AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Murugesan, J.—In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners have made one more attempt for inclusion of ""the grandchildren of Freedom
Fighters"" in the prospectus for consideration, selection and admission to the professional courses like medicine and engineering for the academic
year 2005-06.
In exercise of powers under Article 162 of The Constitution of India, the State Government issues each year the Government Orders, which are
normally known as ""Policy Government Orders"" containing norms for admission of candidates to various professional courses. Such Government
Orders include the number of seats to be filled in, the colleges in which such seats are filled, eligibility, educational qualification, age restriction, the
source of admission, etc. The State, under Article 15(4), could make any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally
backward classes of citizens or for the scheduled castes or scheduled tribes, which is known as ""communal reservation"". Till the academic year
2003-04, the Government, in exercise of the powers under Article 15(4), reserved three seats in medical/dental courses for the
children/grandchildren of Freedom Fighters. It appears that from the academic year 2004-05, the Government have reserved three seats in
medical/dental courses only to the children of Freedom Fighters. The same reservation is followed for admission to the medical/dental courses for
the academic year 2005-06 as well. Similarly, certain number of seats were reserved for the children/grandchildren of Freedom Fighters for
selection and admission to engineering courses till the academic year 2004-05 and, for the current academic year, the Government had decided to
earmark those seats only to the children of Freedom Fighters.
Clause 15 of the prospectus for the academic year 2005-06 relating to medical/dental courses, which is put in issue, reads as follows:-
SEATS RESERVED FOR SPECIAL CATEGORIES IN GOVERNMENT COLLEGES:
Seats earmarked for the special categories will be allotted following Horizontal Reservation.
SPECIAL CATEGORIES:
(i) SEATS RESERVED FOR CHILDREN OF Freedom Fighters: NO. OF SEATS RESERVED IN M.B.B.S. - 3
The candidates while applying under the Special Category mentioned above should furnish the following copies of documents along with the
application.
a. Assistance Certificates/Freedom Fighter Pension Orders issued by the Central/State Government to the freedom fighter.
(OR)
Jail Extract duly recommended by the District Committee for the Freedom Fighters.
b. Particulars of the Freedom Fighter in the book containing Freedom Fightersnames published by Government of Tamil Nadu.
c. Proof that the candidate is the child of the Freedom Fighter.
d. Tahsildar Certificate to establish the relationship with the Freedom Fighter.
e. Birth Certificate to ascertain the parentage of the candidate.
f. Legal heir certificate of the Freedom Fighter.
...
Similar is the clause for admission to engineering courses.
The grievance of the petitioners is that the benefit hitherto given to the grandchildren of Freedom Fighters have been unjustly taken away,
especially when the present clause itself is not workable. The respective counsel, in support of the above grievance, would submit that in the last
year and in the current academic year, there were no candidates eligible to apply for admission to medical courses in the category of children of
Freedom Fighters. They would submit that there may not be children of Freedom Fighters after nearly 53 years with eligibility conditions and
qualifications for being considered for admission. The further grievance of the petitioners is that when a provision entitling grandchildren of
Freedom Fighters is made for admission to the Teacher Training Course, the decision of the Government in not extending the same benefit to the
students opting for medical/dental/engineering courses would be discriminatory.
It is well settled law that the prospectus, which is a piece of information to the candidates, containing summary and essence of the norms and
rules by which the applications of candidates for selection would be considered, is binding not only on the students, but also on the Government
and as well on the authorities involved in the process of selection. This consistent view had been taken in number of cases. To quote, the following
are few of them.
(1) ""K. Suganthi v. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary and Commissioner to Dept. of Health and Medical Education, Madras-9 and two
Ors. 1984 WL.R. 249.
(2) ""Dr. A. Rathnaswamy v. Director of Medical Education, Madras and three Ors. 1986 W.L.R. 207.
(3) ""Midhuna Nathan v. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Department of Health, Fort St. George, Madras and seven Ors. 1995 W L.R.
851
It is also equally well settled that the procedures prescribed under the rules should be strictly followed and the authorities cannot ignore the same,
as has been held by the Supreme Court in the decisions in "" State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Chandra Mohan Nigam and Others, "", in "" Ramana
Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India and Others, "" as well by a Full Bench of this Court in the decision in ""P.A. Manickam
v. The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Deputy Secretary, Home Department, Madras 1984 WL.R. 1
The power of the Government to identify the source of admission is well recognised by the Supreme Court in the following judgments:-
(1) "" R. Chitralekha and Another Vs. State of Mysore and Others, "".
(2) "" Minor P. Rajendran Vs. State of Madras and Others, "".
(3) "" Kumari Chitra Ghosh and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, "".
(4) "" Krishna Priya Ganguly and Others Vs. University of Lucknow and Others, "".
The State, which is running most of the professional colleges, is entitled to restrict the admission and distribute the seats equally from among the
eligible candidates. For the said purpose, the State is empowered to identify the source of admission. The normal rule is merit-based admission.
However, the State, in exercise of its legislative power, has enacted the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes
(Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of Appointments or Posts in the Services under the State) Act, 1993 (Tamil Nadu Act 45 of
1994) providing 69% reservation to various communities and leaving 31% to open category. The power of the State to earmark certain number of
seats under special category came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in the decision in ""M.Aarthi (Minor) rep. by her mother
and natural guardian Mrs. M. Renuka and 2 Ors. v. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government, Health & Family Welfare
Department, Chennai and 11 Ors. 2002 (4) CTC 449. By a majority, the Full Bench held that ""other than the reservation in Tamil Nadu Act 45 of
1994, what is permissible is only for physically handicapped, eminent sportsmen, children of Freedom Fighters and children of ex-servicemen
being horizontal reservation and the executive power of the State no longer would be available to create additional special category seats or to add
the quantum of reservation provided in the Act 45 of 1994"". Even the reservation under the above categories, the right for reservation for
physically handicapped viz., disabled persons could be traced to the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995. So far as the reservation of seats to sportsmen, children/grandchildren of ex-servicemen and Freedom Fighters is
concerned, it would be only a concession extended to them by the Government.
How far the said concession could be claimed as a matter of right is a further question that arises for consideration. Of course, the Government,
in its wisdom while issuing policy Government Orders, had earmarked certain number of seats to the children/grandchildren of Freedom Fighters in
the previous years. On that account, whether the petitioners would be well within their rights to claim the extension of the same benefit to all the
years to come? In my opinion, it cannot be for the following reasons.
Law is well settled that this Court, in exercise of its powers, shall not enter upon to direct legislation in a particular subject, as legislation on a
subject is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Legislature, as has been held in various judgments, more particularly, in "" Miss. Romini Susan Kurian Vs.
State of A.P. and others, "", in ""Midhuna Nathan v. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Department of Health, Fort St. George, Madras and
seven Ors. 1995 W.L.R. 851 and in "" G. Sumathi Vs. The Director of Medical Education, Madras and others, "". It will not be within the
jurisdiction of the Court either to amend, alter or to add something into the prospectus, as it would be the function of the State in exercise of the
powers under Article 162 of The Constitution of India. Either the challenge or the direction for inclusion of grandchildren of Freedom Fighters, ex-
servicemen has no legs in the context that the petitioners cannot firstly insist the Government to identify the source of admission under special
category in a particular manner or request the Court to direct the Government to identify and earmark certain number of seats for a particular
special category of persons.
So far as the unreasonableness is concerned, my attention is drawn to a similar challenge made before this Court in a batch of writ petitions
and this Court had repelled the said contention in the decision in ""T.T. Saravanan, Minor rep. by his father and natural guardian Dr. G.T.
Thangarajan and 4 Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Chennai and Ors.
2005 W.L.R.69 where the learned single Judge held that the special category reservations are more in the nature of benefits given to certain
identified group of persons and there is no constitutional obligation as in the case of reservation under Article 15(4) and Article 16(4) of The
Constitution of India. I am entirely in agreement with the said judgment.
So far as the discrimination is concerned, it is the contention of the respective learned counsel that the grandchildren of Freedom Fighters were
made eligible for admission to the Teacher Training Course. In the policy note of the Government for the academic year 2005-06, the Government
have come out with a policy of reserving certain number of seats for the grandchildren of Freedom Fighters and the said policy was not reflected in
the prospectus. It must be kept in mind that the policy of the Government in prescribing the admission norms particularly, the eligibility, educational
qualification, age restriction, etc., identifying the source of admission shall depend upon the number of seats available vis-a-vis number of colleges
established. Each professional course is different and the Government is competent to fix different source of admission for each course. This
proposition of law is supported by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in ""P.Nithiyan (Minor) rep. by father and natural guardian R.
Palanisamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Secretary to Government, Education Department, Chennai and Ors. 1994 WL.R. 624. Merely
because the Government had made the grandchildren of Freedom Fighters eligible for selection and admission to Teacher Training Course, it
cannot be a ground for the petitioners to seek for extension of the said benefit to the medical or engineering course, as the case may be.
For all the above reasons, I find absolutely no merits in the grievance of the petitioners for inclusion of the grandchildren of Freedom Fighters in
the prospectus 2005-06 and to consider them for selection. Accordingly, all the writ petitions fail and the same are dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, all the connected W.P.M. Ps. are also dismissed.