1979 Supreme(Pat) 207
PATNA HIGH COURT
Nagendra Prasad Singh and P.S.Sahay JJ.
Kahkashan Parveen Shahabuddin
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2015 of 1979 ;
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 7, 1979
A reservation policy that lacks a rational basis and infringes the fundamental right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution is arbitrary and ultra vires.
Headnote:
RESERVATION OF SEATS IN MEDICAL COLLEGES - ARBITRARY AND ULTRA VIRES - RESERVATION FOR PERSONS WHO HAD BEEN TAKEN IN CUSTODY OR INJURED DURING AGITATION - NO RATIONAL BASIS - INFRINGES FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF OTHER CANDIDATES.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a meritorious student, challenged the State Government's decision to reserve five seats in each of the four Medical Colleges for students who had been taken in custody or injured during an agitation between March 1974 and March 1977. The petitioner argued that the decision was arbitrary and ultra vires, as it violated the fundamental right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the State Government's decision was arbitrary and ultra vires, as it lacked a rational basis and infringed the fundamental right of the petitioner. The court noted that the State Government had not provided any details about the agitation in question, and that there was no nexus between the agitation and the reservation of seats for the affected students.
Issues: 1. Whether the State Government's decision to reserve seats in medical colleges for students who had been taken in custody or injured during an agitation was arbitrary and ultra vires. 2. Whether the reservation violated the fundamental right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the State Government's decision was arbitrary and ultra vires because: * It lacked a rational basis. The State Government had not provided any details about the agitation in question, and there was no nexus between the agitation and the reservation of seats for the affected students. * It infringed the fundamental right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. The reservation discriminated against meritorious students who had not been involved in the agitation.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the State Government's decision to reserve seats in medical colleges for students who had been taken in custody or injured during an agitation. The court directed the State Government to fill up the reserved seats in accordance with law.
NAGENDRA PRASAD SINGH, J.
1. The petitioner in this writ application has questioned the validity of a direction issued by the State Government in the Department of Health that five seats in each of the four Medical Colleges at Patna, Darbhanga, Ranchi and Jamshedpur should be reserved for admission of students who had been taken in custody or had been injured during the agitation (Andolan) between the period March, 1974 to March, 1977. According to the petitioner, the said decision of the State Government is arbitrary and ultra vires.
2. The petitioner after having passed the Intermediate in Science appeared at a competitive examination held on 16-91978 known as Pre-Medical and Dental Test, 1978. She secured 73 marks out of 120. During the session commencing from 1978 there were total 670 seats in the different Government Medical Colleges of the State for which the said competitive test had been held. Out of these 670 seats, 20 per cent seats are reserved for girl candidates. Some of these seats are also reserved for members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other weaker Section of the society. After the 20 per cent seats were filled up by the girl candidates in accordance with merit, the petitioner was first on the waiting list amongst the girl candidates. A letter dated 8-12-1978 was issued by the State Government, Department of Personnel, saying that the State Government had taken a decision that for persons (Yuwak Yuvtiyan) who were taken in custody or were injured during the agitation (Andolan) between 18-3-1974 to March, 1977, five extra seats in every institution be created and they should be admitted against those seats. A copy of that communication is Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State. Thereafter, another communication, dated 26-2-1979 was issued by the Department of Health to the Principals of Medical Colleges at Patna, Darbhanga, Ranchi and Jamshedpur saying that the State Government has taken a decision to create five extra seats in the First Year of the aforesaid four Medical Colleges for such youth who had been taken in custody or were injured during the agitation between the period 18-3-1974 to March, 1977. A copy of this communication is Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State.
3. On behalf of the petitioner it was submitted that the 20 extra seats having been created by the State Government, they have to be filled up by candidates according to merit or from amongst the special category/class of candidates whose categorisation or classification has a rational basis. The question of admission in the Medical Colleges has been source of controversy from time to time in different States as well as in this State. The State Government taking into consideration the requirements of the society have been framing rules for admission to these colleges. Generally, by these rules some seats are reserved for special categories of students who require special treatment and protection. While doing so, it indirectly affects the merit test inasmuch as persons having better merit are deprived of the admission in these colleges. But, on many occasions, courts have upheld such an attempt keeping the larger interest of the society in view. While upholding such reservations, the courts have to be satisfied that the provisions concerned are reasonable and have a rational basis although they encroach the fundamental right of other candidates under Article 14 of the Constitution. Whenever such attempts are found to have travelled beyond the reasonable limits, courts are left with no option but to hold them as ultra vires.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned action and direction of the State Government regarding the mode of filling the newly created 20 seats not only in fringes the rights of the meritorious students but has neither any intelligible differentia, nor any nexus with the object to be achieved. It was urged on behal