Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
R.N.Mittal, J.
Gauri Shankar Verma
Versus
State Of Haryana
Civil Writ Petition No. 3464 of 1981,
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 9, 1981
EDUCATION - RESERVATION - BACKWARD CLASSES - INCOME CRITERIA - VALIDITY - M.D. UNIVERSITY, ROHTAK PROSPECTUS CLAUSE (I) OF CHAPTER IV - INTERPRETATION - APPLICABILITY OF GOVERNMENT INSTRUCTIONS - Haryana Government instructions dated 7th July, 1981 (Annexure-P-3) and dated 17th May, 1973 (Annexure-P-4) - APPLICABILITY TO EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS - M.D. UNIVERSITY'S AUTHORITY TO LAY DOWN INCOME LIMIT FOR DECLARED BACKWARD CLASSES - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ART.15(4).
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a Sunar belonging to a backward class in Haryana, challenged the rejection of his candidature for admission to the M.B.B.S. Course at Government Medical College, Rohtak, despite securing the seventh position in the merit list for backward classes. The rejection was based on the petitioner's family income exceeding Rs. 4,200 per annum, as per clause (I) of Chapter IV of the M.D. University Prospectus. The petitioner argued that the income criteria was against the Haryana Government instructions dated 7th July, 1981 (Annexure-P-3) and 17th May, 1973 (Annexure-P-4), which did not impose any income limit for backward classes in educational institutions.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Haryana Government instructions dated 7th July, 1981 (Annexure-P-3) were applicable to educational institutions and increased the reservation of seats for Backward Classes from 2% to 10%. However, the instructions dated 17th May, 1973 (Annexure-P-4) did not apply to educational institutions and, therefore, the M.D. University was not bound to follow them. The Court further held that the M.D. University, being a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, was entitled to lay down the criteria for determining socially and educationally Backward Classes, including income criteria. The Court found that the income criteria laid down by the M.D. University was not violative of Article 15(4) of the Constitution, as it was based on the principle that poverty or poor economic condition played a great part in the social and/or educational backwardness of a class of people.
Issues: 1. Whether the Haryana Government instructions dated 7th July, 1981 (Annexure-P-3) and 17th May, 1973 (Annexure-P-4) were applicable to educational institutions. 2. Whether the M.D. University had the authority to lay down the income limit for declared Backward Classes. 3. Whether the income criteria laid down by the M.D. University was violative of Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted clause (I) of Chapter IV of the M.D. University Prospectus, which provided that candidates belonging to backward classes, as declared by the State Government, would not be treated as belonging to such classes for the purpose of admission to the College, if their family income exceeded Rs. 4,200 per annum. The Court held that the intention of the University authorities was to give benefit of the reservation to the candidates of backward classes whose normal family income did not exceed Rs. 4,200 per annum. The Court further held that the average annual income of the family in the previous five years should be taken into consideration for determining the eligibility. 2. The Court relied on Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India, which allows the State to make special provisions for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens. The Court held that the M.D. University, being a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, was entitled to lay down the criteria for determining socially and educationally Backward Classes, including income criteria. The Court found that the income criteria laid down by the M.D. University was not violative of Article 15(4) of the Constitution, as it was based on the principle that poverty or poor economic condition played a great part in the social and/or educational backwardness of a class of people.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the M.D. University's income criteria for backward classes was valid and did not violate Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India.
1. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner being a Sunar, belongs to a backward class in Haryana. In terms of the Government Instructions, dated 7th July, 1981 (copy Annexure-P-3), regarding reservation of seats in the educational institutions in Haryana, eight seats were reserved for candidates belonging to backward classes in the Government Medical College, Rohtak. For the purpose of admission to the M.B.B.S. Course in that College, an Entrance Examination was held on 27th/28th June, 1981. The petitioner had passed the Pre-Medical Examination from the Maharshi Daya Nand University, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as the M.D. University), in April, 1981. He appeared in the Entrance Examination and was placed at number seven on the merit list of the candidates pertaining to the backward classes.
2. The M.D. University has issued the prospectus regarding the Medical Entrance Examination 1981-82. Backward Class candidates have been defined in clause (I) of Chapter IV of the said prospectus. According to this clause, backward classes include all the residents of Haryana State whose family income is less than Rs. 1,000 per annum, irrespective of the fact as to which caste, community or class they belong and what profession they are following, and the candidates belonging to backward classes, as declared by the State Government and whose family income does not exceed Rs. 4,200 per annum. It is alleged that though the latter class in the prospectus is against the Haryana Government instructions dated 17th May, 1973 (Copy Annexure-4), yet the petitioner attached a certificate from the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Jhajjar, to the effect that the petitioner family income from all sources was Rs. 9,700 per annum. Consequently, the petitioner was not admitted in the College in spite of his having secured the seventh position in the merit list prepared on the basis of the Entrance Examination. He has challenged the order rejecting his candidature inter alia on the grounds that clause (I) of Chapter IV of the Prospectus providing the family income of Rs. 4,200 in the case of backward classes, as declared by the Government, is against the Haryana Government instructions applicable to the educational institutions in the State; that the instructions dated 7th July, 1981 (copy Annexure-P-3) and dated 17th May, 1973 (copy Annexure-P-4) are applicable to the educational institutions and that if the income criteria is taken to be valid, the annual income for the financial year in question and not for the previous years should be taken into consideration.
3. The writ petition has been contested by the respondents. In its written statement respondent No.1 has admitted that Sunars have been declared as members of the Backward Classes up to 19th August, 1985, and that the instructions dated 17th May, 1973, and 7th July, 1981, were issued by the Government. It has also admitted that there was no Government policy laying down income criteria for reservation of seats for backward classes in the educational institutions. The other allegations in the writ petition were, however, denied.
4. The Director-Principal, Medical College, Rohtak, respondent No.2, has, in his return, stated that the petitioner submitted an income certificate from the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Jhajjar, that his family income from all sources was Rs. 9,700 per annum, but in cl. (I)(b) of Chapter IV of the Prospectus, it had been provided that the candidates belonging to the backward classes, as declared by the Government, would not be treated as belonging to such classes for the purpose of admission to the College, if their family income exceeded Rs. 4,200 per annum. Therefore, the petitioner was debarred from getting the benefit of the seats reserved for the candidates of backward classes. He has further stated that the instructions dated 17th May, 1973 (copy Annexure-P-4), are not applicable for the purposes of admission to the educational institutions. M.D. Uni
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
