http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5760-5761  of  1999 Appeal (civil)  5910     of  1999 Appeal (civil)  6995-6996        of  1999 Appeal (civil)  562      of  1999

PETITIONER: K.  DURAISAMY & ANR., ETC.  ETC.  C

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       23/01/2001

BENCH: R.C.Lahoti, Doraswamy Raju

JUDGMENT:

L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

     RAJU, J.

     The above appeals have been filed against the decision of  a Full Bench of the Madras High Court dated 1.10.1999 in Writ  Appeal Nos.929/99, etc.  The Writ Petition (C)  No.562 of 1999 has been filed by a person similarly placed like the appellants,  directly in this Court raising identical issues as  are  raised in the appeals, canvassing at the same  time the  correctness  of the decision of the Full Bench  of  the Madras High Court.

     Having  regard  to  the question decided by  the  Full Bench  and  the issues raised in the above Appeals and  Writ Petition, it is unnecessary to advert to the factual details relating to the Courses applied by the respective parties or as  to the total number of seats available, number of  seats reserved,  the  marks obtained by the respective  candidates and  the  inter se ranking in the merit list.  It is  stated that   Civil   Appeal   No.5910  of   1999   concerns   D.M. (Obstetrics)  & (Gynaecology), a post- graduate course,  and the  courses  involved  in the other Appeals  and  the  Writ Petition are said to be super speciality courses.

     The  Government  of  Tamil  Nadu,  Health  and  Family Welfare (MCA) Department, issued G.O.Ms.  No.55 dated 9.2.99 laying  down  the procedure for selection of candidates  for admission  to  Post- graduate Diploma, Degree,  M.D.S.   and Higher   Speciality  courses  for   the   academic   session 1999-2000, with Annexure-I thereto containing the Prospectus pertaining  to Post-graduate Diploma/Degree/M.D.S.   courses and Annexure-II containing the Prospectus relating to Higher Speciality   courses.    The   Government  Order   envisaged reservation  confining  up  to 50% in favour  of  in-service candidates on merit basis and further stipulated that 50% of the  seats  available  in each of the speciality,  shall  be allotted  exclusively to service candidates.  The Government Order   also  enumerated  various   categories  of   Medical

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

Officers,  who  alone will be treated as service  candidates and  considered  for selection against the 50% of the  seats allocated  exclusively  for service candidates.  As for  the remaining  50%, referred to as Open Quota, while stipulating the  criteria for selection to what has been referred to  as the  remaining  50% Open Quota, it has been stated that  all other  eligible  Medical Officers, except  those  enumerated categories  of Medical Officers, shall be eligible to  apply for the same.  The further stipulation, which requires to be noticed, is the one providing that all procedures in respect of  such of those matters enumerated in the relevant  clause of  the  Order followed during 1998- 1999 shall be  followed for  1999-2000  also.  The above stipulations in respect  of allocation  of seats exclusively for the service  candidates and  the other for non-service candidates have been  carried out  in  the Prospectus, both relating to the  Post-graduate Degree/Diploma  courses  as  well as the  Higher  Speciality courses.   So  far  as  the  Post-  graduate  Degree/Diploma courses  are concerned, the same were incorporated under the heading  IX.   METHOD OF SELECTION AND ADMISSION,  and  in respect of Higher Speciality courses, they were incorporated under  the heading X.  METHOD OF SELECTION AND  ADMISSION. The  necessary  program has been published  prescribing  the last  date  for receipt of application forms, the dates  for undertaking  Entrance  Examination,   publication  of  merit lists,  etc.  After conduct of written Entrance  Examination for  the purpose and publication of the results of  selected candidates,   it  came  to  be   known,  according  to   the appellants,  that they were not selected due to a particular understanding   of   the  Orders  of  the   Government   and stipulations  contained  in  the   Prospectus  relating   to earmarking  or allocation of seats for in-service candidates and  non-service candidates in a manner by which the  claims of  in-service  candidates  based on merit on the  basis  of marks  came  to  be ignored in respect of 50% of  the  seats allocated  as Open Quota by confining them exclusively  to non-service candidates and considering claims of in- service candidates  like  the  appellants  only in  respect  of  50% allocated to and reserved for service candidates.

     This resulted in the appellants and others filing Writ Petitions  before  the High Court.  A learned Single  Judge, while  allowing the writ petitions held that reservation  of 50%  of  seats for non-service candidates have to  be  given effect  to  or  worked  out  by  selecting  candidates  from in-service  and  non-service, on the basis of merit  in  the first  instance  and thereafter the 50% seats  reserved  for in-service  candidates  shall  be filled  up  by  in-service candidates  who  could  not gain selection on the  basis  of merit  as  against the other 50% earmarked as  open.   The learned  Judge, even overlooking the fact that a description of  the respective classification has been given, was of the view  that there is no category as non-service candidates, and it is only the in-service candidates who form a separate class.   The  learned  Judge   also  drew  inspiration  from decisions  of Courts pertaining to reservation under Article 16  (4) of the Constitution of India to hold in these  cases also  that those candidates belonging to special  categories who  have a reservation in their favour but could get or got selection  purely on the basis of their own merits shall not be  counted  against the number reserved for that  class  or category  and  must be treated as having got in against  the seats available in open competition.  Aggrieved, some of the selected candidates who had intervened in the writ petitions filed  in Writ Appeal Nos.  905, 906 and 918 of 1999 but the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

same  were  dismissed  on  18.6.99  even  at  the  stage  of admission,  summarily.   The appeals filed by the  State  in Writ  Appeal  Nos.   929,  952  to   956  of  1999  came  up subsequently  before  another  Division  Bench  and  finding themselves  unable  to agree with order of dismissal of  the earlier appeals, the matters were referred for consideration by  a  larger  Bench  after obtaining orders  of  the  Chief Justice.   This  Division  Bench was of the  view  that  the decision of the Single Judge was not correct.  Thereupon the matters  were placed before the Full Bench, which, in  turn, reversed  the  judgment  of  the learned  Single  Judge  and dismissed the Writ Petitions.

     The  Full  Bench,  whose judgment is  under  challenge before  us, was of the view that the interpretation given by the  Single  Judge,  particularly  on   the  basis  of   the guidelines of the earlier year cannot be sustained, that the writ petitioners who participated in the written examination and  selection process duly proclaimed cannot challenge  the same  subsequently  on finding themselves  unsuccessful  and cautioned  the authorities to be more careful to avoid vague clauses/language  of doubtful purport and import leading  to unnecessary and avoidable litigation, in future.

     The  learned  counsel for the appellants and the  writ petitioner,  while  adopting  the line of reasoning  of  the learned Single Judge in the High Court, vehemently contended that  the interpretation placed by the Full Bench on some of the  clauses  in  the Government  order/prospectus  was  not justified  in  law  and that the manner of working  out  the policy of reservation indicated by the Full Bench is opposed to  the  well-settled principles laid down by Courts in  the matter  of implementing reservation policies and if  allowed to  stand,  according  to the appellants, would  defeat  the policy  and  objects  of reservation, itself.   The  learned counsel  for  the State supported the reasoning of the  Full Bench  by contending that the classification made as service quota and open quota for non-service candidates for purposes of  confining the respective class/category of candidates to the percentage earmarked for them exclusively is permissible and  well  within the powers of the State  which  establish, administer  and maintain the Medical Colleges and that  such prescription of quota cannot be treated on par with communal and  other reservations, ordinarily made.  It was also urged that  in  law there can be different sources of  recruitment under  classified  heads  or   categories  such  as  service candidates  and  non-service  or  private  candidates,  they having distinct and different identity based on intelligible criteria  and that too when made with a definite purpose and object.

     Before  dealing  with  contentions of parties,  it  is useful  and necessary to refer to the clauses on which there had  been divergent views of the High Court.  The Government order dated 9.2.99, which forms the basis for the prospectus issued  and  the relevant clauses found  extracted  therein, lays down the criteria, as follows:-

     1.  (iii) (a) The reservation will be confined to and kept  at  50%  in favour of in-service candidates  on  merit basis.

     (b)  50%  of  the  seats  available  in  each  of  the specialities  shall  be  allotted   exclusively  to  service candidates.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

     (c)   If  sufficient  number   of   eligible   service candidates   are  not  available   for  the  seats  reserved exclusively  for them, such vacancies shall be filled up  by the  non-service candidates from the merit list/waiting list in the respective reserved compartments.  If vacancies exist even  after this, such vacancies shall be filled up applying the order of preference indicated in the prospectus.

     (d)  The following categories of Medical Officers only will  be  treated as Service candidates and  considered  for selection  against  50% of seats allocated  exclusively  for service candidates:-

     (1)  All  Medical Officers selected by the  TNPSC  and appointed  in  Tamilnadu Medical Services on regular  basis, who  have put in minimum of 2 years continuous service as on 1.2.99.

     (2)  Medical  Officers  (or) Health  Officers  in  the Public Health Department who have been selected by the TNPSC and  working under the control of DPH & PM and who apply for Public  Health Course i.e.  Diploma in Public Health can  be considered  as  Service  candidates  for DPH  as  the  above qualification namely Dip.  in Public Health is essential for declaration  of  probation.   However,   to  consider  under service  quota  for  MD  (SPM),  the  candidates  must  have completed  2  years of service like the  other  postgraduate courses.

     (3)  Medical  Officers  who  have put in  2  years  of continuous service and who are working in :-

     (i) Local Bodies/Municipalities in Tamil Nadu.

     (ii) Government of India Institutions in Tamil Nadu.

     (iii) Public Sector Undertaking and Organisation under the control of Govt.  of India in Tamil Nadu.

     (iv)Undertakings  and  Organisations of Government  of Tamil Nadu.  These Medical Officers should produce bona-fide certificates  from  the  concerned   authorities  with   the declaration  to  serve in the respective institutions for  a minimum period of 5 years after completion of the course.

     (e) Criteria for selection under 50% open quota:-

     All  other  eligible  Medical  Officers  except  those specified  in  clause (iii) (d) above are eligible to  apply under 50% open quota.

     (iv)  (a)  The Rule of reservation i.e.  31% for  open competition, 30% for backward classes, 20% for most backward classes/De-notified  communities,  18% for Scheduled  Castes and  1%  for  Scheduled  Tribes shall  apply  to  50%  seats reserved  for service candidates and to the 50% seats to  be filled up on the basis of merit from service and non-service candidates separately under each speciality.

     (b)  The rule of reservation shall apply to any course with 8 seats and above both for open and service quota, in a discipline.

     (v)  The  cost of application form shall  be  Rs.600/-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

(Rupees  Six Hundred only) for all the courses.  The cost of the application form shall be paid by a crossed Demand Draft on  any  Nationalised Bank drawn in favour of the  Secretary Selection Committee KMCH campus Kilpauk, Chennai-600010.  As per G.O.  MS No.111 Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare Department dated  22.9.98 SC/ST candidates are exempted from payment of DD for Rs.600/-

     . .

     6.   The Government direct that all procedures such as reservation of 25% of seats in Post Graduate Courses for all India  Quota, conduction of Entrance Examination at  Chennai only,  eligibility  criteria  to apply allocation  of  seats between  open  quota and service candidates on 50:50  basis, the  procedure  for filling up of vacant seats  allotted  to service  candidates  in  the event of non-  availability  of candidates, awarding of one mark to each answer with correct response,  Negative  Mark  System  for  incorrect  response, determination  of  inter  se merit of  candidates  obtaining equal  marks,  mentioning  of  number   of  seats  in   each speciality  college-wise and course-wise in the Annexure  to the  prospectus,  payment  of stipend and  other  procedures relating  to  execution  of security bond and  surety  bond, obtaining   written   undertaking   from   all   non-service candidates  to serve within the country for a period of  not less  than  5 years, computerisation  of  application/coding sheet,   evaluation  of  answer   papers,  taking  of  anti- Hepatitis-B  injection by selected candidates and  incurring of  expenditure  for  the conduct of  entrance  examination, scrutiny   of  applications,   evaluation,  the  expenditure relating  to  introduction of optical mark reader system  in admission  to  various  courses from  the  personal  deposit account  maintained  by  the Secretary  Selection  Committee followed  during 1998-99 shall be followed for the  academic year 1999-2000 also.

     That the Government possess the right and authority to decide  from  what  sources the  admissions  in  Educational Institutions  or  to  particular   disciplines  and  courses therein  have to be made and that too in what proportion, is well established and by now a proposition well settled, too. It  has been the consistent and authoritatively settled view of  this  Court  that  at  the  super  speciality  level  in particular  and even at the Post-Graduate level reservations of  the kind known as protective discrimination in  favour of  those  considered  to be backward should be  avoided  as being  not permissible.  Reservation, even if it be  claimed to  be  so  in this case, for and in favour of  in-  service candidates,  cannot  be  equated  or  treated  on  par  with communal  reservations  envisaged  under Articles  15(4)  or 16(4)   and   extended  the   special  mechanics  of   their implementation to ensure such reservations to be the minimum by  not  counting those selected in open competition on  the basis  of  their own merit as against the quota reserved  on communal considerations.

     Properly  speaking,  in these cases, we are  concerned with  the allocation of seats for admission in the form of a quota  amongst  in- service candidates on the one  hand  and non-service  or  private  candidates on the  other  and  the method  or manner of working out in practice the  allocation of  seats  among  the members of  the  respective  category.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

Could   the  State  Government   have  legitimately  made  a provision  allocating 50% of seats exclusively in favour  of in-service   candidates  and  keep   open  the  avenue   for competition  for them in respect of the remaining 50%  along with  others  denying  a  fair  contest  in  relation  to  a substantial  or sizeable number of other candidates, who are not   in  service  and  who   fall  under  the  category  of non-service  candidates,  will  itself be  open  to  serious doubt.   One  such attempt seems to have been put  in  issue before  the Madras High Court which held that reservation in favour  of  in-service  candidates  for  the  academic  year 1992-93  should  be  confined  to 50% and  awarding  of  two additional  marks,  instead of one additional mark for  each completed  year  of service in primary health  centres,  was unconstitutional  and  when the matter was brought  to  this Court,  in the decision reported in State of Tamil Nadu  Vs. T.  Dhilipkumar & Ors.  [1995 (5) SCALE 67], the decision of the  High  Court has been upheld.  This Court  also  further observed  that  the  Government   should  appoint  a  highly qualified  committee to determine from year to year what, in fact, should be the percentage-wise reservation required for in-service  candidates, having regard to the then prevailing situation and that the percentage of fifty percent shall, if found appropriate, be reduced.

     The   stipulations   governing   the   selection   for admissions  in  these  cases  have  got  to  be  viewed  and construed  in  the  above  backdrop   of  events  and  legal position.   The  learned  Single  Judge, in  our  view,  was certainly  not  right  in equating the provisions  made  for allocation of seats in the form of fixation of quota in this case  with  the  usual  form of  communal  reservations  and allowing  himself to be carried away by the peculiar  method of working out such reservations in order to ensure adequate representation  to  such  candidates,   and  applying  those principles to construe a provision of the nature involved in these  cases.   Yet  another error in the reasoning  of  the learned  Single  Judge  lies in his  assumption  that  open quota  seats  have to be thrown open to all and  are  meant only  to  be  filled  up  purely   on  the  basis  of  merit performance  and no one from even the class of candidates in whose  favour a special quota has already been provided  can be  excluded from consideration as against the open quota. This  reasoning of the learned Single Judge not only ignores the object and scheme underlying the allocation of seats for admissions  for  the  academic year 1999-2000, but  has  the consequence  of  rewriting  the Prospectus  and  introducing altogether a different pattern of admissions, overriding the policy  of the Government aimed at meeting out equal justice and  affording  equality  of opportunity  to  the  different categories  classified  for the purpose.  If the  Government can  be  said  to possess the power to fix a quota  for  the exclusive  benefit of in-service candidates, it is  beyond comprehension  or  dictates of either reason or logic as  to why  the  Government cannot equally exclusively earmark  the remaining  seats  in  favour  of  non-service  or  private candidates,   thereby  confining  the   claims  of   service candidates to the number of seats earmarked and allocated to them.   As  there can be a classified category  of  service candidates,   it  is  open  to   the  Government  to   make classification  of all those other than those falling in the category  of  service candidates, as non-service  candidates and  allocate  the  remaining seats after allotment  to  the service  candidates  for exclusive benefit of the source  of non-service  or private candidates.  There is nothing in law

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

which  deprive the Government of any such powers and no such impediment has either been brought to our notice at the time of  hearing  or seems to have been brought to the notice  of the  learned Single Judge to warrant any such  construction, as has been adopted by him.  We are also of the view that it does not lie in the mouth of the writ petitioners to raise a bogey  of selection based on merit alone, only in respect of a  portion  of  the seats available for  admission  to  non- service  candidates,  when they belong to and are part of  a category or class who have got in their favour fifty percent of  the number of seats in each of the disciplines allocated to their category of in-service candidates to be filled up exclusively  from such in-service candidates on the  basis of  their  own inter se merit and not on the  overall  merit performance  of  all  the candidates - both  in-service  and non-service put together.  The writ petitioners are found to have  applied  as in- service candidates and merely  because they  could  not  be  selected within the  number  of  seats earmarked  for  their category or class on the basis of  the inter  se  merits  among  their own class,  they  cannot  be allowed to contend to the contrary in retrospect and on hind sight  experience of having obtained more marks, than  those who  got  selected  as  against   the  seats  earmarked  and allocated  to  non-service candidates.   The  justification, both  in  law  and  on facts for  exclusive  allocation  and stipulation  of  a  definite quota or number  of  seats  for non-service  or private candidates, in our view, lies in the very  principle which warranted or enabled the fixation of a quota  of fifty percent of seats and exclusively allotted to in-service  candidates.   Any countenance of such claims  of the  appellants  is  likely  to   also  endanger  the   very allocation  of 50% of the seats exclusively to the  category of in-service candidates, too.

     On  a consideration of the reasoning of the Full Bench as  also  the construction placed upon the Government  Order and   the  Prospectus,  we  are  of  the  view  that   State Government,  in  the  undoubted exercise of its  power,  has rightly  decided,  as  a  matter of policy, so  far  as  the admissions   to   super  speciality    and   Post   Graduate Diploma/Degree/MDS   courses   for   the  academic   session 1999-2000  are  concerned to have scheme or pattern  of  two sources of candidates based upon a broad classification into two  categories, i.e., in-service candidates and non-service or  private  candidates  with  each one  of  them  allocated exclusively  for their own respective category of candidates fifty  percent  of  the seats, the  ultimate  selection  for admission  depending  upon  the inter se  merit  performance amongst their own category of candidates.  As pointed out by the  Full  Bench,  the  change in the  nomenclature  of  the categorisation  from  open  competition in  1998-1999,  to open  quota  in 1999-2000 and the conspicuous omission  in the  scheme and the Prospectus for 1999- 2000 of a  specific stipulation  like  the one contained in clause X (5) in  the Prospectus for 1998-1999 that the 50% of the seats available for  open competition shall be made available for  selection and admission of both service and non-service candidates, as also  the stipulation contained in the Government Order  and the Prospectus for 1999-2000 under the caption criteria for selection  under  50% open quota, which specifically  reads that  all  other  eligible  Medical  Officers  except  those specified  in clause (iii)(d) above (meaning thereby Medical Officers  who  will  be treated as  service  candidates  and allowed to apply as such) are eligible to apply under 50% of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

the  open quota, supports the stand of the State  Government and  the Selection Committee and justify the selections  for admission  already  made by them.  The  further  stipulation that  the reservation will be confined to and kept at 50% in favour of in-service candidates on merit basis, coupled with the  other provisions noticed above make it abundantly clear that  the selection of in-service candidates is confined  to and  has  to be kept at 50% only of the total seats and  not against  any  of the other seats, exclusively earmarked  for the non-service or private candidates.

     The mere use of the word reservation per se does not have  the  consequence  of ipso facto  applying  the  entire mechanism  underlying  the  constitutional   concept  of   a protective   reservation   specially    designed   for   the advancement  of  any  socially  and  educationally  backward classes  of  citizens  or  for   the  Scheduled  Castes  and Scheduled  Tribes  to  enable them to enter  and  adequately represented  in  various fields.  The meaning,  content  and purport  of that expression will necessarily depend upon the purpose and object with which it is used.  Since reservation has diverse natures and may be brought about in diverse ways with  varied  purposes  and manifold objects,  the  peculiar principles  of  interpretation laid down by the  Courts  for implementing  reservations envisaged under the  Constitution in  order to ensure adequate and effective representation to the  backward classes as a whole cannot be readily  applied, out  of context and unmindful of the purpose of reservations as the one made in this case, more to safeguard the interest of  candidates,  who were already in service to enable  such in-service  candidates  to  acquire   higher  and   advanced education   in   specialised  fields    to   improve   their professional  talents for the benefit of the patients to  be treated  in  such Medical Institutions where the  in-service candidates  are  expected to serve.  That apart,  where  the Scheme  envisaged is not by way of a mere reservation but is one  of classification of the sources from which  admissions have  to be accorded, fixation of respective quota for  such classified  groups,  the  principles  at  times  applied  in construing  provisions  relating to reservation  simpliciter will   have  no  relevance  or  application.    Though   the prescription  of  a  quota may involve in  a  general  sense reservation in favour of the particular class or category in whose  favour a quota is fixed, the concepts of  reservation and  fixation  of quota drastically differ in their  purport and content as well as the object.  Fixation of a quota in a given  case  cannot  be  said  to be  the  same  as  a  mere reservation  and  whenever a quota is fixed or provided  for one  or  more  of  the classified  group  or  category,  the candidates  falling  in  or  answering  the  description  of different  classified  groups in whose favour  a  respective quota  is  fixed  have to confine  their  respective  claims against  the quota fixed for each of such category, with  no one  in  one  category  having any right to  stake  a  claim against the quota earmarked for the other class or category. Since  we are of the view that the Full Bench has  correctly come to the conclusion that the scheme adopted for selection of  candidates  for  admissions in question provided  for  a definite  and  fixed  quota for  the  respective  classified sources  of  admission and the reasons assigned therefor  do not  suffer  from any infirmity whatsoever to call  for  any interference  at  our  hands,  these appeals  fail  and  are dismissed.

     In view of the above discussion, it is unnecessary for

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

us to deal with the issue of estoppel on which also the Full Bench  has chosen to reject the claim of the appellants.  In view  of  the  conclusion of ours in the appeals,  the  Writ Petition also shall stand dismissed.  There will be no order as to costs.