2001 Supreme(SC) 130

2001(1) Supreme 434
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madras High Court)
Dr. A.S. Anand, CJI., R.C. Lahoti & Doraiswamy Raju, JJ.
K. Duraisamy & Anr., etc. etc. -Appellants
versus
The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 5760-5761 of 1999
With
C.A. Nos. 5910, 6995-6996 of 1999
And
W.P. (C) No. 562 of 1999)
Decided on 23-1-2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : K.V. Vishwanathan, Atul Kumar Sinha and K.V. Venkataraman, Advocates.
For the Respondents : M.A. Krishnamoorthy, Advocate.

Headnote:Medical Education-Admission to Super Speciality Courses-Reservation of 50 in favour of in-service candidates on merit basis-Cannot be equated or treated on par with communal reservations envisaged under Article 15(4) or 16(4)-It is mere allocation of seats-Open quota seats for private candidates cannot be claimed by candidates falling under category of in-service candidate-No infirmity in scheme fixing quota for in-service and private candidates.

       That the Government possess the right and authority to decide from what sources the admissions in Educational Institutions or to particular disciplines and courses therein have to be made and that too in what proportion, is well established and by now a proposition well settled, too. It has been the consistent and authoritatively settled view of this Court that at the super speciality level in particular and even at the Post-Graduate level reservations of the kind known as "protective discrimination" in favour of those considered to be backward should be avoided as being not permissible. Reservation, even if it be claimed to be so in this case, for and in favour of in-service candidates, cannot be equated or treated on par with communal reservations envisaged under Articles 15(4) or 16(4) and extended tie special mechanics of their implementation to ensure such reservations to be the minimum by not counting those selected in open competition on the basis of their own merit as against the quota reserved on communal considerations. (Para 8)

       Properly speaking, in these cases, we are concerned with the allocation of seats for admission in the form of a quota amongst in-service candidates on the one hand and non-service or private candidates on the other and the method or manner of working out in practice the allocation of seats among the members of the respective category. Could the State Government have legitimately made a provision allocating 50 of seats exclusively in favour of in-service candidates and keep open the avenue for competition for them in respect of the remaining 50 along with others denying a fair contest in relation to a substantial or sizeable number of other candidates, who are not in service and who fall under the category of non-service candidates, will itself be open to serious doubt. (Para 9)

       The learned Single Judge, in our view, was certainly not right in equating the provisions made for allocation of seats in the form of fixation of quota in this case with the usual form of communal reservations and allowing himself to be carried away by the peculiar method of working out such reservations in order to ensure adequate representation to such candidates, and applying those principles to construe a provision of the nature involved in these cases. Yet another error in the reasoning of the learned Single Judge lies in his assumption that "open quota" seats have to be thrown open to all and are meant only to be filled up purely on the basis of merit performance and no one from even the class of candidates in whose favour a special quota has already been provided can be excluded from consideration as against the "open quota". This reasoning of the learned Single Judge not only ignores the object and scheme underlying the allocation of seats for admissions for the academic year 1999-2000, but has the consequence of rewriting the Prospectus and introducing altogether a different pattern of admissions, overriding the policy of the Government aimed at meeting out equal justice and affording equality of opportunity to the different categories classified for the purpose. If the Government can be said to possess the power to fix a quota for the exclusive benefit of "in-service candidates, it is beyond comprehension or dictates of either reason or logic as to why the Government cannot equally exclusively earmark the remaining seats in favour of "non-service" or private candidates, thereby confining the claims of service candidates to the number of seats earmarked and allocated to them. As there can be a classified category of service candidates , it is open to the Government to make classification of all those other than those falling in the category of service candidates, as non-service candidates and allocate the remaining seats after allotment to the service candidates for exclusive benefit of the source of non-service or private candidates. There is nothing in law which deprive the Government of any such powers and no such impediment has either been brought to our notice at the time of hearing or seems to have been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge to warrant any such construction, as has been adopted by him. We are also of the view that it does not lie in the mouth of the writ petitioners to raise a bogey of selection based on merit alone, only in respect of a portion of the seats available for admission to non-service candidates, when they belong to and are part of a category or class who have got in their favour fifty percent of the number of seats in each of the disciplines allocated to their category of "in-service" candidates to be filled up exclusively from such "in-service" candidates on the basis of their own inter se merit and not on the overall merit performance of all the candidates-both in-service and non-service put together. The writ petitioners are found to have applied as in-service candidates and merely because they could not be selected within the number of seats earmarked for their category or class on the basis of the inter se merits among their own class, they cannot be allowed to contend to the contrary in retrospect and on hind sight experience of having obtained more marks, than those who got selected as against the seats earmarked and allocated to non-service candidates. The justification, both in law and on facts for exclusive allocation and stipulation of a definite quota or number of seats for non-service or private candidates, in our view, lies in the very principle which warranted or enabled the fixation of a quota of fifty percent of seats and exclusively allotted to in-service candidates. Any countenance of such claims of the appellants is likely to also endanger the very allocation of 50 of the seats exclusively to the category of in-service candidates, too. (Para 10)

       State Government, in the undoubted exercise of its power, has rightly decided, as a matter of policy, so far as the admissions to super speciality and Post Graduate Diploma/Degree/MDS courses for the academic session 1999-2000 are concerned to have scheme or pattern of two sources of candidates based upon a broad classification into two categories, i.e., in-service candidates and non-service or private candidates with each one of them allocated exclusively for their own respective category of candidates fifty percent of the seats, the ultimate selection for admission depending upon the inter se merit performance amongst their own category of candidates. As pointed out by the Full Bench, the change in the nomenclature of the categorisation from "open competition" in 1998-1999, to "open quota" in 1999-2000 and the conspicuous omission in the scheme and the Prospectus for 1999-2000 of a specific stipulation like the one contained in clause X (5) in the Prospectus for 1998-1999 that the 50 of the seats available for open competition shall be made available for selection and admission of both service and non-service candidates, as also the stipulation contained in the Government Order and the Prospectus for 1999-2000 under the caption criteria for selection under 50 open quota , which specifically reads that all other eligible Medical Officers except those specified in clause (iii)(d) above (meaning thereby Medical Officers who will be treated as service candidates and allowed to apply as such) are eligible to apply under 50 of the open quota, supports the stand of the State Government and the Selection Committee and justify the selections for admission already made by them. The further stipulation that the reservation will be confined to and kept at 50 in favour of in-service candidates on merit basis, coupled with the other provisions noticed above make it abundantly clear that the selection of in-service candidates is confined to and has to be kept at 50 only of the total seats and not against any of the other seats, exclusively earmarked for the non-service or private candidates. (Para 11)

       The mere use of the word reservation per se does not have the consequence of ipso facto applying the entire mechanism underlying the constitutional concept of a protective reservation specially designed for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to enable them to enter and adequately represented in various fields. The meaning, content and purport of that expression will necessarily depend upon the purpose and object with which it is used. Since reservation has diverse natures and may be brought about in diverse ways with varied purposes and manifold objects, the peculiar principles of interpretation laid down by the Courts for implementing reservations envisaged under the Constitution in order to ensure adequate and effective representation to the backward classes as a whole cannot be readily applied, out of context and unmindful of the purpose of reservations as the one made in this case, more to safeguard the interest of candidates, who were already in service to enable such in-service candidates to acquire higher and advanced education in specialised fields to improve their professional talents for the benefit of the patients to be treated in such Medical Institutions where the in-service candidates are expected to serve. That apart, where the Scheme envisaged is not by way of a mere reservation but is one of classification of the sources from which admissions have to be accorded, fixation of respective quota for such classified groups, the principles at times applied in construing provisions relating to reservation simpliciter will have no relevance or application. Though the prescription of a quota may involve in a general sense reservation in favour of the particular class or category in whose favour a quota is fixed, the concepts of reservation and fixation of quota drastically differ in their purport and content as well as the object. Fixation of a quota in a given case cannot be said to be the same as a mere reservation and whenever a quota is fixed or provided for one or more of the classified group or category, the candidates falling in or answering the description of different classified groups in whose favour a respective quota is fixed have to confine their respective claims against the quota fixed for each of such category, with no one in one category having any right to stake a claim against the quota earmarked for the other class or category. Since we are of the view that the Full Bench has correctly come to the conclusion that the scheme adopted for selection of candidates for admissions in question provided for a definite and fixed quota for the respective classified sources of admission and the reasons assigned therefor do not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever to call for any interference at our hands, these appeals fail and are dismissed. (Para 12)