Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. MURUGESAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JAICHANDREN
D. Rajasree, Rep. By her Father and Natural Guardian M. Dhinadhayalan
Versus
Government of Puducherry Rep. by the Secretary to Government for Education, Puducherry & Another
W.P.No.13254 of 2009 & M.P.No.1 of 2009
Decided on: 07-10-2009
(B) Constitution of India-Art.15, 162-Education-Medical College-Admission-Conditions-Imposition-Government is entitled to issue orders on the basis of its policy for admissions to various courses including the medical course and also vary it.
The Government is entitled to issue orders on the basis of its policy for admissions to various courses including the medical course. Such Government Orders are issued for each year as the Government may vary its policies depending upon the circumstances that may require for that particular year. Such a Government Order is the basis for the Centralised Admission Committee to issue the Brochure for admission. The power of the Government to evolve a policy which is not inconsistent with the guidelines framed by the Medical Council of India is well recognised in respect of sources of admission, eligibility criteria, number of seats required for admission, etc. Para 6
(C) Constitution of India-Art.15, 162-Education-Admission-Reservation-Scheduled caste-State may make special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.
Article 15(1) of the Constitution which directs that the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. However, the State is not prevented from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes under clause (4) of Article 15. Article 15(4) is designed to provide opportunities in education to raise the educational facility for those who are lagging behind. Para 15
(D) Constitution of India-Art.15, 16, 162-Education-Admission-Reservation-Scheduled caste-Migration-Nativity certificate-Any restriction for the admission of Scheduled caste candidate in educational institution beyond the scope of the policy decision of the Government is not valid-Preventing the Scheduled caste candidate from getting admission in educational institution of her native State on the ground of her absence from that State for some time violates her Constitutional Right guaranteed under the Presidential Order
When the policy is not in respect of any disqualification on the basis of residence, merely because a candidate is unable to produce a certificate, viz., Permanent Integrated Certificate, which would be only a procedural in nature, as it has been insisted only by way of instructions, such restriction is beyond the scope of the policy decision of the Government or in any case overrides the constitutional rights guaranteed under the Presidential Order.
Para 16
(E) Constitution of India-Art.15, 162-Education-Admission-Reservation-Scheduled caste-Constitutional right granted to Scheduled caste candidate by way of Presidential order cannot be taken away by way of executive instructions.
Article 15(4) only empowers the State to make any special provision for the advancement of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and the said clause does not empower the State to deprive any benefit given to the scheduled caste under the Constitution. Hence, we are of the opinion that the right conferred on a scheduled caste candidate by the Presidential Order cannot be taken away by an executive order, namely, by Clause 2.6 (d) of the Brochure. Para 17
D. Murugesan, J.
This writ petition raises an important question as to whether a scheduled caste candidate, who has the origin of Union Territory of Puducherry, would be disentitled to seek for admission to First Year M.B.B.S. Degree course in any one of the colleges run within the said Union Territory solely on the ground that her parents did not continuously reside in the Union Territory of Puducherry for not less than five years immediately preceding the date of application?
2. The petitioner, by name D. Rajasree, (hereinafter will be referred to as the candidate) is represented by her father. The candidate belongs to Adi Dravida community notified under the Presidential Order. Her father is a native of Kirumampakkampet, Puducherry. While he was working in the Public Works Department, Puducherry, he got selected as an Assistant Advisor (PHE) in the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India. By virtue of such selection, he had moved to New Delhi with the family to take up the new assignment. Therefore, admittedly, he and his family members did not reside in the Union Territory of Puducherry for a period of five years immediately preceding the date of application. The candidate was born in the Union Territory of Puducherry and hence, her origin is Puducherry. She studied upto VII standard in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Puducherry and thereafter, she was taken to New Delhi and she completed her Plus 2 course from Kendriya Vidyalaya, New Delhi. She had secured 87.4% of marks in the aggregate. On the ground that she was eligible to apply for a seat in M.B.B.S. Degree course reserved for scheduled caste candidates in the UT of Puducherry, she applied for such admission for the academic year 20092010. Though, on the basis of her cut-off mark she was entitled to get a seat, the same was denied on the ground that clause 2.6(d) of the Brochure for admission to professional courses in Puducherry for the year 2009-2010 stipulates a condition that children of natives of UT of Puducherry should have continuously resided for not less than five years immediately preceding the date of application. Hence, the petitioner represented by her father has approached this Court questioning the said clause 2.6 (d) of the Brochure and for a consequential direction to give admission for her in the M.B.B.S. Degree course for the academic year 2009-2010.
3. We have heard Mr. V. Ajayakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.N.Mala, learned Additional Government Pleader for Puducherry, for the respondents.
4. Mr. Ajayakumar, learned counsel would submit that though the petitioner had approached this Court questioning the very clause 2.6 (d) of the Brochure, the challenge is restricted only in respect of its applicability to the scheduled caste candidates in view of clause 5.0 of the very same Brochure. According to the learned counsel, a scheduled caste candidate cannot be equated to a caste once the Presidential Order is issued in terms of Article 341 of the Constitution conferring certain benefits which cannot be varied by executive orders. Though clause 2.6 (d) of the Brochure imposes a restriction to a candidate who did not reside in the UT of Puducherry for not less than five years immediately preceding the date of application, the said clause is not applicable in view of the reservation and special allocation of seats for the scheduled caste candidates as specified under clauses 5.1 and 1. 1 of the Brochure. He would also submit that in view of the various orders of the Government of India as well as the orders of UT of Puducherry, even when a scheduled caste candidate, whose origin is the UT of Puducherry, migrates from that State to another, such a candidate could claim to belong to a scheduled caste to the UT of Puducherry alone. In view of such specific directions, a candidate, who has the origin of UT of Puducherry, will not lose his or her status of a scheduled caste for the benefit conferred under Article 15 (4) for the p
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
