1968 (1) TMI 60 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Rule 5 regarding reservation for socially and educationally backward classes.
2. Validity of Rule 8 regarding district-wise allocation of seats.
3. Procedure followed by the Selection Committee.
4. Allegations of mala fide actions in the selection process.
5. Compliance with University Act and Rules.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Rule 5 Regarding Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes:

The first challenge is to Rule 5 on the ground that it violates Article 15 of the Constitution. Article 15 forbids discrimination against any citizen on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth, or any of them. At the same time, Article 15(4) permits the State to make any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens. The contention is that the list of socially and educationally backward classes for whom reservation is made under Rule 5 is nothing but a list of certain castes. Therefore, reservation in favor of certain castes based only on caste considerations violates Article 15(1), which prohibits discrimination on the ground of caste only.

The Court observed that if the reservation had been based only on caste and had not taken into account the social and educational backwardness of the caste in question, it would be violative of Article 15(1). However, a caste can also be a class of citizens, and if the caste as a whole is socially and educationally backward, reservation can be made in favor of such a caste under Article 15(4). The State of Madras provided a historical context showing that the list of backward classes was based on social and educational backwardness, not solely on caste. Since the petitioners did not provide evidence to the contrary, the Court concluded that the list of castes included those that were socially and educationally backward. Therefore, the challenge to Rule 5 failed.

2. Validity of Rule 8 Regarding District-wise Allocation of Seats:

The next attack is on Rule 8, which provides for district-wise distribution of seats according to the population of the district. This is attacked on the grounds that it violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. It is urged that the provision for "nativity claimed" in the form is a camouflage for discriminating on the ground of place of birth, violating Article 15(1). The Court found the provisions for nativity certificate complicated and confusing but did not find a clear violation of Article 15(1) since the district a candidate may claim does not depend on the place of birth.

The alternative argument is that district-wise distribution violates Article 14 because it denies equality before the law or equal protection of the laws. The object of selection is to secure the best possible talent for admission to medical colleges. The Court found that district-wise allocation could result in discrimination, as better-qualified candidates from one district might be rejected while less qualified candidates from another district might be admitted. The State of Madras' justifications for district-wise allocation, such as better educational facilities in Madras city and ensuring medical help in all districts, were found insufficient. Therefore, the Court struck down Rule 8 as violative of Article 14.

3. Procedure Followed by the Selection Committee:

The procedure evolved by the Selection Committee for interviews was also challenged. The Court noted that it looked odd that the members of the selection committee should sit separately, but did not decide the point finally. The Court did not find any substance in the argument that there was no objective test provided for making selections, as Rule 10(d) indicated the criteria for allotting marks. The Court was not prepared to accept that the committee did not follow the criteria indicated in Rule 10(d).

4. Allegations of Mala Fide Actions in the Selection Process:

The allegations of mala fide actions included claims that the official members of the Selection Committees contrived to get caste representation in the matter of selection and that mark-sheets were destroyed after the selection. The Court found no proof of these allegations and did not accept that the selection was done mala fide. The destruction of mark-sheets was noted as odd, but it did not lead to an inference of mala fide selection. Therefore, the ground of mala fide actions failed.

5. Compliance with University Act and Rules:

In the civil appeal, an argument was raised based on Article 21, which deals with the protection of life and personal liberty. The Court did not allow this point to be developed as it was not raised before the Division Bench of the High Court. The only point urged before the Division Bench was regarding the eligibility and qualification of candidates for admission to medical colleges under the University Act. The Court found no substance in this contention, as the rules of eligibility and qualification framed by the University were followed, and the Government was entitled to frame rules for admission to its colleges.

Conclusion:

The petitions and the civil appeal were partly allowed. Rule 8, which deals with district-wise allocation, was struck down. The selection for the current year was not disturbed, but Rule 8 will not be enforced in future selections. The petitioners/appellant were awarded costs, one set of hearing fee.