Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 477
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
Justice v. Eswaraiah (Retd.) – Petitioner
VERSUS
Union of India & Ors. – Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 452 of 2019
Decided On : 25-02-2025
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Krishna Kumar Singh, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Adv. Mr. Madhav Sinhal, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, Adv. Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Adv. Mr. Shashank Bajpai, Adv. Mr. Anuj Udupa, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sravan Kumar Karanam, AOR Mr. Aniket Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhiram Bannur, Adv. Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Yadav, Adv. Mr. Y. Raja Gopala Rao, AOR Mr. Y. Ramesh, Adv. Mr. Dhuli Gopi Krishna, Adv. Mr. Akshay Singh, Adv. M/S. Venkat Palwai Law Associates, AOR
Meritorious reserved candidates must be treated as open category candidates for reservation purposes to prevent deprivation of reserved category seats.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 16(4), 32, and 226 - Public Interest Litigation - Challenge to Rule II of the Andhra Pradesh and Telangana Medical Colleges Admission Rules - The petitioner contends that the rules are unconstitutional and arbitrary, affecting reserved category admissions. (Paras 2, 3, 5, 15)
(B) Reservation Principles - The court reiterates that meritorious reserved candidates should be treated as open category candidates for reservation purposes, ensuring no deprivation of reserved category seats. (Paras 9, 10)
(C) Locus Standi - The court acknowledges the dilution of locus standi in public interest cases, allowing individuals to seek justice for disadvantaged classes. (Para 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, representing the All India Backward Classes Federation, challenges the legality of certain admission rules affecting reserved category candidates in medical courses, arguing for their rights to fair admission processes.
Findings of Court:
The court finds that the issues raised cannot be addressed in abstract and require specific grievances from individuals.
Issues: The main issues include the legality of the admission rules and the treatment of meritorious reserved candidates.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concludes that issues regarding admissions must be considered on a case-by-case basis, emphasizing the need for individual grievances to be presented.
Result: Writ petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. On an oral prayer, the learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner is discharged and the petitioner is permitted to argue the case himself.
2. This is a petition by All India Backward Classes Federation through its President who is a former Judge of the High Court in public interest inter-alia for a writ of mandamus seeking a declaration that Rule II (vii) and (viii) of the G.O.Ms No.43 dated 13th March 2013 issued by Respondent No.3 herein (State of Andhra Pradesh) and parimateria provisions in the relevant Rules issued by Respondent No.4 herein (State of Telangana) as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the principles laid down by this Court.
3. At the outset, Justice V. Eswaraiah (Former Judge), who is appearing in person, fairly states that in the prayer clause of the present Writ Petition Rule II (vii) has been erroneously mentioned and he states that as a matter of fact the challenge in effect is to clauses (viii) and (ix) of Rule II of the Andhra Pradesh Medical Colleges (Admission into Post Graduate Medical Courses) Rules, 1997 and the pari-materia provisions of the Telangana Medical Colleges (Admission into Post Graduate Medical Courses) Rules, 2017. He further fairly states that after the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh into the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, the State of Andhra Pradesh has amended the Rules to bring them in conformity with the judgments of this Court on the issue. He, however, submits that the State of Telangana is yet to amend the Rules to bring them in conformity with the law laid down by this Court in various judgments.
4. Shri Eswaraiah, who appears in-person states that the law insofar as the present issue is concerned has been laid down by this Court in the cases of Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul and Others, (1996) 3 SCC 253 : 1996 INSC 258 Samta Aandolan Samiti and Another v. Union of India and Others, (2014) 14 SCC 745 : 2013 INSC 822 and Tripurari Sharan and Another v. Ranjit Kumar Yadav and Others, (2018) 2 SCC 656 : 2018 INSC 25.
5. Placing reliance on the aforesaid judgments of this Court, it is submitted by the petitioner-in-person that the Meritorious Reserved Candidates (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MRC’), who are entitled to be admitted against a reserved seat on their own merits have to be treated as open category candidates for the purpose of reservation so that another reserved category candidate is not deprived of his claim to the admission. He submits that due to Rules which are continued by the State of Telangana, if a reserved category candidate, who is entitled to get admission in ‘A’ Category on his own merits, does not accept the same and decides to take admission in ‘B’ Category, where he is entitled to be admitted only against a reserved seat, even in such a case the seat in ‘A’ Category should be filled in by a reserved category candidate. He submits that if that is not done, there will be a reduction of the reserved category seats.
6. Shri Gaurav Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appears on behalf of the State of Telangana and Ms. Prerna Singh, learned counsel appears on behalf of the State of Andhra Pradesh.
7. We have heard the petitioner-in-person at length and also heard the learned Senior Counsel and counsel appearing for the respondent-States.
8. Insofar as the judgment of this Court in the cases of Ritesh R. Sah (supra) and Samta Aandolan Samiti (supra) relied upon by the petitioner-in-person are concerned, the same pertains to the admission in MBBS Course.
9. The law on this issue is very well crystallized by the Constitution Bench judgments of this Court right from the case of Indra Sawhney and Others v. Union of India and Others, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217. It will be relevant to refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of Indra Sawhney (supra):
“811. In this connection it is well to remember that the reservations under Article 16(4) do not operate like a communal reservation. It m
