http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 34  

PETITIONER: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: U.S.V. BALRAM ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT28/01/1972

BENCH: VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. BENCH: VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN

CITATION:  1972 AIR 1375            1972 SCR  (3) 247  1972 SCC  (1) 660  CITATOR INFO :  F          1985 SC1495  (14,63,119,124)

ACT: Andhra  Pradesh  M.B.B.S.  course--Admission  to  Government Medical  Colleges  by  merit  as  a  result  of  competitive examination--Students  who had passed pre-University  course or  Higher  Secondary  Course  (Multipurpose)  eligible  for examination--40%  of seats reserved for candidates  who  had passed Higher Secondary Examination (Multipurpose)--Validity of   such   reservation--Whether  violative  of   Art.   14, Constitution  of  India--Reservation  of 25%  in  favour  of Backward   classes   as  enumerated  by   Backward   Classes Commission--Validity  of--Reservation whether saved by  Art. 15(4)

HEADNOTE: Admission   to  the  integrated  M.B.B.S.  Course   in   the government  medical colleges in Andhra Pradesh was from  two sources,  namely,  those who had passed  the  pre-University Course and those who had passed the Higher Secondary  Course (Multi-purpose)  and  a student from either  course  had  to appear at a competitive test.  By G.O. No. 1648/Health dated July  23,  1970  40% of the seats were  reserved  for  those candidates  who  had  passed  the  Higher  Secondary  Course (Multi-purpose).   Seats. were also reserved  for  Scheduled Tribes  and  Scheduled Caste candidates.  Apart  from  these there was a reservation of 25% in favour of Backward Classes as  enumerated by the Andhra Pradesh Backward  Classes  Com- mission.    This  reservation  was  provided  by  G.O.   No. 1793/Education.  dated September 23, 1970.  The  respondents who   were  candidates  at  the  entrance  examination   for admission to these colleges were not selected on account  of these  reservations.  They filed writ petitions in the  High Court  challenging  rule 9 under which 40%  reservation  had been made in favour of those passing Higher Secondary Course (Multi-purpose)   and   the  aforesaid   G.O.   making   25% reservation  in  favour of the Backward Classes.   The  High Court  by  its  judgment  allowed  the  writ  petitions  and directed the State to give admission to the writ petitioners in the lst year, Integrated M.B.B.S. Course.  The High Court held  that the only basis for selection for the  first  year course is the marks obtained by a candidate ,at the entrance

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 34  

test.  The selection thereafter should only be on the  basis of  highest number of marks irrespective of the fact  as  to whether the candidate was from the pore-university course or the  higher  secondary  course.  Rule 9  providing  for  the reservation of the 40%, in favour of’ HSC (M.P.)  candidates was, therefore, struck down as offending Article, 14 of  the Constitution.   Regarding  the  25% seats  in  the  colleges reserved  for the Backward Classes the High Court held  that the  government  order concerned was  violative  of  Article 15(1) of the Constitution read with Article 29 and that  it was  not  saved by Article 15(4) of  the  Constitution.   In appeal by the State of Andhra Pradesh, HELD : (1) It is no doubt open to the State to prescribe the source  from which the candidates are declared eligible  for applying  for  admission to the medical colleges;  but  when once a common entrance test has been prescribed for all  the candidates  on  the basis of which the selection has  to  be made the rule providing further that 40% of the, seats  will have to be reserved for H.S.C. candidates is arbitrary.   In the first place after 248 common  test  has been Prescribed there cannot  be  a  valid classification  ,,of PUC and Hsc candidates.  Even  assuming that  such classification is valid, the said  classification has  no  reasonable  relation to the  object  sought  to  be achieved, namely, selecting best candidate for the admission to  the  Medical Colleges.  The reservation of  40%  to  the H.S.C.  candidates  has no reasonable relation to  the  said object.  Hence the High Court was right when it struck  down this reservation under rule 9 contained in G.O. No. 1648  of 1970 as violative of Article 14. [266 C-E] (ii) (a)  Though  prima facie the list of  Backward  Classes which was under attack may be considered to be on the  basis of caste, a closer examination would clearly show that it is only  a  description of the group following  the  particular occupations or professions, exhaustively referred to by  the Commission.   Even on the assumption that the list is  based exclusively on caste, it was clear from the materials before the  Commission  and the reasons given by it in  its  report that the entire caste is socially and educationally backward and  therefore  the  inclusion of subcaste in  the  list  of Backward  Classes  is warranted by Art. 15(4).   The  groups mentioned therein have been included in the list of Backward Classes  as they satisfy the various tests which  have  been laid  down  by this  Court  for  ascertaining  social  and educationally  backward  classes.   The  list  of   Backward Classes  as  well  as reservation of 25% of  seats  in  Pro- fessional  Colleges  for the persons mentioned in  the  said list  was  valid  and  was  saved  by  Art.  15(4)  of   the Constitution  and  the High Court was wrong balding  to  the contrary. [285 C-D; 287 F-G] (b)  The  actual  living conditions  of  habitation  of  the classes under investigation can be satisfactorily judged and found  out only on a personal visit to the areas which  will give a more accurate Picture of their living conditions  and their surroundings.  If the personal impression gathered ’by the  members  of the commission had also  been  utilised  to augment the various other materials gathered as a result  of detailed investigation it could not be said that the  report of  the  Commission  suffered from any vice  merely  on  the ground that they imported personal knowledge. [285 H286 A] (c)  The criticism that the Commission had  divided  classes into more ’backward and less backward was not well  founded. on  the other hand what the Commission had  recommended  was the  distribution of seats amongst the reserved  classes  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 34  

proportion to their population.  This was not a division  of the  Backward  Classes as more backward and  less  backward. [286 D] (d)  If a situation arises wherein the candidates  belonging to  the group included in the list of backward  classes  are able to obtain more seats on the basis of their own,  merit it  is the duty of the government to review the question  of further reservation of seats for such groups If once a class appears  to have reached a stage of progress from  which  it could  be  safely  inferred that no  further  protection  is necessary  the State will do well to review  such  instances and suitably revise the list of Backward Classes. [286 H] (e)  In  the present case under G.O. No. 1793  of  1970  the total  reservation  was  only 43%.  The  break  up  of  that percentage  is  25%, 4% and 14% for  the  Backward  Classes, Scheduled  Tribes  and Scheduled Castes  respectively.   The quantum of reservation was thus well within limit  mentioned in Balaji’s case. [287 E] State  of Andhra Pradesh and another v. Lavu  Narendra  Nath and  ,Others, [1971] 1 S.C.C. 607, Gullapalli-Nageswara  Rao and Others v. 249 Principal  Medical College, Guntur and Others,  A.I.R.  1962 A.P.  212.  P. Sagar and Others v. State of Andhra  Pradesh, represented  by  Health Department, Hyderabad  and’  Others, A.I.R. 1968 A.P. 165, State Of Andhra Pradesh and Another v. P.  Sagar, [1968] 3 S.C.R. 595, Chitra Ghosh and Another  v. Union  of  India and Others, [1970] 1 S.C.R. 413,  Minor  P. Rajendra v. State of Madras, [1968] 2 S.C.R. 786, Ganga  Ram and  Others v. Union of India and Others, A.I.R.  1970  S.C. 2178,  D.  N. Chanchala etc. v. State of Mysore  and  Others A.I.R.  1971 S.C. 1762, State of Maharashtra and Another  v. Lok Shikshan Sanasatha and Ors., [1971] 2 S.C.C, 410,  Minor A.  Periakaruppan and Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu  and  Ors. A.I.R.  1971  S.C. 2303, P. Sukhadev v.  The  Government  of Andhra  Pradesh, 1966 An.  W.R. 294, Triloki Nath  Tiku  and Anr.  v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors. [1967]  2  S.C.R. 265, M. R. Balaji and Ors. v. State of Mysore, [1963]  Supp. I S.C.R. 438, R. Chitralekha and Anr. v. State of Mysore and Ors.,  [1964]  6  S.C.R. 368, State of  Madras  v.  Shrimati Champakam Dorairajan, [1951] S.C.R. 525 and Triloki Nath and Anr.  v.  State  of  Jammu &  Kashmir  and  Ors.,  [1969]  I S.C.R.103, referred to.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 901 to  903 of 1971. Appeals  by special leave from the judgment and order  dated May  13,  1971  of the Andhra Pradesh  High  Court  in  Writ Petitions  Nos.  6090 of 1970, 221 of 1971 and 543  of  1971 respectively. S. V. Gupte, P. S. Shankar and P. P. Rao, for the appellants (in C.A. No. 901 of 1971). P.  S.  Shankar and P. P. Rao, for the appellants  (in  C.A. Nos. 902 and 903 of 1971). V.  M. Tarkunde and K. Rajendra Chowdhary, for  the  respon- dents (in C.A. No. 901 of 1971). G.  Narasimhulu and P. A. Chowdhry, for the  respondent  (in C.A. No. 902 of 1971). A. Subba Rao, for the respondent (in C.A. No. 903 of 1971). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by- Vaidialingam, J. These three appeals, in which the State  of Andhra Pradesh is the first appellant, by special leave, are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 34  

directed  against the judgment and order dated May 13,  1971 of  the  Andhra  Pradesh  High Court  in  a  batch  of  writ petitions,  striking down Rule 9, in the Rules  relating  to the selection of candidates for admission to the  Integrated M.B.B.S.  Course  in the Government Medical College  in  the Andhra Pradesh area, issued G.O. No. 1.648/Health dated July 23,  1970  as  also under  G.O.  No.  1793,/Education  dated September  23,  1970,  regarding reservation  of  seats,  in professional colleges for Backward Classes together with the annexure to the said notification containing the 250 list  of Socially and Educationally Backward  Classes.   The Addl.   Director of Medical and Health  Services,  Hyderabad and Principal, Government Medical College, Guntur, are  also appellants Nos. 2 and 3 respectively in the appeals. The  Government of Andhra Pradesh by G.O. No.  1648/  Health dated  July 23, 1970 announced Rules for the  selection  and admission  of students to the Integrated M.B.B.S. Course  in the  Government Medical Colleges, in the Andhra  area.   The rules provided a pattern of allotment of seats by  reference to   certain.  qualifying  examinations.    The   candidates eligible  for admission to the Integrated  M.B.B.S.  Course, being  largely  taken from the students who had  passed  the qualifying  examination  for the Pre-University  Course  and those   who   had  passed  the   Higher   Secondary   Course (Multipurpose),   the  rules  provided  for  a  pattern   of earmarking   seats  for  the  students  according   to   the qualifying examinations taken by them.  It may be  mentioned at this stage that the H.S.C. Course (Multipurpose) students are  called  Multipurpose candidates since they  pass  their examinations from Multipurpose Schools. Rule  8  dealt  with the pattern of allotment  of  seats  in respect  of  qualifying examination.  Rule  9  outlined  the procedure  for  selection.  Rule 10 provided  that  all  the reservations would be subject to the order of merit of marks obtained  in  the  entrance  test by  the  students  in  the relevant category of reservations, namely, P.U.C. and H.S.C. Rule  24 provided that the selections made under  the  Rules will  be subject to any rules or orders that may be made  in regard  to  the  reservation  of  seats  for  Socially   and Educationally Backward Classes of students, having regard to the  recommendations  made by the  Andhra  Pradesh  Backward Classes  Commission.   But there was a condition  that  such Rules  or  Orders should have been made  by  the  Government before  the finalisation and communication of the  selection of candidates. On June 20, 1970, the Backward Classes Commission  appointed by  the State, ’a couple of years back, made its report  re- garding  the  various categories of persons who  are  to  be treated  as  belonging to Backward Classes  and  recommended reservation  of  30% of seats to persons  belonging  to  the Backward  Classes.   The State by G.O.  No.  1793/Education, dated September 23, 1970 announced reservation of 25% of the seats in the M.B.B.S. Course for candidates belonging to the various Backward Classes enumerated therein on the basis  of the report of the Backward Classes Commission.  In or  about August,  1970,  the validity of the entrance  test  provided under  the Rules issued by the G.O. ’-No. 1648 of  1970  was challenged  before  the High Court of Andhra  Pradesh  in  a batch  of writ petitions Nos. 3859, 3881, 3955 and  4052  of 1970.  The challenge was on the ground that 251 the  State had no power or authority to determine  admission by  reference only to the result of the entrance test  there by ignoring the results of the qualifying examinations taken

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 34  

by  a  candidates These writ petitions were dismissed  by  a learned Single Judge of the High Court on September 5, 1970. But on Letters Patent Appeals by the candidates, a  Division Bench  of the High Court on September 18, 1970 reversed  the order  of  the Single Judge and struck down  the  provisions regarding   holding  of  entrance  test  for  admission   to Government  Colleges  as illegal.  The State  came  to  this Court  in Civil Appeal Nos. 2161A and 2162B of  1970.   This Court  by its judgment dated February 11, 1971  allowed  the appeals  holding that the Government could hold an  entrance test for selection eligible candidates for admission to  the medical  course in the colleges run by the Government.   The said  decision  is State of Andhra Pradesh  and  another  v. Narendranath and others (1). On  the  basis of the decision of this Court  in  the  above appeals  the Government on February 12, 1971,  published  an additional  list of candidates selected on the basis of  the entrance  test  for  admission to  the  Integrated  M.B.B.S. Course. On December 27, 1970, the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 901 of 1971, who was a P.U.C. candidate filed in the High  Court Writ  Petition No. 6090 of 1970 challenging the validity  of the  classification  of candidates into  two  categories  as P.U.C.  and H.S.C. (M.P.) and reserving 40% of seats to  the latter  as also the G.O. No. 1793/Education dated  September 23,  1970 specifying certain classes as being  Socially  and Educationally backward and providing for them a  reservation of  25% of seats in the colleges.  Certain other  candidates belonging  to  the  H.S.C. (M.P.) category  had  filed  writ petitions  challenging G.O. No. 1793 of 1970  regarding  the reservation  made  for  the Backward  Classes.   The  P.U.C. candidate contended that the classification and  reservation of  40% of seats for the H.S.C. (M.P.) candidates  was  vio- lative  of  Art.  14 of the Constitution  and  that  it  was arbitrary  and illegal.  In particular he contended that  he has  obtained  more  marks  than  some  of  the  H.S.C(M.P.) candidates at the entrance test and that he was entitled  to admission in preference to such candidates.  Both the P.U.C. as  well as the H.S.C.(M.P.) writ petitioners attacked  G.O. No.  1793 of 1970 regarding reservation of 25% of seats  for the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes as violative of  Art.  15(1) read with Art. 29 and that it has  not  been saved by Art. 15 (4).  According to them the  classification of  Backward Classes was not made on any  reliable  material and  in  the  enumeration  of  such  classes,  the,  various principles  laid down by this Court have not been given  due regard. (1) [1971] 1 S.C.C. 607. 252 The  State contested the writ petitions on various  grounds. Regarding  rule 9 of G.O. No. 1648 of 1970, the stand  taken by  the  State  was  that  the  P.U.C.  and  H.S.C.   (M.P.) candidates  formed two distinct categories and they did  not form part of the same class.  It was further contended  that the State was entitled to lay down the principles  regarding the  source from which the candidates are to be selected  to the  medical  colleges which are run by the  Government  and that  in  providing for equal distribution of seats  to  the P.U.C.  and H.S.C. (M.P.) candidates, no discrimination  has been made and there has been no violation of Art. 14. Regarding  G.O. No. 1793 of 1970, the State referred to  the appointment of a high powered commission to exhaustively in- vestigate  and  report  as  to the persons  who  are  to  be considered   as   Backward  Classes  for  the   purpose   of reservation being made in their favour.  The Commission  had

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 34  

gone  into the matter and after considering the  educational and  social backwardness of the various classes  of-citizens in  the  State in the light of the  various  principles  and tests  laid down by this Court, had submitted its report  on June 26, 1970 enumerating the various classes of persons who are to be treated as Backward Classes.  The report  accepted by  the  Government  had also given  the  reasons  for  such classes being treated as backward. The  High Court by its judgment, under attack,  allowed  the writ   petitions  and  also  directed  the  State  to   give admissions   to  the  writ  petitioners  to  the  1st   Year Integrated  M.B.B.S, Course.  The High Court has  held  that the  only  basis for selection for the 1st  Year  Integrated M.B.B.S.  Course  in  relation  to  the  H.S.C.  and  P.U.C. candidates  is  the marks obtained by them at  the  entrance test  provided by the, rules framed under G.O. No.  1648  of 1970.  According to the High Court when once rules have been framed  in  that manner, the selection  of  candidates  from these categories must only be of those who have obtained the highest number of marks in the said test irrespective of the fact  as  to which category they belonged.  In view  of  the fact  that the selection is sought to be made by  earmarking 40% of seats to the H.S.C. (M.P.), the latter are having  an unfair  advantage  over the P.U.C. candidates, who  will  be denied admission, though they have obtained higher number of marks.   In  this  view  the High Court  held  that  rule  9 providing for reservation of 40% to the H.S.C. (M.P.) framed under   G.O.  No.  1648  of  1970  was  illegal   as   being discriminatory   and  as  such  offends  Art.  14   of   the Constitution.  The said rule was struck down in consequence. Regarding  the  enumeration  of  Backward  Classes  by   the Backward Class Commission, and the order of the  Government, G.O.  No.  1795  of  1970, reserving 25%  of  seats  in  the Colleges, 253 the High Court held that the Government order violate&  Art. 15  (1) read with Art. 29 and that the reservation  was  not saved  by  Art. 15 (4).  It is the view of  the  High  Court that,  proper investigation and collection of data have  not been   done  by  the  Commission  in  accordance  with   the principles laid down by this Court in its various decisions. On  the  other  hand,  the High  Court  has  held  that  the Commission   has  merely  enumerated  the  various   persons belonging  to a particular caste as Backward Classes,  which is contrary to the decisions of this Court. We will deal further with this aspect when we advert to  the validity  of G.O. No. 1739 of 1970.  Suffice it to say  that the  High  Court struck down the said  Government  Order  as violative of Art. 15(1) and that it was not saved by Art. of the  Constitution.   The High Court declared that  the  writ petitioners  were entitled to be admitted to the  Integrated M.B.B.S. Course in the Medical Colleges in the Andhra area. Before  us,  on  behalf of the appellants  Mr.  S.V.  Gupte, learned counsel has attacked the findings of the High  Court striking down Rule 9, issued under G.O. No. 1648 of 1970, as well  as the reservation of seats made in  the  Professional Colleges for the Backward Classes by G.O. No. 1793 of 1970. We will first deal with the validity of Rule 9 issued  under G.O. No. 1648 of 1970 reserving 40% of seats for the  H.S.C. (M.P.) candidates.  Before we consider the contentions urged in that regard by Mr. Gupte, on behalf of the State and  Mr. Tarkunde,  on behalf of the respondents, it is necessary  to broadly  refer  to some of the material rules  issued  under G.O. No. 1648 of 1970.  The rules were issued as annexure to this  Government Order.  It was specifically stated  in  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 34  

said  Government  Order  that the  rules  specified  in  the annexure  have  to be followed in respect of  admissions  of students to the Integrated M.B.B.S. Course in the Government Medical  Colleges in the Andhra area including  Bhadrachalam Division  of  Khammam  District  and  Mungala  Division   of Nalgonda District from the academic year 1970-71. Rule I referred to the availability of 550 seats in the  1st Year  Integrated  M.B.B.S.  Course in  the  four  Government Medical Colleges, referred to therein the Andhra area.  Rule 2  dealt  with reservation of seats  (viz.)  for  candidates outside  the  State,  candidates  distinguished  in  N.C.C., Presidents’   Scouts   and  Guides  and  children   of   Ex. Servicemen and Armed personnel; and candidates belonging  to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, women candidates  etc. Rule  3 deals with the age and  educational  qualifications. Regarding  educational  qualifications it is  provided  that candidates possessing the minimum qualifications of H.S.C.- 254 (M.P.),   I.S.C.,  P.U.C.  and  A.I.H.S.C.   or   equivalent qualifications are eligible to appear in the Entrance  Test. But  there  was  a  .proviso  to  the  effect  that  in  the qualifying  examination the candidates should have taken  up physical  sciences  and biological sciences  and  must  have obtained not less than 50% of marks in ,.those subjects  put together.   But  in  respect  of  candidates  belonging   to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the provision is that they  should  obtain not, less than 40% of  marks  in  those Subjects put together in their qualifying examination. Rule 4 dealt with basis and method of admission.  Clause (i) of this rule provides that all candidates who, have  applied for  admission  and are found eligible will be  required  to take  Entrance  Test  to be conducted  by  the  Director  of Medical and Health Services.  The said rule also dealt  with the  holding of the Entrance Test at the  centres  specified therein.  Clause (v) specifically provided that the Entrance Test  will  consist of four papers of 50 marks each  in  (a) subject  of  Physical Science (Chemistry and  Physics),  (b) subject of Biological Science, (Zoology and Botany). ,Clause (vi) provided for the examinations in Chemistry and  Physics being  held  in  ’the morning and  the  remaining  two  i.e. Zoology and Botany, in the evening session and that  answers will  be  written  in separate answer  books  and  that  the Entrance Test will be conducted in a single day. The  said rule also provided for the standard of test,  type of the test and the medium of the test. Rule 6 deals with the method of admission.  It provides that based on the result of the Entrance Test, a separate  Master List  of  eligible candidates will be prepared in  order  of merit  and that the selection will be made keeping  in  view the  various  reservations  mentioned therein.   It  may  be mentioned  at  this stage that the reservations  refered  to therein are for Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes,  Women candidates,  children of Ex.  Servicemen etc.  There  is  no reservation  referred to therein either of H.S.C. or  P.U.C. candidates. Rule  7  deals with the distribution of  seats.   The  total number  of  seats available is stated to be  550.   But  the actual  number  of seats available to be filled  up  on  the basis  of merit at the Entrance Test is given as  532.   The said  rule also provides for the distribution of  seats  to certain  reserved  groups  such  as  Scheduled  Castes   and Scheduled Tribes, women candidates etc.  Here again there is no reservation for H.S.C. or P.U.C. candidates. Rule  8  deals  with the pattern of allotment  of  seats  in respect   of   qualifying  examination.    The   seats   are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 34  

distributed as follows : 40% each to Multipurpose and P.U.C. candidates; 5% to M.Sc. 255 and B.Sc. candidates; 4% for N.C.C., President’s Scouts  and Guides and Ex.  Servicemen and 11% strictly in the order  of merit in the Entrance Test from the general pool. Rule  9 deals with the procedure for selection.  Clause  (D) dealing with the Multipurpose and P.U.C. candidates,  refers to the fact that the total seats available are 545 and  that according  to the pattern of distribution, 40% of the  seats are reserved for Multipurpose and 40% for P.U.C.  (including I.S.C.)". The said clause further provides that the rate  of seats   to  be  filled  up  by  the  candidates   from   the P.U.C./Multipurpose and allied qualification holders  should be  done so as to keep the number of seats according to  the ceiling, i.e., 40% as per the pattern of allotment for  each group.  It is this provision that was really struck down  by the High Court. Rule 10 specifies that all reservations would be subject  to the  order of merit of marks obtained in the Entrance  List. The other rules are not material. From a perusal of the rules, referred to above, two  aspects underlying the scheme of selection broadly emerge : (1) that there  is to be an Entrance Test for all the applicants  for the admission to the 1st Year Integrated M.B., B.S.  Course; and (2) that the result of the Entrance Test is to form  the basis for admission to the medical course.  Under rule 3 (2) candidates  possessing the minimum qualification  of  H.S.C. (M.P.),   I.S.C.,  P.U.C.  ,and  A.I.H.S.C.  or   equivalent qualification  are eligible to appear in the Entrance  Test. Therefore,  it is clear that all the  candidates  possessing these  qualifications  are  to  be put  on  a  par  and  are qualified to take the Entrance Test. We have already referred to the fact that there is a proviso that  the  candidates  excepting  those  belonging  to   the Scheduled  Castes and Scheduled Tribes should have  obtained in  their qualifying examination not less than 50% of  marks in  Physical and Biological Sciences put together  in  their qualifying  examination.   There  is  no  distinction   made between  a P.U.C. or Multipurpose candidate.  Both of  them, in order to become eligible to appear in the Entrance  Test, must  have  secured  not  less  than  50%  marks  in   their qualifying  examinations in the two Physical and  Biological Sciences  put together.  The only relaxation, or  exception, if  it  may  be  so called,  is  regarding  the  candidates, belonging  to  the Scheduled Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes. These  candidates should have secured not less than  40%  of the marks in those subjects in their qualifying examination. Rule  4  emphasises that all eligible  candidates  who  have applied  for admission are bound to take the  Entrance  Test conducted by 87 Sup.  Cl/72 256 the  Director  of  Medical and  Health  Services.   All  the candidates,  who take the Entrance Test, must take all  the, four  papers, referred to therein.  Here again, it  will  be seen that there is no distinction made between a P.U.C.  and a  Multipurpose candidate.  Both of them must have  obtained not  less  than  50%  marks under rule  3  in  Physical  and Biological  Sciences in their qualifying  examinations,  and both  of them will have to appear for those subjects in  the Entrance Test, which is common to all the candidates. Rule 6 specifically provides for the admission being made on the  bases  of  the results of the Entrance  Test.   Rule  7 regarding  distribution of seats specifically refers to  532 seats being available to be filled up on the basis of  merit

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 34  

in the Entrance Test.  But when we come to rules 8 and 9, it is  stated in the former that 40% each is to be allotted  on the  basis  of qualifying examination  to  Multipurpose  and P.U.C. students and the latter refers to distribution in the same  proportion to the two sets of candidates on the  basis of   the  result  of  the  Entrance  Test.   This   is   so, notwithstanding  the  fact  that rule 10  provides  even  in respect of candidates for whom reservations have been  made, their  selection  will  be in the order of  merit  of  marks obtained in the Entrance Test.  When the scheme of the rules clearly  shows that the basis of selection for the 1st  Year Integrated  M.B., B.S. Course is according to the result  of the  Entrance Test, the question is whether the  reservation of  40% of seats for the H.S.C. candidates under rule  9  is valid  ? Under this rule though a P.U.C. candidate may  have got higher marks than a H.S.C. candidate, he may not be able to  get admission because 40% of the seats allotted  to  the P.U.C.  candidates  would  have been filled  up;  whereas  a H.S.C.  candidate  who may have got lesser number  of  marks than  a  P.U.C.  candidate may be eligible  to  got  a  seat because  of 40% quota allotted to the H.S.C. candidates  has not  yet been completed.  Does this amount to  an  arbitrary discrimination violative of Art. 14 ? Prima facie having due regard  to the scheme of the rules and the object sought  to be  achieved, namely, of getting the best students  for  the Medical Colleges, the provision is discriminatory and it has no reasonable relation to the object, sought to be achieved. Mr.  Gupte,  learned counsel for the State  urged  that  the P.U.C.  and H.S.C. candidates form two  separate  categories and  that  unless  such reservation of seats  is  made,  the H.S.C. candidates may not be able to get adequate number  of seats  in the Medical Colleges.  He further  contended  that the Medical Colleges being run by the Government, it is open to  the  State  to  specify  the  sources  from  which   the candidates  will have to be selected for admission to  those Colleges.  He also pointed out that such a categorisation of students  into two separate groups as P.U.C. and H.S.C.  has been held to be valid by the High Court. 257 Mr.  Tarkunde, learned counsel for the respondents,  on  the other   hand,  urged  that  whatever  may  have   been   the circumstances  that originally existed when the  High  Court then upheld the division into separate groups of P.U.C.  and H.S.C.  students, when once the rules clearly  specify  that there  is to be a common Entrance Test and  that  selections are  to be made only on the basis of the results of  such  a test,  the  reservation  of  40% in  favour  of  the  H.S.C. candidates  is arbitrary, unjust and discriminatory  and  as such it violates Art. 14 of the Constitution. We  are  in agreement with the contention  of  Mr.  Tarkunde regarding  this aspect and, in our opinion, the  High  Court was  justified  in  striking down  the  provision  regarding reservation  of 40% of seats to the H.S.C. candidates  under rule 9. We have already indicated the scheme of the Rules as well as the basis for selection, as could be gathered fro-in these rules. We  will now briefly advert to the decisions referred to  by the  learned  counsel  on both sides.  Mr.  Gupte  drew  our attention to the following decisions, In Gullapalli Nageswara Rao and others v. Principal  Medical College, Guntur and others,(1) the High Court had considered the  provision  made in a rule by the  Government  regarding reservation  of 1/3rd of total number of seats in favour  of Multipurpose  candidates in the Pre-Professional  Course  in medicine.   The rule, no doubt, provided that admission  for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 34  

the  said  course  should  be  both  from  the  category  of Multipurpose  and  P.U.C. students on the  basis  of-merit. Nevertheless  a reservation of 1/3rd of the total number  to be  admitted was made in favour of H.S.C.  This  reservation was  attacked as being arbitrary and unjust.  On  behalf  of the State it was urged that the said reservation is not  hit by Art. 14 as it was necessary to afford equal opportunities to  Multipurpose candidates.  The High Court  considered  in this  connection the syllabus for study prescribed  for  the P.U.C.  and H.S.C. candidates in their  respective  courses. The High Court held that the Multipurpose candidates have to study  more  subjects than the P.U.C.  candidates  and  that their  examinations  also covers a course extending  over  a period  of  four years.  In this view the  High  Court  held that,  the  H.S.C. candidates are at a disadvantage  in  the matter  of  securing  higher percentage of  marks  in  their optional subjects, whereas a P.U.C. candidate had a distinct advantage  over  them.  It was further held that in  such  a situation  there  are  possibilities  of  P.U.C.  candidates securing  higher  percentage  of  marks  in  their  optional subjects  than the Multipurpose candidates and  securing  on the  basis of the result of their qualifying  examination  a larger  number  of seats in the Pre-Professional  Course  in medicine.  Ultimately, the reservation of 1/3rd number (1)  A.I.R. 1962 A.P. 212. 258 of seats in favour of the H.S.C. candidates was held by  the High Court. It must be noted that at the time when the High Court deal(. with  the matter, there was no uniform Entrance Test  to  be taken,  by both the P.U.C. and the H.S.C. candidates  as  is the  position at present.  On the other hand, the  selection to the Pre-Professional Course in medicine was then made  on the basis of the marks obtained in the optional subjects  by the  respective students in their previous course of  study. The  above decision, in our opinion, has no  application  to the facts of the present case.  The fact that the High Court approved  of reservation in the circumstances then  existing will not help the State in the case before us. The  next decision to which our attention was drawn  by  Mr. Gupte  is  P. Sagar and others v. State of  Andhra  Pradesh, represented  by Health Department, Hyderabad and  others(1). To  this decision we will have to revert when we  deal  with the  validity of reservation made for the  Backward  Classes under G.O. No. 1793 of 1970.  But so far as the question  of reservation for the P.U.C. and H.S.C. students is concerned, it  is seen that certain rules provided for  reservation  of percentage  of  seats for the candidates  belonging  to  the H.S.C. and P.U.C. Here again the rule was that 1/3rd of  the total number of seats in all categories put together  should be  given to the H.S.C., Multipurpose and I.S.C.  candidates and  that at least 50% of the seats should be given  to  the P.U.C.  candidates.  It appears that the reservation of  50% of  seats  for  P.U.C. candidates was  challenged  as  being unjust.  It was urged before the High Court that the  H.S.C. (Multipurpose)  Examination  is very difficult and  as  such those candidates will not be able to secure higher marks  as compared  to  the P.U.C. candidates and in support  of  this contention the earlier decision in Gullapalli Nageswara  Rao and   others  v.  Principal  Medical  College,  Guntur   and others(,’)  was  relied  on.  But we find  that  during  the course  of  the hearing the Advocate-General  intimated  the High   Court  that  the  Government  was  aware   that   the reservation  of  50%  seats to  the  P.U.C.  candidates  was working  a hardship on the Multipurpose candidates and  that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 34  

the  rules were being amended.  It was later on  represented that rules had also been amended.  Therefore, the High Court ultimately held that in view of the amendment to the  rules, it was not necessary to consider the challenge with  respect to the reservations made for the Multipurpose and the P.U.C. candidates.   Here again, it is to be stated that there  was common Entrance test for all the candidates belonging to the P.U.C.  and  H.S.C.  categories.  On  the  other  hand,  the selections  were made on the basis of the marks obtained  by them in their qualifying examinations.  It was further  held in the said decision that even (1) A.I.R. 1968 A.P. 165. (2) A.I.R. 1962 A.P. 212. 259 in  the basis that the qualifying examinations taken by  the P.U.C.   and  H.S.C.  candidates  were  equal,   still   the reservation  is not invalid as discreminatory under Art.  14 of  the Constitution.  But hereagain it is to be noted  that selection  were made on the basis of the marks  obtained  in the  qualifying examinations and not on the basis  of  marks obtained  in  a  common  Entrance  Test  held  for  all  the candidates  uniformly.  This decision is also, more or  less similar to the one in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao and others v. Principal Medical College, Guntur and others.(1) The decision in Sagar and others v. State of Andhra  Pradesh (2  ) had also to deal with the reservation of seat  in  the Professional Colleges for the Backward Classes on the  basis of  the G.O. which was then in force.  It was held that  the said reservation was not saved by Art. 15 (4).  The decision of  the  High Court striking down the  reservation  for  the Backward  Classes alone was challenged by the State in  this Court  in State of Andhra Pradesh and another v.  P.  Sagar. (3) This Court upheld the decision of the High Court. We  will  have to refer to the above sections  of  the  High Court Rs well as of this Court when we deal with the  second aspect  which arises for consideration before  us  regarding the reservation made for the Backward Classes under G.O. No. 1793 of 1970. Mr.  Gupte then referred us to the decision in Chitra  Ghosh and another v. Union of India and others. (4) That  decision related  to  a challenge made by certain students  who  were denied  admission to the Maulana Azad Medical  College,  New Delhi.   The said college was established by the  Government of  India.   Of  the 125 students, who are  to  be  admitted annually, 15% of the seats are reserved for Scheduled  Caste candidates and 5% for candidates belonging to the  Scheduled Tribes, 25 % of the seats (excluding the seats reserved  for Government  of  India  nominees)  were  reserved  for   girl students.   In particular 23 seats were reserved to  certain categories  and they were to be filled up by the  candidates who   were  nominated  by  the  Central   Government.    The categories  to which the said nomination had to be  so  made were as follows               (1)  Sons/daughters  of  residents  of   Union               Territories    specified    below    including               displaced   persons  registered  therein   and               sponsored  by their respective  Administration               of Territory :-               (a)  Himachal Pradesh, (b) Tripura, (c)  Mani-               pur,  (d)  Naga Hills, (e)  N.E.F.A.  and  (f)               Andaman. (1) A.I.R. 1962 A.P. 212.         (2) A.I.R. 1968 A.P. 165. (3) [1968] 3 S.C.R. 595.          (4) [1970] 1 S.C.R. 413. 260 (2) Sons/daughters of Central Government servants posted  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 34  

Indian Missions abroad. (3)  Cultural Scholars. (4)  Colombo Plan Scholars. (5)  Thailand Scholars. (6)  Jammu & Kashmir State Scholars. The  appellants therein had obtained about 62.5%  marks  and were  domiciled  in  Delhi.  According to  them,  they  were entitled  to admission on the basis of merit and would  have been so admitted but for the reservations, which were filled by  the nominations made by the Central Government.  It  was their  further contention that the students who had been  so nominated  by the Central Government and got  admission  had obtained  less  percentage  of marks  than  the  appellants. Mainly  the  power  of the Central Government  to  make  the nominations was challenged on the ground that the  provision for  reservation  in  favour of  such  nominees  of  Central Government  was not based on any  reasonable  classification and  suffered from the vice of discrimination and hence  the reservation was hit by Art. 14 read with cls. (A) and f (iv) of Art. 15 and Cl. (ii) of Art. 29.  This Court rejected the contention  and held that neither cls. (i) and (iv) of  Art. 15  nor  cl. (ii) of Art. 29 violated.  In  support  of  the challenge of discrimination under Art. 14, it was claimed by the  appellants  that  merit being  the  sole  criteria  for admission,  the provisions made for reservation  for  candi- dates to be nominated by the Central Government,  introduced discrimination, or it had no reasonable nexus to the  object sought to be achieved.  After a reference to the  provisions made in respect of each of the categories to be nominated by the  Central  Government  on merits, it was  held  that  the classification in all those cases was based on  intelligible differentia,  which  distinguished them from  the  group  to which  the  appellants belonged.  In particular,  Mr.  Gupte relied on the following observations in the said decision               "It is the Central Government which bears  the               financial   burden  of  running  the   medical               college.   It  is  for  it  to  lay  down  the               criteria  for  eligibility.   From  the   very               nature  of things it is not possible to  throw               the  admission open to students from all  over               the country.  The Government cannot be  denied               the  right  to decide from  what  courses  the               admission will be made.  That essentially is a               question  of policy and depends inter-alia  on               all  overall  assessment  and  survey  of  the               requirements   of  residents   of   particular               territories  and other categories  of  persons               for whom it is essential to provide facilities               for medical 261               education.    If  the  sources  are   properly               classified     whether     on     territorial,               geographical or other reasonable basis, it  is               not  for  the  courts to  interfere  with  the               manner    and    method    of    making    the               classification.               The next question that has to be determined is               whether     the    differentia    on     which               classification  has  been  made  has  rational               relation  with the object to be achieved.  The               main purpose of admission to a medical college               is  to  impart  education in  the  theory  and               practice  of medicine.  As noticed before  the               sources  from which students have to be  drawn               are  primarily determined by  the  authorities

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 34  

             who maintain and run the institution e.g., the               Central  Government in the present case.   In               Minor  P. Rajendran v. State of  Madras(1)  it               has  been stated that the object of  selection               for  admission is to secure the best  possible               material.   This  can surely  be  achieved  by               making proper rules in the matter of selection               but there can be no doubt that such  selection               has  to  be confined to the sources  that  are               intended  to  supply  the  material.   If  the               sources  have  been classified in  the  manner               done  in the present case it is  difficult  to               see  how that classification has  no  rational               nexus  with  the object of  imparting  medical               education  and  also  of  selection  for   the               purpose." Based upon these observations, Mr. Gupte, contended that the sources for selecting candidates as well as the  reservation made  in  respect of admission to the Maulana  Azad  Medical College  have both been approved by this Court as valid  and not  violative  of Art, 14.  On this  analogy,  the  counsel urged, the present classification of P.U.C. and H.S.C.  into two  categories  and  the  reservation  of  40%  for  H.S.C. candidates  are valid.  In our opinion, the  above  decision does  not  lead  to the result contended on  behalf  of  the State.  The special circumstances and the reasons for making the  reservation  to enable the Central Government  to  make nominations so that candidates belonging to those categories can  get adequate representation by way of admission in  the Medical  Colleges have been elaborately adverted to by  this Court  and it is on that basis that this Court accepted  the classification as valid.  It was further held that the  said classification  has  got a rational relation to  the  object sought  to  be  achieved.  The object was stated  to  he  to impart  medical  education to the  candidates  belonging  to those groups or area where adequate facilities for imparting such  education  were not available.  But the  point  to  be noted  in  the  said decision is that in  respect  of  other candidates,  who  are not governed by any  reservation,  the selection on the basis of merit, namely, the marks  obtained by them.  On the other hand, in the (1)  [1968] 2 S.C.R. 786. 262 case  before  us, though a uniform Entrance  Test  has  been prescribed for both the P.U.C. and H.S.C. candidates,  still the selection is not made on the basis of the marks obtained in the Entrance Test.  On the other hand, the selections are made after disregarding those marks.  At any rate, so far as some  P.U.C. candidates are concerned it shows a  preference to the H.S.C. candidates, who may have got lesser number  of marks  and  would  not  have  got  admission,  but  for  the reservation  of  40%  made  for  the  group  to  which  they belonged.  It is no doubt true that it is open to the  State to  prescribe  the  sources from which  candidates  will  be selected  and also prescribe the criteria  for  eligibility. In  fact, in the case before us, as we have already  pointed out, the rules provide for the qualifications which have  to be satisfied to enable a candidate to apply and the  sources from  which selections will have to be made, have also  been prescribed. We have also pointed out that in respect of eligibility  for applying  for admission to the 1st Year Integrated  M.B.B.S. Course,  no  distinction has been drawn between  P.U.C.  and H.S.C.  candidates,  both of whom have to get at  least  50% marks in Physical and Biological Sciences.  So that  clearly

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 34  

shows that they have been put on a par so far as eligibility is concerned.  But the discrimination is made only after the Entrance  Test  is over by denying admission to  the  P.U.C. candidates  who may have got higher marks than some  of  the H.S.C.  candidates  who  get admission because  of  the  40% reservation. Mr. Gupte then referred us to the decision in Ganga Ram  and Others  V.  The Union of India and  others(1),  wherein  the classification  of  direct recruits and promotees  into  two different  categories  in  the Accounts  Department  of  the Railway   Establishment  was  hold  to  be   a   reasonable- classification not attracting the vice of Art. 14 or 16.  In that  case this Court was considering a claim for  promotion based  upon  the test of  Seniority-cum-suitability.   After considering the background of the service concerned, it  was held  that  the  State  which  encounters  diverse  problems arising  from a variety of circumstances is entitled to  Jay down  the conditions of efficiency and other  qualifications for  securing best service for being eligible for  promotion in  its different departments.  It was emphasised  that  the object  sought  to be achieved by  the  relevant  provisions which were under attack was the requisite efficiency in  the Accounts Department of the Railway Establishment.  It was in that connection held that the direct recruits and promotees constitute  different  classes  or  categories  and  such  a classification  is sustainable on intelligible  differentia, which  has  a  reasonable  connection  with  the  object  of efficiency in the Department. This decision also does not help the appellants as there was no  distinction made inter se between the promotees and  the direct (1)  A.I.R. 1970 S. C. 2178. 263 recruits.  On the other hand, the same criteria was  adopted for  purposes of promotion to the persons forming the  class of direct recruits.  Similarly, the same test was applied to the  persons  coming under the group of promotees.   It  was under   such   circumstances  that  this  Court   held   the classification  to  be valid, and the situation  which  this Court  had  to  consider in  that  connection  was  entirely different,  from the one before us where all the  candidates belonging  to  both the P.U.C. and H.S.C.  merge  under  the Rules when they take the Entrance Test. In  D.  N.  Chanchala  etc.  v.  The  State  of  Mysore  and others(1),  one of the questions this Court had to  consider was the validity of the university distribution of seats  in the medical colleges run by the State of Mysore.  There were three Universities in Mysore State, namely, Karnatak, Mysore and   Bangalore   Universities.   The  challenge   to   such distribution  of  seats was that  candidates  having  lesser marks  might obtain admission at the cost of another  having higher  marks from another university.  This Court  after  a reference to the different standards of examinations held in the   three   universities,  rejected   the   challenge   of discrimination as follows               "Further,  the  Government  which  bears   the               financial  burden  of running  the  Government               colleges is entitled to lay down criteria  for               admission  in its own colleges and  to  decide               the  sources  from which  admission  would  be               made, provided of course, such  classification               is not arbitrary and has a rational basis  and               a reasonable connection with the object of the               rules.  So long as there is no  discrimination               within  each of such sources, the validity  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 34  

             the  rules laying down such sources cannot  be               successfully  challenged......... In our  view               the  rules  lay down a  valid  classification.               Candidates  passing  through  the   qualifying               examination held by a university form a  class               by  themselves  as  distinguished  from  those               passing  through  such  examination  from  the               other two universities.  Such a classification               has a reasonable nexus with the object of  the               rules,  namely,  to  cater  to  the  needs  of               candidates  who would naturally look to  their               own  university to advance their  training  in               technical  studies, such as  medical  studies.                             In  our opinion, the rules can. not  j ustly  be               attacked  on the ground of  hostile  discrimi-               nation  or  as being otherwise  in  breach  of               Article 14." It will be seen that the above decision has empbasised  that the  selection  which  was made on the basis  of  the  marks obtained  in the qualifying examination held by each of  the universities was valid and the distribution of seats in  the medical  colleges universitywise was also valid in  view  of the different standards adopted by each (1)  A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1762. 264 university.   Again it is to be noted in the said  decision, there  was  no  question of all the students  of  the  three universities  taking a common Entrance Test on the basis  of which  a  selection was made.  This decision also  does  not help the appellants. The decision in The State of Maharashtra and another v.  Lok Shikshan Sansatha and others(1) which has laid down that  in the   matter  of  permitting  colleges  to  be  started   in particular  areas having due regard to the need of the  area concerned,  is essentially a matter of policy for the  State which  has  to  take a decision on  overall  assessment  and summary of the requirements of a particular area, so long as the  decision is not arbitrary or mala fide, it was  further held that the courts will not interfere with the  assessment made by the State in pursuance of its policy.  This decision is also of no avail to the appellants. Mr. Tarkunde, apart from distinguishing the above decisions, for the reasons mentioned by us earlier pointed, out that in Gullapalli  Nageswara  Rao and others v.  Principal  Medical College, Guntur and others (2), the basis of  classification of  P.U.C.  and H.S.C. was not challenged as  there  was  no necessity for those students to take a common test as in the case  before  us.  He referred us to the  averments  in  the counter-affidavit  filed by the Assistant Secretary  to  the Government  in  Writ  Petition No. 3859  of  1970  in  which conducting  of  Entrance  Test  was  then  challenged.   The Assistant  Secretary  in paragraph 9 of  the  said  counter- affidavit  in  respect of holding of the Entrance  Test  has stated  that  the selection of candidates for the  1st  Year Integrated  M.B.B.S.  Course is made on the basis  of  marks obtained  at the Entrance Examination, as such a  method  of selection ensures fair play and affords equal opportunity to all  candidates.  He has again referred us to the fact  that by introducing the method of selection by the Entrance  Test the   Government  had  done  away  with   the   reservations originally  made  for the P.U.C. and H.S.C.  candidates  and thus  has offered equal opportunity to all  candidates.   He has  further  stated  that both the P.U.C.  and  the  H.S.C. students  apart  from having obtained not less than  50%  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 34  

marks in Physical and Biological Sciences to be eligible  to apply  for admission to the medical colleges, have also take the  Entrance Test in the subjects mentioned in  the  rules. According to the State, the result of the Entrance Test is a method  of  making selection to the medical  colleges,  thus ensuring fair play and justice. In the same Writ Petition the Add].  Director of Medical and Health  Services, (Professional Education) has  referred  to the  necessity  of  holding  an  Entrance  Test.   In   this connection he refers (1) [1971] 2 S.C.C. 410.          (2) A.I.R. 1962 A.P. 212. 265 to the marks obtained by certain P.U.C. and H.S.C.  students in their qualifying examinations and also to their marks  in the  Entrance Test.  The Officer has stated that  the  marks obtained by the candidates in their qualifying  examinations are not a reliable guide to assess their merits as the marks obtained by those candidates in the Entrance Test were  very poor.   Therefore,  it has been emphasised  that  the  marks obtained  in  the  Entrance Test is the  guiding  factor  to assess  the  merits  of  both the  sets  of  candidates  for admission to the Medical College. We have referred to the avernments contained in the counter- affidavit of the two officers above as they form part of the present  record  and they have also been relied on  for  one purpose  or  other by both the State and  the  respondents. The above averments clearly establish that even according to the State the marks obtained in the Entrance Test  according to  the  rules  is  the decisive test  for  the  purpose  of considering the merits of the candidates, who seek admission to  the Medical College.  These averments clearly show  that there  is absolutely no jurisdiction for making  of  special reservation of 40% in favour of H.S.C. candidates, when once a  common Entrance Test is held for all the  candidates  and selection  is  made  on  an assessment  of  merit  of  marks obtained at the said examination. Mr.  Tarkunde referred us to Minor P. Rajendran v. State  of Madras  and  others(1) where the validity of the  scheme  of districtwise distribution of seats as per the rules  framed by  the  State  of  Madras, to  the  Medical  Colleges,  was challenged as violative of Art. 14.  The State attempted  to justify the said method of districtwise distribution on  the ground  that if districtwise distribution is not  made,  the candidates  from  Madras City would have  an  advantage  and would  secure  the largest number of seats  in  the  Medical Colleges,  which will not be justified on the basis  of  the proportion of population of the Madras City.  The  challenge based  on discrimination under Art. 14 was accepted by  this Court  and  it  was  held  that  the  allocation  of   seats districtwise results in discrimination and there is no nexus between  the districtwise distribution and the object to  be achieved,  namely,  admission of the best  talent  from  the sources  indicated in the rules.  On this ground, the  allo- cation  of  seats on districtwise basis was struck  down  as violative of Art. 14. Similarly  unitwise  distribution of seats  in  the  Medical Colleges in Tamil, Nadu was declared by this Court in  Minor A.  Periakeruppan  and another v. State of  Tamil  Nadu  and others(2) as violative of Arts. 14 and 15. (1) [1968] 2 S.C.R. 786. (2) A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 2303. 266 These two decisions clearly establish that a  classification which  has  no  rational basis and has no  relation  to  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 34  

object sought to be achieved is violative of Art. 14. It is not necessary for us to refer to the various decisions laying down the contents of Art. 14.  Suffice it to say that it  does not forbid reasonable classification.  In order  to pass the test of permissible classification, two  conditions must be fulfilled : (1) The classification is founded on  an intelligible  differentia  which  distinguishes  persons  or things that are grouped together from those left out of  the group, and (2) the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. It  is no doubt open to the State to prescribe  the  sources from which the candidates are declared eligible for applying for admission to the Medical College; but when once a common Entrance Test has been prescribed for all the candidates  on the  basis  of  which  selection is to  be  made,  the  rule providing  further  that 40% of the seats will  have  to  be reserved  for  the H.S.C. candidates is arbitrary.   In  the first  place, after a common test has been prescribed  there cannot  be a valid classification of the P.U.C.  and  H.S.C. candidates.   Even  assuming that such a  classification  is valid, the said classification has no reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. namely, selecting the best candidates  for  admission  to the  Medical  Colleges.   The reservation  of  40%  to  the  H.S.C.  candidates  has   .no reasonable relation or nexus to the said object.1. Hence  we agree  with  the  High  Court,  when  it  struck  down  this reservation under rule 9 contained in G. No. 1648 of 1970 as violative of Art. 14. The  next  question  that arises for  consideration  is  the correctness  ,of the order of the High Court  striking  down the  reservation of seats made for Backward Classes  in  the Professional Colleges under G.O. No. 1793 of 1970.  The said reservation  has  been  struck down on the  ground  that  it violates  Art.  15(1) and falls outside Art.  15(4)  of  the Constitution. The view of the High Court is very strenuously challenged by ’Mr.  S. V. Gupte, learned counsel for the appellants.   Mr. V.  M.  Tarkunde,  learned  counsel  for  the   respondents, supported  the various, reasons given by the High Court  for striking down the said reservation. Before we deal with the reasons given by the High Court  for striking down the reservation made for the Backward  Classes under  the  said G.O., we will refer  to  the  circumstances under  which the Backward Classes Commission  was  appointed and  whose  report has formed the basis  for  providing  the reservation for the various ,persons mentioned therein. 267 The  State of Andhra was formed on October 1, 1953  and  the Andhra  Pradesh State came into existence with  effect  from November  1,  1956.  The State of Andhra  originally  formed part  of the Composite Madras State.  The  Composite  Madras State had maintained a list of Backward Classes (other  than the  Scheduled  Castes Tribes), in that State and  had  made special  provisions with regard to admission to  educational institutions,  reservation of posts in  Government  Service, grant of scholarships and other concessions to assist  those Backward  Classes.  After the formation of the Andhra  State on  October  1, 1953, the list maintained by  the  Composite Madras  State  was continued in the Andhra  area  with  some modifications.   The former Princely State of Hyderabad  was also  maintaining a list of Backward Classes in that  State, and  this was also continued after the formation  of  Andhra Pradesh,  which included Telangana area.  Thus  with  effect from  November  1, 1956, there were two  lists  of  Backward Classes  in the State of Andhra Pradesh one for Andhra  area

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 34  

and  the other for Telangana area.  Both the lists  together comprised about 146 communities-86 and 60 in the Andhra  and Telangana areas respectively. The  President  of  India  appointed  in  January,  1953,  a Backward   Classes   Commission  under  Art.  341   nf   the Constitution  headed by Sri Kaka Kalelkar, to determine  the criteria  to  be  adopted for treating any  section  of  the people, other than Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, as socially  and  educationally  Backward  Classes.   The  said commission  was also to draw up a list of such  Classes  on. the  basis of the criteria laid down by it.  The  report  of this  Commission was considered by the  Central  Government, which  issued  a memorandum pointing out that  some  of  the tests  applied  by the Commission were very vague.   It  was further  pointed  out that if those tests  were  applied,  a large  majority of the Country’s population will have to  be considered  backward.   The Central  Government  decided  to undertake  further investigation to draw some  positive  and workable  criteria for this purpose.  The State  Governments were  desired  in the meanwhile to render  every  assistance possible  to those persons who, in the opinion of the  State Governments were backward.  Further attempts by the  Central Government  to draw up a list of Backward Classes on an  All India basis did not meet with much of a success.  Even here some  State Governments were in favour of adopting  economic backwardness  as a criteria while others were  inclined  to stick on to the list prepared by them on the basis of caste. The Central Government conveyed to the State Governments  on August  14,  1961 expressing its view that while  the  State Governments have the discretion to choose their own criteria for  defining  backwardness  it would  be  better  to  apply economic  tests  rather  than classifying  people  by  their castes. 268 The State of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O. No. 1886 dated  June 21,  1963 specifying a list of certain persons as  belonging to Backward Classes.  The list was prepared for the  purpose of  selecting candidates to the seats reserved for  backward communities  in  the  Medical Colleges  in  Andhra  Pradesh. Under  the  said G.O., 25% of the seats  were  reserved  for Backward  Classes  in  accordance with  the  list  contained therein.   The  reservation  for the  Backward  Classes  was challenged before the Andhra Pradesh High Court by  ,certain applicants  on the ground that the Government order  offends Arts. 15 and 29(2) of the Constitution.  It was alleged that the  State Government acting in fraud of its  powers  listed more than 139 castes as socially and educationally backward. It  was  the  further  allegation that  the  list  had  been prepared exclusively on the basis of caste. The  State  Government contested the writ petitions  on  the ground  that  the  Government  was  maintaining  a  list  of Backward   Classes  based  on  socially  and   educationally backwardness  of  the caste and to such people 25 %  of  the seats  had been reserved.  It was further averred that  such reservation had ’been going on for a long time and the  list was  also  being  suitably revised by  making  additions  or deletions whenever found necessary. A learned Single Judge of the High Court in P. Sukhadev  The Government  of Andhra Pradesh(1) considered the validity  of the impugned G.O. No. 1886 of 1.963 from two points of view: (1) whether the list of backward classes was based solely on consideration  of caste; and (2) whether the Government  had adopted any standard or method of determining the social and educational  backwardness of the classes specified  and,  if so,  the  material upon which the Government has  so  acted.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 34  

The High Court held that the State on which lay the onus  of supporting  the  classification  as  valid  had  placed   no materials  before the Court as to the economic condition  of the  various  classes, their occupation and  habitation  and social status and their educational backwardness.  The  High Court  is also of the view that the enumeration  of  persons as  B ackward Classes in the Government Order has been  made almost exclusively on the basis of caste.  On these  grounds the Government Order was struck down as violative of Art. 15 (1) and 29(2.) as being in fraud of powers conferred on  the State. After the G.O. No. 1886 of 1963 was struck down by the  High Court,  the State Government decided that the  criteria  for determining backwardness should be only economic factors and should  be  applied to individual family rather  than  to  a whole caste.  The Government issued a G.O. No. 301/Education dated  February 3. 1964 scrapping the then existing list  of Backward Classes with (1) [1966] An.W.R. 294. 269 effect  from  April  1, 1964  and  directed  that  financial assistance  be given to the economically poorer sections  of the  population, whose family income was below Rs. 1,500  /- per annum.  The State Government again took up the  question of drawing up a list of Backward Classes in consonance  with the  provisions  of the Constitution.  For  this  purpose  a Cabinet  Sub-Committee was constituted to draw up a list  of persons who could be considered backward.  The Cabinet  Sub- Committee obtained information from other States and as  per the advice of its Law Secretary, it was decided that certain criteria  is to be adopted for determining the  backwardness of  the people.  The criteria included Poverty Low  standard of  education, Low standing of living, Place of  habitation; Inferiority  of  occupation  and caste.   The  Cabinet  Sub- Committee having taken a decision regarding the criteria  to be  applied, directed the State Director of Social-  Welfare to  check  up the lists of Backward Classes which  had  been scrapped on February 3, 1964 and to select from those  lists the castes or communities which could be considered backward on the basis of the above criteria.  The Director of  Social Welfare,  in consultation with the Law Secretary drew  up  a list  of  persons  who  could be included  in  the  list  of Backward Classes.  The said Cabinet Sub-Committee considered the  recommendations made by the Director of Social  Welfare and accordingly drew up a Est of 112 communities which  were considered as   backward.    Accordingly,    G.O.    No. 1880/Education  dated July 29, 1966 was issued with  a  list showing  112 communities as backward as being  eligible  for scholarships  and  reservation  of  seats  to   Professional Colleges and Government Services. The validity of the above Government Order was again  chal- lenged before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on the ground that the list was prepared solely on the basis of caste  and violated the provisions of the Constitution.  Here again the students  who  filed the writ petitions in  the  High  Court urged that there was no material difference between the list drawn up under this G.O. and the list which was struck  down by the High Court as per G.O. No. 1886 of 1963.  The  attack was  that the list of 1966 was also prepared exclusively  on the  basis  of caste.  The State attempted  to  justify  the preparation  of the list of Backward Classes as having  been properly done after investigation by the Director of  Social Welfare  in consultation with the Law Secretary.  The  State further urged that all relevant factors had been taken  into account  by the Director of Social Welfare before  preparing

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 34  

the list. The  Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in  its decision  in  P.  Sagar  and  others  v.  State  of   Andhra Pradesh(1)   upheld  the  challenge  leveled   against   the reservation  made  in the G.O. for Backward Classes  on  the ground that the State has not (1) A.I.R. 1968 A P. 165. 270 placed  materials  which were available before  the  Cabinet SubCommittee or the Council of Ministers.  The High Court is of the view that the list has been drawn up by the  Director of  Social  Welfare  and the Law Secretary,  who  cannot  be considered in any sense to be experts and that they had made no   investigation;   nor  collected   material   data   for classifying  the persons mentioned in the G.O. as  backward. It  was  further  emphasised that neither  the  Director  of Social Welfare nor the Cabinet Sub-Committee had before them the  population  of  the  various  classes,  their  economic conditions,  percentage  of  literacy or  their  social  and economic  status.  It is the view of the High Court that  no substantial  change  had been made from  the  list  prepared under  G.O.  No.  1886 of 1963 And which  had  already  been struck  down by the High Court.  Ultimately, the High  Court held  that the preparation of the list of  Backward  Classes under  G.O.  No.  1880 of 1966 had  been  made  without  any material  and as such the list was struck down as not  being saved by Art. 15 (4). We have referred rather elaborately to the list prepared  by the  State  Government under Government Orders Nos  1986  of 1963  and 1880 of 1966 as well as the decisions of the  High Court striking down those lists.  Even at the time when  the earlier decision was given by the Andhra Pradesh High  Court in  P. Sukhadev v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh(1),  the decision  of this Court in M. R. Balaji and others v.  State of Mysore(2) had been pronounced.  It is really on the basis of the said decision, that the High Court, on the former two occasions  struck.down the reservations made under  the  two Government Orders on the ground that the preparation of  the two  lists  of  Backward  Classes  had  not  been  made   in accordance with the principles laid down by this Court.   In fact,  in both the decisions the High Court  has  emphasised that  there has been no investigation  whatsoever  regarding the  various  factors that are necessary to he  obtained  as laid  down by this Court for the Purpose of  making  special provisions   for  the  advancement  of  any  socially and educationally  Backward Classes of citizens as envisaged  in Art.  15(4).  The sole reason given in the two decisions  by the High Court for striking down the reservation is the fact that  the necessary data or material, as laid down  by  this Court,  had not been collected by the State Government.   We are again emphasising this aspect because the High Court  in the decision, which is under attack before us, has relied on the  above  two  earlier decisions, to a  large  extent  for coming  to the Conclusion that the present list of  Backward Classes  suffers from the same infirmity, as pointed out  on the  former occasion.  The High Court has further held  that the same persons who had been included in the original list, as  belonging to Backward Classes and which list was  struck down twice, have again been included in the present G.O. No. 1793 (1) 1966 A.N.W.R. 294. (2) [1963] Supp.  1 S.C.R. 439 271 of 1970.  In the course of the judgment, we will be pointing out  that  the  High Court has committed a  basic  error  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 21 of 34  

proceeding on the basis that the present lists suffers  from the  same vice, pointed out in he earlier decisions  by  the High Court. The State of Andhra Pradesh challenged before this Court the decision  of the High Court striking down  the  reservations made for Backward Classes as well as the preparation of list under  G.O. No. 1880 of1966.  This Court in State of  Andhra Pradesh  and another v. P. Sagar(1) upheld the  decision  of the  High Court striking down ’the reservation.  This  Court agreed  with the view of the High Court that no  enquiry  or investigation  had been made by the State Government  before preparing  the  list of Backward Classes enumerated  in  the said  Government Order.  It was further held that the  State had  placed no materials before the Court, on the  basis  of which  the list of Backward Classes was prepared,  excepting relying on the fact that it was prepared by the Director  of Social Welfare with the assistance of the Law Secretary.  It is  to be noted that this Court upheld the decision  of  the Andhra Pradesh High Court in view of the fact that the State had  made no investigation of enquiry, nor had it  collected the  necessary  materials  to  ascertain  the  socially  and educationally  backwardness of the persons mentioned in  the list.  The decision of this Court was rendered on March  27, 1968. On  April  12, 1968, the State Government by G.O.  No.  870, appointed  a  Commission  to determine the  criteria  to  be adopted in considering whether any sections of the  citizens of India in the State of Andhra Pradesh are to be treated as socially and educationally Backward Classes.  The Commission was also desired to prepare a list of such Backward  Classes in  accordance  with  the  criteria  to  be  adopted.    The Commission  consisted of nine members, presided over by  the retired Chief Justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.  The other members of the Commission included the members of  the State legislature.  The terms of Reference have been printed as  Appendix  1  in the report  Submitted  by  the  Backward Classes  Commission.   A perusal of the terms  of  Reference shows  that  the Commission was desired to  investigate  and determine  the various matters regarding the preparation  of list  of  Backward Classes for providing  a  reservation  in educational Institutions and also for appointments for posts in  Government  service.  The Commission was  authorised  to obtain any information that it considered necessary from the Government    Departments,    Collectors,     Organisations, Individuals  and  from such other persons as  it  considered necessary.  It was also authorised to visit any part of  the State  for the purpose of investigation and enquiry.   Later on,  it is seen that the retired Chief Justice-of  the  High Court,  Who was originally the Chairman of the  ’Commission, resigned and (1) [1968] 3 S.C.R. 595. 87Sup Cl/72 272 the Commission was headed by a retired I.C.S. Officer.   The terms of Reference were as follows               "The Commission shall-               (i)  determine the criteria to be  adopted  in               considering  whether any sections of  citizens               of India in the State of Andhra Pradesh (other               than the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes               specified  by  notifications  issued  by   the               President of India under article 341 & 342  of               the  Constitution of India) may be treated  as               socially  and educationally  Backward  Classes               and in accordance with such criteria prepare a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 22 of 34  

             list of such backward classes setting out also               their    approximate   numbers    and    their               territorial distribution;               (ii)  investigate the conditions of  all  such               socially  and educationally  backward  classes               and the difficulties under which they  labour;               and  make  recommendations as to  the  special               provisions which may be made by the Government                             for  their  advancement and  for  prom otion  of               their  educational  and  economic   interests,               generally and with particular reference to (1)    th e               reservation   in   educational    institutions               maintained  by the State or receiving aid  out               of State funds;               (2)  the  concessions, such  as  scholarships,               which may be given by way of assistance;               (3)  the  percentage  or  proportion  of  such               reservation the quantum of such assistance and               the  period during which such  reservation  or               assistance may be made or given; and               (iii) advise the Government as to the backward               classes of citizens (other than the  Scheduled               Castes and the Scheduled Tribes) which are not               ,adequately represented in the services  under               the  State  and  prepare a list  of  all  such               backward  classes and make  recommendation  as               to:               (1)  the reservation of appointments or  posts               in favour of such backward Classes, and               (2)  the  percentage  or  proportion  of  such               reservation  and the period during which  such               reservation may be made. 273 The  Commission  submitted its report to the  Government  on June  20,  1970.   The report was placed  before  the  State legislature  as also the Andhra Pradesh Regional  Committee. The  Commission  in  its report had drawn up a  list  of  92 classes,   which   according  to  it,   are   socially   and educationally backward and have to be classified as Backward Classes and for whom reservations have to be made. After   having  regard  to  the  views  expressed   by   the Legislature  as well as the Regional Committee and after  an examination  of the Report, the Government issued  G.O.  No. 1793 of 1970.  The Government accepted the criteria  adopted by the Commission for determining the social and educational backwardness  of  the  citizens,  namely,  (i)  the  general poverty  of  the  class  or  community  as  a  whole;   (ii) Occupations  pursued by the classes of citizens, the  nature of  which  must be inferior or unclean  or  undignified  and unremunerative  or  one which does not  carry  influence  or power;   (iii)  Caste  in  relation  to  Hindus;  and   (iv) Educational backwardness. The  Government also accepted the list drawn up by the  Com- mission in toto and declared that the castes and communities specified  in  the  annexure to the G.O.  are  socially  and educationally,  Backward  Classes for the  purpose  of  Art. 15(4)  of  the  Constitution.   Though  the  Commission  had recommended  reservation  of 30% of seats for  the  Backward Classes  in the Professional College,-,, the  Government  in the Order decided that only 25% of seats in the Professional Colleges  should  be  reserved  for  Backward  Classes,  The Government  also  agreed  to  the  recommendations  of   the Commission  to  the classification of the  Backward  classes

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 23 of 34  

into  four  groups, and directed that on the  basis  of  the population  of  those four groups, the  25%  reservation  of seats  in  the Professional Colleges was to  be  apportioned amongst the said four groups in the proportion mentioned  in the Government Order.  The Government made it clear that the acceptance   of  the  recommendations  of   the   Commission regarding reservations shall be in force for a period of  10 years  in  the  first instance and  the  positions  will  be reviewed thereafter. We  have  referred to the circumstances leading  up  to  the passing of the impugned G.O. No. 1793 of 1970.  In order  to appreciate  the criticism made by the High  Court  regarding the  approach  made by the Commission, it  is  necessary  to refer  to  the  salient feature.,-, of  the  report  of  the Backward  Classes  Commission.  The report of  the  Backward Classes Commission is Annexure B before us.  As soon as  the Commission   was   appointed,  the   Commission   issued   a questionnaire  and circulated it very widely to the  various authorities and organisations mentioned in its report.   The questionnaire  refers  to  various  matters  regarding   the criteria to be adopted for 274 ascertaining  the  backwardness of persons as  well  as  the information   on   matters  relating  to  the   social   and educational  backwardness  of the persons.  Apart  from  the distribution of the questionnaire, the Commission called for information  from  the Heads of all  Government  Departments regarding  the number of persons belonging to each class  or community  employed in their Departments.  Information  was, also  asked from the Principals of Colleges,  including  the Professional and_Technical Colleges regarding the number  of students  belonging  to  each class  or  community  in  the, academic  year 1967-68.  Similarly, the Head Masters of  all the High Schools and Multipurpose High Schools in the  State were  also  requested to furnish information  regarding  the total  number  of students belonging to each  community  who studied in those schools during the last 10 years as well as the  number  of students classwise  and  community-wise  who studied in classes VI to XI in 1968-69. The  Commission  toured all the districts in the  State  and recorded oral evidence on oath from the representatives of a number  of communities.  During the tour of  the  districts, the  Commission  visited the houses and huts  belonging  to different  communities  of  the people and  also  made  oral enquiries from the inmates about their conditions of living, their  customs, relations _with other communities and  their problems.   The  names of places visited by  the  Commission together with the dates of such visits are given in Appendix IV   of  its  Report.   The  Commission  also  visited   the neighboring States of Madras, Mysore and Kerala with a  view to  have discussion with the officers of those  Governments, which  were connected with the welfare of Backward  Classes. The  report  says that about 820 persons  were  examined  at various places and that about 480 persons submitted  written memoranda.  A large number of replies were received from the public  to the questionnaire issued by the Commission.   The Commission has stated that it had an opportunity, during its tour  and  visit  of the villages, of  studying  the  living conditions and standard of life of the various  communities. The Commission has, no doubt, referred to the fact that upto date  statistical information with regard to  population  of the  several  communities  as  well  as  the  percentage  of literacy was not available.  The difficulty was enhanced  by the  fact  that no caste-wise statistic had  been  collected after 1931 census.  So far as Andhra area is concerned,  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 24 of 34  

figures  of  1921  census were available,  a$  it  had  been prepared on caste-wise basis.  Regarding Telangana area, the 1931  census of caste-wise statistic was available.  It  had to  estimate  the 1968 population in the two  areas  on  the basis  of  the  respective  census  datas  available.    The population figures for 1968 for each caste was fixed by  the Commission  by the percentage of the increase of  the  total population.  The estimate so made by the Commission is given in Appendix V of the Report. 275 Regarding literacy, the Commission adopted the percentage of student  population  per  thousand of  particular  class  or community  in  standards  X and XI  with  reference  to  the average student population in the whole State.  The  reasons for adopting this, procedure have been given in Chapter  VI. Though  information  was called for  regarding  the  student population  community-wise in standards X and XI from  about 2224 High Schools and Higher Secondary Schools in the State, only  about  50% of the institutions  sent  the  information regarding  the student population community-wise,  in  those two  classes.  The Commission worked out an average  on  the basis   of  the  replies  received  from  the  50%  of   the institutions  which  itself comes to nearly more  than   100 schools.   It  is not necessary to refer to  the  employment statistics  collected  by the  Commission.   The  Commission itself  has  indicated  the difficult  problems  it  had  to tackle. Chapters  IV and V deal with the  constitutional  provisions regarding  the  Backward  Class  as  well  as  the   general principles  laid down by the High Court and this  Court  for ascertainment of their social and educational backwardness. Chapter  VI deals with the tests of criteria adopted by  the Commission  for  ascertaining  the  social  and  educational backwardness  of versions.  Regarding  social  backwardness, after  a very exhaustive survey of the trade or  occupations carried  on  by  the  persons  concerned  and  other  allied matters, the Commission has indicated that only such persons belonging  to  a caste or community who  have  traditionally followed unclean and undignified occupation, can be  grouped under  the  classification  of Backward  Classes.   In  this connection  the  Commission  has  adverted  to  the  general poverty of the class or community as a whole, the occupation pursued  by  the class of citizens, the nature of  which  is considered    inferior   and   unclean,    undignified    or unremunerative  or  one which does not  carry  influence  or power, and caste in relation to Hindus. Regarding  educational  backwardness,  the  Commission   has adverted  to  the fact that during the past  10  years,  the State   has  introduced  many  measures  for   the   general educational  advancement of its people by  introducing  com- pulsory  primary education for children and  free  education for boys upto Vlllth class and for (,Iris upto Xllth  class. ’It  has  taken  note  of the fact  that  in  1968-69,  free education for boys was also extended upto High School stage. Having  regard  to  the fact that because  of  literacy  and educational  advancement, passing in the School Final  Class (XI  Class)  is  taken  as  the  minimum  qualification  for appointment  in  Public  Service as also  for  admission  to University and Technical Education, the Commission is of the view that it is proper to take the last two classes, 276 namely,  Classes X and XI as standard for  ascertaining  the educational   backwardness.   In  this  connection  it   has referred  to the Report of the Backward  Classes  Committee, appointed by the Jammu and Kashmir Government, presided over

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 25 of 34  

by Dr. P. B. Gajendragadkar, former Chief Justice of  India. This  Committee  has expressed the view that the  number  of students  on  the  rolls  of IX  and  X  classes  should  be ascertained  for determining educational backwardness.   The reasons given by the said Committee for this view are quoted by  the Commission in its report.  The Commission  then  has adverted to the fact that the average student population  in classes  X and XI in the State works out to about  4.55  per thousand.   On  this basis, it has proceeded  to  apply  the principle that communities whose student population in these standards  is  well  below the State  average,  have  to  be considered  as  educationally  backward.   Here  again   the Commission has referred to the fact that as only 50% of  the schools had furnished figure$ with reference to the  student population,  it  had to work out an average based  on  those figures applicable to the entire State.  Though the  figures received from the schools show that certain groups showed  a slightly  higher level of education, the Commission felt  in the  light  of  their having personally  seen  their  living conditions,  the percentage supplied by the schools may  not be accurate.  In view of this, the Commission has held  even those persons as really backward from the educational  point of view. Chapter  VII  gives the list of socially  and  educationally Backward  Classes  and  there  is  a  very  exhaustive  note attached  to each of these groups as to why  the  Commission regards  them  as socially and educationally  backward.   In that Chapter the Commission has also exhaustively dealt with the  names of the groups, the subdivisions in those  groups, their  traditional  occupation  and  various  other  matters having  a bearing on their social, economic and  educational set  up.  Appendix VI which enumerates the list of  socially and  educationally  Backward Classes item by  item  gives  a tabular  statement containing information about the name  of the  community,  its traditional occupation as well  as  its population in 1968.  Appendix VII contains a note about each of the classes enumerated by the Commission as  Backwardness Classes.   Appendix VII contains information  regarding  the principal occupation, approximate family income,  percentage of  school  going  students in  the  particular  groups  and various other information regarding the persons mentioned in the list.  A perusal of the Appendix VII and VII shows  that the  traditional  occupations of he  persons  enumerated  as backward  were  of  a  very  low  order  such  as   beggars, washermen,  fishermen, watchmen at burial grounds etc.   The Commission   had  made  certain  recommendations   regarding reservation  in the Government Service and it had also  made recommendations regarding other 277 assistance  to be given to the Backward Classes.   In  these appeals   it   is   not  necessary   to   refer   to   those recommendations.   For the purposes of these appeals  it  is only  necessary to state that the observations made by  this Court  in Triloki Nath Tiku and another v. State of Jammu  & Kashmir and others(1) that the principles laid down in M. R. Balaji and others v. State of Mysore (2) will equally  apply for consideration on a question arising under Art. 16(4). We  have fairly elaborately dealt with the manner  in  which the Backward Classes Commission conducted its enquiries  and investigation  before  submitting the  report  because  that gives  an idea of the complexity of the problem that it  had to face as well as the volume of materials collected by it. The  main grounds on which the High Court has  held  invalid the  enumeration  of  the Backward Classes as  well  as  the reservation  made for them are as follows :  The  Commission

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 26 of 34  

has classified the groups as Backward Classes mainly on  the basis  of  caste, which is contrary to the  principles  laid down  by this Court beginning from M. R. Balaji  and  others v.-  State of Mysore(2).  The Commission has  not  collected the  necessary  data  and particulars  for  the  purpose  of ascertaining the social and educational backwardness of  the groups.   The Commission has committed a very serious  error in taking census figures of 1921 and 1931 for the  Telangana and  Andhra areas respectively and projecting those  figures and  arriving  at a conclusion for enumeration  of  Backward Classes in 1968.  Certain communities whose inclusion in the list of. Backward Classes by Government Orders Nos. 1886 and 1880 of 1963 and 1966 respectively and which had been struck down  as invalid by the High Court have again been  included in  the  list of Backward Classes.  This, according  to  the High Court, shows that no proper investigation has been made by  the  Commission, The Commission committed a  mistake  in adopting the average of student population per-thousand of a particular  class or community in the X and XI Classes  with reference  to  the State average for the purpose  of  deter- mining  educational backwardness.  The Commission,  and  the Government  through  the  vast machinery  at  their  command should  have  collected  more  particulars  on  the  various criteria  which  have  been  laid down  by  this  Court  for ascertaining  the  backwardness  of a  particular  group  or class.   The Commission has ignored the principle laid  down by  this Court that the social and educational  backwardness of  persons classified in the list should be  comparable  or similar  to the Schedule Castes and Scheduled  Tribes.   The groups in which the percentage of literacy is well above the State  average  have been included in the list  of  Backward Classes.  The Commission has further sub-divided the  groups into more backward and less backward classes. (1) [1967] 2 S.C.R. 265. (2) [1963] SLIPP.  I S.C.R. 439. 278 We  have  thus indicating broadly the reasons given  by  the High  Court for striking down the reservation made  for  the Backward Classes. Mr.  Gupte, learned counsel for the appellants,  urged  that the  High Court has grossly erred in striking down the  list of  Backward Classes prepared by the Commission as  well  as the reservation made by the State.  Mr. Gupte, at one  stage even  urged  that the view of the High Court that  before  a group  can  be included in the list of Backward  Class,  its social  and  educational  backwardness must  be  similar  or comparable to that of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, is erroneous.  According to the learned counsel, there is no warrant  for any such assumption on a clear reading of  Art. 15  (4).  Counsel further urged that to treat Art. 15(4)  as an "exception is also equally erroneous. We  are not inclined to accept these two contentions of  Mr. Gupte because the said two principles have been laid down by this Court in M. R. Balaji and others v. State of Mysore(1), R. Chitralekha and another v. State of Mysore and  others(2) and  in Stale of Andhra Pradesh and another v. P.  Sagar(3). In all these decisions it has been held that Art. 15 (4) has to  be  read as a proviso or exception to  Arts.  15(1)  and 29(2).   The  said decisions have also laid  down  that  the Backward Classes for whose improvement special provision  is contemplated  by  Art. 15 (4) must in the  matter  of  their backwardness be comparable to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.   In  fact  the attempt of Mr. Gupte  was  that  the principles   laid  down  in  the  above  decisions   require reconsideration.   It  is not necessary for us  to  consider

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 27 of 34  

that  aspect in this particular case because as we  will  be indicating  later,  factually  the  classes  enumerated   as Backward  Classes  are  really  socially  and  educationally backward, on the application of the principles laid down  by this  Court.  It must be pointed out that none of the  above decisions lay down that social and educational  backwardness must  be  exactly  similar in all respects to  that  of  the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.  Those decisions also lay  down  that  Art.  15(4)  being  in  the  nature  of  an exception,  the conditions which justify the departure  from Art. 15 (1) must be strictly shown to exist.  Therefore,  we have to consider the correctness of the decision of the High Court  taking into consideration also the  above  principles laid down by this Court.  By Art. 15 of the Constitution, as originally enacted, it was provided that :               "(1) The State shall not discriminate, against               any citizen on grounds only of religion, race,               caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.               (2) ................................. (1)   [1963] Supp.  I.S.C.R. 439. (2) [1964] 6 S.C.R. 368. (3)  [1968] 3 S.C.R. 595. 279 (3)  Nothing  in this article shall prevent the  State  from making any special provisions for women and children." Article 29(2) provided that               "  No citizen shall be denied  admission  into               any educational institution maintained by  the               State  or  receiving  out of  State  funds  on               grounds   only  of  religion,   race,   caste,               language or any of them." In  Article 46, which occurs in Part IV of the  Constitution relating  to the Directive Principles of State  Policy,  the State  has  been enjoined to promote with special  care  the educational and economic interest of the weaker sections  of the  people  and in particular of the Scheduled  Castes  and Scheduled  Tribes and to protect them from social  injustice and  all  forms  of exploitation.  Articles 15  and  29,  as originally   framed,   prohibited   the   making   of    any discrimination  against  any citizen on the ground  only  of religion.  race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of  them. In State of Madras v. Shrimati Champakam Dorajrajan(1), this Court had to consider the validity of an order issued by the Government  of  Madras  fixing the number  of  students  for particular  communities  for  selection  of  candidates  for admis sion  to the Engineering and Medical Colleges  in  the State.  The challenge was on the ground that it violated the guarantee  against  discrimination under Art.  29(2).   This Court held that the Government Order constitutes a violation of  the fundamental right guaranteed to the citizens of  all by  Art.  29(2)  of the  Constitution,  notwithstanding  the Directive   Principles   laid  down  in  part  IV   of   the Constitution.  This led to Parliament addin Cl. (iv) in Art. 15 by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951.  Article 15(4) is as follows :               "15(4)  Nothing in this article, or in  clause               (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from               making   any   special   provision   for   the               advancement of any socially and  educationally               backward classes of citizens or for the  Sche-               duled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes." This   clause   contained  a  special  provision   for   the advancement  of  any  socially  and  educationally  backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes.   The reservation has to be adopted to  advance  the interest  of weaker sections of Society, but in doing so  it

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 28 of 34  

is  necessary  also  to see  that  deserving  and  qualified candidates  are  not  excluded  from  admission  to   higher educational  institutions.  In the determination of a  class to be grouped as backward, a test solely based upon caste or community cannot be accepted as valid.  But, in our opinion, though  Directive Principles contained in Art. 46 cannot  be enforced by courts, (1) [1951] S C.R. 525. 280 Art,  15(4)  will  have to be given effect to  in  order  to assist the weaker sections of the citizens, as the State has been charged with such a duty.  No doubt, we are aware  that any provision made under this clause must be within the well defined  limits  and  should not be on the  basis  of  caste alone.   But  it should not also be missed that a  caste  is also  a  class of citizens and that a caste as such  may  be socially  and educationally backward.  If  after  collecting the necessary data, it is found that the caste as a whole is socially  and  educationally backward, in our  opinion,  the reservation  made  of such persons will have  to  be  upheld notwithstanding  the  fact that a few  individuals  in  that group  may  be  both socially and  educationally  above  the general average.  There is no gainsaying the fact that there are numerous castes in ’the country, which are socially  and educationally  backward and therefore a  suitable  provision will have to be made by the State as charged in Art. 15  (4) to safeguard their interest. The question before us is whether the Backward Classes  Com- mission  had before it the relevant data and  materials  for enumerating  the  persons included in the list  as  Backward Classes.  Various factors or criteria to be adopted for such enumeration have been laid down in several decisions by this Court.  In particular there is a very exhaustive  discussion on  all aspects bearing on this matter in M. R. Balaji,  and others  v.  State of Mysore(1) regarding the factors  to  be taken into account. for the purpose of ascertaining  whether a particular class of persons are socially and educationally backward. Though  Mr. Tarkunde, learned counsel for  the  respondents, supported  the various reasons given by the High  Court  for striking  down  the  reservations  made  for  the   Backward Classes,  we are of the opinion that the criticisms  leveled against the report of the Backward Classes Commission by the High  Court  are not justified.  It may ’be  that  something more  could  have been done and some  further  investigation could  have  been  carried out.  But, in  our  opinion,  the question  is  whether  on the  materials  collected  by  the Commission  and referred to in its report, can it be  stated that  those  materials  are not adequate  or  sufficient  to support  its  conclusion that the persons mentioned  in  the list  as  Backward Classes are  socially  and  educationally backward.   We may mention in passing that we have not  been able  to find any definite averment in the affidavits  filed by  the writ petitioners that any particular group or  class included  in  the  list  by the  Commission  is  not  really socially  and educationally backward.  In our  opinion,  the Commission  has taken considerable pains to collect as  much relevant  material  as  possible to  judge  the  social  and educational  backwardness of the persons  concerned.   When, for  instance, it had called for information  regarding  the student population in classes X and XI from (1) [1963] Supp.  I. S. C. R. 439. 281 nearly  2224 institutions, if only 50% of  the  institutions sent replies, it is not the fault of the Commission for they

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 29 of 34  

could not get more particulars.  If the Commission has  only to  go  on  doing the work  of  collecting  particulars  and materials,  it will be a never ending matter.  In  spite  of best  efforts  that any commission may  make  in  collecting materials  and  datas,  its  conclusions  cannot  be  always scientifically  accurate  in such matters.   Therefore,  the proper  approach, in our opinion, should be to  see  whether the relevant data and materials referred to in the report of the  Commission  justify its conclusions.  In  our  opinion, there was sufficient material to enable the Commission to be satisfied  that the persons included in the list are  really socially and educationally backward.  No doubt there are few instances  where the educational average is  slightly  above the  State average, but that circumstances by itself is  not enough to strike down the entire list.  In fact, even there, it  is  seen  that  when  the  whole  class  in  which  that particular  group  is included, is  considered  the  average works out to be less than the State average.  Even  assuming there  are few categories which are little above  the  State average, in literacy, that is a matter for the State to take note  of  and  review the position  of  such  categories  of persons and take a suitable decision. We  have been referred to various decisions particularly  of this  Court where reservations for Backward Classes made  by the  concerned State have been either accepted as  valid  or struck  down.   But it is not necessary for us to  refer  to those decisions because each case will have to be considered on  its  own  merits, after finding out the  nature  of  the materials collected by a commission or by the State when  it enumerated   certain   persons  as  forming   the   Backward Classes.But  one thing is clear that if an entire caste,  is as a fact.found to  be socially and educationally  backward, their inclusion in the list   of  Backward Classes by  their caste name is not violative of Art. 15 (4). In M. R. Balaji and others v. State Of Mysore(1) it was held that caste in relation to Hindus may be a relevant factor to consider  in determining social backwardness of a  group  or class  of  citizens:  but  it cannot be  made  the  sole  or dominant  basis  in  that  behalf.   In  the  said  decision enumeration  of  persons as Backward Classes  on  the  basis solely of caste was struck down. In  State  of Andhra Pradesh and another v.  P.  Sagar(2)  a similar list prepared by the State of Andhra Pradesh  solely on the basis of caste was struck down.  In Triloki Nath  and another  v.  State  of Jammu & Kashmir  and  others(3),  the Constitution Bench of this Court held that the members of an entire  caste or community may in the social,  economic  and educational scale of values, at a given time be backward and may on that account be (1)   [1963] Supp.I.S.C.R. 419. (2) [1968] 3 S.C.R. 595. (3)  [1969] 1. C. S. R. 103. 282 treated  as backward classes, but that is not  because  they are members of a caste or community but because they form  a class.  Therefore, it is clear that there may be  instances- of  an  entire  cast,  or a  community  being  socially  and educationally  backward  for being considered  to  be  given protection under Art. 15(4). In M. R. Balaji and others v. State of Mysore(1), it was ob- served  that it is doubtful if the test of  average  student population  in  the  last,  three  High  School  Classes  as appropriate in determining the educational backwardness  and that  it may not be necessary or proper to put the  test  as high.   Even in respect of educational State average it  was observed  in the said decision that the legitimate  view  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 30 of 34  

take would be that classes of citizens whose average is well below  the  State average can be  treated  as  educationally backward.   But here again it was emphasised that the  court does not propose to lay down any hard and fast rule as it is for  the  State to consider the matter and decide  it  in  a manner  which is consistent with the requirements of Art.  _ 15 (4).  These observations made by this ,Court in the above decisions have, in our opinion, been misapplied by the  High Court  to the case on hand.  It has proceeded on  the  basis that  it  is axiomatic that the educational average  of  the class  should not be calculated on the basis of the  student population  in the last three high school classes  and  that only  those  classes  whose average  is  below  the  State average,  that  can be treated  as  educationally  backward. This  Court  has only indicated the broad principles  to  be kept in view when making the provision under Art. 15(4). The  High Court has committed another error in that  it  has proceeded  on the basis that the groups whose  inclusion  as backward classes in the 1963 and 1966 lists, prepared by the State, which were struck down by the High Court, have  again been  included in the present list by the  Commission.   The High  Court has missed the fundamental fact that  those  two lists were struck down by the High Court on the ground  that the State had made no investigation whatsoever, nor had  the State  collected the relevant materials  before  classifying the groups as Back-ward Classes.  It was on that ground that those  lists  were struck down by the High Court.   In  fact this  Court also affirmed the latter decision of the  Andhra Pradesh  High  Court  striking down the  1966  list  in  its decision  in  State  of Andhra Pradesh  and  another  v.  P. Sagar(2).   Though  we are not inclined to  agree  with  the decision of the High Court that the enumeration of groups as Backward Classes by the Commission is solely on the basis of caste,  we will assume that the High Court is right in  that view.  There are two decisions of this Court where the  list prepared  of  Back-ward Classes, on the basis of  caste  had been accepted as valid.  No doubt, this Court was  satisfied on (1) [1963] Supp. I S.C.R. 439. (2) [1968] 3 S.C.R. 595. 283 the  materials that the classification of caste as  Backward Classes was justified. The first decision is Minor P. Rajendran v. State of Madras. (1)  A  Constitution  Bench of this Court  had  to  consider certain rules framed by the State of Madras for selection of candidates  for  admission  to  the  last  Year   Integrated M.B.B.S.  Course.  One of the rules, the validity  of  which had  to be considered, was rule 5 providing for  reservation for socially and educationally Backward Classes, referred to in  the Government Order No. 839/Education, dated  April  6, 195 1, as subsequently amended.  The challenge was that  the said  rule  violated Article 15 of the Constitution  as  the list  prepared by the State was exclusively on the basis  of caste.  The State of Madras, after giving the history as  to how the list of Backward Classes was made starting from  the year  1906, had referred to the fact that the list was  made upto  date by making necessary amendments thereto.   It  was further  pointed  out on behalf of the State that  the  main criteria  for  inclusion  in the list  was  the  social  and educational  backwardness of the caste based on  occupations pursued by those castes.  It was further pleaded that as the members  of the caste as a whole were found to  be  socially and  educationally  back-ward, they were put  in  the  list. The,  State further pointed out that after the  Constitution came into force, the list was examined in the light of  Art.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 31 of 34  

15  (4)  and  the same list which continued  from  1906  was adopted for purposes of Art. 15 (4) as the entire caste  was socially and educationally backward. This  Court accepted the explanation given by the  State  of Madras  and held that though the list shows certain  castes, members of those castes were really a class of socially  and educationally backward citizens.  This Court held as a  fact that  the  list  prepared  by  the  State  was   caste-wise, nevertheless,  as the castes included in the list were as  a whole socially and educationally backward, the list was  not violative  of Art. 15.  In this view rule 5 was well as  the lists  of  Backward  Classes were held  to  be  valid.   The following observations of this Court are apposite               "The  contention is that the list of  socially               and  educationally backward classes  for  whom -rese rvation is made r. 5 nothing but a  list               of certain castes.  Therefore, reservation  in               favour of certain castes, based only on  caste               considerations  violates  Art.  15(1),   which               prohibits  discrimination  on  the  ground  of               caste   only.   Now  if  the  reservation   in               question had been based only on caste and  had               not   taken  into  account  the   social   and               educational  backwardness  of  the  caste   in               question, it would be violative of Art. 15(1).               But it must not be (1) [1968] 2 S. C. R. 786. 284               forgotten  that  a caste is also  a  class  of               citizens  and  if  the caste  as  a  whole  is               socially     and    educationally     backward               reservation  can be made in favour of  such  a               caste  on the ground that it is  socially  and               educationally   backward  class  of   citizens               within     the    meaning    of    Art.     15               (4)..............  It  is  true  that  in  the               present   cases  the  list  of  socially   and               educationally   backward  classes   has   been               specified   by  caste.   But  that  does   not               necessarily  mean  that  caste  was  the  sole               consideration  and that persons  belonging  to               these castes are also not a class of  socially               and educationally backward citizens........" The above decision has been quoted with approval in State of Andhra Pradesh and another v. P. Sagar,(1) and it was empha- sised that the principles laid down therein do not make  any departure from those laid down in the previous decision The next decision of this Court where a list prepared on the basis  of  caste, on the ground that the  entire  caste  was socially  and educationally backward was approved  as  valid under Art. 15(4) is Minor A. Pertakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu and others. (2) In this decision unit-wise distribution of  seats for the Medical Colleges was struck down  by  this Court as violative of Arts. 14 and 15, nevertheless the list of  Backward Classes, which was challenged, as  having  been framed  on  the basis exclusively of caste, was held  to  be valid.  This Court after referring to the decisions in M. R. Balaji  and others v. State of Mysore(1) and R.  Chitralekha and  others  v.  State of Mysore(1) held’ that  caste  is  a relevant  factor in ascertaining a class for the purpose  of Art. 15(4).  The decision in Minor P. Rajendran v. State  of Madras  and others(5) was also quoted with approval and  the said  decision  was  relied  on  as  an  authority  for  the proposition  that the classification of Backward Classes  on the basis of caste is within the purview of Art. 15 (4),  if

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 32 of 34  

those  castes  are shown to be  socially  and  educationally backward.  After a perusal of the list of Backward  Classes, which  was under challenge, this Court held that though  the list  has  been framed on the basis of caste,  it  does  not suffer  from  any  infirmity because the  entire  caste  was substantially socially and educationally backward.  On  this basis the list of Backward Classes was held on to be  valid. It may be mentioned that the list which was under  challenge was  more or less substantially the same as this Court  held to  be  valid in Minor P. Rajendran v. State of  Madras  and others(5). At  this stage it may be recalled that the State  of  Andhra Pradesh  originally  formed part of the composite  State  of Madras.  We (1)   [1968] 39.C.R. 595.         (2) A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 2303. (3)   [1963] Supp.  I.S.C.R. 439. (4) [1964] 6 S.C.R. 368. (5)  [1968] 2 S. C. R. 786. 285 sent  for the paper book in Writ Petition No. 285  of  1970, the  decision of which is reported in Minor P. Rajendran  v. State of Madras and others.(1) On a comparison of the  list, which was under challenge in the said decision, but accepted as  correct  by  this Court, with the list  which  is  under attack  before  us, we find that most of  the  groups  whose inclusion in the list by the State of Madras was held to  be valid  are  also found in the list prepare by  the  Backward Classes Commission appointed by the Andhra Pradesh State. To conclude, though prima facie the list of Backward Classes which  is under attack before us may be considered to be  on the  basis of caste, a closer examination will clearly  show that  it  is only a description of the group  following  the particular occupations or professions, exhaustively referred to by the Commission.  Even on the assumption that the  list is  based  exclusively  on  caste,  it  is  clear  from  the materials before the Commission and the reasons given by  it in  its report that the entire caste is socially and  educa- tionally backward and therefore their inclusion in the  list of Backward Classes is warranted by Art. 15(4).  The  groups mentioned therein have been included in the list of Backward Classes  as they satisfy the various tests, which have  been laid  down  by this Court for ascertaining  the  social  and educational backwardness of a class. The Commission has given very good reasons as to why it  had to  take into account the population figures based upon  the 1921 and 1931 censuses.  It was also justified in taking the average  student population of Classes X and XI,  especially as  the  said procedure has been accepted by  the  Committee appointed by the Jammu and Kashmir Governments, presided  by Dr.  P.  B. Gajendragadkar, former Chief Justice  of  India. That Committee took into account IX and X standards average. The  decided  cases  have  laid  down  the  principles   for ascertaining  the social and educational backwardness  of  a class.   The  Backward Classes Commission in this  case  has taken  considerable pains in collecting data  regarding  the various  aspects  before  including a  particular  group  as Backward Class in the list. There  is a criticism levelled that the Commission has  used its  personal knowledge for the purpose of characterising  a particular group as backward.  That, in the circumstances of the  case,  is inevitable and there is nothing  improper  or illegal.   The very object of the Commission in touring  the various  areas  and  visiting the huts  and  habitations  of people is to find out their actual living conditions.  After all that information has been gathered by the Commission not secretly  but openly.  In fact the actual living  conditions

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 33 of 34  

of habitation can be very satisfactorily judged (1) [1968] 2 S. C. R. 786. 286 and  found out only on a personal visit to the areas,  which will give a more accurate picture of their living conditions and   their  surroundings.   If  the  personal   impressions gathered  by  the members of the Commission have  also  been utilised to augment the various other materials gathered  as a  result of detailed investigation, it cannot be said  that the report of the Commission suffers from any vice merely on the  ground that they imported personal knowledge.   In  our opinion, the High Court has not been fair to the  Commission when it says that whenever the Commission found the  figures obtained  in respect of certain groups as relating to  their educational standard being higher than the State average, it adopted an ingenious method of getting over that obstacle by importing  personal knowledge.  In fact the  Commission  has categorically stated that the information received from  the various schools showed that the percentage of education  was slightly higher than the State average in respect of certain small  groups;  but in view of the fact  that  their  living conditions   were   deplorably  poor,  the   slight   higher percentage   of  literacy  should  not  operate   to   their disadvantage. Regarding  the  criticism that the  Commission  has  divided classes  into  more  backward  and  less  backward,  in  our opinion, this is not also well founded.  On the other  hand, what the Commission has recommended was the distribution  of seats  amongst the reserved classes in proportion  to  their population.  This is not a division of the Backward  Classes as more backward and less backward as was the case which was dealt with by this Court in M. R. Balaji and others v. State of Mysore.(1) There was a contention raised by Mr. Tarkunde, learned coun- sel for the respondents, that the total number of seats that could  be given to the candidates belonging to the  Backward Classes cannot exceed the percentage of reservation made  in their favour.  That is, according to the learned counsel, if more  than the reserved quota amongst the  Backward  Classes candidates,  have  secured seats on merit, there can  be  no further selection of candidates from the reserved group. No doubt our attention was drawn to a decision of the Kerala High   Court,  which  has  held  that  the  reservation   is irrespective  of  some of the candidates belongings  to  the Backward Classes, getting admission on their own merit.  The Andhra  Pradesh  High Court has taken a  slightly  different view.    If  a  situation  arises  wherein  the   candidates belonging  to  the groups included in the list  of  Backward Classes, are able to obtain more seats on the basis of their own  merits,  we can only state that it is the duty  of  the Government to review the question of further reservation  of seats  for such groups.  This has to be- emphasised  because the (1) [1963] Supp. I S.C.R. 439. 287 Government should not act on the basis that once a class  is considered  as  a backward class, it should continue  to  be backward  for  all time.  If once a class  appears  to  have reached  a stage of progress, from which it could be  safely inferred that no further protection is necessary, the  State will  do well to review such instances and  suitably  revise the  list  of Backward Classes.  In fact it was  noticed  by this Court in Minor A. Periakarauppan v. State of Tamil Nadu and  others(1)  that  candidates  of  Backward  Classes  had secured  nearly 50% of seats in the general pool.   On  that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 34 of 34  

ground this Court did not hold that the further  reservation made for the Backward Classes is invalid.  On the other hand it was held               The  fact that candidates of backward  classes               have  secured about 50% of the seats.  in  the               general pool does show that the time has  come               for a de novo comprehensive examination of the               question.   It  must be  remembered  that  the               Government’s  decision in this regard is  open               to judicial review." The  only  other  aspect that has to be dealt  with  is  the quantum  of reservation made for the Backward  Classes.   It was  held in M. R. Balaji and others v. State  of  Mysore(2) that   the  total  of  reservation  for  Backward   Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes should not  ordinarily exceed  50% of the available seats.  In the case before  us, under  G.O. No. 1793 of 1970, the total reservation is  only 43%.   The break-up of that percentage is 25%, 4%  and  14%, for  the  Backward Classes, Scheduled Tribes  and  Scheduled Castes  respectively.   The quantum of reservation  is  thus well  within the limits mentioned in the decision,  referred to above. For the reasons given above, we are of the opinion that  the list of Backward Classes, as well as the reservation of 25% of seats in Professional Colleges for the persons  mentioned in the said list is valid and is saved by Art. 15(4) of  the Constitution.  We are not inclined to agree with the reasons given  by the High Court that the said G.O. offends Art.  15 (4) of the Constitution. To conclude, we agree with the Wings of the High Court  that reservation of 40% of seats to the H.S.C. candidates to  the 1st Year Integrated M.B.B.S. Course under rule 9 of G.O. No. 1648  of 1970 is invalid.  That provision has  been  rightly struck down by the High Court.  To that extent the  judgment and orders of the High Court are confirmed. We,  however,  differ from the decision of  the  High  Court regarding the invalidity of G.O. No. 1793 of 1970.  On the (1) A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 2303.   6-L8879upCI/72 (2) [1963] Supp.  I S. C.R. 439. 288 other hand we hold that the said G.O. is valid and is  saved by Art. 15(4) of the Constitution.  The judgment and  orders of  the High Court to the extent of striking down  the  said G.O., in consequence set aside. In  the  result, the judgment and orders of the  High  Court striking  down G.O. No. 1793 of 1970 are set aside  and  the appeals  allowed in part to that txtent.  In other  respects the appeals will stand dismissed.  There will be no order as to costs in the appeals.  It has been represented on  behalf of  the State that the admissions already given to the  writ petitioners will not be disturbed. G.C.                         Appeals allowed in part. 289