The constitutionality of reservation policies based on domicile and the authority of the State to impose such reservations.

DEEPAK VERMA, J. :- This common order shall govern disposal of aforesaid petitions, pertaining to identical question of law, and heard analogously.

2. Essentially the question involved, in all the three matters, is with regard to constitutionality of the policy of reservation in admission to Bachelor of Education (hereinafter referred to as 'B.Ed.') course to the extent of 75% seats for residents of Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as 'MP'), and 25% seats for the candidates coming from outside MP with a total restriction on conversion in favour of students not residing in MP. The constitutional validity of the corresponding norm/guidelines incorporated as Rule 1.5.1(a) of Rules of Admission to B.Ed. Course, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules'), is under challenge.

3. English transcription of the Rule, is reproduced hereinbelow :-

"1.5.1(a). 75% of the total seats in B.Ed. course shall be for students residing in Madhya Pradesh. Remaining 25% of the seats would be for students, who are not residents of Madhya Pradesh.

The seats reserved for the students of Madhya Pradesh shall not, in any case, be converted for students, residing out of Madhya Pradesh."

4. However, the main trust of challenge centres around the supplemental provision, prohibiting conversion of any seat in favour of a resident of any other State or Union territory. According to the petitioners, the Rules and the Policy providing for reservation of 75% seats for local candidates being arbitrary, discriminatory, are ultra vires the Constitution of India. The interveners, in Writ Petition No. 15432/2006, are residents of Rajasthan, who appear to be aggrieved on two counts :-

(i) Absolute rigidity of Rule 1.5.1(a) of the Rules.

(i) Non-relaxation of the percentage of the minimum qualifying marks by the State in favour of the candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC.

5. We shall take up the issue with regard to constitutional validity of the Rules, at a later stage.

6. Few material facts, as projected in these petitions, may be summed up, as under :

The petitioners/institutions, in Writ Petition No. 11544/2006 (Preston College v. State of M. P.) and Writ Petition No. 15432/2006 (Kalawati Smriti Mahavidyalaya, Sehore v. State of M. P.), are institutions recognized by the Regional Committee of the National Council for Teacher's Education Act, 1993, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), for offering B.Ed. Course and training in teacher education. The norms and standards for Secondary Teacher Education Programme, have been determined by NCTE.

7. Writ Petition No. 17240/2006 (Ravindra Kumar v. State of M. P.) has been preferred by students who are admittedly not the residents of State of M. P., but have joined the petitioners of other two petitions, for the purposes of challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 1.5.1(a) on the ground that even though seats earmarked for the candidates of M. P. have not been filled up, yet students who are desirous of prosecuting aforesaid course are being deprived of the same on account of limited quota fixed in this regard for them. They have averred that in case of any relaxation in the Rules of 2006, they would become entitled to seek admission to B.Ed. course of their choice anywhere in India.

8. Respondent State has submitted its reply denying the claim of the petitioners and holding therein that the provisions as mentioned hereinabove, is intra vires and does not offend provisions contained in Articles 14, 15 or 19 of the Constitution of India. According to them, it had become necessary for the State to impose some sort of restriction, as 'No Objection Certificates' have been granted to 275 institutions recognized by NCTE. It has also been averred that the Rules and the Admission Policy framed in the light of guidelines laid down by NCTE could not be the subject-matter of challenge in a petition filed under Article 226/227, of the Constitution of India, as the same was within the competence of the State.

9. Board of Secondar