioner did not succeed in the general competition (sic) seats reserved for the backward classes for their protection were exhausted, no right of the petitioner is infringed.
The application fails and is dismissed with costs. Advocate''s fee Rs. 50/-.