1. Challenge to government order permitting filling of open category seats by reserved category candidates when meritorious reserved candidates opt for reserved seats in other institutions. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 1697
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.
Dega Venkata Harsha Vardhan – Appellant
Versus
Akula Ventaka Harshavardhan – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 8529 of 2018
Decided On : 24-08-2018
Important Points
The impugned Government Order, which provided for adjustment and interchange of seats between meritorious reserved category candidates selected under the open category and the reserved category candidates selected under the reserved quota, was valid and could be implemented without any deviation consequential to the introduction of the online counseling system.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Reservation and Equal Protection
Act Referred
ANDHRA PRADESH PROFESSIONAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTTIONS REGULATION OF ADMISSION INTO UNDER-GRADUATE PROFESSIONAL COURSES THROUGH COMMON ENTRANCE TEST RULES: R.8(2)
CAPITATION FEE ACT: S.15(1), S.15(2)
CIVIL SERVICES EXAMINATION RULES: R.16(2)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.14, Art.16, Art.15
CAPITATION FEE ACT: S.15(1), S.15(2)
CIVIL SERVICES EXAMINATION RULES: R.16(2)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.14, Art.16, Art.15
Headnote
Reservation - Government Order - 5(ii) of G.O. Rt. No. 550 of 2001 - Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution of India - Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India, 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217 - Tripurari Sharan and Another vs. Ranjit Kumar Yadav and Others, (2018) 2 SCC 656 - Ritesh R. Sah vs. Dr. Y.L. Yamul and Others, (1996) 3 SCC 253 - Union of India vs. Ramesh Ram and Others, (2010) 7 SCC 234 - Samta Aandolan Samiti and Another vs. Union of India, (2014) 14 SCC 745 - Koganti Jayakrishna and Another vs. State of A.P. and Another, 2002 (4) ALD 389 - Equality before the law and equal protection of the laws - Elimination of inequalities of status - Positive measures to eliminate inequality - Reservation to eliminate inequality between classes and/or castes - Meritorious Reserved Candidates - Treatment as open and/or general candidates - Maximum percentage of reservation not to exceed 50% - Online counseling system - Deviation from the percentage of seats fixed for the respective categories
Fact of the Case:
The appeals were preferred against the judgment setting aside a Government Order (G.O. Rt. No. 550 of 2001) to the extent it permitted the filling up by reserved category candidates of open and/or general category seats in institutions offering Medical and/or Dental Courses, which became vacant when meritorious reserved category candidates opted for other disciplines or institutions where they could only have secured admission as reserved candidates.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court's judgment and order were set aside as the impugned Government Order could not be implemented without minor deviation consequential to the introduction of the online counseling system. The court allowed the appeals and held that the recent introduction of the online system could not have been a ground for setting aside the impugned notification, and the admission made that year should not be disturbed.
Issues: The main issue was whether the impugned Government Order, which provided for adjustment and interchange of seats between meritorious reserved category candidates selected under the open category and the reserved category candidates selected under the reserved quota, was valid and could be implemented without any deviation consequential to the introduction of the online counseling system.
Ratio Decidendi: The impugned Government Order only provided for adjustment and interchange of seats between meritorious reserved category candidates selected under the open category and the reserved category candidates selected under the reserved quota. The recent introduction of the online system could not have been a ground for setting aside the impugned notification, and the admission made that year should not be disturbed.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the judgment and order of the High Court under appeal were set aside. No order as to costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- education law
- practice and procedure
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Vikas Singh, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Mrityunjai Singh, P. Venkat Reddy, Prashant Tyagi, A. Ramesh, Ms. Aruna Gupta, V. Ramchander Goud, Dharmesh D.K. Jaiswal, Syed Ahmad Naqvi, Gahni Krishna, Basava Prabhbu Patil, Guntur Prabhakar, Ms. Prerna Singh, M.N. Rao, Y. Raja Gopala Rao, Taddi Nageswara Rao, Ms. Y. Vismai Rao, K. Sharat Kumar, Ms. M. Yeshasvi, Gaurav Pachnanda, A. Satya Prasad, D. Mahesh Babu, T.V. Bhaskar Reddy.
For the Respondents: K.V. Viswanathan, B. Adinarayana Rao, Mullapudi Rambabu, N. Eswara Rao, Ms. Vijayshree Pattnaik.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Vikas Singh, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Mrityunjai Singh, P. Venkat Reddy, Prashant Tyagi, A. Ramesh, Ms. Aruna Gupta, V. Ramchander Goud, Dharmesh D.K. Jaiswal, Syed Ahmad Naqvi, Gahni Krishna, Basava Prabhbu Patil, Guntur Prabhakar, Ms. Prerna Singh, M.N. Rao, Y. Raja Gopala Rao, Taddi Nageswara Rao, Ms. Y. Vismai Rao, K. Sharat Kumar, Ms. M. Yeshasvi, Gaurav Pachnanda, A. Satya Prasad, D. Mahesh Babu, T.V. Bhaskar Reddy.
For the Respondents: K.V. Viswanathan, B. Adinarayana Rao, Mullapudi Rambabu, N. Eswara Rao, Ms. Vijayshree Pattnaik.
Table of Contents
2. Whether permitting reserved category candidates to fill seats vacated by meritorious reserved candidates in the open category exceeds the 50% reservation limit or violates statutory rules. (Para 15 , 17 , 21 )
3. The High Court miscalculated reservation statistics and breached judicial discipline by disregarding a binding Full Bench decision and misapplying civil service recruitment principles to medical admissions. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 )
4. Meritorious reserved candidates treated as open category candidates do not count towards the reservation quota; seats vacated by them may be filled by the same reserved category. (Para 6 , 8 , 10 , 25 , 26 )
5. Appeals allowed and the High Court judgment set aside. (Para 29 )
6. What is a Meritorious Reserved Candidate (MRC)?
An MRC is a candidate from a reserved category who ranks high enough on their own merit to be placed in the general merit list. Such candidates are treated as open or general candidates and are not counted against the quota reserved for their category. (Para 6 )
7. Can an MRC opt for a reserved seat to secure a preferred institution or discipline?
Yes, an MRC may opt for a seat reserved for their category to gain admission to a preferred college or course. In such instances, the seat they vacate in the open competition is filled by another candidate from the same reserved category in order of merit. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 25 )
8. Does the filling of open seats by reserved candidates via MRC sliding exceed the 50% reservation limit?
No, because the MRC continues to be treated as an open category candidate. The process is an inter se adjustment between different types of reserved category candidates and does not breach the maximum 50% reservation limit. (Para 10 , 13 , 21 )
9. How do MRC rules for medical admissions differ from those for civil service recruitments?
In civil services, MRCs shifting to reserved categories are counted against the reserved quota, and vacated general seats go to general candidates. This principle does not apply to medical admissions, where the vacated open seat goes to a reserved category candidate. (Para 19 , 20 )
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeals have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 07.08.2018, passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, setting aside a Government Order being G.O. Rt. No. 550 Higher Education (EC2) Department dated 30.07.2001 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned Government Order’) to the extent the same permitted the filling up by reserved category candidates, of open and/or general category seats in institutions offering inter alia Medical and/or Dental Courses, which became vacant when meritorious reserved category candidates who had ranked well enough to secure those seats as general candidates, opted for other disciplines or institutions where they could only have secured admission as reserved candidates.
3. The relevant portion of the impugned G.O. Rt. No. 550 of 2001 is set out herein-below:
“5. After careful consideration and due examination of the issue relating to implementation of reservation of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Backward Classes in engineering and other Professional Courses the following instructions are hereby issued:-
(i) In the counseling process, the seats to be filled by open competition should be filled up first, wherein the candidates should be called for counseling based on merit alone irrespective of whether they belong to SC, ST or BC in accordance with the instructions issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 996, Employment and Social Welfare, dated 11th November, 1975.
(ii) Next, reservation categories like SC/ST/BC candidates will be counseled to fill the seats earmarked for them in their respective categories. During this process, if a candidate belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Backward Classes, who had taken admission under open competition, opts for a better branch or a better college of his choice for which he or she would be eligible as per the rules of reservation, the seats vacated by him or her in open competition shall be filled with a candidate from the same reservation category only, in order or merit.”
4. The Constitution of India envisages equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. The concept of equality inter alia under Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution of India contemplates elimination of inequalities of status. As held by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India , 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217, though equal protection clause prohibits the State from making unreasonable discrimination in providing preference and facilities for any section of its people, nonetheless it requires the State to afford substantially equal opportunities to those placed unequally.
5. Equality contemplated by Article 14 and related Articles, particularly Article 15(1), is secured not only when equals are treated equally but also when un-equals are treated unequally. Equal treatment of un-equals breaches equality. To bring about equality, it is necessary to adopt positive measures to eliminate inequality.
6. The basic object of the policy of reservation is to eliminate inequality between classes and/or castes. Reservation in favour of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Backward Classes provides opportunity to those socially disadvantaged classes to come into the main stream through education, public appointments etc, by eliminating stiff competition from the socially strong. A comprehensive methodological approach to reservation is necessary.
Often, in competitive examinations held for the purpose of selection for admission to educational institutions or may be appointments, some candidates belonging to reserved categories, rank high on their own merit. Depending on their performance in the common entrance test such candidates are often placed in the general merit list. Such class of candidates belonging to reserved categories, who qualify on their own merit, in the general merit list, are for convenience, refe
