Such classification not proved as tainted with malafide.

N.K. Jain, A.C.J.

1. All these appeals involve the same question of fact and law. As agreed, they are being heard together.

2. In the Writ Appeal No: 1082 of 1992 a Division Bench of this Court considered the question of the implication of reservation of certain seats for children of inter-caste marriages with preference to children born to spouses to whom one is a member of a Schedule Caste or a Schedule Tribe.

3. While considering the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Hari Ganeshs case, AIR 1987 Mad. 55, the Division Bench thought that another view also would be possible taking into view the following points:

I. When a child born of a forward and the schedule caste spouse ordinarily will take the interior caste (See Maines Hindu Law) and thus shall be entitled to the reservation for the class under which the Schedule Caste belongs. Will then the reservation of seat for the reason of such a child born to a spouse of whom one or the other member is a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe not mean a further reservation besides the reservation based on caste and thus violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

II. Can there be any preference for one inter-caste over other for such preference will not be possible without referring to the caste of one or the other spouse for which the reservation benefit is already in existence.

III. in. Is reservation for children born to intercaste marriages a reasonable classification and not a class legislation forbidden by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

4. In other writ appeals are being preferred against the orders of the learned single Judges of this Court, who have decided the case following the decision reported in Hari Ganeshs case, 1987 Mad. 55.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that pending decision, though the period of academic year had come to an end in respective cases, and the writ petitions/appeals have become infructuous, it is necessary to decide the issue to get an

authoritative opinion, as in every year the same controversy arises for consideration. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellants got admission on merits and the course was also completed. Their grievance is that every year the Government of Tamil Nadu select candidates only from the first category and is not considering the candidates from categories B and C’ which according to them is discriminatory.

6. On the other hand the learned Government Pleader submitted that the issue on hand had already been settled in the decision reported in Hari Ganeshs case, AIR 1987 Mad. 55. It is submitted that since a Division Bench opined that some other view is also possible, for an authoritative pronouncement by this Court, the matters are placed. More over, every year the same controversy had crept in. Therefore, it will be proper to decide the controversy.

7. Necessary facts for the disposal of this reference and these appeals, are as follows:

The Government of Tamil Nadu issued prospects of department of medical education for admission to professional courses - M.B.B.S. for 1997-98 session. In that they have provided clause 5. (viii) in which seats reserved for children born of intercaste marriage had been mentioned. For the purpose of the deciding the issue, the same is extracted below:

"3.5 (viii) Seats reserved for children born of inter-caste marriage. Number of seats reserved in M.B.B.S.: 12

Candidates claiming admission against the reservation for the children born of intercaste marriage should submit a certificate from the Tahsildar of the respective area regarding the castes of the parents vide G.O.Ms.No: 477, Social Welfare Department, dated 26. 1975. The following order of preference shall be followed for selection of candidates from this category.

.(a) The children born of inter-caste marriage between SC/ST and For-ward community.

.(b) The children born of inter-caste marriage between SC/ST and back-ward community.

.(c) The children bo