http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 12  

PETITIONER: ANIL KUMAR GUPTA, ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT28/07/1995

BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) SEN, S.C. (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  (5) 173        JT 1995 (5)   505  1995 SCALE  (4)573

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                     J U D G M E N T B.P. JEEVAN REDDY.J.      These writ  petitions highlight  the faulty  manner  in which reservations have been provided and implemented by the Government of  Uttar Pradesh  and  its  authorities  in  the matter of admission to medical courses for the year 1994-95. Though the dispute pertains to the academic year 1994-95, we are told  that the  admissions have  been made only in June- July, 1995 and are yet to be finalised in respect of certain courses.      The story  begins with  the announcement  of policy  of reservation in  the matter  of admission  to medical courses issued by  the Government on May 17, 1994. According to this notification, sixty  five percent  of seats were reserved in favour of  various classes/categories  leaving  only  thirty five percent  for  open  competition  (O.C.)  category.  The reservations provided were to the following effect:      1. Backward Class                       27%      2. Hill Region                           3%      3. Uttarakhand Region                    3%      4. Scheduled Caste                      21%      5. Scheduled Tribe                       2%      6. Real dependents of freedom fighters   5%      7. Son/daughter of soldier died in         war/handicapped solders               2%      8. For Handicapped Candidates            2%                                        ---------------------                                               65%                                        --------------------- A further  reservation in  favour of women was also provided to the  extent of  thirty  percent  in  each  of  the  above categories. The  reservations so provided were challenged by way of a writ petition in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution-Civil Writ Petition No.777 of 1994 (Swati Gupta v. State  of Uttar  Pradesh &  Ors.). The  contention of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 12  

petitioner was  that reservation  of sixty  five percent  of seats was  contrary to  the decision  of this Court in Indra Sawhney and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1992 Suppl. (3) S.C.C. 217)  and, therefore,  void. Pending  the  said  writ petition, the  Government issued  a notification on December 17, 1994  modifying the  reservation policy contained in the notification of May 17, 1994. It would be appropriate to set out  the   notification  dated  December  17,  1994  in  its entirety:      No. 6550/Sec-14/V-111/93      From: Ravindra Kumar Sharma,      Sachiv,      Uttar Pradesh Shasan      To: Director General,      Medical Education, Training,      U.P.Lucknow      Medical Section-14          Lucknow dated 17.12.94      Sub: Reservation       in         seats       of           M.B.B.S./B.D.S./B.H.M.S. /B.A.M.S./B.U.M.S.           Courses to be filled through   C.P.M.T.  in           State   Allopathic   Medical  Colleges/K.G.           Medical College,  Lucknow/All    State           Homeopathic/Ayurvedic/Unani Medical Colleges.                                               .........      Sir,           In  continuation  of  G.O.No.  2697/Sec-14/V-      94/111/93 dated  17.5.94, on  the above subject, I      am directed  to say  clarifying the  Govt.  policy      that horizontal  reservation  be  granted  in  all      medical colleges on total seats of all the courses      to be  filled through  combined  Pre-Medical  Test      (CPMT) 1994 as given below:      1.   Real    dependents   of    freedom   fighters           5%      2. Sons/daughters  of  deceased/disabled  soldiers           2%      3.     Physically      handicapped      candidates           2%      4.   Candidates    belonging   to    hill    areas           3%      5.  Candidates   belong   to   Uttaranchal   areas           3%      2. The  above reservation  would be horizontal and      the candidates  of the  above categories, selected      on the  basis of  merit, would  be kept  under the      categories    of     Scheduled    Castes/Scheduled      Tribes/Other Backward  Classes/ General  to  which      they belong. For example, if a candidate dependent      on a  Freedom Fighter  selected on  the  basis  of      reservation  belongs  to  reserved  for  scheduled      caste, (he  will  be  adjusted  against  the  seat      reserved for  S.C.?) Similarly,  if  a  physically      handicapped candidate  selected on  the  basis  of      reservation belongs  to other  backward  class  or      general category, he would be adjusted against the      seats  reserved  for  other  backward  classes  or      general category.      3.  I  am  also  directed  to  say  that  vertical      reservation  shall   be  granted  in  all  medical      colleges on  total seats  of  all  courses  to  be      filled through C.P.M.T. 1994 as given below:      a) Scheduled Caste Candidates-21%} 30 seats      b) Scheduled Tribe  Candidates-21%} in each      c) Other Backward Class          } category         candidates                -27%} reserved

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 12  

                                   } for ladies      4.  ’Other  Backward  Classes’  mean  the  classes      mentioned  in   Annexure-1  of   Notification  No.      488/XVII-V-1-1(Ka) 8-1994  dated 23.3.94  notified      by  Vidhiyaka  Anubhag,  Uttar  Pradesh  Adhiniyam      No.4/1994.  The  candidates  of  backward  classes      mentioned  in   Annexure-II   of   the   aforesaid      Adhiniyam  would   not   be   entitled   for   the      reservation.      5. I  am  also  directed  to  clarify  that  if  a      candidate of  reserved category, mentioned in para      3 above,  is selected  alongwith general  category      candidates on  the basis of merit, he shall not be      adjusted against  reserved seats,  as G.O. in this      regard has  already been  issued. So, 50% seats of      general category  shall be  filled on the basis of      merit prior  to filling of reserve seats mentioned      in para 3 above.           Please  ensure  strict  compliance  of  these      orders.                                       Yours faithfully,                                            sd/-                                   Ravindra Kumar Sharma                                           Sachiv"          This revised notification was brought to the notice of this Court at the hearing of the aforesaid writ petition. After noticing  both the  aforesaid notifications this Court (the Bench  comprising R.M.Sahai,  J. and  one of  us, Suhas C.Sen,J.) observed as follows:      "2.  Reservation  of  65%  resulting  in      reducing the general category of 35% was      undoubtedly  violative  of  Article  16.      Further by  reserving 30% of the general      seats for  ladies the  general  category      shrank  to   5%.   But   these   glaring      infirmities have  been rectified  by the      amended circular. Reservation of 30% for      ladies has  now been  confined to para 3      of the  amended  circular.  Dr.  Dhavan,      learned Senior Counsel appearing for the      State clarified that he has instructions      to  make  a  statement  on  the  amended      circular   that    now   there   is   no      reservation for  ladies in  the  general      category.      3. Similarly,  the other  defect in  the      circular reserving 35% seats for general      category has  been removed. The vertical      reservation  is   now  50%  for  general      category and  50% for  Scheduled Castes,      Scheduled Tribes  and Backward  Classes.      Reservation   of    15%   for    various      categories  mentioned   in  the  earlier      circular  which   reduced  the   general      category  to   35%   due   to   vertical      reservation has now been made horizontal      in the  amended circular extending it to      all seats. The reservation is no more in      general category.  The amended  circular      divides all  the seats  in CPMT into two      categories  -  one,  general  and  other      reserved. Both  have been allocated 50%.      Para 2  of the  circular  explains  that      candidates who are selected on merit and      happen to  be of  the category mentioned

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 12  

    in para 1 would be liable to be adjusted      in   general    or   reserved   category      depending  on  to  which  category  they      belong, such reservation is not contrary      to what  was said by this Court in Indra      Sawhney.  Whether  the  reservation  for      such persons  should have  been made  or      not was  not challenged, therefore, this      Court is not required to examine it.      4.  In   the  result  this  petition  is      disposed of by directing that in view of      the circular issued by the Government on      17-12-1994  clarified   by  para  2  the      grievance of  the petitioner  cannot  be      said to  have been survived. The interim      order passed  by this  Court staying the      declaration of results is discharged."      This decision was rendered on February 2, 1995.      On  February   14,  1995   the  Government   issued   a      clarification stating:      "I have been directed to say that partly      modifying    the     G.O.No.6550-Sec.14-      V/111/93  dt.17.12.94   on   the   above      subject, clause  para 3 of the said G.O.      shall be read as under:      3.  I  am  also  directed  to  say  that      vertical reservations  shall be  granted      in all  Medical Colleges  on total seats      of all  Courses  to  be  filled  through      C.P.M.T. 1994. i)   Scheduled Caste Candidates        21% ii)  Scheduled Tribes Candidates        2% iii) Other Backward Class Candidates   27%      The effect of this clarification is that reservation in favour of  women has  been removed  from  all  the  reserved categories.      The  Lucknow   University  had  issued  a  notification calling for  applications for  admissions to medical courses in the  State in accordance with the notification of May 17, 1994. After the decision of this Court in Swati Gupta and in the light  of the revised notification by the Government, as also the  clarification issued  on February  14,  1995,  the University issued a corrigendum stating that the reservation in favour of five categories, viz., (1) actual dependents of freedom   fighters    -   5%,    (2)    sons/daughters    of soldiers/deceased/disabled  in  war  -  2%,  (3)  physically handicapped -  2%, (4) candidates of hill area - 3%, and (5) candidates of Uttarakhand area - 3% (hereinafter referred to as in  this  judgment  as  "Special  Categories")  shall  be horizontal reservations  and not  vertical reservations. The corrigendum stated:      ".....following  Horizontal  reservation      has been  provided on the total seats of      all the courses of every Medical College      to be  filled on  the basis  of Combined      Pre-Medical Test, 1994:      1) Actual dependents of freedom fighters                                         5%      2)Sons/daughters                      of      Soldiers/deceased/disabled      inwar                              2%      3)        Physically         handicapped                                         2%      4)    Candidates     of    Hill     Area                                         3%

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 12  

    5)  Candidates   of   Uttarakhand   Area                                         3%      2.  The   above  reservation   will   be      horizontal and  the candidates  of above      categories, selected  on  the  basis  of      merit,   would   be   kept   under   the      categories  of  Schedule  Caste/Schedule      Tribe/Other  Backward  Class/General  to      which they belong.      3. It  is also  informed that  on  total      number of seats of every course in every      Medical College  through C.P.M.T.  1994.      The following vertical reservations have      been provided:      (1)    Scheduled     Caste    Candidates                                         21%      (2)    Scheduled     Tribe    Candidates                                          2%      (3)  Other   Backward  Class  Candidates                                         27%      4. It  is also  clarified  that  if  any      candidate    belonging    to    Schedule      Caste/Schedule   Tribe/Other    Backward      Class categories  is  selected  in  open      competition on  the basis of merit, then      he will  not be  adjusted in  the  seats      reserved   for   concerned   categories.      Therefore after filling the seats on the      basis  of  horizontal  reservation,  the      unreaserved seats  will be filled on the      basis of  merits and thereafter reserved      seats   for    Schedule   Caste/schedule      tribe/Other  Backward   Class  will   be      filled.      5. As per above mentioned provisions the      provisions    for     reservations    in      application form and important guidlines      for  C.P.M.T.1994  issued  earlier  will      deemed to be modified accordingly.      6. Therefore,  it is  desired  from  the      candidates  falling   under   horizontal      reservations  that  if  they  belong  to      Scheduled  Caste,   Scheduled  Tribe  or      Other Backward Class Category, then they      should send  Caste  Certificate  on  the      following  proforma   giving  his   Roll      number and  examination details  to  the      Registrar,   Lucknow    University    by      28.2.95. If  Caste  Certificate  is  not      receivedwithin  the  prescribed  period,      then it  will be  deemed that  concerned      candidates  belongs   to   the   General      Category. Once  a Caste  Certificate  is      furnished   same   cannot   be   changed      subsequently. The prescribed proforma of      Caste Certificate  is being  sent to the      concerned   candidates   falling   under      Horizontal reservation  through UPC  for      necessary action  as aforesaid.  In case      proforma of  Caste  Certificate  is  not      received  by  post,  then  same  can  be      obtained   by    contacting   Registrar,      Lucknow University."      In accordance  with the procedure aforesaid, admissions have been  made which are questioned in the present two writ

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 12  

petitions.      At the  outset, we  may mention  a  glaring  illegality which has  unfortunately  not  been  raised  in  these  writ petitions but  is self-evident  from the  decisions of  this Court. Under  the revised  notification dated  December  17, 1994, three  percent of  the seats  have been  reserved  for candidates belonging to hill areas and another three percent in favour  of candidates  belonging  to  Uttaranchal  areas. These two reservations along with the reservations in favour of physically  handicapped,  children  of  deceased/disabled soldiers and  dependents of  freedom fighters are treated as horizontal reservations. In other words, the reservations in favour of  hill areas  and Uttaranchal  areas are understood and treated  as reservations  relatable to  Article 15(1) of the Constitution  and  not  as  reservations  in  favour  of "socially and  educationally backward classes of citizens or for the  Scheduled Castes  and Scheduled  Tribes" within the meaning of  Article 15(4)  of the  Constitution. It has been held by  this Court  in State  of Uttar  Pradesh v.  Pradeep Tandon (1975 (1) S.C.C.267) that the reservation of seats in favour of candidates belonging to hill areas and Uttarakhand areas are  reservations within  the meaning of Article 15(4) of the  Constitution, i.e.,  they are reservations in favour of socially  and educationally backward classes of citizens. This Court  found that  "the State  has established that the people in  hill  and  Uttarakhand  areas  are  socially  and educationally backward  classes of citizens". It, therefore, follows  that  a  separate  horizontal  reservation  of  six percent of the seats in favour of candidates from hill areas and Uttaranchal  apart from  and in addition to twenty seven percent  reservation  in  favour  of  other  backward  class candidates is  clearly illegal.  Though this  contention has not been specifically raised in these writ petitions we must yet take  notice  of  this  circumstance  while  making  the appropriate  directions   in  these   matters.  It  isindeed surprising that  the State of Uttar Pradesh which is a party to the  above decision  has failed  to bear  it in mind. The said decision has also been referred to approvingly in Indra Sawhney. The  State of Uttar Pradesh shall keep this in mind for future  selections as also in respect of those which may be now under way and make necessary corrections.      We may  now turn  to the contentions raised in the writ petition.      In the  initial notification  calling for applications, the fifteen  percent special  reservations were  treated  as vertical reservations  along with  reservations in favour of Other  Backward  Classes,  Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled Tribes. Applications were accordingly received. But with the issuance of  the revised  notification of December 17, 1994, the  decision   of  this   Court  in  Swati  Gupta  and  the clarification contained  in the  letter dated  February  14, 1995,   these   special   reservations   became   horizontal reservations. Accordingly,  a corrigendum  was issued by the Lucknow University  calling upon the candidates belonging to these  special   categories  to   specify  to  which  social reservation  category  they  belong.  In  other  words,  the candidates who  had applied  under any  of the  said special reservations were  asked to  specify whether  they belong to Scheduled Tribes,  Scheduled Castes,  Other Backward Classes or to  open competition  category, as the case may be. It is stated that  the candidates did indicate the same. According to  the   counter-affidavit  now  filed  on  behalf  of  the respondents, it  appears that out of 2130 candidates who had applied against the five special reservation categories only nine stated that they belong to Other Backward Classes. None

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 12  

stated that  they belong  to Scheduled  Tribes or  Scheduled Castes which  meant that  but for  nine candidates,  all the rest applying  under the  aforesaid special  categories were from the general/non-reserved category. As we shall indicate presently, 110  out of  112 special  reservation  candidates have been accommodated only in O.C. category and none in the O.B.C., S.C. or S.T. category.      Now, coming  to the  manner in  which the  said two-way reservations,   viz.,    social    reservations    (vertical reservations)   and    special   reservations    (horizontal reservations) have  been implemented,  a few  facts  may  be noticed. In  the Counter-affidavit  filed by  the respondent (sworn-to by  Sri G.K.Bajpai)  it is  stated that  the total number  of   seats  available  in  M.B.B.S,  course  in  the government colleges in Uttar Pradesh is 746. Fifteen percent of the  said number  comes to  112 seats.  In Para 16, it is stated:           "16. That  in C.P.M.T.  1994 out of      this  112   seats  101   students   were      selected and  all of  them belong to the      General    Category.     The    replying      respondent filled  up  unreserved  seats      first and  while doing  so, 101 students      selected  on  the  basis  of  horizontal      reservation since they belong to General      Category, hence they have to be adjusted      against unreserved seats. 9 belonging to      Other   Backward   ClassesCategory   has      secured  equivalent   marks  as  General      Candidates and  thus  were  selected  on      merits.  These   candidates  have   been      adjusted  against  unreserved  category.      The Roll  number, names  and total marks      out of  1200 of  these candidates are as      follows:      1. 33936  Vinay Kumar Gupta         S/o J.P.Gupta                974/1200      2. 16678  Sharad Chandra s/o         B.S. Yadava                  971/1200      3. 28415  Ram Yash Singh Yadava         S/o S.C.S. Yadava            957/1200      4. 10506  Neeraj Kumar S/o         O.P.Yadava                   950/1200      5. 60497  Zafar Neyas           947/1200      6. 47946  Vishal Singh S/o         Y. Singh                     947/1200      7. 47684  Rohit Yadava S/o         V.S. Yadava                 1003/1200      8. 15633  Monica Yadava S/o         S.K. Yadava                  954/1200      9. 57620  Mohd. Muddasir        944/1200      The  remaining  263  seats  were  filled      through  General   Candidates  and  last      candidate selected has secured 891 marks      out of  1200 marks.  201  candidates  of      Other  Backward  Classes  were  selected      against reserved seats 157 against seats      reserved for  Scheduled  Castes  and  15      against  seats   reserved  for  Schedule      Tribe.  Similarly   same  procedure  was      applied   in    all   the    categories.      Therefore,   the   contention   of   the      petitioner  that   only  36%  seats  are      filled with General Candidates is wrong.      A photostat  copy of tabulated result is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 12  

    being  filed   herewith  and  marked  as      Annexure R-IV to to this affidavit."      A  reading   of  Para   16  makes  it  clear  that  the authorities in-charge of making admissions first took up the special category reservations and filled them up. Of the 112 candidates, 101 were from what may be called for the sake of convenience, ‘unreserved  category’  while  nine  candidates belonged to  Other Backward  Class category.  But it appears that inasmuch as the said nine candidates belonging to Other Backward Classes  had secured  equal marks  with the general candidates and  were accordingly  selected on  merit in  the O.C.  quota,   they  were   treated  as   Open   competition candidates. The  result was  that out  of 112 seats reserved for special  categories, 110  seats were taken away from the Open competition  (O.C.) category,  thus  leaving  only  263 seats for  the general candidates, i.e., O.C. candidates not belonging to  any of  the special  reservations. It  is  the above method of filling of seats that has been challenged in these writ petitions.      The  contention   of  the   learned  counsel   for  the petitioners is  two fold:  (i)  by  virtue  of  the  revised notification of  December 17,  1994, the  decision  of  this Court in Swati Gupta and the corrigendum notification issued by the  Lucknow University,  it is  clear that  the  special reservation  seats  are  to  be  distributed  and  allocated proportionately among the social, i.e., vertical reservation categories. Had  it been  so done, only fifty six candidates belonging  to   special  reservation   categories  could  be accommodated in the O.C. category. But, the respondents have accommodated 110  special reservation candidates in the O.C. category, an  excess of  fifty four  seats. These fifty four seats must  be  taken  away  from  the  special  reservation categories and  allotted to O.C. candidates not belonging to any  special   reservation  category.   (ii)  The  procedure prescribed in the aforesaid revised notification for filling up the  vacancies is equally illegal which has also resulted in the  dimunition of seats available for O.C. category. The admissions should  be re-done thoroughly to rectify the said error.      On  the   other  hand,  the  learned  counsel  for  the respondents justify  the procedure prescribed in the revised notification for  making the admissions. With respect to the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the submission  of  the  learned  counsel  for  the  Lucknow University and  the State  of  Uttar  Pradesh  is  that  the fifteen percent  reservation in favour of special categories (special reservation)  is an  overall reservation  and not a compartmentalised  reservation.   They  submit   that  these special reservations  are not  divided proportionately among the vertical (social) reservation categories and, therefore, these special  reservation candidates  have to  be  provided fifteen  percent  of  the  total  seats  (i.e.,  112  seats) overall, whether  by  adjusting  them  against  any  of  the social/vertical reservations or otherwise.      The question  is which  of the above interpretations is the correct  one having  regard to  the language employed in the concerned notifications?      On a  careful consideration of the revised notification of December  17, 1994  and  the  aforementioned  corrigendum issued by the Lucknow University, we are of the opinion that in view  of the  ambiguous language  employed therein, it is not possible  to give  a definite  answer  to  the  question whether the horizontal reservations are overall reservations or compartmentalised  reservations. We may explain these two expressions.  Where   the  seats   reserved  for  horizontal

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 12  

reservations are  proportionately divided among the vertical (social) reservations  and are  not  inter-transferable,  it would be  a case  of compartmentalised  reservations. We may illustrate what  we say:  Take this  very case;  out of  the total 746  seats, 112  seats (representing  fifteen percent) should be  filled by  special reservation candidates; at the same  time,  the  social  reservation  in  favour  of  Other Backward Classes  is 27%  which means 201 seats for O.B.Cs.; if the  112  special  reservation  seats  are  also  divided proportionately as  between O.C.,O.B.C.,S.C.  and  S.T.,  30 seats would  be allocated  to the  O.B.C. category; in other words, thirty  special category students can be accommodated in the O.B.C. category; but say only ten special reservation candidates belonging to O.B.C. are available, then these ten candidates will,  of course, be allocated among O.B.C. quota but the remaining twenty seats cannot be transferred to O.C. category (they will be available for O.B.C. candidates only) or for  that matter, to any other category; this would be so whether requisite  number of  special reservation candidates (56 out  of 373)  are available in O.C. category or not; the special reservation  would be  a water  tight compartment in each of  the vertical  reservation classes (O.C.,O.B.C.,S.C. and S.T.).  As against  this, what  happens in  the over-all reservation is that while allocating the special reservation students to  their respective  social reservation  category, the over-all  reservation in  favour of  special reservation categories has  yet to  be honoured.  This means that in the above illustration,  the twenty  remaining  seats  would  be transferred to  O.C. category which means that the number of special reservation  candidates in  O.C. category  would  be 56+20=76.  Further,  if  no  special  reservation  candidate belonging  to   S.C.  and   S.T.  is   available  then   the proportionate number  of seats meant for special reservation candidates in  S.C. and  S.T. also  get transferred  to O.C. category. The  result would  be that 102 special reservation candidates have  to be  accommodated in the O.C. category to complete their  quota of  112. The converse may also happen, which  will   prejudice  the   candidates  in  the  reserved categories. It  is, of  course, obvious  that the  inter  se quota between  O.C., O.B.C.,  S.C.  and  S.T.  will  not  be altered.      Now coming  to the revised notification of December 17, 1994, it says that "horizontal reservation be granted in all medical colleges  on total  seats of  all the  courses....". These words  are being  interpreted in two different ways by the parties; one says it is over-all reservation while other says it  is compartmentalised.  Paragraph 2  says  that  the candidates selected  under the  aforesaid special categories "would  be   kept  under   the   categories   of   Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Other  Backward  Classes/General  to which they  belong. For example, if a candidate dependent on a freedom  fighter selected  on  the  basis  of  reservation belongs to Scheduled Castes, he will be adjusted against the seat reserved  for Scheduled  Castes". This  is sought to be read by  the petitioners  as affirming  that it is a case of compartmentalised reservation.  May be  or may  not  be.  It appears  that  while  issuing  the  said  notification,  the Government was  not conscious  of  the  distinction  between overall   horizontal   reservation   and   compartmentalised horizontal reservation.  At any rate, it may not have had in its contemplation  the situation  like  the  one  which  has arisen now. This is probably the reason that this aspect has not been stated in clear terms.      It would  have been  better -  and the  respondents may note this  for their  future guidance - that while providing

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 12  

horizontal reservations,  they should  specify  whether  the horizontal reservation  is a compartmental one or an overall one. As  a matter  of fact, it may not be totally correct to presume that  the Uttar  Pradesh Government was not aware of this distinction  between "overall  horizontal reservation", since it  appears from  the judgment  in Swati Gupta that in the first  notification issued  by the  Government of  Uttar Pradesh on  May 17, 1994, the thirty percent reservation for ladies was split up into each of the other reservations. For example, it  was stated  against backward  classes that  the percentage of  reservation in  their favour was twenty seven percent but  at the  same time  it was  stated  that  thirty percent of  those seats  were reserved  for ladies.  Against every vertical  reservation, a  similar provision  was made, which meant  that the  said horizontal reservation in favour of  ladies   was  to   be  a  "compartmentalised  horizontal reservation". We  are of the opinion that in the interest of avoiding any  complications  and  intractable  problems,  it would be  better that  in future the horizontal reservations are comparmentalised  in the sense explained above. In other words, the  notification inviting applications should itself state not  only the  percentage of horizontal reservation(s) but should  also specify  the number  of seats  reserved for them in  each of  the social  reservation categories,  viz., S.T., S.C.,  O.B.C. and  O.C. If  this is  not done there is always  a   possibility  of   one  or   the  other  vertical reservation category  suffering prejudice as has happened in this case.  As pointed out hereinabove, 110 seats out of 112 seats meant  for special  reservations have  been taken away from the  O.C. category  alone - and none from the O.B.C. or for that  matter, from  S.C. or  S.T. It can well happen the other way also in a given year.      Now,  coming   to  the  correctness  of  the  procedure prescribed by  the revised  notification for  filling up the seats, it  was wrong  to direct  the fifteen percent special reservation seats to be filled up first and then take up the O.C. (merit)  quota (followed by filling of O.B.C., S.C. and S.T. quotas). The proper and correct course is to first fill up the  O.C. quota (50%) on the basis of merit: then fill up each of  the social reservation quotas, i.e., S.C., S.T. and B.C; the third step would be to find out how many candidates belonging to  special reservations have been selected on the above basis.  If the quota fixed for horizontal reservations is already  satisfied - in case it is an over-all horizontal reservation -  no further  question arises. But if it is not so satisfied,  the requisite  number of special rreservation candidates shall  have to be taken and adjusted/accommodated against their  respective social  reservation categories  by deleting the  corresponding number  of candidates therefrom. (If, however,  it is  a case of compartmentalised horizontal reservation,  then   the   process   of   verification   and adjustment/accommodation as  stated above  should be applied separately to  each of  the vertical reservations. In such a case, the  reservation  of  fifteen  percent  in  favour  of special categories,  overall, may be satisfied or may not be satisfied.) Because  the revised notification provided for a different method  of filling  the seats,  it has contributed partly to the unfortunate situation where the entire special reservation quota  has been  allocated and  adjusted  almost exclusively against the O.C. quota.      In this  connection, we  must reiterate what this Court has said  in Indra  Sawhney. While  holding that what may be called "horizontal reservation" can be provided under clause (1) of  Article 16,  the majority  judgment administered the following caution  in para 744: "(B)ut at the same time, one

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 12  

thing is  clear. It  is in  very exceptional situation - and not  for   all  and   sundry  reasons  -  that  any  further reservations of  whatever kind,  should  be  provided  under clause (1).  In such  cases, the  State has  to satisfy,  if called upon,  that making such a provision was necessary (in public interest) to redress the specific situation. The very presence of  clause (4)  should act  as a  damper  upon  the propensity  to  create  further  classes  deserving  special treatment. The  reason for  saying so  is  very  simply.  If reservations are made both under clause (4) as well as under (1), the vacancies available for free competition as well as reserved categories  would be  correspondingly whittled down and that  is not  a reasonable thing to do". Though the said observations were made with reference to clauses (1) and (4) of Article  16, the  same apply  with equal force to clauses (1) and  (4) of  Article 15  as  well.  In  this  case,  the reservation  of   fifteen  percent   of  seats  for  special categories was  on very high side. As pointed out above, two categories out  of them  representing  six  percent  out  of fifteen percent are really reservations under Article 15(4), wrongly treated  as reservations  under Article  15(1). Even otherwise, the  special reservation  would be  nine percent. The respondents  would be  well advised  to keep in mind the admonition administered  by this  Court and  ensure that the special reservations  (horizontal reservations)  are kept at the minimum.      Having  pointed   out  the   errors  in   the  rule  of reservation and its implementation, the question arises what should be  done now? Should we interfere with the admissions already finalised?  We think it inadvisable to do so. It may be remembered  that the  admissions now  finalised (in June- July, 1995)  are really  the admissions  which ought to have been finalised  one year  back. The  delay  has  occured  on account of  the first faulty notification (issued on May 17, 1994). When  a writ  petition was  filed  in  this  court  - probably some  writ petitions  in the  High Court also - the Government realised  its  mistake  and  issued  the  revised notification  on   December  17,   1994.  It   dropped   the reservation in favour of women in stages. The University had then to  issue a  corrigendum asking  the  special  category candidates to  indicate their  social  status.  This  was  a delayed exercise  which ought to have been undertaken at the beginning itself.  Even the  manner in  which the seats have been filled  up, as indicated above, is faulty. What we have laid down  herein is more for the purpose of future guidance for the  respondents. At  the same  time, we have to rectify the injustice done to the open competition candidates in the admissions in question, to the extend feasible. Accordingly, we direct  that in the matter of admissions made pursuant to C.P.M.T.1994, while  the admissions  already finalised shall not be  disturbed, the Uttar Pradesh Government shall create thirty four additional seats in the M.B.B.S. couse and admit thirty four  students from  the O.C.  category against those seats. If  any seats are vacant as on today, they shall also be filled  from the  O.C. category  alone. (It is made clear that O.C.  category means  the merit list and no distinction shall be  made among  the candidates in the O.C. list on the basis of their social status because it is well settled that even a  S.T./S.C./O.B.C. candidate  is entitled  to obtain a seat in  the O.C.  category on  the basis of his merit.) The counsel  for   the  petitioners  complain  that  fifty  four students belonging  to O.C.  category have  been deprived on account of respondents’ faulty actions and that it should be directed to  be made  up. We cannot agree. The factual basis of this  submission is  debatable in  view of  the ambiguity

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

mentioned hereinbefore.  We have directed creation of thirty four seats  (making a  total of  780 seats this year) having regard to  all the facts and circumstances of the case. This creation  of  additional  seats  is  restricted  to  current admissions only  and shall  not be  a permanent feature. The Uttar   Pradesh   Government/concerned   authorities   shall allocate the said thirty four additional seats appropriately among the  government medical  colleges and  make admissions thereto as early as possible.      We hope and trust that the respondents will ensure that a  similar   situation  does   not  arise  for  the  ensuing admissions.      The writ  petitions are  disposed  of  with  the  above terms. No costs.      A copy  of this  judgment shall  be communicated to the Chief  Secretary,   Government  of  Uttar  Pradesh  and  the Secretary, Medical  Education and  Training,  Government  of Uttar Pradesh  eo nomine  (i.e., by  their designation)  for their attention and implementation.