Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.M.Punchhi, J.
Kumari Usha Rani (Minor)
Versus
Maharshi Daya Nand University Rohtak
Civil Writ Petition No. 4852 of 1983,
Decided On : DECEMBER 16, 1983
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 16(4) - RESERVATION FOR BACKWARD CLASSES - POWER OF STATE TO MAKE RESERVATIONS - DISCRETIONARY - NO RIGHT TO CLAIM RESERVATION - UNIVERSITY AS "STATE" - POWER TO MAKE SPECIAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR EDUCATION OF WEAKER SECTIONS - CONFLICT BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND UNIVERSITY INSTRUCTIONS - GOVERNMENT INSTRUCTIONS LOSE RIGOUR - REDUCTION OF SEATS - UNIVERSITY'S DISCRETION - COURT CANNOT INTERFERE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, members of the Backward Classes, challenged the reduction of seats and reservation for backward classes in the Medical College, Rohtak. The University prospectus for the academic year 1983-84 invited applications for admission to the medical/dental entrance examination with 2% reservation for backward classes, while the Government of Haryana had earlier instructed 10% reservation in educational/technical/professional institutes.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Article 16(4) of the Constitution does not confer any right on a citizen to have created reservations in favor of any backward class of citizens. The matter stands crystallized now that Art.16 (4) is an enabling provision and confers a discretionary power on the State to make a reservation. The University, as a "State," had the enabling right to create reservation in favor of the Backward Classes, and it chose that for the Medical College within its domain there should be only two seats for the members of the Backward Classes.
Issues: 1. Whether the University had the power to reduce the reservation for backward classes from 10% to 2%. 2. Whether the Government's instructions for 10% reservation in educational institutions under its control eclipsed the University's statutory powers. 3. Whether the University's reduction of seats from 150 to 115 was arbitrary.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The University, as a "State," had the statutory power to make special arrangements for the education of students belonging to weaker sections of society, including members of the Backward Classes. 2. The Government's instructions for 10% reservation were binding on the Medical College, but the Medical College had not created any reservations and kept itself obedient to the University's dictates. 3. The Government, as the controlling authority over the Medical College, had the right to avoid a conflict in the interest of the College and its smooth relationship with the University. 4. The University's reduction of seats was a matter of its own resources and potential, and the court could not interfere.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed, holding that the University's reservation of 2% seats for Backward Classes and reduction of seats from 150 to 115 were valid and not arbitrary.
1. The widening concept of "State" for the purposes of Part-III of the Constitution is a glaring phenomenon having emerged on the Indian polity. Art.12 of the Constitution providing the inclusive definition of the word "State" amongst others, puts all local or other authorities within the territory of India, and all local or other authorities under he control of the Government of India, within the concept of the "State". Situations can arise in which one authority is the "State" may come in competition with another authority as the "State" in its zeal to provide reservations in services and educational institutions in favour of particular class of weaker sections of the society causing serious damage to the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part-III of the Constitution to Indian citizens. How that conflict is to resolved or situation avoided is left perhaps to the good sense of those authorities. They have perhaps to work under the doctrine of mutual respect avoiding a collision, always keeping the wheels of the "State" well oiled and in good gear. The present is a case of that kind which stands emerged in these five civil writ petitions (Nos. 4852, 5007, 5084, 5085 and 5086 of 1983) which shall be disposed of by a single order.
2. Each petitioner in the respective cases is a member of the Backward Classes. All of them were aspirants to seek admission in the M. B. B. S. Course at the Medical College, Rohtak affiliated to the Maharshi Dayanand University. The University had in its prospectus for the academic year 1983-84 invited applications for admission to the medical)/ dental entrance examination from prospective candidates by 20th June, 1983, The examination was to commence on 5th and 6th July, 1983 at Rohtak. The number of seats, as given out therein were 115 in all, out of which two were reserved for the members of the backward classes. The petitioners applied for being considered against the reserved category of backward classes. In the entrance examination, they did not fare well and were thus unable to secure the first and second positions. Those position, went to other candidates who are not parties to these petitions. Then all the petitioners approached in October. 1983 this Court by way of these writ petitions challenging basically the change effected in the prospectus issued by the University for the academic year 1983-84 resulting in reduction of seats in the Medical Collage from 150 to 115 and the reservation for backward classes from 10% to 2%.
3. As is the agreed case of the parties, the Government of Haryana vide instructions. Annexure P. 1. issued on 7th July, 1981 by the Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana, Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes Department, had conveyed its decision that 10% of seats in educational/ technical/professional institutes controlled by the Government be reserved for the members of the Backward Classes and that these instructions were meant for strict compliance. While these instructions were in vogue, the University in its prospectus under reference reserved only 2% seats for the members of the Backward Classes. On that score, the lament of the petitioners was that the prospectus was in violation of the instructions. Annexure P. 1, of the Government and that the University had no right to flout those and rather was under an obligation to obey them. Furthermore, grouse had been made on the reduction of seats inasmuch as vide letter, Annexure P. 3, the Medical Council of India had permitted the University in September, 1981 to raise the strength of students in the Medical College to 160 as the Government had sanctioned another Rs. 400 lass for the development of the institution, and it was expected that the same would be expended in about two years time. On this score, it was lamented that by reduction seats of to 115. the University had marred the chances of the petitioners from being taken as medical students. Art.14 of the Constitution has been
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
