http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 13  

PETITIONER: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: PRADIP TANDON & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT19/11/1974

BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) MATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN UNTWALIA, N.L.

CITATION:  1975 AIR  563            1975 SCR  (2) 761  1975 SCC  (1) 267  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1981 SC1009  (10)  R          1984 SC1420  (18)  E          1984 SC1534  (7,9,10,11)  E&R        1985 SC1495  (16,65,128)  RF         1986 SC1362  (5)

ACT: Constitution  of  India,  1950-Arts.  15(1)(4)  and   29(2)- Reservations of seats in Medical Colleges in favour of  hill and  Uttrakhand areas-Constitutional validity  of-Tests  for determining backwardness.

HEADNOTE: For admission of students to medical colleges in the  State, the  State Government had made reservation for  rural,  hill and  Uttrakhand areas on the ground that people coming  from these areas belonged to socially and educationally  backward classes.  The validity of these reservations was  questioned in  the High Court.  The High Court in one case struck  them down  as unconstitutional, without considering  the  earlier decision. On  appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf  of  the State  that  the  object  of  the  classification  was   the advancement  of  medical education for candidates  from  the reserved  areas  and to give students from these  areas  the benefit of medical education.  It was further contended that by Art. 41 and 46 of the Constitution the State is  enjoined to  promote with special care the educational  and  economic interests of the weaker sections of the people and that ’the reservations  were not on the grounds of place of birth  but on the ground of residence and, therefore, the  reservations would  not fall within the mischief of either Art. 15(1)  or Art. 29. Art.  15(1)  states that the State  shall  not  discriminate against  any citizen grounds only of religion, race,  caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.  Art. 29(2) states  that no  citizen shall be denied admission into  any  educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out  of State  funds  on  grounds only  of  religion,  race,  caste. language or any of them. Allowing the appeal in part,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 13  

HELD:Reservation  in  favour of candidates  from  rural areas  is unconstitutional.  The reservations for  the  hill and Uttrakhand areas are severable and are valid. [773D] (1)  The  Constitution does not enable the  State  to  bring socially   and  educationally  backward  areas  within   the protection  of  Art. 15(4).  The  backwardness  contemplated under Art. 15(4) is both social and educational.  Art. 15(4) speaks   of  backwardness  of  classes  of   citizens   and, therefore,  socially and educationally backward  classes  of citizens  in Art. 15(4) could not be equated  with  castes’. [766C-D] (2)Neither  caste  nor race nor religion can be  made  the basis  of  classification for the  Purposes  of  determining social  and educational backwardness within the  meaning  of Art.  15(4).   When  Art. 15(1)  forbids  discrimination  on grounds  only of religion. race and caste, caste  cannot  be made   one  f  the  criteria  for  determining  social   and educational  backwardness.  If caste or religion  is  recog- nised as a criterion of social and educational  backwardness Art. 15(4) will stultify Art. 15(1).  When a  classification takes   recourse  to  caste  as  one  of  the  criteria   in determining socially and educationally backward classes  the expression  classes"  in  that case  violates  the  rule  of expression   unius est exclusio alterius.  The socially  and educationally backward classes of citizens are groups  other than, groups based on caste. [766F-G] (3)The  place of habitation and its environment is also  a determining  factor  in judging the social  and  educational backwardness.  Backwardness is judged by economic basis that each  region  has its own measurable possibilities  for  the Maintenance of human number,. standards of living and  fixed property.   From  an economic Point of view the  classes  of Citizens are backward when they do not make effective use of resources.   Neglected  opportunities and People  in  remote Places raise walls of social backwardness of people.  People in the hill any 2-L346SupCI/75 762 Uttrakhand  areas  illustrate  the  educationally   backward classes  of citizens because lack of educational  facilities keep them stagnant and they have neither meaning and  values nor awareness for education. [767A; E-G] State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. v. P. Sagar. [1968] 3  S.C.R. 595  and Triloki Nath & Anr. v. State of Jammu &  Kashmir  & Ors. [1969] 1 S.C.R. 103, referred to. (4)The  test of poverty is not the determining  factor  of social backwardness. [768D] M.R.  Balaji  & Ors. v. State of Mysore, [1963]  Supp.  1 S.C.R. 439, held inapplicable. J.P.  Parimoo  v.  State of Jammu &  Kashmir,  [1973]  3, S.C.R. 236, referred to. (5)A  division  between the population on  the  ground  of poverty that the people in the urban areas are not poor  and that  the  people  in the rural areas are  poor  is  neither supported  by  facts  nor by a division  between  the  urban people  on  the one hand and the rural people on  the  other that  the  rural  people  are  socially  and   educationally backward  classes.   It  cannot be said  that  all  citizens residing  in  rural  areas are  socially  and  educationally backward. [768G-H] (6)Population  cannot be class by itself.   Rural  element does  not make it a class., To suggest that the rural  areas are   socially  and  educationally  backward  is   to   have reservations  for  the majority of the State.   The  special need for medical men in rural areas will not make the people

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 13  

in  the  rural  areas socially  and  educationally  backward classes of citizens. [769B-C] (7)The   fact  that  the  number  of  marks  obtained   by candidates  from  rural  areas were much  lower  than  marks obtained  by general candidates makes it neither  valid  nor justifiable  ground for determining social  and  educational backwardness.   On the other hand the success of  candidates from rural areas at the open competition indicates that  the rural  areas  do not represent educational  backwardness  of citizens.  [769D] (8)The reservation for rural areas cannot be sustained  on the  ground  that  the rural areas  represent  socially  and educationally  backward  classes of  citizens.   Poverty  in rural areas cannot be the basis of classification to support reservation for rural areas.  Poverty is found in all  parts of India.  No reservation can be made on the basis of  place of birth.  This would offend Art. 15. [769G-H] In  the instant case the reservation for rural areas  cannot be  upheld  because  there is  no  classification  based  on residence between students coming from within the State  and others coming without. [772B] (9)The  present case of classification of rural  areas  is not  one  of  under  classification.   This  is  a  case  of discrimination in favour of the majority of rural population to  the  prejudice  of  students  drawn  from  the   general category.  This classification is unconstitutional. [772G]  D.  P.  Joshi  v. State of Madhya Bharat &  Anr.  [1955]  1 S.C.R. 1215, R. Chitralkkha & Anr. v. State of Mysore & Ors. [1964]  6 S.C.R. 368. D. N. Chanchala v. State of  Mysore  & Ors. [1971] Supp.  S.C.R. 608, Rajendran v. State of Madras. [1968]  2  S.C.R. 786 and Chitra Ghosh & Anr.  v.  Union  of India & Ors. [1970] 1 S.C.R. 413, distinguished.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  1542  of 1974. From  the  judgment and order dated August 5,  1974  of  the Allahabad  High  Court in C. W. Misc.  Petn.   No.  5287  of 1973. Civil Appeal No. 1385 of 1974. Appeal  by Special Leave from the judgment and  order  dated October 27, 1972 of the Allahabad High Court in Spl.  A. No. 540 of 1972. 763 Writ Petition No: 442 of 1974. Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. Niren  De, Attorney General of India (in C.A.  No.  1542/74) and  O.  P. Rana, for the appellant (in  C.A.  No.  1542/74) respondent  No. 1 (in C.A. No. 1385/74) and respondents  (in W.P. No. 442/74). Yogeshwar Prasad, S. K. Bagga, S. Bagga and Jagdeep Kishore, for  the  appellants  (in  C.A. No.  1385/74  and  W.P.  No. 442/74). Pramod  Swarup, S. M. Dass and Manoj Swarup, for the  Inter- vener (Vijay Mohan Das). A.K.  Srivastava,  for  the  intervener  (Kum.   Sangeeta Agarwala and Ors.). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, C. J.-The principal question for consideration in these Civil Appeals and Writ Petition is whether the  instructions framed  by  the State in making reservations  in  favour  of candidates  from Rural Areas, Hill Areas and Uttrakhand  are constitutionally valid.  These reservations were made by the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 13  

State  Government  for  admission  of  students  to  medical colleges in the State of Uttar Pradesh. In  Civil Appeal No. 1542 of 1974 the instructions  for  the combined  premedical test for the year 1973 were  impeached. The instructions for the combined pre-medical test 1973  for admission  to 7 medical colleges in Uttar Pradesh under  the Meerut University provided for reservation, of 117 seats for rural  areas,  25  seats for hill areas  and  25  seats  for Uttrakhand  area.   The  total  number of  seats  in  the  7 colleges  is  782. 392 seats are open  to  candidates  under general  category.   There are  reservations  for  Scheduled Castes,  Scheduled Tribes, children of  political  sufferers and children of army personnel.  The reservations for rural, hill    and    Uttrakhand   areas   were    challenged    as unconstitutional. In  Civil Appeal No. 1385 of 1973 the  combined  pre-Medical test  for  admission  to 5 medical  colleges  at  Allahabad, Kanpur,  Meerut,  Agra  and Jhansi for  the  year  1971  was challenged.   The  total number of seats was 758.  26  seats were  reserved for the nominees of the Government  of  India under  various heads. 732 seats were available to be  filled in  through  the combined pre-medical test. 368  seats  were open  to  general competition. 89 seats  were  reserved  for rural  areas,  23  seats for bill areas  and  23  seats  for Uttrakhand  Division.  The reservations for the rural,  bill and Uttrakhand areas were challenged as unconstitutional. The  contention  on  behalf  of  the  State  was  that   the reservations  for rural, hill and Uttrakhand areas  are  for socially  and educationally backward classes.  It  was  also said  that these reservations are valid on  geographical  or territorial basis. The affidavit evidence on behalf of the State was this.  The Government in the years 1952 and 1953 made reservations  for Kisan and 764 hill area candidates.  The Government reviewed the  position from   time  to  time.   The  reservations  are   considered necessary  to attract graduates from those areas  which  are otherwise  handicapped  in the matter of education.   It  is necessary  to  feed  the dispensaries with  medical  men  in adequate number to serve the people inhabiting those  areas. The  rural,,  hill  and Uttrakhand  areas  lack  educational facilities,  People living there are illiterate or  have’  a very   modest  education.   Their  economic   condition   is unsatisfactory.   The,  level of income is  low.   There  is acute  poverty.   There  is lack and  in  some  cases  total absence  of communication and transportation.   Historically these  areas  have been neglected.  People living  in  those areas  are socially backward.  The percentage  of  education among  them is low.  Candidates from those areas on  account of  various  difficulties  and  handicaps  cannot  generally compete on parallel or equal footing with other  candidates. The  State  maintains and financially supports  the  medical colleges.   The State can. therefore, claim to lay down  the criterion  for  admission  to those  colleges.   The  State, classified  these  rural,  hill  and  Uttrakhand  areas   as socially and educationally backward areas. The  affidavit  evidence on behalf of the candidate  at  the combined  pre-medical test is that candidates  belonging  to reserved categories obtained admission although they secured marks as low as 128 and other candidates were placed in  the waiting list although the marks obtained by them was as  low as  103.  In the general category candidates in the  waiting list secured about 266 marks. (See petition In Civil  Appeal No. 1542 of 1974).  In Civil Appeal No. 1385 of 1973 it  was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 13  

alleged  that  the candidates from rural  Scheduled  Castes, Uttrakhand  and Hill areas who obtained  admission  obtained 281,  298 and 163 marks respectively whereas the  Petitioner in  that  case  obtained  288 marks  and  could  not  obtain admission because of reservation of seats. The  High  Court  at Allababad upheld  the  reservation  for rural, hill and Uttrakhand areas in Subhash Chandra v. State of  U.P. A.I.R. 1973 All. 295.  The High Court  struck  down the  aforesaid  reservation in the case of  Dilip  Kumar  v. State  of U.P. A.I.R. 1973 All. 592.  The High Court in  the case  of  Dilip Kumar (supra) however did not  consider  the case  of Subhash Chandra which was an earlier decision.   It is desirable from the point of view of judicial propriety to refer to earlier decisions of the same High Court. The contentions of the Attorney General were under two broad heads.  First, the State hag given sufficient material which remains  uncontradicted  to show that  the  areas  concerned consisted  of  people  who  were as  a  class  socially  and educationally  backward.   Among the factors  given  by  the Government  were  the  factors recognised by  the  Court  in determining  socially  and educationally  backward  classes. These   were  poverty,  nature  of  occupation.   place   of residence,  lack  of  education and  also  the  sub-standard education  of the candidates for the test in  comparison  to the  average standard of candidates from  general  category. Second,  the, classification has not been made only  on  the basis  of  Place  of birth as is  evident  from  the,  State affidavit. 765 If  this  classification  be neither  within  the,  vice  of Article  15(1) or Article 29(2) then the  classification  of rural,  hill  and Uttrakhand areas can be justified  on  the basis of reasonable sources for the purpose of admission  to medical  colleges.   The  sources are the  rural,  hill  and Uttrakhand  areas  which form  geographical  or  territorial basis. The Attorney General put in the forefront the object of  the classification  to be the advancement of  medical  education for  candidates  from  reserved  areas.   He  amplified  his submissions as follows.  It is a notorious fact that  rural, hill  and Uttrakhand areas are socially backward because  of extreme   poverty.   These  areas  are  also   educationally backward because the standard of literacy is poor and  there is  lack  of educational facilities.  There,  is  dearth  of doctors in these reserved areas.  It is necessary to attract students from these areas for admission to medical colleges. This will give impetus to students from these areas to equip themselves as doctors. The   Attorney   General  submitted  that  the   object   of classification is to give students from rural areas  benefit of  medical  education.  If the object is to  get  the  best material  then  it  would be, justifiable  to  look  at  the historically  backward  rural areas which  have  no  medical colleges.   The  classification may be supported  either  on historical or geographical exigencies of circumstances,  The geographical,  territorial,  historical  and  the   economic conditions  in the rural and hill areas were  emphasised  to support the classification. The  Attorney  General  laid  considerable  stress  on  the, feature  that  Rural  India is  socially  and  educationally backward  by  reason  of poverty.  He said  that  the  Court should take judicial notice of the extreme poverty in  these areas.  The rural people were said to have common traits  of agriculture  and  they  were  all  conditioned  by  economic poverty.  Articles 41 and 46 were put in the forefront  that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 13  

the  right  to education was one of the  provisions  in  the Directive  Principles  of  State Policy.  The  State  is  to promote  with  special  care the  educational  and  economic interests of the weaker sections of the people. Article  15(1) states that the State shall not  discriminate against  any  citizen  on grounds only  of  religion,  race, caste,.sex  place  of birth or any of  them.   The  Attorney General  submitted that the reservation was not  on  grounds only of place of birth or caste.  Article 29(2) states  that no  citizen shall be denied admission into  any  educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out  of State  funds  on  grounds only  of  religion,  race,  caste, language or any of them.  It is said by the Attorney General that inasmuch as place of birth is not mentioned in  Article 29(2), the reservations in the present case would not offend Article  29(2).   The Attorney General  submitted  that  the reservations in the present case were not on ground of place of  birth  but on ground of residence. and,  therefore,  the reservations  would not fall within the mischief  of  either Article 15(1) or Article 29(2). Article 15(4) was added by the Constitution First  Amendment Act,  1951.   The  object  of the  amendment  was  to  bring Articles  15  and 29 in line with  Article  16(4).   Article 16(4) states that nothing 766 in  that  Article shall prevent the State  from  making  any provision  for the reservation of appointments or  posts  in favour  of  any  backward class of  citizens  which  in  the opinion  of the State is not adequately represented  in  the services  under the State.  In the State of Madras  v.  Smt. Champakam  Dorairajan [1951] S.C.R. 525 the  reservation  of seats for non-Brahmins, backward Hindus, Brahmins, Harijans, Anglo  Indians and Indian Christians and Muslim was held  to offend Article 15(1) and 29(2).  This Court pointed out that the omission of. a clause like Article 16(4) from Article 29 indicated  the intention of the Constitution makers  not  to introduce communal consideration in matters of admission  to educational institutions. Article 15(4) speaks of socially and educationally  backward classes  of citizens.  The State described the  rural,  hill and Uttrakhand areas as socially and educationally  backward areas.  The Constitution does not enable the State to  bring socially   and  educationally  backward  areas  within   the protection  of Article 15(4).  The Attorney General  however submitted that the affidavit evidence established the rural, hill and Uttrakhand areas to have socially and educationally backward classes of citizens.  The backwardness contemplated under Article 15(4) is both social and educational.  Article 15(4)  speaks of backwardness of classes of  citizens.   The accent is on classes of citizens.  Article 15(4) also speaks of  Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes.    Therefore, socially  and educationally backward classes of citizens  in Article  15(4) could not be equated with castes.  In  M.  R. Balaji & Ors. v. State of Mysore [1963] Supp.  1 S.C.R.  439 and  State  of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. v. P.  Sagar  [1968]  3 S.C.R.   595   this  Court  held  that   classification   of backwardness  on  the  basis of castes  would  violate  both Articles 15(1) and 15(4). Broadly  stated, neither caste nor race nor religion can  be made  the  basis  of  classification  for  the  purposes  of determining  social and educational backwardness within  the meaning  of  Article  15(4),  When  Article  15(1)   forbids discrimination  on  grounds only of religion,  race,  caste, caste  cannot  be made one of the criteria  for  determining social and educational backwardness. if caste or religion is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 13  

recognised  as  a  criterion  of  social  and   educational, backwardness Article 15(4) will stultify Article 15(1).   It is  true that Article 15(1) forbids discrimination  only  on the   ground   of  religion,  race,  caste,   but   when   a classification  taken  recourse  to  caste  as  one  of  the criteria in. determining socially and educationally backward classes  the expression "classes" in that case violates  the rule of expression unius est exclusio altrius.  The socially and  educationally backward classes of citizens  are  groups other than groups based on caste. The expression "socially and educationally backward classes" in  Article 15(4) was explained in Balaji’s case (supra)  to be comparable to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.  The reason  is  that the Scheduled Castes and  Scheduled  Tribes illustrated  social  and educational  backwardness.   It  is difficult   to   define   the   expression   "socially   and educationally   backward   classes   of   citizens".     The traditional unchanging occupations of citizens may  continue to 767 social and educational backwardness. The place of habitation and its environment is also a determining factor in  judging the social and educational backwardness. The expression "classes of citizens" indicates a homogeneous section  of the people who are grouped together  because  of certain   likeliness   and  common  traits   and   who   are identifiable by some common attributes.  The homogeneity  of the   class   of   citizens  is   social   and   educational backwardness.  Neither caste nor religion nor place of birth will  be  the uniform element of common attributes  to  make them a class of citizens. The  traits of social backwardness are these.  There  is  no social structure.  There is no social hierarchy.  There  are no means of controlling the environment through  technology. There   is  no  organization  of  the  society   to   create inducements  for  uplift of the people  and  improvement  of economy.   Building of towns and industries, growth of  cash economy which are responsible for greater social wealth  are absent among such classes.  Social growth and well being can be satisfied by massive change in resource conditions.  High lands  ’and hills are to be developed in fiscal  values  and natural   resources.   Nature  is  a   treasury.    Forests, mountains, rivers can yield an advanced society with the aid of education and technology. The hill and Uttrakhand areas in Uttar Pradesh are  instance of  socially and educationally backward classes of  citizens for these reasons.  Backwardness is judged by economic basis that  each region has its own measurable  possibilities  for the  maintenance of human numbers, standards of  living  and fixed property.  From an economic point of view the  classes of citizens are backward when they do not make effective use of  resources.  When large areas of land maintain a  sparse, disorderly and illiterate population whose property is small and  negligible  the  element  of  social  backwardness   is observed.  When effective territorial specialisation is  not possible  in  the  absence of  means  of  communication  and technical processes as in the hill and Uttrakhand areas  the people are socially backward classes of citizens.  Neglected opportunities  and  people in remote places raise  walls  of social backwardness of people. Educational  backwardness is ascertained with  reference  to these  factors.   Where people have traditional  apathy  for education on account of social and environmental  conditions or   occupational  handicaps,  it  is  an  illustration   of educational backwardness.  The hill and Uttrakhand areas are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 13  

inaccessible.  There is lack of educational institutions and educational  aids.  People in the hill and Uttrakhand  areas illustrate  the educationally backward classes  of  citizens because  lack of educational facilities keep  them  stagnant and  they have neither meaning and values nor awareness  for education. Relying  on the decisions of Stale of Andhra Pradesh &  Anr. v.  P.  Sagar (supra) and Triloki Nath & Anr.  v.  State  of Jammu  &  Kashmir & Ors. [1969] 1 S.C.R.  103  the  Attorney General  contended  that  the  people  of  rural  areas  are socially and educationally 768 backward  classes of citizens within the meaning of  Article 15(4).   It is said that people of rural areas  are  grouped together  because of their common traits, their  occupation, their residence in the rural areas and they are identifiable by  such  on  traits  and  have  for  long  constituted  and continued  to  constitute a well-known  division  of  Indian society.   It was emphasised that the people in rural  areas are always grouped together under the general or class  name of "rural people. In  Triloki Nath & Anr. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir  &  Ors. (supra) this Court said 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 treated as a backward class, but that is not because  they  are  members of a  caste  or  community,  but because they form a class. In  Balaii’s  case  (supra)  this  Court  said  that  social backwardness  is  on  the ultimate analysis  the  result  of poverty  to a large extent and that the problem of  backward classes  is  in  substance  the  problem  of  rural   India. Extracting these observations the Attorney General contended that poverty is not only relevant but is one of the elements in  determining the social backwardness.  We are  unable  to accept  the  test of poverty as the  determining  factor  of social backwardness. The  1971  Census  showed population in India  to  be  54.79 crores.  32-89 crores or 80.1 per cent live in rural  areas. 10.91 crores or 43.9 per cent live in cities and towns.   In 1921  the rural population in India was 88.8 per  cent.   In 1971 the rural population was reduced to 80.7 per cent.  The rural population of Uttar Pradesh in 1971 was roughly  seven and a half crores.  The population in Uttrakhand was roughly seven  and  a half lakhs.  The population of Hill  areas  in Uttar  Pradesh was near about twenty-five lakhs.  It is  in- comprehensible  as  to how 80.1 per cent of  the  people  in rural areas or 7 crores in rural parts of Uttar Pradesh  can be  suggested  to be socially backward because  of  poverty. Further, it is also not possible to predicate poverty as the common  trait of rural people.  This Court in J. P.  Parimoo v. State of Jammu & Kashmir [1973] 3 S.C.R. 236 said that if poverty  is  the exclusive test a large  population  in  our country  would be socially and educationally backward  class of citizens.  Poverty is evident everywhere and perhaps more so in educationally advanced and socially affluent  classes. A  division  between the population of our  country  on  the ground of poverty that the people in the urban areas are not poor  and  that the people in the rural areas  are  poor  is neither  supported  by facts nor by a division  between  the urban  people  on the one hand and the rural people  on  the other  that the rural people are socially and  educationally backward class. Some  people  in  the  rural  areas  may  be   educationally backward,  some may be socially backward. there may  be  few

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 13  

who  are  both socially and educationally backward.  bit  it cannot be said that all citizens residing in rural areas are socially and educationally backward. 769 80 per cent of the population in the State of Uttar  Pradesh in  rural areas cannot be said to be a homogeneous class  by itself.  They are not of the same kind.  Their occupation is different.  Their standards are different.  Their lives  are different.   Population cannot be a class by itself.   Rural element does not make it a class.  To suggest that the rural areas  are  socially and educationally backward is  to  have reservation for the majority of the State. On  behalf of the State it is said that it is  necessary  to have reservation of seats for the people from rural areas in order  to attract people from those areas who are  otherwise handicapped  in  the matter of education, so that  they  can serve  the people in the rural areas on completion of  their medical  education.   In order to attract  medical  men  for service  in  rural  areas arrangements are  to  be  made  to attract  them.   The special need for medical men  in  rural areas  will not make the people in the rural areas  socially and educationally backward classes of citizens. It was said that the number of marks obtained by  candidates from  rural areas showed that they were much lower than  the marks obtained by general candidates and this would indicate educational  backwardness.   That is neither a valid  nor  a justifiable  ground for determining social  and  educational backwardness.   Educational institutions should attract  the best  talents.  It has been held by this Court  in  Balaij’s case  (supra) that 50 per cent of the seats  in  educational institutions should be left open to general competition.  in the  present case, it appears that 85 candidates from  rural areas  were  selected in the general seats.   One  candidate from  Uttrakhand area, 7 candidates from hill areas and  one Scheduled  Caste  candidate also completed for  the  general seats.  The candidates from hill areas, Uttrakhand  Division and  Scheduled Castes are exceptions and  their  performance will not detract from the reservations for Scheduled  Caste, bill and Uttrakhand areas.  The performance of 85 candidates from rural areas speaks eloquently for the high standards of education in rural areas. The  reservation for rural areas cannot be sustained on  the ground   that  the  rural  areas  represent   socially   and educationally   backward   classes   of   citizens.     This reservation  appears to be made for the majority  population of  the  State. 80 per cent of the population of  the  State cannot  be  a  homogeneous class.  Poverty  in  rural  areas cannot be the basis of classification to support reservation for  rural areas.  Poverty is found in all parts  of  India. In the instructions for reservation of seats it is  provided that in the application form a candidate for reserved  seats from  rural areas must submit a certificate of the  District Magistrate of the District to which he belonged that be  was born  in rural area and had a permanent home there,  and  is residing there or that he was born in India and his  parents and  guardians  are  still  living  there  and  earn   their livelihood  there.  The incident of birth in rural areas  is made the basic qualification.  No reservation can be made on the  basis of place of birth, as this would  offend  Article 15. 770 The  onus  of proof is on the State to  establish  that  the reservations  are  for socially and  educationally  backward classes  of  citizens.  The State has established  that  the people  in  hill  and  Uttrakhand  areas  are  socially  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 13  

educationally backward classes of citizens. The  Attorney General submitted that if the State failed  to establish  that the people in rural areas are  socially  and educationally  backward classes of citizens the  reservation for  rural areas could be sustained on the ground  that  the reservations  are  clearly on  geographical  or  territorial basis.  The Attorney General referred to the instruction for reservation  of  seats  and  submitted  that  the  basis  of reservation is not only place of birth but place of birth as well as the residence of the applicant or place of birth  as well as the residence of the applicant parents or  guardian. He  relied on the decision of this Court in D. P.  Joshi  v. State  of  Madhya  Bharat & Anr. [1955]  1  S.C.R.  1215  in support  of  the proposition that a  classification  on  the basis of residence is valid as a geographical or territorial classification.   On  behalf of the State it was  said  that under  Article  41 the State has a duty  to  make  effective provision for securing the right to education.  Reliance was placed  on  Article  46 that the State  shall  promote  with special  care the educational and economic interests of  the weaker  sections  of  the  people.   The  Attorney   General submitted  that  the reservations for the  rural  areas  was really to obtain students from the source of rural areas. In  D. P. Joshi’s case (supra) the State Government  made  a rule  that no capitation fee should be charged for  students who are bona fide residents of Madhya Bharat but  capitation fee should be retained for non-Madhya Bharat students.  This rule  was  challenged  as an infraction of  Article  14  and 15(1).   This Court held that the rule did not infringe  the fundamental  right  guaranteed  by  Article  15(1)   because residence  and place of birth are two  distinct  conceptions with  different  connotations both in law  and  fact.   This Court  said  that Article  15(1)  prohibited  discrimination based  on  place of birth and the prohibition could  not  be read  as  one  of  discrimination  based  on  residence.   A division  into  two  groups, viz., bona  fide  residents  of Madhya Bharat and nonresidents of Madhya Bharat was held not to be a violation of Article 14.  A classification based  on residence  was held to have a fair and substantial  relation to  the purpose of the law.  It was said that if  the  State had  to  spend money on education, it was  not  unreasonable that the State should order the educational system in such a manner that the advantage of it would to some extent  ensure for the benefit of the State. The other two decisions on which Attorney General relied  on are R. Chitralekha & Anr v. State of Mysore & Ors. [1964]  6 S.C.R.  368  and D. K. Chanchala v. State of Mysore  &  Ors. etc.  [1971]  Supp.  S C.R ’ 608 The classification  in  the present  case was laid by the Attorney General to  encourage higher  education  to bona fide applicants  from  the  rural areas.  It is also said that the candidates from rural areas will have to execute a bond that they agree to serve the 771 Government for five years so, that doctors could be provided in   rural   areas.   This  was  said  to  be   a   relevant consideration for supporting the classification. In  Chitralekha’s  case  (supra) the  Government  of  Mysore defined  backward classes and directed that 30 per  cent  of the  seats  in  professional  and  technical  colleges   and institutions  would  be  reserved  for  them.   The   Mysore Government  laid  down that classification of  socially  and educationally backward classes should be on the basis of (1) economic  condition, and (2) occupation.  According to  that order, a family whose income is Rs. 1,200 per annum or  less and   persons  or  classes  who  followed   occupations   of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 13  

agriculture  petty  business, inferior services,  crafts  or other  occupations involving. manual labour were defined  to be  socially economically and educationally backward.   This Court said that the classification of backward classes based on  economic  conditions  and occupation  does  not.  offend Article  15(4).  This Court explained Balaji’s case  (supra) by  stating  that the authority concerned might  take  costs into  consideration  in ascertaining the backwardness  of  a group  of persons but if it did not, the order would not  be bad  on that account if it could ascertain the  backwardness of  a  group  of  persons on the  basis  of  other  relevant material. In   Chanchala’s  case  (supra)  one  of  the   rules   made reservation for children of political sufferers and  another rule  provided  for  distribution  of  seats  according   to Universities.   The  reservation for children  of  political sufferers  was upheld on the ground that such a  classifica- tion has reasonable nexus with object of the rules, viz.,  a fair  and  just distribution of seats.  With regard  to  the distribution  of  seats according to the  Universities,  the rule  provided  that  seats in the  general  pool  would  be distributed  University-wise.  Scats in colleges  affiliated to Kamatak University were to be allotted to persons passing from  colleges  affiliated to that University and  seats  in colleges  affiliated  to Bangalore and  Mysore  Universities were  to  be respectively allotted to persons  passing  from colleges affiliated to each such University.  The rule  also provided that not more than 20 per cent of the seats in  the colleges   affiliated  to  any  university  might   in   the discretion  of  the  Selection  Committee,  be  allotted  to students  passing  from  colleges affiliated  to  any  other university  in the State or elsewhere.  This  classification was  impeached  to  be neither  based  on  any  intelligible differentia nor to have a rational nexus with the object  to the rules. This  Court in Chanchala’s case (supra) held that since  the universities  were  set up for  satisfying  the  educational needs of different areas where they were set up and  medical colleges were established in those areas, it could safely be presumed that they also were so set up to satisfy the  needs for  medical  training of those attached  to  those  univer- sities.   Such  a  basis  for  selection  did  not  have   a disadvantage of district wise or unit-wise selection as  any student from any part of the State could pass the qualifying examination in any of the three universities irrespective of place  of  birth  or  residence.   The  discretion  of   the selection  committee to admit outsiders upto 20 per cent  of the total available seats in any of these colleges was  held to advance the 772 interest of education by drawing the best students not  only in the State but also elsewhere in India. In  the  present case, the reservation for  the  rural  area cannot be upheld because there is no classification based on residence between students coming from within the State  and others coming from without.  The object of providing medical education to students in Uttar Pradesh is to secure the best possible students for admission to these colleges.  It is in this  context that districtwise allocation was held by  this Court in Rajendran v. State of Madras [1968] (2) S.C.R.  786 to violate Article 14.  The University-wise distribution  of seats  which  was  found to be  valid  in  Chanchala’s  case (supra) does not have any application in the present case. The submission of the Attorney General that rural population would be a source for drawing students cannot be upheld.  An

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 13  

illustration of different sources of categories of  students is  Chitra  Ghosh & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.  [1970]  1 S.C.R.   413.   There  the  categories  of   students   were classified as residents of Delhi; sons/daughters of  Central Government servants posted in Delhi; candidates whose father is  dead and is wholly dependent on borther/sister who is  a Central  Government servant posted in Delhi;  sons/daughters of  residents  of  Union  Territories  including   displaced persons   registered  therein;  sons/daughters  of   Central Government  servants  posted  in  Indian  Missions   abroad; cultural scholars.  Colombo Plan Scholars; Thailand Scholars and  Jammu and Kashmir State Scholars, Rural area  in  Uttar Pradesh cannot be said to be a source for reservation of the type in Chira Ghosh’s case (supra). The Attorney General relied on Beryl F. Carroll v. Greenwich Insurance  Co. of New York 50, L.Ed. 246, Weaver  v.  Palmer Brother Co. 70 L.ED. 654 and West Coast Hotel Co. v.  Ernest Parrish 81.  L.ED. 703 in support of the proposition that if an evil is especially experienced in a particular branch  of business,  the Constitution embodies no Prohibition of  laws confined  to the evil or doctrinaire requirement  that  they should be couched in all embracing terms- it was said if the law  was intended to remove the evil where it was most  felt it  was  not  to  be overthrown  because  there  were  other instances  to which it might have been applied.   This  rule really  means that there is no doctrinaire requirement  that the legislation should be couched in all embracing terms.  A case  of under classification would be an instance  of  this rule.  The present case of classification of rural areas  is not  one  of  under  classification.   This  is  a  case  of discrimination in favour of the majority of rural population to  the  prejudice  of  students  drawn  from  the   general category.  The classification is unconstitutional. In CivilAppeal   No.   1385  of  1973  two   other   minor contentions  were raised. One  was that the  reservation was  beyond  50 per sent. The total number of  seats  to  be filled  in through the combined test is 732.  The number  of general  seats is 368. 26 seats are reserved for  Government of  India nominees under various beads.  The reservation  of 26  seats was contended to be considered  while  calculating the percentage of reserved seats.  If 26 seats are  included it was said that the 773 reserved  seats would come to 52 per cent. 26 seats  form  a source  from which selection is made.  The Government  bears the  burden  of expenses of education.  A  provision  laying down  a  source is not a reservation [see  Chanchala’s  case (supra)]. The  other contention was that the State Government  changed the  percentage of reserved seats after the premedical  test was  held.  The contention was that candidates belonging  to reserved  classes  were able to secure some of  the  general seats on the basis of then better performance in competitive test  and therefore more seats went to people from  reserved classes.  The Government did not change the number of  seats for reserved classes.  Candidates belonging to the  reserved classes  were  selected  by reason of  their  excellence  in education.   The reservation has not been changed.  We  have already held that the success of candidates from rural areas at  the open competition indicates that the rural  areas  do not represent educationally backward classes of citizens. For these reasons we hold that the reservation in favour  of candidates  from  rural  areas  is  unconstitutional.    The reservations   for  the,  hill  and  Uttrakhand  areas   are severable and these are valid.

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

We allow Civil Appeal No. 1385 of 1973 in part. Civil Appeal No. 1542 of 1974 is also allowed in part.   The reservations for the hill and Uttrakhand areas are upheld in both the appeals and the reservations for the rural areas in both the appeals are unconstitutional. Writ   Petition  No.  442  1974  succeeds  in   part.    The reservation  for  rural  areas  aggregating  131  seats   is declared   unconstitutional.   Reservation  for   hill   and Uttrakhand areas is held to be valid. Parties  will  pay  and bear their own  costs  in  the  writ petition as well as in the Civil Appeals. P.B.R.             Appeals and Petition allowed in part. 774