1995 (7) TMI 446 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the reservation policy for medical course admissions in Uttar Pradesh for the year 1994-95.
2. Compliance with the Supreme Court's decision in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India.
3. Implementation of horizontal versus vertical reservations.
4. Allocation of seats among open competition and reserved categories.
5. Correctness of the procedure for filling reserved seats.
6. Impact of errors in reservation policy on admissions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Reservation Policy:
The writ petitions challenged the reservation policy implemented by the Government of Uttar Pradesh for medical course admissions for the academic year 1994-95. Initially, the policy reserved 65% of seats for various categories, leaving only 35% for the open competition (O.C.) category. This was deemed contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in Indra Sawhney and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., which limits reservations to 50%. The policy was subsequently amended to comply with this ruling, adjusting the general category to 50% and making the reservations horizontal.

2. Compliance with Indra Sawhney Decision:
The Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney had established that reservations should not exceed 50% and must be based on social and educational backwardness. The initial reservation policy violated this principle by reserving 65% of seats. The amended policy corrected this by allocating 50% to the general category and 50% to reserved categories, aligning with the Indra Sawhney decision.

3. Horizontal vs. Vertical Reservations:
The revised policy introduced horizontal reservations for special categories such as dependents of freedom fighters, physically handicapped candidates, and regional candidates from hill and Uttarakhand areas. These were to be adjusted within the vertical reservations for Scheduled Castes (S.C.), Scheduled Tribes (S.T.), and Other Backward Classes (O.B.C.). The Court noted that the reservation for hill and Uttarakhand areas should be considered under Article 15(4) as they are socially and educationally backward classes, not under Article 15(1).

4. Allocation of Seats:
The implementation of reservations was flawed, with 110 out of 112 special reservation candidates being accommodated in the O.C. category, leaving only 263 seats for general candidates. The Court found this method improper, as it disproportionately affected the O.C. category. The Court emphasized the need for clear guidelines distinguishing between overall and compartmentalized horizontal reservations to prevent such issues.

5. Procedure for Filling Reserved Seats:
The procedure prescribed in the revised notification was incorrect, as it directed filling special reservation seats first, followed by the O.C. quota. The correct approach should have been to fill the O.C. quota based on merit, then allocate seats to S.C., S.T., and O.B.C. categories, and finally adjust special reservation candidates within their respective categories. This misstep led to an unfair allocation of seats.

6. Impact on Admissions:
Despite identifying errors in the reservation policy and its implementation, the Court decided not to disturb the admissions already finalized due to the significant delay in the process. However, to rectify the injustice to O.C. candidates, the Court directed the creation of 34 additional seats in the M.B.B.S. course for O.C. candidates, ensuring no further prejudice against them. This remedy was deemed appropriate given the circumstances.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court's judgment highlighted the need for clarity and adherence to established legal principles in reservation policies. It underscored the importance of distinguishing between horizontal and vertical reservations and ensuring fair allocation of seats among categories. The decision also served as guidance for future admissions to prevent similar issues. The writ petitions were disposed of with directions to create additional seats and ensure compliance with the Court's observations.