Impugned Government order not violating Article 15(1).

K.Govindarajan, J.

1. The petitioner have filed the above writ petitions as Public Interest Litigation for the benefit of the students who have studied in higher secondary schools located in town panchayats.

2. In WP No.3229 of 1998 the petitioner has challenged the order in G.O.Ms.No.600 Health & Family Welfare (MCA) Department dated 12. 1997. The same writ petitioner has filed another Writ Petition in W.P.No.3230 of 1998 challenging another order issued in G.O.Ms.No.261 Department of Higher Education, dated 15. 1997 under which the Government directed that 15% of total seats be reserved to rural students who have studied both plus one and plus two in higher secondary schools located in village panchayats for a total period of two years and subject to the usual reservation laid down in the Government Order dated 5. 1995.

3. The petitioners in WP No.4330 of 1998 have challenged the abovesaid two Government Orders and they are seeking a direction to the respondents to include students studying in higher secondary schools in major panchayats also to avoid 15% reservation quota for being selected to the notified Professional Courses, within the meaning of rural students so as to render social justice to the rural public.

4. Mr.V.K. Muthusamy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner in WP Nos.3229 and 3230 of 1998 has submitted that the said Government Orders, as it is, cannot be sustained on the basis of the following grounds:- (1) The Government Orders do not define the ‘rural students’ and ‘urban students’ (2) The students studied in schools located at town panchayats cannot be treated differently as they are also hailing from rural areas. According to him equals cannot be treated as unequals; (3) While the report of the High Level Committee speaks only about the rural students and when the Government accepts the recommendation of the Committee in entirety, the Government should not be allowed to restrict the benefits only to a class of persons, viz., the students who are studying in higher secondary schools located at village panchayats;

(4) There is no specific exclusion of the students studying in higher secondary schools located in town panchayats, in the said Government Orders.

5. Mr. Alagiriswamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP No.4330 of 1998 has submitted that the benefits have to be extended to all rural students on the basis of their domicile and not on the basis of the place of study. According to him even the rural students for want of schools in the village panchayats are compelled to go to schools located in urban areas.

6. In reply to these submissions, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has submitted that the said Government Orders came to be passed to give benefit to students studying in the schools located in village panchayats. The said reservation is extended to them exercising powers under Article 15(5) of the Constitution of India. It is the policy decision of the Government and the petitioners cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court challenging the same under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. So the petitioners cannot allege any discrimination so as to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the students studying in higher secondary schools located in village panchayats themselves form one category and the students who are studying in town panchayats form a separate category, and so both of them cannot be equated. According to the Special Government Pleader, nobody can demand to give the benefits under Article 15(4) of the Constitution as a matter of right and the Government is entitled to make such reservation on valid basis and so the petitioners cannot seek modification of the Government Orders by extending the benefits either to the students who are studying in higher secondary schools located in town panchayats or to all rural students in common.

7. Both the learned senior c