http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: GOVIND A.  MANE & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       05/04/2000

BENCH: D.P.Wadhwa, S.S.Ahmad

JUDGMENT:

     S.SAGHIR AHMAD, J.

     Leave granted.  The appellants after having passed the 12th Examination, with a percentage of marks ranging from 63 to  65%, sought admission in B.Ed Course.  But they were not successful and, consequently, they approached the High Court under  Article  226 of the Constitution and  challenged  the selection  of candidates for admission on the grounds, inter alia, that the districtwise distribution of seats among four districts,  namely, Parbhani, Nanded, Beed and Latur to  the extent  of  200  seats, 460 seats, 310 seats and  640  seats respectively,  was bad.  The Writ Petition was dismissed  by the High Court by its judgment dated 24.6.1997 against which the  present appeal has been filed.  Learned counsel for the appellants  has contended that admission to B.Ed Course  was based  on  a  common  admission  test  and,  therefore,  the distribution of seats to different districts was bad.  It is contended that a common merit list should have been prepared and,  on  that basis, admission should have been allowed  to the  students  who figured in the merit list.  The  question whether  there could be a districtwise distribution of seats was  considered  by  this  Court in the  case  of  Minor  P. Rajendran  vs.  State of Madras and Others, AIR 1968 SC 1012 =  1968 (2) SCR 786, and it was held that for the purpose of admission to the First Year Integrated M.B.B.S.  Course, the districtwise  distribution of seats was violative of Article 14  of  the Constitution.  It was, inter alia,  observed  as under:-  "(11) The question whether districtwise  allocation is violative of Article 14 will depend on what is the object to  be  achieved  in  the matter  of  admission  to  medical colleges.   Considering  the  fact that there  is  a  larger number of candidates than seats available, selection has got to  be made.  The object of selection can only be to  secure the best possible material for admission to colleges subject to  the  provision for socially and  educationally  backward classes.  Further whether selection is from the socially and educationally backward classes or from the general pool, the object  of  selection  must be to secure the  best  possible talent from the two sources.  If that is the object, it must necessarily  follow  that that object would be  defeated  if seats  are allocated district by district.  It cannot be and has  not  been  denied that the object of  selection  is  to secure the best possible talent from the two sources so that the  country may have the best possible doctors.  If that is the    object,    the   argument    on   behalf    of    the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

petitioners/appellant is that that object cannot possibly be served  by  allocating seats districtwise.  It is true  that Article   14  does  not   forbid  classification,  but   the classification has to be justified on the basis of the nexus between  the  classification and the object to be  achieved, even  assuming  that  territorial classification  may  be  a reasonable  classification.   The  fact   however  that  the classification  by  itself  is reasonable is not  enough  to support  it unless there is nexus between the classification and  the object to be achieved.  Therefore, as the object to be  achieved  in  a  case  of the kind  with  which  we  are concerned  is  to  get  the best  talent  for  admission  to professional  colleges, the allocation of seats districtwise has  no reasonable relation with the object to be  achieved. If  anything,  such allocation will result in many cases  in the  object  being  destroyed,  and  if  that  is  so,   the classification,   even  if  reasonable,   would  result   in discrimination, inasmuch as better qualified candidates from one district may be rejected while less qualified candidates from  other districts may be admitted from either of the two sources."   This  decision  was   followed  in  (Minor)   A. Periakaruppan  vs.  State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., AIR 1971  SC 2303  = 1972 (2) SCR 430 = (1971) 1 SCC 38, in which it  was laid  down  as  under:-  "Before  a  classification  can  be justified,  it  must be based on an objective  criteria  and further  it  must  have  reasonable nexus  with  the  object intended to be achieved.  The object intended to be achieved in  the  present case is to select the best  candidates  for being  admitted to Medical Colleges.  That object cannot  be satisfactorily   achieved  by  the   method  adopted.    The complaint  of the petitioners is that unitwise  distribution of   seats   is  but  a  different  manifestation   of   the districtwise  distribution sought in 1967-68 has some  force though on the material on record we will not be justified in saying   that  the  unitwise   distribution  was  done   for collateral  purposes.   Suffice it to say that the  unitwise distribution  of  seats is violative of Arts.  14 and 15  of the  Constitution.   The fact that an applicant is  free  to apply  to any one unit does not take the scheme outside  the mischief of Arts.  14 and 15.  It may be remembered that the students  were  advised as far as possible to apply  to  the unit  nearest  to their place of residence." The law,  thus, having  been laid down clearly by this Court, the High Court was not justified in dismissing the Writ Petition.  Since it is  not disputed by the respondents that for the purpose  of admission   to   B.Ed  Course,    seats   were   distributed districtwise  without  indicating any material to  show  the nexus  between such distribution and the object sought to be achieved,  it  would  be  violative of  Article  14  of  the Constitution.   Unfortunately,  the whole matter relates  to the  year  1995 and, today, after a lapse of five years,  it would  not be possible to direct that the appellants may  be admitted  in  B.Ed Course.  All that can be said is that  if any  further  steps are taken by the respondents  for  fresh admission  to  B.Ed  Course, the appellants should  also  be given  an opportunity to seek admission in that Course.  The appeal  is, therefore, dismissed but without any order as to costs.