Case Note & Summary
The appeals by the State of Andhra Pradesh arose from a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a batch of writ petitions challenging the rules for admission to the Integrated M.B.B.S. Course in Government Medical Colleges in the Andhra area. The State had issued G.O. No. 1648/Health dated July 23, 1970 prescribing an entrance test for selection and reserving 40% of seats for candidates who had passed the Higher Secondary Course (Multipurpose) as against those who had passed the Pre-University Course. Subsequently, by G.O. No. 1793/Education dated September 23, 1970, the State reserved 25% of seats for candidates belonging to various Backward Classes enumerated by the Andhra Pradesh Backward Classes Commission. The respondents, who were unsuccessful candidates in the entrance examination, filed writ petitions challenging these reservations. The High Court allowed the writ petitions, holding that Rule 9 providing for 40% reservation for H.S.C. candidates was arbitrary and violative of Article 14, and that the Backward Classes reservation was violative of Article 15(1) read with Article 29 and not saved by Article 15(4). The State appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined two main issues: first, the validity of the 40% reservation for H.S.C. (Multipurpose) candidates under Rule 9; and second, the validity of the 25% reservation for Backward Classes under G.O. No. 1793/1970. On the first issue, the Court held that although the State may prescribe the source from which candidates are eligible, once a common entrance test has been prescribed for all candidates, a further reservation of 40% for H.S.C. candidates creates an invalid classification. The classification between P.U.C. and H.S.C. candidates had no reasonable relation to the object of selecting the best candidates for medical admissions. Therefore, Rule 9 was arbitrary and violative of Article 14. The High Court was right in striking it down. On the second issue, the Court examined the report of the Backward Classes Commission and the list of Backward Classes. It held that though the list appeared to be based on caste, a closer examination showed it was a description of groups following particular occupations or professions. Even assuming it was based exclusively on caste, the Commission had sufficient material to conclude that the entire caste was socially and educationally backward, and inclusion of such caste was warranted by Article 15(4). The Commission's personal visits to assess living conditions were permissible and did not vitiate the report. The criticism that the Commission divided classes into more backward and less backward was not well founded; the Commission recommended distribution of seats in proportion to population, which was not such a division. The total reservation of 43% (25% Backward Classes, 4% Scheduled Tribes, 14% Scheduled Castes) was within the 50% limit set in M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore. The Court also observed that if a class included in the list reaches a stage of progress where no further protection is necessary, the State should review and revise the list. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's finding on Backward Classes reservation and upheld the validity of the list and the 25% reservation under Article 15(4), while affirming the High Court's decision on Rule 9. The appeals were thus allowed in part, with the State directed to make admissions without the invalid H.S.C. quota but with the valid Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes reservations.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Equality and Non-Discrimination - Reservation in Admissions - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 14 - Once a common entrance test is prescribed for all candidates, classification between Pre-University Course and Higher Secondary Course (Multipurpose) candidates for reservation of 40% seats is arbitrary and has no reasonable relation to the object of selecting the best candidates for medical admission - High Court rightly struck down Rule 9 of G.O. No. 1648/1970 as violative of Article 14. Held that such reservation is unconstitutional. B) Constitutional Law - Reservation for Backward Classes - Article 15(4) - The list of Backward Classes, though based on caste, was valid because the Commission found each caste socially and educationally backward; inclusion of entire caste is permissible as it satisfies the tests laid down by the Supreme Court - Personal visits by Commission members to assess living conditions and surroundings are acceptable and do not vitiate the report - The Commission did not divide backward classes into more and less backward; it recommended distribution of seats in proportion to population - Held reservation of 25% seats for Backward Classes is valid and saved by Article 15(4). C) Constitutional Law - Limits on Reservation - Article 15(4) - Total reservation of 43% (25% Backward Classes, 4% Scheduled Tribes, 14% Scheduled Castes) was within the 50% limit set in M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore - State should review the list if any class ceases to be backward and reaches a stage of progress where no further protection is necessary - Held that quantum of reservation is permissible.
Issue of Consideration
Whether reservation of 40% seats for candidates who passed Higher Secondary Course (Multipurpose) under Rule 9 of G.O. No. 1648/Health dated July 23, 1970 violated Article 14 of the Constitution; Whether reservation of 25% seats for Backward Classes enumerated by Andhra Pradesh Backward Classes Commission under G.O. No. 1793/Education dated September 23, 1970 violated Article 15(1) read with Article 29 and was not saved by Article 15(4)
Final Decision
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals: it upheld the High Court's striking down of Rule 9 reserving 40% seats for HSC candidates as violative of Article 14, but reversed the High Court's decision on Backward Classes reservation, holding that the list and 25% reservation were valid and saved by Article 15(4). The State was directed to make admissions without the invalid HSC quota but with the valid reservations for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Backward Classes.
Law Points
- State can prescribe source of candidates for admission
- once a common entrance test is prescribed
- classification between PUC and HSC candidates for reservation is arbitrary and has no reasonable relation to selecting best candidates
- reservation based on caste can be valid if the entire caste is socially and educationally backward
- saved by Article 15(4)
- personal visits by backward classes commission to assess living conditions are permissible
- commission did not divide backward classes into more and less backward
- but recommended distribution of seats in proportion to population
- total reservation of 43% for backward classes
- scheduled tribes and scheduled castes is within permissible limit
- State should review list if any class ceases to be backward
