Special provisions for women under Article 15(3) are saved from Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, and the reservation of a single seat for women candidates was found to be permissible under Article 15(3) and not ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.

A. K. PATNAIK, C. J.:- In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, we are called upon to decide the constitutional validity of the Madhya Pradesh Medical and Dental Post Graduate Course Entrance Examination Rules, 2009 (for short 'the Rules' 2009) which provide that the one seat of Orthodontics in postgraduate dental course allocated to the unreserved category will be filled up by female candidate in the year 2009.

2. The petitioner after completing his Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) course and internship, appeared in the Postgraduate Entrance Test on 12-4-2009 conducted by the Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board and secured 162 marks out of 200 marks and was placed in the merit list as number one. He was called for counselling and scrutiny of documents on 28-4-2009 and he expected that he will be allotted the seat of Orthodontics of MDS course but was informed that the seat of Orthodontics of MDS course had been allotted to Dr. Sapna Jain (respondent No.3) who stood 4th in the merit list of unreserved category candidates because under the Rules 2009, this single seat of Orthodontics in the Government Dental Colleges in the Government of Madhya Pradesh had been reserved for a woman in the year 2009. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for declaring the Rules 2009 as ultra vires Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

3. On 6-5-2009, the Court after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, issued notices to the State of Madhya Pradesh and Director of Medical Education (respondent Nos. 1 and 2) and also to the respondent No.3. In response to the notice, a return has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 stating inter alia that Rule 8(1) of the Rules, 2009, provides for reservation for woman candidates to the extent of 30% according to merit-cum-option and such reservation for women to the extent of 30% is not vertical reservation but to be applied horizontal compartment-wise for the purpose of maintaining 50% ceiling of reservation for SC/ST/OBC categories and for the remaining 50% seats meant for unreserved candidates, reservation has been provided for female candidates as a special provision under Article 15(3) of the Constitution. The return of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 further states that the single seat of Orthodontics has been allotted to the unreserved category and 30% reservation in this seat in favour of the female candidates has been worked out by equitable distribution of the seat under Rule 17(6) of the Rules 2009 by providing that the seat will be filled up for two years by open candidates and for one year only by a female candidate and accordingly in the years 2007 & 2008, the seat had been allotted to open candidates and in the year 2009 the seat has been allotted to a female candidate and this was done in accordance with the constitutional obligation of the State under Article 15(3) of the Constitution.

4. At the hearing, Mr. Aditya Sanghi learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the Supreme Court has held in M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore (AIR 1963 SC 649) that reservation of 68% of seats for admission in a technical institution in favour of the backward classes of SC/ST is not permissible under Article 15(4) of the Constitution. He submitted that following the aforesaid law laid down in M R. Balaji v. State of Mysore (supra), the Supreme Court again reiterated in Deepak Sibal v. Punjab University (AIR 1989 SC 903) that the provision in Article 15(4) does not contemplate reservation of all the seats or the majority of the seats in an educational institution at the cost of the rest of the society and this principle will also apply with equal force in the case of cent percent reservation of seats in educational institutions for a certain class of persons to the exclusion of meritorious candidates. He submitted that the Rules 2009 in reserving the only seat of Orthodontics in M.D.S. course in favour of a female