V. Sundararaj vs State of Tamilnadu and The Secretary, Selection Committee

S.S. Subrmani, J.—Petition seeks issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus by calling for the records relating to the selection of

candidates for M.B.B.S. Course, Special Category admission list published in the Hindu Newspaper dated 5.8.1998 and quash the same as far as

the seats reserved for children born of inter-caste marriage are considered and consequently direct the third Respondent to give admission to the

Petitioner under the said Special Category in any one of Government Medical Colleges in Tamil Nadu for the academic year 1998-99 and pass

further order.

The Petitioner was born out of inter-caste marriage i.e., his father belongs to Scheduled Tribe and his mother belong to backward class. After

having completed Higher Secondary education, petition wrote entrance examination and wanted admission in Medical College under the seats

reserved for the children born out of inter-caste marriage.

The Petitioner was denied admission on the ground that even under the special category, preference is to be given to the children born of inter-

caste marriage between a member of forward community and scheduled caste. This according to the Petitioner is not permissible under the

constitution as there cannot be division between the children born out of inter-caste marriage. According to the Petitioner, there is only one class

i.e., Children born of inter-caste marriage and order of preference fixed in prospectus in invalid and unconstitutional.

Detailed affidavit has been filed by the Secretary, Selection Committee where-in he justified the selection of candidates and also the preference

in admission from among the children of inter-caste marriage. According to the preference, children born of inter-caste marriage, between

Scheduled Cast and Scheduled Tribes and Forward community will have preference over the children born of inter-caste marriage between

Scheduled Caste, and Scheduled Tribes and backward community and as between children born of inter-caste marriage between Scheduled

Caste and denotified communities. It is further submitted that categorisation of children born of inter-caste marriage for the purpose of admission

has been judicially recognized and upheld.

It is said there were 51 applications received from the candidates in the special category for 12 seats. All these applications were placed in the

order of merit. 12 candidates in the merit list of children born out of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and Forward Community were

selected and admitted. Even though Petitioner ranked 9 in the merit list, preference is to be given to the children born of inter-caste marriage

between Scheduled Cast and Scheduled Tribes and Forward Community and these was no chance to admit the Petitioner. It is prayed for

dismissal of the petition.

I heard the counsel of both sides, I do not think that the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner could be sustained in view of two

Bench decisions of this Court.

In AIR 1987 Mad 55 (S. Hari Ganesh (Minor) and Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr.), in para 10 of the judgment Their Lordships held

that,

Coming now, to the legal aspect of the matter, we have to bear in mind Articles 17 and 16 of the Constitution. While under Article 17

untouchability is abolished and its practice in any form is forbidden, under Article 46 the State is obligated to promote with special care the

education and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people and especially those of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and

protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation. The state is, therefore bound legally and morally to give special recognition to

marriages of the so called caste-Hindus with members of the Schedules Castes and Schedules 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 the abolition of untouchability and to the ushering in of an egalitarian society, rid of

caste and communal barriers, has necessarily to be given greater weightage and preference to a marriage in which a member of a Forward

Community or a Backward Class marries a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. It therefore follows that though the State has

reserved twelve seats under the category of Children born of inter-caste marriages, it is entitled to give preference to (i) children born of inter-caste

marriages between members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and members of Forwards Communities, and (ii) children born of inter-caste

marriages between members of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and members of Most Backward Class/Backward Class. In fact, the

category of reservation is essentially in the nature of Children born of inter-casts-Hindus and Hindus belonging to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled

Tribes. The status of the children born of such marriages is undoubtedly different from the status given by Society to children born of inter-caste

marriages between members belonging to the Forward Communities and Backward Classes. In such circumstances, there is no scope for arguing

that Clauses 1 and 2 of Category (IV) offend Article 14 of the Constitution.

Another Division Bench has also upheld the selection policy and the same is reported in 1995 (2) M.L.J. 325 (V. Premanand v. The State of

Tamilnadu represented by its Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Madras and Ors.), herein also same principle is asserted.

The Selection Committee is bound by the Prospectus and Petitioner, who also wanted admission on the basis of the Prospectus, cannot

challenge its validity after having failed in his attempt to get admission. In such case, the Principle of Estoppel also does not applies.

I do not find any merit in the Writ Petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the W.M.Ps. 19802 and 19803 of 1998 are

closed.