Back
1983 Supreme(MP) 490
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
J. S. Verma and K. N. Shukla, JJ.
KU.MADHU MITTAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - Respondents
Misc. Petn. 1760 Of 1983
Decided On : 11/14/1983
M.V.TAMSKAR, Y.S.DHARMADHIKARI
Headnote:(1) Admission Rules- (framed by the Vyavsayik Pathyakrama Pravesha Pariksha Mandal, M.P.) - R.1.4(iii) - concession for children off Freedom Fighters-extent and nature of the concession-Freedom Fighter should have been a resident of the Madhya Pradesh State- Constitution of India-Arts. 14&15.
(2) Constitution of India-Arts. 14&15- concession given to the children of the Freedom Fighters of Madhya Pradesh- does not violate the provisions of these Articles.
Reservations for particular categories of candidates prima facie militate against the guarantee of equal opportunity. Courts have been at pains to uphold such classification due to various historical and social factors. But surely this cannot be a permanent feature nor there is justification for enlarging the scope of reserved categories. Each candidate admitted in the reserved category deprives a more meritorious one of a fruitful professional career. It is a national loss. AIR 1971 SC 1762 relied on. [Para 8
The object of the classification under lying in the impugned rule was clearly to help to some extent students who are residents of the State concerned It is quite and laudable objective for a State to encourage education within its borders. Education is a State subject.
The condition about bonafide residence of a candidate in a particular State where admission is sought is valid and within the parameters of the Constitution. The reasoning is that a State, which lays down guidelines for admission to its educational institutions, can make such rules for the benefit of the residents within the State. This being an accepted position, the State of M.P. was within its right to frame a rule for confining the benefit of reservation only to the children and grand children of such Freedom Fighters who are/were bonafide residents of M.P. AIR 1971 SC 1439 & AIR 1955 SC 334 relied on. [Para 11
(3) Admission Rules (framed by the Vyavasayik Pathyakrama Pravesha Pariksha Mandal (M.P.) - R.1. 4 (iii), Explanation-words 'Provided is a bonafide resident of M.P; -- relates to those Freedom Fighters also who are dead.
If Clause (iii) of Rule 1.4 of the Rules of Admission is read as a whole, it is clear that reference in Explanation 5 to the Clause refers not only to a living Freedom Fighter but also to those who were bonafide residents of Madhya Pradesh in connection with the Freedom movement during the period from 1919 to 1946. [Para 12
The Freedom Fighter living or dead should have been a bonafide resident of any region of the M.P. State residence of the child is irrelevant. AIR 1969 Raj 182 distingushed. [Paras 12 & 13
(4) Admission Rules (framed by the Vyavasayik Pathyakrama Pravesha Pariksha Mandal (M.P.) - R.1.4 (III) all the requirements should be fulfilled-a candidate cannot take advantage of the classification without fulfilling other requirements-Constitution of India-Arts. 14 & 15.
(5) Constitution of India-Arts. 14 & 15-provisim laying down categories which are given a concession-seeking advantage of the concession-cannot impugn part of the provision as unconstitutional.
Reservation is a concession. A candidate seeking to take advantage of such concession must fulfil all the conditions laid down under the rule. It 18 not open to a person seeking benefit of a concession to say that a particular condition in the said rule is unreasonable and he should be allowed to take advantage of the concession without fulfilling the requirements of the rule. [Para 15
(6) Admission Rules (framed by the Vyavasayik Pathyakrama Pravesha Mandal (M.P.) - R.1.4 (iii) - Freedom Fighter residents of State other than M.P. state -their children cannot claim advantage of the concession in the institutions of the M. P. State. (Para 16
( 1 ) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Petition No. 1987 of 1983 (Rahelamna George v. State of M. P.) and Miscellaneous Petition No. 2031 of 1983 (A. S. Ravi v. State of M. P. ).
( 2 ) THE petitioners in these petitions seek writs of mandamus to consider their cases for admission to Engineering Colleges in the category of Freedom Fighters.
( 3 ) THE State of M. P. has constituted a Board called Vyavsayik Pathyakram Pravesh Pareeksha Mandal (respondent No. 2 hereinafter referred to as the Mandal) for holding entrance tests for admission to various professional courses like Engineering, Medical, etc. Rules for admission have been framed by the Mandal and conditions of eligibility for various categories (have been mentioned. In these petitions, we are concerned with Rule 1. 4 (iii) of the Admission Rules. The relevant rule is reproduced below :-FREEDOM FIGHTERS : Some seats shall be reserved for children and grandchildren of Freedom Fighters who are bona fide residents of Madhya Pra-desh, in all courses except in some Regional Engineering Colleges outside M. P. The Board or an office of the Board duly authorised by the Board for the purpose shall determine eligibility of candidates, who can be deemed to be children, grand-children of Freedom Fighters. Explanation:-- By grand-children is meant candidates whose father's father/ mother or mother's father/mother is/was Freedom Fighters. Clauses (i) to (xi) in the Note appended to this Rule lay down the requirements for defining a Freedom Fighter. Explanation 5 to this Rule is relevant and may be reproduced here:-- Explanation 5:-- If any person falls under any of the Clauses (i) to (xi) above and is included in the list of Freedom Fighter in any other State, such person shall be deemed to be a "freedom Fighter" for the purpose of this provided he is a bona fide resident of Madhya Pradesh. (Emphasis ours)
( 4 ) PETITIONER Ku. Madhu Mittal (M. P. No. 1760 of 1983) has sought admission to Moulana Azad College of Technology, Bhopal (M. A. C. T.) which is a Regional Engineering College. Under Rule 4. 1 (iii), (1. 4 (iif) ?) 3 seats are reserved in M. A. C. T. , Bhopal for children and, grand-children of Freedom Fighten from Madhya Pradesh.
( 5 ) PETITIONER Ku. Madhu Mittal admittedly is the grand-daughter of Late Shri Banwarilal, who was a Freedom Fighter. He was a permanent resident of Aligarh in Uttar Pradesh. He expired in the year 1966. Petitioner claimed that even though Late Shri Banwarilal was not a bona fide resident of Madhya Pradesh, yet she was entitled to be admitted under the reserved category of Freedom Fighter. According to her, the condition in the Admission Rules that the Freedom Fighter should be a bona fide resident of Madhya Pradesh violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. This Rule has no reasonable nexus with the object of classification namely, to provide admission to the children and grand-children of the Freedom Fighters who suffered for the liberation of the country. It was urged that the Rule, which discriminates between the children of Freedom Fighters of Madhya Pradesh and Children of Freedom Fighters outside Madhya Pradesh, is repugnant to the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
( 6 ) IN reply, respondents referred to the Rule, which requires that Freedom Fighters, whose children and grand-children seek the benefit of reservation under the Admission Rules, must be bona fide residents of Madhya Pradesh. It was denied that this Rule was in any manner discriminatory or violated Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. According to the respondents, the State had to look to the inconvenience suffered by the families of the Freedom Fighters of this State and, therefore, reservation had been provided for their children and grand-children.
( 7 ) THERE was initially an attempt by the learned counsel for the petitioners to suggest that the requirement on bona fide residence in Expl
