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

PETITIONER: M. R. MINI (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN & FATHER M.P.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT28/01/1980

BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. BENCH: KRISHNAIYER, V.R. PATHAK, R.S.

CITATION:  1980 AIR  838            1980 SCR  (2) 829  1980 SCC  (2) 216

ACT:      University-wise allocation of seats for M.B.B.S. course in Kerala, constitutional validity of.

HEADNOTE:      Dismissing the Writ Petition, the Court ^      HELD: The University-wise allocation of seats is valid.      Under  the  existing  scheme,  the  classification  for purposes of  quota is  university-wise, not  territory-wise. Belonging to  backward Calicut  District is  not the same as being an  alumnus of  the Calicut  University. May  be,  the State  could  have  classified  candidates  University-wise, backward region-wise  or otherwise,  separately  or  in  any constitutionally permissible  combination. Mystic maybes are beyond judicial conjecture. The misfortune of the petitioner is damnum  sine injuria.  Every adversity  is not an injury. Judicial remedy  cannot heal  every wound or cure every sore since the  discipline of  the law  keeps courts  within  its bounds. [830 A-D]      Dr. Jagdish  Saran &  Ors. v.  Union of  India  &  Ors. [1980] 2 SCR 831 relied on      Observation:      [Too long  has the  State been seeking ad hoc solutions and improvising  remedies where  comprehensive  studies  and enduring recipes  are the desideratum. To keep the education situation uncertain  across the  national and  the  fate  of students of  higher education  tense  or  in  suspense  with annual challenges  in court  or agitational exercises in the streets is  dangerous procrastination  fraught with negative results where  a creative  undertaking of  responsibility to find an  enduring answer to a chronic problem is the minimum that  the   country   expects   of   the   concerned   State instrumentality.] [830 E-G]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL ORIGINAL  JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 1220 of 1979.            (Under Article 32 of the Constitution)      P. Govindan Nair and N. Sudhakaran for the Petitioner.

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

    M. M. Khader and V. J. Francis for the Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      KRISHNA  IYER,   J.-The  petitioner,  an  aspirant  for admission to  the M.B.B.S.  course in  one or  other of  the medical  college  in  Kerala,  has  failed  to  qualify  for selection  from  the  Kerala  university  pool,  not  having secured high enough marks, and has failed to fall within the Calicut University  pool, not  having been a student of that University.      What is  urged, as  a claim  for inclusion, is that had she been  treated as  a Calicut University student her marks would have  been sufficient  to gain admission and since she belongs to the Malabar region, which 830 is broadly  served by  the Calicut University, she should be given  the   benefit  of  Calicut  University  students  and consequential   admission-a    mixture   of    district-wise backwardness and  university-wise preference  to  reach  the desired advantage.      We  cannot   agree.  Under  the  existing  scheme,  the classification for  purpose of quota is university-wise, not territory-wise. Belonging  to backward  Calicut District  is not the  same as being an alumnus of the Calicut University. Maybe,  the   State   could   have   classified   candidates university-wise,   backward    region-wise   or   otherwise, separately   or    in   any   constitutionally   permissible combination. We are not here concerned with the prospects of the petitioner  under  any  different  admission  scheme  or reservation  project.  Mystic  maybes  are  beyond  judicial conjecture. Once we hold that the university-wise allocation of seats is valid the misfortune of the petitioner is damnum sine injuria, if we may use that expression in this context. Every adversity  is not  an injury.  Judicial remedy  cannot heal every  wound or cure every sore since the discipline of the law keeps courts within its bounds.      We do  not preclude  the State  from taking  any  other pragmatic  formula   or  evolving  any  selection  calculus, constitutionally permissible,  so  as  to  promote  equality against the  backdrop of  social justice. Indeed, we have by our Judgment  in Dr. Jagadish Saran & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.(1),  explained the  parameters, the  criteria and the correct measures  which must  be initiated to marry equality to excellence, solemnised constitutionally.      Too long  has the  state been  seeking ad hoc solutions and improvising  remedies where  comprehensive  studies  and enduring recipes  are the desideratum. To keep the education situation uncertain  across  the  nation  and  the  fate  of students of  higher education  tense  or  in  suspense  with annual challenge  in court  or agitational  exercises in the streets is  dangerous procrastination  fraught with negative results where  a creative  undertaking of  responsibility to find an  enduring answer to a chronic problem is the minimum that  the   country   expects   of   the   concerned   State instrumentality.      We dismiss this petition subject to the observations we have made  above, leaving  it to  the Kerala  State and  its Universities not  to contribute to the litigative nursery of medical candidates  but to  face the  task of shaping a firm policy governed  by  constitutional  guidelines,  not  other pressures. S.R.                                    Petition dismissed. 831