SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
28th September 1962
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K N. WANCHOO, K.C. DAS GUPTA AND J.C. SHAH, JJ.
M. R. Balaji and others, Petitioners
Versus
The State of Mysore and others, Respondents.
1. The Mysore State Chathada Sri Vaishnava Association. 2. Mysore Arya Vysya Mahasabha Bangalore, Interveners.
Writ Petns. Nos. 90 to 112 of 1962.
Advocates appeared
M/s S.K. Venkataranga Iyengar and R. Gopalakrishnan, Advocates, for Petitioners; Mr. G. R. Ethirajulu Naidu, Advocate-General for the State of Mysore (M/s B. R. L. Iyengar D. M. Chandrasekhar and P. D. Menon, Advocates, with him), for Respondent No. 1; Mr. R. Gopalakrishnan, Advocate, for Interveners. 653
-held, commission had to make recommendations as to steps necessary to be taken by the Union and State Governments ‘inter alia’ to improve the conditions of Backward Classes. It implies that the recommendations would be implemented at the discretion of the Union and State Governments and not of the President. Thus the Article itself shows that action has to be taken by the Union and States in pursuance of the recommendations made, and the contention that the President alone has to act in this matter cannot be accepted.
Judgment
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. : Since 1958 the State of Mysore has been endeavouring to make a special provision for the advancement of its socially and educationally backward classes of citizens under Article 15(4) of the Constitution, and every time when an order is passed in that behalf, its validity has been challenged by writ proceedings. Four previous orders passed in that behalf were challenged by writ proceedings taken against the State under Art. 226 in the High Court of Mysore. The present petitions filed by the respective petitioners under Art. 32 dispute the validity of the last order passed by the State of Mysore on July 31, 1962, under Art. 15(4).
2. Out of the twenty-three petitioners, six had applied for admission to the Pre-professional Class in Medicine in the Medical Colleges affiliated either to the Mysore University or to the Karnatak University, and seventeen had applied for admission to the First Year of the 5-Year integrated course leading to the Degree of B. E. in the University of Mysore. According to the petitioners, but for the reservation made by the impugned order, they would have been entitled to the admission in the respective colleges for which they had applied. As a result of the reservation made by the said order, students who have secured less percentage of marks have been admitted, but not the petitioners. That, in brief, is the petitioners grievance and they urge that the impugned order which has denied them the facility of admission in the respective colleges is void under Art. 15(1) and 29(2) and should not be enforced against them. Accordingly, the petitioners pray that a writ of mandamus and/or any suitable writ or direction should be issued against respondent No.1, the State of Mysore (hereinafter called the state), and the two Selection Committees which have been impleaded as respondents 2 and 3. The petitioners case is that the impugned order which has been passed under Art. 15(4) is not valid because the basis adopted by the order in specifying and enumerating the socially and educationally backward classes of citizens in the State is unintelligible and irrational, and the classification made on the said basis is inconsistent with and outside the provisions of Article 15(4). It is also urged by them that the extent of reservation prescribed by the said order is so unreasonable and extravagant that the order, in law, is not justified by Art. 15(4), in substance, is a fraud on the power conferred by the said Article on the State.
3. These allegations are denied by the State and it is urged on its behalf that the classification made is both rational and intelligible and the reservation prescribed by the order is fully justified by Art. 15(4). The contention that the order is a colourable exercise of the State s power and amounts to a fraud on the Constitution is disputed.
4. As we have just indicated, the impugned order was preceded by four other orders and so, it is necessary to refer to the said orders in their sequence to understand the background of the dispute between the parties. On July 26, 1958, the State issued an order that all the communities, excepting the Brahmin community, fell within the definition of educationally and socially Backward Classes and Scheduled Castes and Tribes, and provided for the said communities and tribes reservation of 75 of seats in educational institutions. For the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, the percentage of reservation was 15 and 3 respectively. This percentage for the Scheduled Castes and Tribes has been maintained in all the subsequent orders. The order issued by the State on the 26th July, 1958, was challenged before the Mysore High Court and it appears that the State conceded before the High Court that there was a drafting error in the Government Order and so, it did not press its case that the said order was valid. In the result, the writ petitions filed to challenge the validity of the order succeeded and the impugned order w
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.