Case Note & Summary
The petitioner challenged a circular issued by Lucknow University based on a letter dated 17 May 1994 from the Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, which governed admissions to the Combined Pre-Medical Test (CPMT) of 1994. The original policy reserved 35% seats for general category candidates and 65% seats for reserved categories, including backward classes, hill areas, Uttarakhand, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, dependents of freedom fighters, sons/daughters of soldiers killed or disabled in action, and handicapped candidates. Additionally, 30% of seats in each category, including general, were reserved for ladies, which effectively reduced the general category seats for male candidates to 5%. The petitioner contended that this reservation scheme violated Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Indira Sawhney & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1992 Supp 3 SCC 217). After the petition was filed, the State Government issued a notification dated 17 December 1994 clarifying its reservation policy. The amended circular provided for horizontal reservation of 5% for dependents of freedom fighters, 2% for sons/daughters of deceased/disabled soldiers, 2% for physically handicapped candidates, 3% for hill areas, and 3% for Uttarakhand candidates, to be applied to total seats in all courses. It further clarified that candidates selected under these horizontal reservations would be adjusted against the vertical category to which they belonged, i.e., Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Other Backward Class, or General. The vertical reservation was now fixed at 50% for general category and 50% for SC/ST/OBC, with no reservation for ladies in the general category, as confirmed by Dr. Dhawan, senior counsel for the State. The Court observed that the original reservation of 65% was clearly violative of Article 16, and the additional 30% reservation for ladies in the general category exacerbated the constitutional infirmity. However, the amended circular had rectified these glaring defects by making the special reservations horizontal and by limiting vertical reservation to 50%. The Court held that the amended policy was not contrary to Indira Sawhney and that the petitioner's grievance no longer subsisted. Consequently, the petition was disposed of and the interim order staying declaration of results was discharged.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Reservation in Educational Institutions - Article 16 of Constitution of India, 1950 - The original circular reserving 65% seats for reserved categories and reducing general category to 35% violated Article 16; the further reservation of 30% seats for ladies in general category reduced general category to 5%. The amended circular dated 17.12.1994 corrected this by setting vertical reservation at 50% for general and 50% for SC/ST/OBC and making earlier specific reservations horizontal. Held that the petitioner's grievance did not survive (Paras 1-3). B) Constitutional Law - Horizontal Reservation - Article 16 of Constitution of India, 1950 - Horizontal reservation for freedom fighter dependents, disabled soldiers' children, physically handicapped, hill areas and Uttarakhand candidates was permissible when adjusted against the candidate's own vertical category, as clarified in paragraph (2) of the amended circular. Court relied on Indira Sawhney (1992 Supp 3 SCC 217) and disposed of petition, discharging interim order (Paras 2-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether reservation of 65% seats for reserved categories in medical colleges and 30% reservation for ladies in general category violated Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution; whether subsequent Government circular dated 17.12.1994 rectified the illegality.
Final Decision
Petition disposed of directing that in view of the circular issued by the Government on 17.12.1994 clarified by paragraph (2), the grievance of the petitioner cannot be said to survive. Interim order staying declaration of results discharged.
Law Points
- reservation exceeding 50% for reserved categories violates Article 16
- horizontal reservation permissible
- candidates selected under horizontal reservation adjusted in their own vertical category
- amendment of government circular can cure earlier unconstitutional reservation policy
