SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(SC) 1697

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.
Dega Venkata Harsha Vardhan – Appellant
Versus
Akula Ventaka Harshavardhan – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 8529 of 2018
Decided On : 24-08-2018

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Vikas Singh, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Mrityunjai Singh, P. Venkat Reddy, Prashant Tyagi, A. Ramesh, Ms. Aruna Gupta, V. Ramchander Goud, Dharmesh D.K. Jaiswal, Syed Ahmad Naqvi, Gahni Krishna, Basava Prabhbu Patil, Guntur Prabhakar, Ms. Prerna Singh, M.N. Rao, Y. Raja Gopala Rao, Taddi Nageswara Rao, Ms. Y. Vismai Rao, K. Sharat Kumar, Ms. M. Yeshasvi, Gaurav Pachnanda, A. Satya Prasad, D. Mahesh Babu, T.V. Bhaskar Reddy.
For the Respondents: K.V. Viswanathan, B. Adinarayana Rao, Mullapudi Rambabu, N. Eswara Rao, Ms. Vijayshree Pattnaik.

The impugned Government Order, which provided for adjustment and interchange of seats between meritorious reserved category candidates selected under the open category and the reserved category candidates selected under the reserved quota, was valid and could be implemented without any deviation consequential to the introduction of the online counseling system.

Headnote:

Reservation - Government Order - 5(ii) of G.O. Rt. No. 550 of 2001 - Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution of India - Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India, 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217 - Tripurari Sharan and Another vs. Ranjit Kumar Yadav and Others, (2018) 2 SCC 656 - Ritesh R. Sah vs. Dr. Y.L. Yamul and Others, (1996) 3 SCC 253 - Union of India vs. Ramesh Ram and Others, (2010) 7 SCC 234 - Samta Aandolan Samiti and Another vs. Union of India, (2014) 14 SCC 745 - Koganti Jayakrishna and Another vs. State of A.P. and Another, 2002 (4) ALD 389 - Equality before the law and equal protection of the laws - Elimination of inequalities of status - Positive measures to eliminate inequality - Reservation to eliminate inequality between classes and/or castes - Meritorious Reserved Candidates - Treatment as open and/or general candidates - Maximum percentage of reservation not to exceed 50% - Online counseling system - Deviation from the percentage of seats fixed for the respective categories

Fact of the Case:

The appeals were preferred against the judgment setting aside a Government Order (G.O. Rt. No. 550 of 2001) to the extent it permitted the filling up by reserved category candidates of open and/or general category seats in institutions offering Medical and/or Dental Courses, which became vacant when meritorious reserved category candidates opted for other disciplines or institutions where they could only have secured admission as reserved candidates.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court's judgment and order were set aside as the impugned Government Order could not be implemented without minor deviation consequential to the introduction of the online counseling system. The court allowed the appeals and held that the recent introduction of the online system could not have been a ground for setting aside the impugned notification, and the admission made that year should not be disturbed.

Issues: The main issue was whether the impugned Government Order, which provided for adjustment and interchange of seats between meritorious reserved category candidates selected under the open category and the reserved category candidates selected under the reserved quota, was valid and could be implemented without any deviation consequential to the introduction of the online counseling system.

Ratio Decidendi: The impugned Government Order only provided for adjustment and interchange of seats between meritorious reserved category candidates selected under the open category and the reserved category candidates selected under the reserved quota. The recent introduction of the online system could not have been a ground for setting aside the impugned notification, and the admission made that year should not be disturbed.

Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the judgment and order of the High Court under appeal were set aside. No order as to costs.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. The appeals have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 07.08.2018, passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, setting aside a Government Order being G.O. Rt. No. 550 Higher Education (EC2) Department dated 30.07.2001 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned Government Order’) to the extent the same permitted the filling up by reserved category candidates, of open and/or general category seats in institutions offering inter alia Medical and/or Dental Courses, which became vacant when meritorious reserved category candidates who had ranked well enough to secure those seats as general candidates, opted for other disciplines or institutions where they could only have secured admission as reserved candidates.

3. The relevant portion of the impugned G.O. Rt. No. 550 of 2001 is set out herein-below:

    “5. After careful consideration and due examination of the issue relating to implementation of reservation of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Backward Classes in engineering and other Professional Courses the following instructions are hereby issued:-

    (i) In the counseling process, the seats to be filled by open competition should be filled up first, wherein the candidates should be called for counseling based on merit alone irrespective of whether they belong to SC, ST or BC in accordance with the instructions issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 996, Employment and Social Welfare, dated 11th November, 1975.

    (ii) Next, reservation categories like SC/ST/BC candidates will be counseled to fill the seats earmarked for them in their respective categories. During this process, if a candidate belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Backward Classes, who had taken admission under open competition, opts for a better branch or a better college of his choice for which he or she would be eligible as per the rules of reservation, the seats vacated by him or her in open competition shall be filled with a candidate from the same reservation category only, in order or merit.”

4. The Constitution of India envisages equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. The concept of equality inter alia under Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution of India contemplates elimination of inequalities of status. As held by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India, 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217, though equal protection clause prohibits the State from making unreasonable discrimination in providing preference and facilities for any section of its people, nonetheless it requires the State to afford substantially equal opportunities to those placed unequally.

5. Equality contemplated by Article 14 and related Articles, particularly Article 15(1), is secured not only when equals are treated equally but also when un-equals are treated unequally. Equal treatment of un-equals breaches equality. To bring about equality, it is necessary to adopt positive measures to eliminate inequality.

6. The basic object of the policy of reservation is to eliminate inequality between classes and/or castes. Reservation in favour of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Backward Classes provides opportunity to those socially disadvantaged classes to come into the main stream through education, public appointments etc, by eliminating stiff competition from the socially strong. A comprehensive methodological approach to reservation is necessary.

Often, in competitive examinations held for the purpose of selection for admission to educational institutions or may be appointments, some candidates belonging to reserved categories, rank high on their own merit. Depending on their performance in the common entrance test such candidates are often placed in the general merit list. Such class of candidates belonging to

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top