AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In all these writ petitions, the revised norms of rural reservation in under challenge. Based on the recommendation of a High Level Committee
that because of the locational advantage with regard to schools, coaching for entrance examination etc., rural students were in a disadvantageous
position, and that in order to help the bright students of rural areas, a reservation of 15% of seats in professional courses to rural students subject
to usual communal reservation was suggested. The said recommendation was accepted and the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms. No. 261,
Higher Education Department dated 12.5.1997, reserving 15% of the seats in Engineering Colleges and in G.O. Ms. No. 600. Health and Family
Welfare Department dated 5.12.1997, in Medical and Dental Colleges to rural students. The Government Orders were upheld by the Division
Bench Of this Court in Navarasam Matriculation Higher Secondary-Parents-teachers association, Palliyuthu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and 2 others,
.
While the matter stood thus, on the basis of certain complaints from representatives of the public, parent-teacher associations, journalists and
writings in editorial columns and reports, the Government had to reconsider the norms adopted for the allotment of 15% seats. The main objection
was that self financing matriculation schools situated in rural areas adjoining the urban areas are the maximum beneficiaries earmarked for this
category. Consequently, the real rural students to whom the benefit was intended are deprived of this concession. After further deliberation of this
issue headed by the Honourable Minister for Education and other officials, it was decided that this concession should not be made applicable to
schools which collected tuition fees from the students and also restricted this concession to Government Higher Secondary Schools, Aided Higher
Secondary Schools and Schools run by Adi Dravidar Tribal Welfare Department, Backward Classes Department and Reformatory Schools which
are located in Village panchayats. On the basis of these guidelines, a list was prepared and approved: This policy decision of the Government was
made into an order in G.O.Ms.No. 209, Higher Education Department dated 7.5.1999 and G.O.Ms.No. 232, Health and Family Welfare
Department dated 1.6.1999. Three of these writ petitions challenge these Government Orders and two other writ petitions seek for a mandamus to
direct the Government to consider their applications based on the earlier orders and include the schools wherein the petitioners studied under 15%
reservation, and for a declaration that giving the benefit of rural reservation to students who studied in private schools is discriminatory.
On behalf of the first respondent, the Deputy Secretary to Government has filed a counter affidavit. It is pleaded in the counter that the decision
was taken after considering complaints and suggestions and based on the Note of the Honourable Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu in his Budget
Speech directing the Government to take necessary steps to ensure that the entire benefit must go to the real rural students. Thus, the Government
had taken a policy decision to exclude the schools collecting tuition fees and include the Government and Aided Higher Secondary Schools only
under the rural reservation. It is stated that even in Government Schools, for English Medium classes, a nominal fees of Rs. 30 collected. But, the
above schools belong to the weaker sections of the society. They cannot be equated or treated as equal to those schools located in rural areas, but
who are collecting a substantial amount of tuition fees. The object sought to be achieved is to help the rural students who are in a disadvantageous
position than the others who study in the fees levying schools. The impugned Government Orders were passed only in order to rectify the anomaly
and to benefit genuine rural students.
Learned senior counsel Mr.R. Muthukumaraswamy, who led the arguments on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the object of the
Government from the inception of this scheme is to assist the students who are in a locationally disadvantageous position. Once they are classified
as such, there cannot be a further classification. The Division Bench had upheld the Government Order holding that students going to two schools
hailing from rural areas cannot get the benefit, the object being that the students from the rural areas should be given the concession. Therefore,
once the schools are in the rural setup, those schools and the students studying in those schools cannot be denied on the ground of collection of
fees. According to him, the students have no alternative but to attend the fees levying schools located in their villages and therefore, for no fault of
theirs they should not be denied of the benefits of concession.
Learned counsel Mr.M.M. Sundaresh submitted that the classification of the schools based on tuition fee is nothing but bringing in economical
criteria alone, which cannot be sustained under Article ... of the Constitution of India.
Learned counsel Mr.S.T.S. Murthy submitted that the Government is the authority prescribe the qualifications for the teachers and the syllabus
for the curriculum. Consequently, all the students are equally placed. Hence, there cannot be a discrimination only on the ground of attending the
schools which are levying fees. He submitted that there are not enough Government or Aided Schools in their rural areas and hence they are
compelled to attended self financing schools. Therefore, the students cannot be denied of their benefits.
Abdul Nazeer, appearing for one of the petitioners submitted that the students had undertaken the study at the time of joining in the hope that the
school will be included in the list of rural schools. As a matter of fact, the District Collector has recommended their school to be included.
However, on the basis of the Government Order since the school is a fees collecting matriculation school, the benefits of rural reservation is not
given. This violates the principles of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel.
Learned Additional Advocate General, meeting the various points, submitted that after looking into the working of the earlier Government
Orders, the circumstances indicated that many of the schools in rural areas are having facilities similar to those of urban schools. The object of the
Government Order was that the students who are deprived of infrastructural facilities, assistance and guidance should be given the concession. On
the contrary, it was brought to their notice that there are schools in the rural areas which are having the same facilities to those or urban schools
which may not require reservation. If those students are also permitted to avail of the reservation, it will be depriving the real rural students of the
benefits of concession and treating the unequals as equals.
Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that this provision is a concession and the Government is competent to correctly identify
the beneficiaries. They found that the benefit did not go to whom it was really intended. The concession is not a right and the same cannot be given
to a person unless he is within the norms prescribed by the Government for that purpose. The benefit should go to the students and not to the
schools. The Government took a policy decision that students who are studying in fees levying schools are in an advantageous position similar to
that of urban schools, whereas students who are studying in Government Aided schools did not have the same facilities and hence the said criteria
was adopted.
I have heard the counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Advocate General and considered the matter carefully.
The reservation of 15% seats to rural students as such is not objected to, and the power of the Government in making reservation is not
questioned. All the petitioners want that reservation should be extended to them and not just restricted to fees levying schools only.
From the records made available by the Government, it is seen that in so far as Erode, District is concerned, there was a detailed
representation by 22 parent-teacher associations of different schools requesting the extension of the benefit of reservation to schools located in
town panchayats. In that representation, it is alleged that the benefit of rural reservations is cornered by few Matriculations Higher Secondary
Schools located on the periphery of the municipal limits, but which are part of village panchayats, and they have also stated that 90% of the benefit
did not reach the real village students.
A write-up in ""The Hindu"" dated 19.8.1998 drew the attention of the Government that the scheme helped not the real rural students. It further
added that instead of the less privileged students which the Government targeted, many of the beneficiaries were from upmarket schools which just
happened to be in rural areas. When the Government policy was to provide a level playing field for students from rural areas, as they constituted
only 4% of the total admissions to professional courses, when the policy was put into practice, the ""posh"" neighbourhoods snatched the bulk of the
benefit that should have reached the real rural students. The report went on to say that academic experts say that if the defects are not rectified at
the earliest, it would result in yet another flawed reservation policy and subversion of attempts to help the under privileged. It also suggested that a
criteria based on fees can be made to filter the unwanted out. ""Dinamalai"", in their write-up dated 4.10.1998 also pleaded that the benefit of
reservation should go to the really rural poor students. Many of the village schools did not have proper buildings or sufficient teachers. Science
subjects were being taken by History teachers in those schools Whereas, the private schools adjoining the towns, but which happened to be
situated in the village, were having sufficient facility equal to that of urban schools. It was pointed out that the benefit available to I standard
students in those schools were not available even to Plus Two Students in the rural schools. Therefore, the write-up pleaded that the 15%
reservation should go to students who are studying without even a black board and proper seating facility. ""Dinamani"", in their editorial dated
15.3.1998, supported the proposal of the Government that the facility should be given to the students who are studying in schools not levying fees.
In a Note submitted by Ramanujam Computer Centre of Anna University on the reservation for candidates hailing from rural schools, it is stated
that the criteria is not only the economy, but also the exposure of candidates to opportunities in education, general knowledge, coaching centres,
school facilities and infrastucture etc. If all these factors are taken into account, then, only the rural students alone deserve help and concession.
But, among these schools which are in the rural areas, schools with good infrastructural facilities and exposure alone attract students, but with
sizeable amounts as tuition fees. The students who have to be given concession and a helping hand are only those who hail from rural areas and
who cannot, not only afford paying hefty tuition fees, but also miss, other than classroom, opportunities available to urban boys and girls. The
professor concluded as follows:-
Taking all the pros and cons and factors for and against, it may be safely concluded that the reservation for rural school candidates can be made
available only to the students of schools in village panchayat limits and also not charging any tuition fees from the Candidates. The Government may
delete from the list of rural schools, those schools which collect tuition fees from the students.
After considering these various representations, reports and evaluation of experts in the field, a meeting was convened under the head of the
Honourable Minister for Education on 19.4.99. They have decided that in order to provide the benefits to the real rural students, the students
studying in schools which are run by the Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, Backward Classes Department and Reformatory Schools
which are located in village panchayats alone are eligible for 15% rural reservation. It was also decided that the concession should not be made
applicable to schools which collected tuition fees from the students. Thus, the only criteria in the earlier Government Order, that students who have
studied in XI and XII standards in the Higher Secondary Schools located in village panchayats, is further modified and a condition added to the
effect that those schools which are levying tuition fees, though located in village panchayats, are to be excluded. The exclusion is based on the
conclusion that certain Matriculation and Higher Secondary Schools, though located in village Panchayats, are having sufficient facility equal to that
of an urban school, and consequently they are liable to corner 90% of the seats made available to the real rural students. In other words, the object
of the rural reservation to provide a level playing field and to extend a helping to the students studying without sufficient facilities was defeated and
they were deprived of it by certain schools, though located in village areas, but did not have the deficiencies or disadvantages which required the
reservation. After considering all the pros and cons and the reasons to set right the anomaly, the Government thought levying fees can be taken as a
criteria for the purpose of excluding those schools. It is not the economic criteria that is adopted. It is only a factor to identify the quality of the
particular school. Thereby, the Government object is sought to be achieved.
The basic formulation of reservation is to make the rural students equal with the urban students. In other words, the rural students suffer a
handicap of lack of facilities in the form of insufficient teaching, coaching and other facilities. The schools which levy tuition fees, though located in
the rural areas, if they provide equal facilities etc. to those of urban schools, they have to be excluded from the reservations category, or else it will
lead to a discrimination against the really rural poor students. The Government, after considering all the materials, have decided that the
Government Schools and Aided Schools and schools of the Department of the Government are only eligible for this concession. Similarly, they
found out that certain schools which are able to corner 90% of the 15% reservation are fees levying schools with all the facilities of a modem
school of a town, may not require a reservation. Any benefit to them also would really deprive the really poor rural students.
The instances were pointed out in the newspaper reports as follows:
For example, 36 students got admission into the M.B.B.S. Course from just two schools at Thindal, Erode with one school accounting for 24
seats. Out of the 24 seats, 9 came under the rural quota. In the case of other schools, 7 students got admission because of ""rural cover""...
A study of the admission list indicates that the bulk of the seats are cornered by upmarket schools with the real rural students getting sparse
representation. One school in Enammaniyachi has sent 9 students, while another in Sogathur, Dharmapuri has sent 8 students. In the former; 4
students came under rural category, while in the latter, the rural advantage came to the help of 3.
Thus, on factual analysis, it was found that there was an anamoly in the granting of concession to rural students without regard to the object for
which the benefit was intended, namely to provide a level playing field and to offset the lack of facilities in the rural school. This is sought to be
rectified by identifying the schools which are having equal infrastructural facilities. One such criteria adopted for that identification is the fee levying
norm.
The Government found that these self-financing schools are equally well placed and are comparable to those of urban schools. The fees that are
levied also cannot be compared to the normal fees of Rs. 30 for the English Medium Section in Government Higher Secondary Schools.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of their contention that students who are paying tuition fees cannot be discriminated, relied upon
the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney etc. etc Vs. Union of India and others, etc. etc., , wherein it was held that if some of the
members are far too advanced socially (which in the context necessarily mean economically and may also mean educational), the connecting thread
between them and the remaining class snaps. They would be misfits in the class. After excluding them alone would the class be compact class. In
fact, such exclusion benefits the truly backward. The said reference actually may not support the case of the petitioners. Even though this is not
reservation under Article 15(4) of the Constitution, the principle being that if some of the members of the same class namely rural students are top
advanced from that of rural students, they would be misfits in that class. After excluding them alone there would be a compact class of rural
students. In Deepak Sibal Vs. Punjab University and Another, , the Supreme Court held that it is true that a classification need not be made with
mathematical precision, but if there be title or no difference between the persons or things which have been grouped together and those left out of
that group, in that case, the classification cannot be said to be a reasonable one. The Supreme Court held that the University cannot restrict the
admission to evening classes if the object is to accommodate employees in general including the private employees who are unable to attend
morning classes. The test is whether the employees of the private establishments are equally in a disadvantageous position in attending morning
classes. There can be no doubt that both of them stand on an equal footing and there is no difference between these two classes of employees. To
exclude the employees of private establishments will not, therefore, satisfy the test of intelligible differentia. This decision may not apply to the facts
of this case. It cannot be stated that the students of fees levying schools and the students of schools not levying fees as also the Government and
Aided Schools are in the same disadvantageous position as the rural students. It has been found, as a matter of fact, that they form a different class
and the object being to help the rural students, the Government Order wanted to achieve the object to help the real rural students.
Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. F.N. Balsara, AIR
1951 S.C. 318, wherein the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had taken the view that relaxation of rule in favour of Armed Forces as a
class is not unreasonable and there is nothing wrong prima facie in the legislature according special treatment to persons who form a class
themselves in many respects. In Ameerunnissa Begum and Others Vs. Mahboob Begum and Others, , another Constitution Bench of the Supreme
Court held that a legislature must, of necessity, have the power of making special laws to attain particular objects and must have larger powers of
selection or classification of persons and things upon which such laws are to operate. Mere differentiation or inequality of treatment does not per se
amount to discrimination and it is necessary to show that the selection or differentiation is unreasonable or arbitrary and that it does not rest on any
rational basis having regard to the object which the legislature has in view. It was further held that it is well settled that a legislature which has to
deal with diverse problems arising out of infinite value of human definitions, must have the power of making special laws to obtain particular
objects; and for that purpose it must have large powers of selection and classification of persons and things upon which such laws are to operate.
The Constitution Bench also held that in judging reasonableness of the classification, the court has undoubtedly to look into the social, political and
economic interest of the community as a whole. Applying the said principle, learned Additional Advocate General Submitted that the decision is
made on a rational basis having regard to the object and therefore, there is no unreasonableness in the classification.
In Dr. Jagadish Saran and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI), , their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in reference to the scope and applicability
of Article 14 in admission to educational institutions, observed as follows:
Constitutional equality itself is dynamic, flexible and moulded by the variables of life. For instance, if a region is educationally backward or
ownfully deficient in medical sciences, there occurs serious educational and medical service disparity for that human region, it must be redressed by
an equality -and - service minded welfare State. The purpose of such a policy is to remove the existing inequality and to promote welfare based
equality for the denizens of the backward regions. The specific strategy to ameliorate the unequal societal condition is left to the State, provided it
is feared to producing equality in the quality of life of that handicapped area subject, of course, to basic recognition of individual quality and criteria
of efficiency.
Their Lordships further held that if the State finds that only students from backward region who are given medical only students care to serve that
area, drawn towards it by a sense of belonging and whereas those from outside will, on graduation, leave for cities or their own region, it may
evolve a policy of preference for reservation of students of that University. Such measures may be constitutionalised even by Articles 14 and 15. In
Katra Educational Society Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, , the Supreme Court held that exemption granted to recognised educational
institutions maintained by the State and the Central Governments from operation of certain specified provisions has prima facie justifiable
classification between privately managed educational institutions and those maintained by State Governments. To claim protections of Article 14, it
must be shown that persons differently treated are similarly situated and discrimination is made with uneven hand. In Reserve Bank of India and
Others Vs. C.N. Sahasranaman and Others, , the Supreme Court held, in reference to service rules, that there cannot be any service rule which
would satisfy each and (every employee and its constitutionality has to be judged by considering whether it is fair, reasonable and does justice to
the majority of employees and fortunes of some individuals is not the touchstone. In some areas, the chances of promotion occur more often, but
that is fortuitous and would not really affect the question and violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The justice of the case should be
judged in conjunction with the other factors. Therefore, the contention that in some villages there are no Government Schools or Aided Schools
and therefore the fees levying schools should be treated as rural area schools cannot be accepted.
On the question of legitimate expectation, the Supreme Court, in Food Corporation of India v. Kamadhenu Cattle feed Industries 1983 (1)
S.C.C. 71, held that the question whether expectation of a claimants is legitimate in the context of facts in each case. Whenever the question arises,
it has to be determined not according to the claimants perception, but in larger public interest wherein other more important considerations may
outweigh what would otherwise have been legitimate expectation of the claimants. The bona fide decision of the public authority reached in this
manner will satisfy the requirement of non arbitrariness and withstand judicial scrutiny. The doctrine of legitimate expectation gets assimilated in the
rule of law and operate in our legal system in this manner and to this extent. In Kasinka Trading and another, etc. etc. Vs. Union of India and
another, , the Supreme Court held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked in the abstract and the courts are bound to consider
all aspects including the results sought to be achieved and the public good at large, because while considering the applicability of the doctrine, the
courts have to do equity and the fundamental principles of equity must forever be present in the mind of courts while considering the applicability of
the doctrine. The doctrine must yield when the equity so demands without which it can be shown having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case, that it would be inequitable to hold the Government or the public authority to its promise, assurance or representation. In Navjyoti Coo-
Group Housing Society etc. Vs. Union of India and Others, , the Supreme Court held that the existence of ""legitimate expectation"" may have a
number of different consequences and one such consequences is that the authority ought not to act to defeat the legitimate expectation without
some overriding reason of public policy to justify it doing so. In State of Himachal Pradesh and others etc. Vs. Ganesh Wood Products and others,
etc., , the Supreme Court held that the the rule of promissory estoppel being an equitable doctrine, has to be moulded to suit the particular
situation. It is not a hard and fast rule, but an elastic one, the object of which is to do justice between the parties and toe extend an equitable
treatment. Applying these principles on the legitimate expectation or promissory estoppel, petitioners cannot claim equit on the basis that the
Government had promised reservation for rural students. As a matter of fact, the Government is not estopped from identifying the real rural
students, on the basis of a policy decision, which in turn, is supported by materials, the Government prescribes the norms for claiming the rural
reservation. The decision of the Government is a bona fide one and satisfies the requirement of non arbitrariness. Hence, no case is made out on
the plea of promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation.
The contention that there was a sub-classification within the classification and that here is no nexus between the object and there is no date on
which conclusion has been arrived at cannot be sustained. The Government has taken a decision based on the facts and materials gathered from
the outcome of reservations made in the previous years, wherein it was found that only few schools, though located in the villages, are able to
corner 90% of the seats. It was also found out that they are not the real rural schools to whom the benefits were intended, it is not a further
classification, but it is actually a correct classification in the sense that the rural candidates were really identified by adding the criteria and excluding
the fee levying schools. It is true that there are only self-financing schools in some villages and in the absence of Government or Aided Schools, the
students are forced to attend those schools and that they cannot be discriminated. But, the point is that the students who are studying in those
schools are equally placed to those studying in the urban schools. Therefore, the object of providing a concession to students studying in the
schools lacking in the facilities cannot be achieved if the concession is extended to the fee levying schools. It is to be remembered that exceptions
cannot set at naught the real object and the benefit it sowed. The Government, in their wisdom and the policy, thought the these are the criteria for
the purpose of reaching the real rural poor students, Since there is no general objection as to the reservation of 15% and the granting of the benefit
to the real rural students, it is only a question of working out the methodology to give the benefit. The existing rule as evolved by the Government
based on the previous experience cannot be held to be a decision made arbitrarily and without any reason. On the contrary, it is made with full
consciousness, in response to the objections, informations and deliberations, and with the discussion of all concerned. The classification made is
based on rational basis having relation to the object achieved.
For all these reasons, I hold that the impugned Government Orders are valid and enforceable. The writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed.
Consequently, all the related W.M.Ps. are also dismissed.