http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: HEGGADE JANARDHAN SUBBARYE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF MYSORE AND ANOTHER(And connected petition)

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/11/1962

BENCH: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. BENCH: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ) WANCHOO, K.N. GUPTA, K.C. DAS SHAH, J.C.

CITATION:  1963 AIR  702            1963 SCR  Supl. (1) 475

ACT: College  Admission-Reservation  of seats  for  socially  and educationally  backward classes struck down-Reservation  for Scheduled  Caste  and Tribes upheld-Constitution  of  India, Art. 15(4).

HEADNOTE: The petitioners challenged the validity of the orders issued by the State of Mysore under Art. 13(4) of the  Constitution on  July  10,  1961, and July  31,  1962.   The  petitioners contended  that they had applied for admission to  the  Pre- Professional  Class  in  Medicine in  the  Karnatak  Medical College, Hubli and they would have secured admission to  the said medical college but for the reservation directed to  be made by the orders mentioned above.  They contended that the above-mentioned orders were ultra vires.  They prayed for an appropriate  writ or order restraining the respondents  from giving  effect  to those orders and requiring them  to  deal with their applications for admission on merits. Held,  that the petitioners were entitled to an  appropriate writ  or order as claimed by them and the  respondents  were restrained from giving effect to the above-mentioned orders. M.   R.  Balaji  v. State of Mysore [1963] Supp.   1  S.C.R. 439, followed. The  impugned orders we quashed only with reference  to  the additional reservation made in favour of the socially and 476 educationally  backward classes and so the respondents  were at liberty to give effect to the reservation made in  favour of the’ Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, which was not challenged  at  all.  The said reservation continues  to  be operative.

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL  JURISDICTION:   Writ Petitions Nos. 130 &  133  of 1962. Under  Article  32  of the Constitution  of  India  for  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

enforcement of Fundamental Rights. S.   K.  Venkatarangaiengar and R. Gopalakrishnan,  for  the Petitioners (In both the Petitions). P.   D. Menon, for the Respondents (In both the Petitions). 1962.  November 5. The judgment of the Court, was  delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR,J.-These  two writ petitions Nos.130 of  1962 and  133  of  1962 have been filed  by  Heggade.   Janardhan Subbarye  and  Ravindra  Prabhu  respectively   (hereinafter called  the petitioners) under Art. 32 of the  Constitution, challenging the validity of the orders issued by  respondent No.  1,  the  State  of’ Mysore, under  Art.  15(4)  of  the Constitution   on   July  10,  1961  and  July   31,   1962, respectively.    Both  the  petitioners  had   applied   for admission  to the pre-Professional Class in Medicine in  the Karnatak  Medical College, Hubli, and the  applications  had been submitted to respondent No. 2, the Selection  Committee appointed  in that behalf by respondent No. 1. According  to the  petitioners, they would have secured admission  to  the said Medical College but for the reservation directed to  be made  by  the two impugned orders.  They  alleged  that  the orders  were  ultra  vires,  and  so,  they  prayed  for  an appropriate  writ or order restraining the respondents  from giving  effect  to the said orders and  requiring,  them  to deal. with the petitioners’ ’applications on the merits.                             477 The  points raised by the present petitions are  covered  by the  decision  of this Court in the case of M.R.  Balaji  v. State  of  Mysore(1) and so, it is common  ground  that  the petitioners are entitled to an appropriate writ or order  as claimed by them. Learned  counsel  for  the  respondents  however,  drew  our attention  to the fact that as a result of the  decision  of this Court in the case of M. R. Balaji (1) respondent No.  1 was feeling some doubt as to whether the reservation made by the  impugned orders in respect of the Scheduled Castes  and the Scheduled Tribes was also struck down by this Court.  As the judgment shows, respondent No. 1 has consistently  fixed the  percentage of reservation in respect of  the  Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes at 15% and 3%  respectively. Five  orders have been passed by respondent No. 1 one  after the  other under Art. 15(4), but the reservation  fixed  for the  Scheduled  Castes and the Scheduled Tribes  has  always remained  the  same.  It is true that the judgment  of  this Court  does not expressly say that the validity of the  said reservation  was not assailed before this Court and  cannot, therefore, be deemed to have been affected by the  decision. However, as the judgment shows, the only attack against  the validity  of  the impugned orders was directed  against  the additional  reservation made in favour of the  socially  and educationally  Backward  Classes of citizens in  the  State. The  petitions filed in the said cases were confined to  the said  reservation  and during the course  of  the  arguments before this Court, it was not suggested by the  petitioners’ learned  counsel that the reservation made in favour of  the Scheduled  Castes and Tribes was in any manner irregular  or not justified by Art. 15(4).  This position is not  disputed by the petitioners’ learned counsel before us. Therefore, we think  that in order to avoid any doubt in the matter it  is necessary  to make it clear that our judgment in  that  case does not affect the (1)  (1963) supp. 1 S. C. R. 439. 478 validity  of  the  said reservation which  is  distinct  and separate  from,  and independent of, the  other  reservation

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

which was challenged.  The said reservation continues to  be operative  and the fact that the impugned orders  have  been quashed does not alter that position.  The said orders  have been   quashed  solely  by  reference  to   the   additional reservation  made  by the impugned orders in regard  to  the socially   and  educationally  Backward  Classes,  and   so, respondent No. 1 would be justified in giving effect to  the reservation  made  in respect of the  Scheduled  Castes  and Scheduled Tribes. In  the result, we allowed the petitions and direct that  an appropriate writ or order should be issued’ restraining  the respondents  from giving effect to the two impugned  orders. In  the  circumstances of these cases, we  direct  that  the petitioners  should get from the respondents costs  incurred by them, except the hearing fee. Petitions allowed.  479