http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 14  

PETITIONER: NIDAMARTI MAHESHKKUMAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATF OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT06/04/1986

BENCH: BHAGWATI, P.N. (CJ) BENCH: BHAGWATI, P.N. (CJ) MADON, D.P.

CITATION:  1986 AIR 1362            1986 SCR  (2) 230  1986 SCC  (2) 534        JT 1986   501  1986 SCALE  (1)967  CITATOR INFO :  R          1989 SC 177  (8)  R          1989 SC 903  (28)  E&R        1989 SC1194  (7,8)  APL        1989 SC1513  (5)

ACT:      Constitution  of   India,  Articles   15(1)(4)  and  21 Admission to  Medical Colleges  - Reservation  of Seats  for students from backward region of State - Validity of.       Professional  Colleges -  Admission to  - Rule B(2) of Rules for  admission  to  M.B.B.S.  Course  -  Student  from school/college  within   jurisdiction  of   one   university Ineligible for  admission to  medical  college  or  colleges situated in jurisdiction of another university - Validity of Rule - Whether violative of Article 14 of the constitution.

HEADNOTE:      The qualification  required for  admission to  the MBBS course in  the State  of Maharashtra  is the passing of 12th standard examination  held by the Mahsrashtra State Board of Secondary and  Higher Secondary  Education. It  comprises of three Divisional  Boards - one for Vidharbha region, another for  Marathwada  region  and  the  third  for  the  rest  of Maharashtra - and though for the purpose of convenience each of these  three Divisional Boards conducts the 12th standard examination  for  the  area  within  its  jurisdiction,  the examination which is held is one and the same throughout the State of  Maharashtra, based  on the same syllabus, with the same set  of questions  and the same standard of evaluation. The results  of the  12th standard examination are published division wise  and the  merit list  is also prepared on that basis but the question papers being same and the standard of evaluation also  being uniform throughout the three regions, it  is   easy  to  assess  the  comparative  merits  of  the candidates in  the three  regions by  reference to the marks obtained by them at the 12th standard examination.      The respondent-State,  instead of  selecting candidates from all  over the  State for  the academic year 1985 on the basis of their performance in the 12th standard examination, made region wise classification for admission to medical 231

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 14  

colleges by  framing new Rules for admission to the M.B.B.S. A course.  Rule B(2)  of the  Rules provided  that a student from a school or college situated within the jurisdiction of a particular  university could  seek admission  only in  the medical college  or colleges situate within the jurisdiction of  that  University  and  he  could  not  be  eligible  for admission to  medical college  or colleges  situate  in  the jurisdiction of another university.      The appellant  challenged the  validity of Rule B(2) of the Rules  before the  High Court  on  the  ground  that  it offends Article  14 of  the  Constitution.  The  High  Court dismissed the  writ petition  on the  ground that  since the implementation of  the order  passed in  Dr. Pradeep  Jain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. etc., [1984] 3 S.C.C. 654 that 30% of  the open  seats should be available for admission to students on  all India  basis and that only 70% of the seats could be reserved on the basis of residence or institutional preference, had  been deferred  by the  Supreme  Court,  the State Government  "had no  other alternative  but to fill in the seats  as if  there were  no directions from the Supreme Court to fill in the seats on all-India basis" and Rule B(2) of the  Rules for admission to the M.B.B.S. course framed by the  State   Government  for  the  academic  year  1985  was therefore valid.      Allowing the appeal, ^      HELD: 1.  The regionwise  scheme adopted  by the  State Government in  Rule B(2)  clearly results in denial of equal opportunity violative  of Article  14 of  the  Constitution. [245 D]      2.(i) The object of any valid scheme of admissions must be to  "select the  best candidates  for being  admitted  to medical colleges"  and that  if any  departure is to be made "from the  principle of selection on the basis of merit", it must be justified on the touch-stone of Article 14. [238D-E]      Minor P. Rajendran v. State of Madras, [1968] 2 S.C.R. 786, A.  Preeria-Kurappan v.  State of  Tamil Nadu, [1971] 2 S.C.R. 430  and Dr.  Pradeep Jain  & Ors.  v. Union of India Ors. etc., [1984] 3 S.C.C. 654, relied upon.      D.P. Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat, [1955] 1 S.C.R. 232 1215 and  Jagdish Saran  v. Union  of India, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 831, referred to.      2.(ii)  There   are  two   considerations   which   may legitimately weigh  with the  Court in  justifying departure from the  principle of selection based on merit. One is what may be  called State  interest and  the other is what may be described as  a region’s claim of backwardness. The claim of State interest in providing adequate medical services to the people of  the  State  by  imparting  medical  education  to students who by reason of their residence in the State would be likely  to settle  down and serve the people of the State as Doctors,  is a  legitimate ground  for departing from the strict principle of selection based on merit. [240 D-G]      2.(iii) Where  the region  from which the students of a university are  largely drawn  is backward  either from  the point of  view of  opportunities for  medical  education  or availability of  competent and adequate medical services, it would be constitutionally permissible, without violating the mandate of the equality clause, to provide a high percentage of reservation  or preference  for students coming from that region, because  without reservation  or preference students from such  backward region  will hardly  be able  to compete with those  from advanced  regions since  they would have no adequate opportunity  for development  so  as  to  be  in  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 14  

position to compete with others. By reason of their socially or economically  disadvantaged position  they would not have been able to secure education in good schools and they would consequently be  at  a  disadvantage  compared  to  students belonging to  the affluent  or well-to-do  families who have had  best   of  school   education.  There  can,  therefore, legitimately be reservation or preference in their favour so far as admissions are concerned in case of a medical college which is  set up  or intended  to cater  to the  needs of  a region which  is backward  or whose alumni are largely drawn from such backward region. It may however, be noted that the reservation or  preference in  such a  case may even be of a high percentage  of seats  but it cannot be total. [242 F-H; 243 A-C]      2.(iv) It  would not  be unconstitutional for the State Government to  provide  for  reservation  or  preference  in respect of  a certain  percentage of  seats in  the  medical college or 233 colleges in  each region in favour of those who have studied in schools  or colleges  within that  region and even if the percentage stipulated  by the  State Government  is  on  the higher side,  it would  not fall  foul of the constitutional mandate  of   equality.  There  are  two  reasons  why  such reservation  or   preference   would   be   constitutionally permissible.  In   the  first   place  it   would  cause   a considerable  amount   of  hardship   and  inconvenience  if students residing  in the  region of a particular university are compelled  to move  to the  region of another university for medical  education  which  they  might  have  to  do  if selection for  admission to  the  medical  colleges  in  the entire  State   were  to  be  based  on  merit  without  any reservation or  preference regionwise. It must be remembered that there  would be a large number of students who, if they do not  get admission  in the  medical  college  near  their residence and are assigned admission in a college in another region on the basis of relative merit, may not be able to go to  such  other  medical  college  on  account  of  lack  of resources and  facilities and  in the  result, they would be effectively deprived  of a real opportunity for pursuing the medical course  even though  on paper  they would  have  got admission  in  the  medical  college.  The  opportunity  for medical education provided to them would be illusory and not real because they would not be able to avail of it. Moreover some difficulty would also arise in case of girls because if they are  not able  to get  admission in the medical college near  the  place  where  they  reside  they  might  find  it difficult to  pursue medical  education in a medical college situated in  another region  where hostel facilities may not be available  and even  if hostel  facilities are available, the parents  may hesitate  to  send  them  to  the  hostels. Therefore, the  reservation or  preference in  respect of  a certain percentage  of seats  may legitimately  be  made  in favour of  those who  have studied  in schools  or  colleges within the  region of  a particular  university, in order to equalise opportunities  for medical  admission on  a broader basis and to bring about real and not formal, actual and not merely legal, equality. [247 F-H; 248 A-E]      2(v) Not  more than  70 per cent of the total number of open seats in the medical college or colleges situate within the area  of jurisdiction  of a particular university, after taking into  account other  kinds  of  reservations  validly made, shall  be reserved  for students  who have  studied in schools or 234

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 14  

colleges situate within that region and at least 30 per cent of the  open seats  shall  be  available  for  admission  to students who  have studied  in schools  or colleges in other regions within the States [248 G-H; 249 A-B]      Dr. Pradeep  Jain &  Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. etc. [1984] 3  S.C.C. 654, Minor P. Rajendran v. State of Madras, [1968] 2  S.C.R. 786,  and v.  Peeria-Kurappan v.  State  of Tamil Nadu [1971] 2 S.C.R. 761, relied upon.      D.P. Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat, [1955] 1 S.C.R. 1215 and  Jagdish Saran  v. Union  of India, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 831 referred to.      D.N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore, [1971] Suppl. S.C.R. 608 distinguished.      In the  instant case, there is no material to show that the entire  region within the jurisdiction of the university in Vidharbha  is backward  or that  the entire region within the jurisdiction  of Pune University is advanced. It is also not  possible   to  categories   the  regions   within   the jurisdiction of  the various  universities  as  backward  or advanced as  if they  were exclusive categories. As a result of the  regionwise classification  a student from one region who has  secured lesser  marks than another from a different region may  be selected for admission to the medical college or colleges  within his region. And moreover, a student from one region  would have no opportunity for securing admission in the medical college or colleges in another region, though he may  have done much better than the student in that other region. Therefore,  it would  plainly be  violative  of  the mandate of the equality clause to compartmentalize the State into different  regions and  provide that a student from one region should  not be  allowed to  migrate to another region for medical  education and  thus be denied equal opportunity with others  in the  State for  medical education. [243 G-H; 244 C-E]      The  Court  observed  (a)  that  the  number  of  seats required to  be made  available for admission to students on All-India basis  must first  be taken  out and  then to  the remaining number  of open  seats after  taking into  account other kinds of reservations validly made, the percentages of 70 and 30 must be 235 applied  for   determining  the  extent  to  which  regional reservation or preference can legitimately be made; (b) that the admissions  made on  the basis of Rule B(2) shall not be disturbed, nor  will any  claim for admission be founded for the academic  year 1985  on the  basis of  Rule B(2). If the State Government  wants to  make regionwise  reservation  or preference after setting apart the seats required to be made available for  admission to students on All-India basis, the State Government  may follow the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court  so AS  to avoid  clash with Article 14 of the Constitution. [249 C-D: E-G]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4395 of 1985.      From the  Judgment and  Order dated 1st August, 1985 of the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 2670 of 1985.      V.N. Ganpule for the Appellant.      V.S. Desai,  A.S. Bhasme  and A.M.  Khanwilkar for  the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      BHAGWATI, CJ.  This appeal by special leave arises from

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 14  

a writ  petition filed by the appellant in the High Court of Bombay challenging  the validity  of Rule  B(2) of the Rules framed by  the State  Government on  21st December  1984 for admission to  the M.B.B.S. course. The validity of this Rule has been  assailed on  the ground that it offends Article 14 of the Constitution. The challenge has been negatived by the High Court  but the  appellant contends  in this appeal that the decision  of the  High Court  is erroneous and Rule B(2) must be struck down as unconstitutional and void.      The qualification  required for  admission to  the MBBS course in  the State  of Maharashtra  is the passing of 12th standard examination  held by the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and  Higher Secondary  Education. The  teaching in the first  ten standards  is carried  on in schools while in the 11th  and 12th  standards the  teaching is  done at some places in schools and at others in colleges. The schools and colleges where  education is  imparted in  the 11th and 12th standards are H 236 not in  any way connected with the Universities within whose jurisdiction they  are situate  nor  have  the  Universities anything to  do with the 12th standard examination. There is one Board  for the  whole of Maharashtra called "Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher secondary Education" and it comprises  of three Divisional Boards - one for Vidharbha region, another  for Marathwada region and the third for the rest of  Maharashtra -  and though for the purpose of conve- nience each  of these  three Divisional  Boards conducts the 12th  standard   examination  for   the  area   within   its jurisdiction, the  examination which  is held is one and the same throughout  the State of Maharashtra, based on the same syllabus, with  the same  set  of  questions  and  the  same standard of  evaluation. The  results of  the 12th  standard examination are published divisionwise and the merit list is also prepared  on that  basis but  the quest{on papers being the same  and the  standard of evaluation also being uniform throughout the  three regions,  it is  easy  to  assess  the comparative merits of the candidates in the three regions by reference to the marks obtained by them at the 12th standard examination. The  admissions to  the medical colleges within the State  of Maharashtra  could, there  fore,  arguably  be determined on  the basis  of merit  and the  best candidates could be  selected from  all over  the State on the basis of their performance  in the 12th standard examination. But for the academic  year 1985,  the State Government departed from this principle  of selection based on merit across the hoard and made  regionwise classification for admission to medical colleges by  framing new Rules for admission to the M.B.B.S. Course on  21st December,  1984. Rule  R(2) of  these  Rules provided inter alia as under :           "Students  who  have  passed  H.S.C.  (10+2)  12th           standard  examination  of  the  Maharashtra  State           Board of  Secondary and Higher Secondary Education           from   schools/Colleges    situated   within   the           jurisdiction of  one university  are not  eligible           for  admission  to  medical  college  or  colleges           situated   in    the   jurisdiction   of   another           university. The  seats at  the Government  Medical           Colleges  in   Maharashtra  State   except   those           earmarked for  nominees of the Government of India           and nominees  of Miraj  Medical Centre  and  those           mentioned in  Rule D(4) below are reserved for the           students of the respective university area." 237 The admissions to medical colleges were thus made subject to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 14  

regionwise classification  inasmuch  as  a  student  from  a school or  college situated  within the  jurisdiction  of  a particular university  could  seek  admission  only  in  the medical college  or colleges situate within the jurisdiction of  that  University  and  he  could  not  be  eligible  for admission to  medical college  or colleges  situate  in  the jurisdiction  of   another   university.   This   regionwise classification made  by the State Government for the purpose of admissions  to  medical  colleges  was  assailed  by  the appellant by  filing a  writ petition  in the  High Court of Bombay on  the ground that it was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.  The writ petition was heard by a Division Bench of  the High Court and by a judgment dated 1st August, 1985  the  High  Court  dismissed  the  writ  petition.  The principal ground  on which  the High Court rejected the writ petition was  that the implementation of the Order passed by this Court  in Dr.  Pradeep Jain  & Ors. v. Union of India & ors. etc.,  [1984] 3  S.C.C. 654, that 30% of the open seats should be  available for  admission to students on all-India basis and  that only  70% of  the seats could be reserved on the basis of residence or institutional preference, had been deferred by  this Court  by its Order dated 8th July 1985 to the academic  year 1986 and it was not to be given effect to in the academic year 1985. The High Court took the view that since the  implementation of this Order had been deferred by this Court,  the State  Government "had no other alternative but to fill in the seats as if there were no directions from the Supreme  Court to  fill in the seats on all-India basis" and Rule  B(2) of  the Rules  for admission  to the M.B.B.S. Course framed  by the State Government for the academic year 1985 was  therefore valid. This view taken by the High Court is impugned in the present appeal preferred by the appellant with special leave obtained from this Court. F      The question  as to  what principles  for selection  of students for  admission to  the medical  colleges  would  be permissible under Article 14 of the Constitution came up for consideration before  this Court  in the leading case of Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra). The judgment in this case reviewed all the previous  decisions given  by this  Court starting  from D.P. Joshi v.  State of  Madhya Bharat, [1955] 1 S.C.R. 1215 and ending  with Jagdish  Saran v.  Union of India, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 831  and after  analysing these  decisions the  Court laid-down the  principles which  should govern  selection of students for 238 admission to  the medical  colleges  consistently  with  the requirement of  Article 14.  The Court  pointed out that the primary  consideration   in  selection   of  candidates  for admission to  the medical  colleges must  be merit  and  the object of  any  rules  which  may  be  made  for  regulating admissions to  the medical  colleges must  be to  secure the best and  most meritorious  students. This  was in  fact the consideration which  weighed with  the  Court  in  Minor  P. Rajendran v.  State  of  Madras,  [1968]  2  S.C.R.  786  in striking down  a Rule made by the State of Madras allocating seats in medical colleges on district wise basis and so also in A.  Peeria-Kurappan v.  State of  Tamil  Nadu,  [1971]  2 S.C.R. 430  the same  consideration prevailed with the court in  striking-down   a  unitwise   scheme  of   selection  of candidates for  appointment to medical colleges in the State of Tamil  Nadu, which  provided for constituting the medical colleges in  the city  of Madras as one unit and each of the other medical  colleges in  the mofussil  as a separate unit and selection  being made  unitwise. The court in both these cases clearly  and categorically  proceeded on  the bas{s of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 14  

the principle  that  the  object  of  any  valid  scheme  of admissions must  be to "select the best candidates for being admitted to  medical colleges"  and that if any departure is to be  made "from the principle of selection on the basis of merit", it  must be  justified on the touch-stone of Article 14. This  principle was affirmed by the court in Dr. Pradeep Jain’s case (supra).      This Court  then proceeded  to consider  in Dr. Pradeep Jain’s case  (supra) as  to what  are the  circumstances  in which departure  may justifiably  be made from the principle of selection  based on  merit. The Court enunciated in clear and emphatic  terms the  philosophy behind  the  concept  of equality under the Constitution and observed :           "Now   the   concept   of   equality   under   the           Constitution is a dynamic concept. It takes within           its  sweep   every  process  of  equalisation  and           protective  discrimination.   equality  must   not           remain mere  idle incantation but it must become a           living reality  for the large masses of people. In           a hierarchical  society with  an indelible  feudal           stamp  and  incurable  actual  inequality,  it  is           absurd to  suggest that  progressive  measures  to           eliminate 239           group disabilities and promote collective equality           are antagonistic  to equality  on the  ground that           every  individual   is  entitled  to  equality  of           opportunity based  purely on  merit judged  by the           marks obtained  by him. We cannot countenance such           a suggestion, for to do so would make the equality           clause    sterile    and    perpetuate    existing           inequalities.  Equality   of  opportunity  is  not           simply a  matter of  legal equality. Its existence           depends not  merely on the absence of disabilities           but  on   the  presence   of   abilities.   Where,           therefore, there  is inequality,  in  fact,  legal           equality always  tends to  accentuate it. What the           famous poet William Blake said graphically is very           true, namely,  "One law for the Lion and the Ox is           oppression".  Those  who  are  unequal,  in  fact,           cannot be treated by identical standards; that may           be equality  in law  but it would certainly not be           real equality. It is, therefore, necessary to take           into account  de facto  inequalities which exit in           the society  and to take affirmative action by way           of  giving   preference  to   the   socially   and           economically disadvantaged  persons or  inflicting           handicaps on  those more advantageously placed, in           order  to   bring  about   real   equality.   Such           affirmative     action      though      apparently           discriminatory is  calculated to  produce equality           on  a   broader  basis  by  eliminating  de  facto           inequalities and  placing the  weaker sections  of           the community  on a  footing of  equality with the           stronger and  more powerful  sections so that each           member of  the community,  whatever is  his birth,           occupation or  social  position  may  enjoy  equal           opportunity of  using  to  the  full  his  natural           endowments  of   physique,  of  character  and  of           intelligence......... We  cannot, therefore,  have           arid equality which does not take into account the           social and  economic disabilities and inequalities           from which  large masses  of people  suffer in the           country.  Equality   in  law   must  produce  real           equality, de  jure equality  must ultimately  find

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 14  

         its raison  d’etre in de facto equality. The State           must,  therefore,  resort  to  compensatory  State           action for  the purpose  of making  people who are           factually 240           unequal  in  their  wealth,  education  or  social           environment, equal  in specified  areas. The State           must, to  use again  the words of Krishna Iyer, J.           in  Jagdish   Saran  case   ’weave  those  special           facilities into  the web  of equality which, in an           equitable  setting,   provide  for  the  weak  and           promote their  levelling up  so that,  in the long           run, the  community at  large may  enjoy a general           measure of  real equal  opportunity....equality is           not negated  or neglected where special provisions           are geared  to the  larger goal  of  the  disabled           getting over  their disablement  consistently with           the general good and individual merit". The scheme           of admission  to medical  colleges may, therefore,           depart from  the principle  of selection  based on           merit, where  it is  necessary to  do so  for  the           purpose  of   bringing  about   real  equality  of           opportunity between those who are unequals".      It was  pointed out  by the  Court that  there are  two considerations which  may legitimately  weigh with the Court in justifying  departure from  the  principle  of  selection based on merit. One is what may be called State interest and the other  is what  may be  described as a region’s claim of backwardness. The  legitimacy of claim of State interest was recognised explicitly in D.P. Joshi’s case (supra) and Minor P. Rajendran’s  case (supra).  These two cases show that the claim  of  State  interest  in  providing  adequate  medical services to  the people  of the  State by  imparting medical education to  students who  by reason  of their residence in the State  would be  likely to  settle down  and  serve  the people of the state as Doctors, was regarded by the court as a legitimate  ground for departing from the strict principle of selection  based on  merit. The decision of this Court in D.N. Chanchala  v. State of Mysore, [1971] Suppl. S.C.R. 608 also upheld university wise distribution of seats, though it WAS not  in conformity with the principle of selection based on  merit   and  marked   a  departure   from  it,  and  the justification for  taking this  view was  that institutional preference was  not constitutionally impermissible "firstly, because it  would be  quite legitimate  for students who are attached to  a university  to entertain  8  desire  to  have training in  specialised subjects,  like medicine, satisfied through colleges affiliated to their own 241 university since that would promote institutional continuity which has  its own  value and  secondly, because any student from any  part  of  the  country  can  pass  the  qualifying examination of that university, irrespective of the place of his birth of residence."      The second  consideration which  can legitimately weigh with the  court in diluting the principle of selection based on merit  is the claim of backwardness made on behalf of any particular region.  We may,  in  this  connection,  usefully quote the  following passage from the judgment of this Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain’s case (supra):           "There have  been cases  where students residing a           backward  region   have  been  given  preferential           treatement in  admissions to  medical colleges and           such preferential treatment has been upheld on the           ground  that   though  apparently   discriminatory

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 14  

         against  other  it  is  intended  to  correct  the           imbalance or handicap from which the students from           the backward  region are  suffering and thus bring           about real  equality in  the  larger  sense.  Such           preferential treatment  for those  residing in the           backward  region  is  designed  to  produce  equal           opportunity on  a broader  basis by  providing  to           neglect geographical or human areas an opportunity           to  rise   which  they   would  not  have  if  not           preferential treatment  is given  to them and they           are treated  on  the  same  basis  as  others  for           admissions to  medical colleges, because then they           would never  be able  to compete  with others more           advantageously   placed.    If   creatively    and           imaginatively  applied,   preferential   treatment           based on residence in a backward region can play a           significant role  in  reducing  uneven  levels  of           development and  such preferential treatment would           presumably satisfy the test of Article 14, because           it would  be calculated  to redress  the  existing           imbalance between different regions in the State.           There may be a case where a region is educational-           ly  backward  or  woefully  deficient  in  medical           services and in such a case there would be serious           educational and health service disparity for that 242           backward region  which must  be  redressed  by  an           equality and  service minded  welfare  state.  The           purpose of  such a  policy would  be to remove the           existing inequality  and to  promote welfare based           equality for the residents of the backward region.           If the  State in  such a  case seeks to remove the           absence of  opportunity for  medical education and           to provide competent and adequate medical services           in such  backward region  by  starting  a  medical           college in  the heart  of such backward region and           reserves a  high  percentage  of  seats  there  to           students from  that region, it may not be possible           to  castigate  such  reservation  or  preferential           treatment  as  discriminatory.  What  is  directly           intended to  abolish existing  disparity cannot be           accused of discrimination." Krishna Iyer, J. said to the same effect when he observed in Jagdish Saran’r case (supra) at page 856 of the Report :           We have  no doubt that where the human region from           which the  alumni of  an institution  are  largely           drawn is backward, either from the angle of oppor-           tunities for  technical education  or availability           of medical  services for the people, the provision           of a  high ratio  of reservation  hardly militates           against  the   equality  mandate   viewed  in  the           perspective of social justice.      This was precisely the ground on which, in the State of Uttar Pradesh  v. Pradip  Tandon, [1975]  2 S.C.R.  761 this Court allowed  reservation in  medical admissions for people of the  hill and  Uttarakhand areas  of the State of U.P. On the ground  that those areas were socially and educationally backward. Similarly, and  for the  same reason,  the  Andhra Pradesh High Court in A. Peeria Kurappan’a case (supra) held that preferential treatment of Telengana students in medical admissions was justified. It is, therefore, clear that where the region  from which  the students  of  a  university  are largely drawn  is backward  either from the point of view of opportunities  for  medical  education  or  availability  of competent  and   adequate  medical  services,  it  would  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 14  

constitutionally permissible,  without violating the mandate of the  equality clause,  to provide  a high  percentage  of reservation or  preference for  students  coming  from  that region, because  without reservation  or preference students from such  backward region  will hardly  be able  to compete with those  from advanced  regions since  they would have no adequate 243 opportunity for  development so  as to  be in  a position to compete  with   others.  By  reason  of  their  socially  or economically disadvantaged position they would not have been able to  secure education  in good  schools and  they  would consequently be  at  a  disadvantage  compared  to  students belonging to  the affluent  or well-to-do  families who have had  best   of  school   education.  There  can,  therefore, legitimately be reservation or preference in their favour so far as admissions are concerned in case of a medical college which is  set up  or intended  to cater  to the  needs of  a region which  is backward  or whose alumni are largely drawn from such  backward region.  It may,  however, be noted that the reservation  or preference in such a case may even be of a high percentage of seats but it cannot be total.      Here, in  the present  case, regionwise  classification for admission  to medical colleges was sought to be depended on the  ground that  Vidharbha and  Marathwada  regions  are backward as  compared to  Pune and  Bombay regions which are far more  advanced and  it was  contended on  behalf of  the State Government  that, in  the circumstances, the provision in Rule B(2) that a student from a school or college situate within the jurisdiction of a particular university would not be eligible  for admission  to medical  college or  colleges situate in  the jurisdiction of another university but would be confined  only to  medical college or colleges within the jurisdiction of  the same  university, was  intended to give protection to  students in  Vidharbha, Marathwada  and other predominently  rural   areas  the  population  of  which  is socially,  economically   and  educationally   backward  for otherwise  they   would  have  no  opportunity  for  medical education since  they would  not be  able  to  compete  with students from  Pune and  Bombay regions and consequently the classification made  by this  provision was constitutionally permissible. We  are afraid  this contention  is  not  well- founded and must be rejected. In the first place there is no material  to   show  that   the  entire  region  within  the jurisdiction of  the university  in Vidharbha is backward or that the  entire region  within  the  jurisdiction  of  Pune University is advanced. There are quite possibly even in the region  within   the   jurisdiction   of   Pune   University predominently rural  areas which  are backward  and  equally there may  be in  the region  within the jurisdiction of the university in Vidharbha, areas which are not backward. We do not think  it is  Possible to  categorise the regions within the jurisdiction of 244 the various  universities as backward or advanced as if they were exclusive  categories and  in any  event  there  is  no material placed  before us  which would persuade us to reach that  conclusion.   But  even  if  the  regions  within  the jurisdiction of the universities in Vidharbha and Marathwada can  be   said  to   be  backward  and  regions  within  the Jurisdiction of  the universities  in Bombay and Pune can be said to  be  advanced,  we  do  not  think  that  regionwise classification for  admission to  medical  colleges  can  he sustained. There is no reason why a brilliant student from a region which  is within  the jurisdiction of a university in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 14  

Vidharbha  or   Marathwada  area   should  be   denied   the opportunity of  medical education  in Bombay  or  Pune.  Why should he  remain confined  to the so-called backward region from which he comes? Should an equal opportunity for medical education not  be made  available to  him as is available to students from  regions within the jurisdiction of Bombay and Pune  Universities?  Why  should  mobility  for  educational advancement be  impeded by  geographical limitations  within the State?  Would this  clearly not  be a  denial  of  equal opportunity violative of Article 14 of the Constitution? The answer must  clearly be in the affirmative. It would plainly be violative  of the  mandate  of  the  equality  clause  to compartmentalize  the   State  into  different  regions  and provide that a student from one region should not he allowed to migrate  to another region for medical education and thus be denied  equal opportunity  with others  in the  state for medical education.  This is  precisely the  reason why  this Court struck-down  unitwise scheme  for admission to medical colleges in  the state of Tamil Nadu in A. Peeria Karuppan’s case (supra).  The unit-wise  scheme which  was held  to  be constitutionally invalid  in that  case was  a scheme  under which the  medical colleges  in  the  city  of  Madras  were constituted as  one unit  and  each  of  the  other  medical colleges in  the mofussil  was constituted  as a  unit and a separate Selection  Committee was  set up  for each of these units. The  intending applicants  were asked to apply to any one of  the committees  but were  advised to  apply  to  the Committee nearest  to their  place of  residence and if they applied to  more than one committee, their applications were to be  forwarded by  the  government  to  only  one  of  the committees. The  petitioners challenged the validity of this unit wise scheme and contended that the unit-wise scheme was violative of  Article 14  of  the  constitution  inter  alia because the applicants of some of the units were in a better position than 245 those who  applied in  other units,  since the ratio between the applicants  and the  number of seats in each unit varied and several  applicants who  secured lesser  marks than  the petitioner were  selected merely  because their applications came to  be considered  in other  units. This contention was upheld by  the Court holding that the scheme in question was invalid  as  it  was  discriminatory  against  some  of  the applicants. The  ratio of  this decision  applies fully  and completely to the present case. Here also as a result of the regionwise classification  a student from one region who has secured lesser  marks than  another from  a different region may be  selected for  admission to  the medical  college  or colleges within his region while the student who has secured higher  marks  may  not  succeed  in  getting  selected  for admission to  the medical  college or  colleges  within  his region. And  moreover, a  student from one region would have no opportunity for securing admission in the medical college or colleges  in another region, though he may have done much better than the student in that other region. The regionwise scheme adopted  by the State Government in Rule B(2) clearly results in  denial of equal opportunity violative of Article 14 of  the Constitution.  We may  at this stage refer to the decision of  this Court in D. N. Chanchala’s case (supra) on which considerable  reliance was  placed on  behalf  of  the State Government.  The reservation impugned in this case was university-wise  reservation   under  which  preference  for admission to a medical college run by a university was given to students  who had  passed the  PUC  examination  of  that university and  only 20 per cent of the seats were available

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 14  

to those  passing the PUC examination of other universities. The petitioner  who had  passed PUC  examination held by the Bangalore University applied for admission to any one of the medical colleges affiliated to the Karnataka University. She did not  come within  the merit  list on the basis of 20 per cent open  seats which  were filled up and since she had not passed the PUC examination held by the Karnataka University, her application  for admission  was rejected.  She therefore filed writ  petition under  Article 32  of the  Constitution contending inter  alia that the university-wise distribution of seats  was discriminatory  and hence violative of Article 14 of  the Constitution. This contention was rejected by the Court. Shelat,  J. speaking  on behalf of the Court gave the following reasons in support of its conclusion : 246           "In our  view, there  is  nothing  undesirable  in           ensuring that  those attached to such universities           have  their   ambitions  to   have   training   in           specialised  subjects,  like  medicine,  satisfied           through   colleges   affiliated   to   their   own           universities. Such  a basis  for selection has not           the  disadvantage   of  districtwise  or  unitwise           selection as  any student  from any  part  of  the           State can  pass the  qualifying examination in any           of the  three  universities  irrespective  of  the           place of  his birth  or  residence.  Further,  the           rules  confer   a  discretion   on  the  selection           committee to  admit outsiders  upto 20 per cent of           the total  available seats  in any  one  of  these           colleges,  i.e.,   those  who   have  passed   the           equivalent   examination   held   by   any   other           university  not   only  in   the  State  but  also           elsewhere in  India. It  is, therefore, impossible           to say  that the  basis of  selection  adopted  in           these rules  would defeat  the object of the rules           as was  said in  Rajendran case  or make  possible           less meritorious  students obtaining  admission at           the cost of the better candidates. The fact that a           candidate  having   lesser  marks   might   obtain           admission at  the cost  of another  having  higher           marks from another university does not necessarily           mean  that   a  less  meritorious  candidate  gets           advantage over  a more meritorious one. As is well           known,  different   universities  have   different           standards in the examinations held by them." It will  be obvious  on a  little scrutiny  of these reasons that they  cannot  possibly  have  any  application  to  the regionwise classification adopted in the present case. There are   two   basic   differences   between   the   regionwise classification In  the present  case and the university-wise reservation in D.N. Chanchala’s case (supra). Firstly, there was no  common examination or uniform standard of evaluation in the  different  universities  in  D.N.  Chanchala’s  case (supra) so  that it  could not  be  said  that  a  candidate obtaining lesser  marks in  the PUC  examination held by one university was  necessarily less  meritorious  than  another student getting  more marks  in the  PUC examination held by another university.  But here  in the  present case there is only one common examination for the 12th 247 Standard held in the entire state with the same syllabus and the same set of questions and uniform standard of evaluation with the  result that  it can  be safely  predicated that  a student who gets less marks in the 12th Standard examination may ordinarily  be regarded as less meritorious than another

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 14  

student  getting  higher  marks.  If  there  were  different examinations  held   by  the   three  Division  Boards  with different sets  of  questions  and  different  standards  of evaluation the  ratio of  the decision  in D.N.  Chanchala’s case would have inevitably and irresistibly applied. But the standard of comparison between students throughout the State being clear  and well-defined  on account  of a  common 12th Standard examination  with same set of questions and uniform standard of evaluation the decision in D.N. Chanchala’s case can have  no application.  Moreover in D.N. Chanchala’s case (supra) the  reservation in  favour of  students passing PUC examination of  a particular university was not total but 20 per cent  of the  seats were made available to those passing the PUC  examination of  other  universities.  Here  in  the present case, however, the reservation in favour of students who have  studied in  schools or  colleges  situate  in  the region within the jurisdiction of a particular university is 100 per  cent and  no student who has studied in a school or college within the region of another university can possibly get admission  in the  medical college  or colleges  situate within the region of that the first mentioned university. We must therefore  hold that  the ratio of the decision in D.N. Chanchala’s case does not compel us to take a view different from the one we are inclined to take on first principle.      But we would like to make it clear that it would not be unconstitutional for  the State  Government to  provide  for reservation or preference in respect of a certain percentage of seats  in the  medical college or colleges in each region in favour  of those  who have studied in schools or colleges within that  region and even if the percentage stipulated by the State  Government is  on the  higher side,  it would not fall foul  of the  constitutional mandate of equality. There are two  reasons why such reservation or preference would be constitutionally permissible.  In the  first place  it would cause a considerable amount of hardship and inconvenience if students residing  in the  region of a particular university are compelled  to move  to the  region of another university for medical education which 248 they might  have to  do if  selection for  admission to  the medical colleges  in the  entire State  were to  be based on merit without  any reservation  or preference regionwise. It must be  remembered that  there would  be a  large number of students who,  if they  do not  get admission in the medical college near their residence and are assigned admission in a college in  another region  on the  basis of relative merit, may not  be able  to go  to such  other medical  college  on account of  lack of  resources and  facilities  and  in  the result,  they  would  be  effectively  deprived  of  a  real opportunity for  pursuing the  medical course even though on paper they  would have got admission in the medical college. The opportunity for medical education provided to them would be illusory  and not  real because they would not be able to avail of  it. Moreover  some difficulty  would also arise in case of  girls because if they are not able to get admission in the medical college near the place where they reside they might find  it difficult  to pursue  medical education  in a medical college  situated in  another  region  where  hostel facilities  may   not  be   available  and  even  if  hostel facilities are  available, the  parents may hesitate to send them to  the hostels.  We are  therefore of  the  view  that reservation or preference in respect of a certain percentage of seats  may legitimately  be made  in favour  of those who have studied  in schools  or colleges within the region of a particular university,  in order  to equalise  opportunities

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 14  

for medical  admission on a broader basis and to bring about real and  not formal, actual and not merely legal, equality. The only question is as to what should be the extent of such reservation or  preference. But  on this  question we derive considerable light  from the  decision in Dr. Pradeep Jain’a case  (supra)  where  we  held  that  reservation  based  on residence requirement or institutional preference should not exceed the outer limit of 70 per cent of the total number of open  seats   after  taking  into  account  other  kinds  of reservations validly made and that the remaining 30 per cent of the  open seats at the least should be made available for admission to students on All-India basis irrespective of the state or the university from which they come. We would adopt the same  principle in  case of  regionwise  reservation  or preference and  hold that  not more  than 70 per cent of the total number  of  open  seats  in  the  medical  college  or colleges situate  within  the  area  of  jurisdiction  of  a particular university, after taking into account other kinds of reservations validly made, shall be 249 reserved  for  students  who  have  studied  in  schools  or colleges situate within that region and at least 30 per cent of the  open seats  shall  be  available  for  admission  to students who  have studied  in schools  or colleges in other regions within the State.      There is  however one  matter in respect of which it is necessary to make some clarification. The first is that when we talk  of total  number of  open seats  after taking  into account other  kinds of  reservations validly  made to which the percentages of 70 and 30 are to be applied as aforesaid, we mean  the total number of open seats after deducting such number of  open seats  as are  required to be made available for admission  of students  on All-India basis in accordance with the principles laid down in the decision in Dr. Pradeep Jain’s case (supra) as modified from time to time by various subsequent judgments  delivered by this Court. The number of seats  required  to  be  made  available  for  admission  to students on All-India basis must first be taken out and then to the  remaining number  of open  seats after  taking  into account  other  kinds  of  reservations  validly  made,  the percentages of 70 and 30 must be applied for determining the extent to  which  regional  reservation  or  preference  can legitimately be made.      We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and declare Rule B(2) unconstitutional and void. We  may however  make it clear that admissions made on the basis  of Rule  B(2) shall not be disturbed, nor will as claim for admission be founded for the academic year 1985 on the basis  of Rule  B(2). If  the State  Government wants to make regionwise  reservation  or  preference  after  setting apart the  seats required to be made available for admission to students  on All-India  basis,  we  have  laid  down  the guidelines which  the State  Government may  follow so as to avoid clash with Article 14 of the Constitution.      There will be no order as to costs of the appeal. M.L.A.                                       Appeal allowed. 250