2000 Supreme(SC) 210

2000(2) Supreme 372
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(Under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India)
Dr. A.S. Anand, CJI., M. Jagannadha Rao & V.N. Khare, JJ.
Parents Association & Anr. -Petitioners
versus
Union of India & Ors. -Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 418 of 1996
Decided on 28-1-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : K. Sukumaran, S.B. Sanyal, P.P. Malhotra, M.C. Bhandare, Dushyant Dave, R.K. Jain, Soli J. Sorabjee, A.K. Srivastava, Tapas Ray, Sr. Advocates, Ms. Sangeeta Kumar, Ashwani Garg, S.C. Ghosh, Ranjan Mukherjee, Satish Vig, S. Wasim A. Quadri, P. Parmeshwaran, Ms. C.K. Sucharita, D.S. Mehra, Vijay Kumar, Ms. Sushma Suri, Ms. Shyamali Ganguli, S.K. Das, B.K. Ghosh, Balai Roy, M.S. Ganesh, Advocates.

Headnote:Education-Reservation of seats for higher education-Andaman and Nicobar Islands-Government fixing quota of 20 seats to local Tribals, 10 to deputationists and Government employees, 50 to pre and post 1942 settlers and 20 to locals with 10 years educational qualification in lsland-Earlier locals with 10 years educational qualification in Island had 35 quota-Their challenge to present change on ground of violation of Article 14 and 15(4) of Constitution-Plea that reduction of quota to them from 35 to 20 and 50 reservation to pre and post 1942 settlers unjustified-Plea untenable-1942 settlers suffered torture during Japanese occupation in 1942-43-Post 1942 settlers were brought to Island under specific schemes of rehabilitation-Reservation of 50 seats in their favour amply justified-Petitioner s category are affluent and more advanced educationally and socially -Reduction of quota for them from 35 to 20 perfectly justified-Non-fixation of specific quota for merit candidate, on facts, cannot be found fault with.

       Held : The pre-1942 settlers and the post 1942 settlers who were settled in the Islands belong to a separate category and have to be considered as backward, socially and educationally, next only in degree to the Tribals. These categories were compulsorily inducted in the Island and struggled hard over several decades to make the Islands habitable. They had no educational opportunities over a long period and were forced to do hard labour for laying roads, constructing buildings, removing forests etc. These included penal settlers, sepoys of 1857 movement, later freedom fighters etc. They were not allowed to go to the mainland. The 1942 settlers suffered torture during the Japanese occupation in 1942-43. The post 1942 settlers were brought to the Island under specific schemes of rehabilitation etc. These two categories, by no stretch of imagination, can be equated with the petitioner s category which consists of those who voluntarily migrated to the island for business or other careers. These persons were definitely more advanced socially and educationally. In fact, it is the respondent s contention that some of them show their home-town in the mainland and their children, once they get into the reservation quota, do not come back to the island for settling there. In view of the historical background there was ample justification for the Central Government, in their orders dated 30.5.96, to restore the 50 quota for the pre and post 1942 settlers and in not reducing the same to 17.50 plus 17.50 as done by the Lt. Governor in his order dated 6.8.94. (Paras 23 and 24)

       The argument that according to the survey, more than 50 of the students belong to the 10 year educated category and that therefore the fixation of a quota of 20 to the petitioners as against a student population over 50 was bad, cannot be accepted. Reservations are not to be made on the basis of population of a particular category. Reservation for education is to be made under Article 15(4) keeping in view the social and educational backwardness and the need to provide adequate educational opportunities. Merely because, the ten year education category like the petitioners are more in number, they cannot claim a larger percentage of reservation on that basis. Even if the petitioner s category of 10 year educated persons consist of 57 of the student population, it is not possible to give them a higher quota as compared to the pre-1942 and post 1942 settlers who were identified as backward, both socially and economically. (Paras 25, 26 & 27)

       The impugned order does not suffer from any irrationality. It cannot be said that any relevant facts were not considered or any irrelevant facts were taken into consideration. The reduction of the quota for the petitioners from 35 to 20 was perfectly justified. The prescription of 50 for the pre and post 1942 settlers was equally justified. There was no violation of Articles 14 or Article 15(4) or any other provision of the Constitution. (Para 28)

       It is true that normally it is expected that reserved categories cannot exceed 50 of the quota as decided in various decisions of this Court and the rest must go to merit candidates. But on the peculiar facts of the case relating to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, the present classification and quota cannot be said to be offending the said principle. The impugned order dated 30.5.96 refers to the statistics from 1992-93 and shows that though 20 quota was reserved for the Tribals, the said quota was never fully utilised. Therefore, it was specifically provided that the unutilised quota of the 20 for tribals would go to merit candidates. A provision was made in respect of the merit candidates amongst the pre-1942 and post 1942 categories by providing a sub-classification in which 1/3 of 50 would go to such merit candidates and unutilised quota was to go to the general merit candidates. Even in respect of the 10 quota for Central Government employees and deputationists and the 20 quota for the Ten year education group, it was directed that the unutilised quota would go to the merit candidates. Having regard to rather special facts obtaining in the Islands, we are of the view that it cannot be said that adequate provision has not been made in favour of merit candidates. (Para 30)