SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(HP) 2331

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Before
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge.
CWP No. 4001/2011Decided on:9.8.2011
Anupam Thakur and others.Versus State of H.P. and others

Advocates:
For the petitioners:Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate for respondent No.4.

The State's decision not to provide reservation for backward area candidates in I.G.M.C. Shimla was found to be constitutional and within the scope of judicial review. The Court emphasized that reservation provisions are discretionary and subject to periodic review by the State.

Headnote:

Reservation - Backward Area Candidates - Article 15(4), Article 16(4) - Summary of Acts and Sections: Article 15(4), Article 16(4), State of Uttar Pradesh v. Pradip Tandon, State of Kerala v. Kumari T.P. Roshana, Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, Union of India v. R. Rajeshwaran, E. V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P., Nair Service Society v. Dr. T. Beermasthan, Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana, M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, Jagdish Negi v. State of U.P., Secretary, Cannanore District Muslim Educational Association v. State of Kerala, Sindhi Education Society v. Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, candidates belonging to backward areas, challenged the State's decision not to reserve seats for them in I.G.M.C. Shimla for the academic session 2011-2012. The State had increased seats in certain institutions and reduced the number of backward Panchayats, leading to the decision not to provide reservation in I.G.M.C. Shimla.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the State's decision not to provide reservation in I.G.M.C. Shimla for backward area candidates was constitutional and not arbitrary, discriminatory, or unreasonable. It held that the State's decision was based on valid reasons and within the scope of judicial review. The Court dismissed the petition and held that no mandamus could be issued for providing reservation in any educational institution.

Issues: The core issue was whether the State's decision not to reserve seats for backward area candidates in I.G.M.C. Shimla was unconstitutional.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on various judgments to establish that the provisions under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) are enabling provisions, and the State is not bound to make reservation. It emphasized that reservation provisions are discretionary and subject to periodic review by the State. The Court also highlighted that no mandamus can be issued to provide reservation or for admission to universities.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

JUDGEMENT

Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Heard. The application is not opposed. Allowed. Priyanka Thakur is permitted to be added as petitioner No.4. Registry is directed to carry out necessary correction in the memo of parties. The application stands disposed of. Core issue involved for adjudication in this petition is: whether the action of the respondent-State not to reserve seats for the candidates belonging to backward areas in I.G.M.C. Shimla is unconstitutional? Respondent No.4-University issued prospectus on behalf of State of Himachal Pradesh for holding combined Pre- Medical Entrance Test for graduate (M . B. B.S. / B. D.S.) courses in Himachal Pradesh for academic session 2011- 2012. The last date for submission of application, as per prospectus, was 30.4.2011. It is evident from the prospectus issued by respondent No.4-University that no seats have been reserved for the candidates belonging to backward areas in I.G.M.C. Shimla. Two Seats have been reserved for this category in Dr. Rajinder Prashad Government Medical College, Tanda and H.P. Government Dental College, Shimla as notified by the H.P. Government from time to time. Candidates belonging to the backward area must be permanent resident of that particular backward area and must have passed at least two examinations i.e. primary/middle/ matric/+ 1/+2 from the schools located in the backward area. If no such candidate is available then a candidate belonging to backward areas will be considered and in case no such candidate is available for the backward area’s seat, the same will go to general category candidate. The ‘backward area’, as per para 12 (iii) of the prospectus, means the backward as listed in the notification dated 16.6.1995 issued by the Financial Commissioner-Secretary (Planning) Government of Himachal Pradesh or areas as may be notified to be Backward Areas by the Government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time. In sequel to prospectus of respondent No.4, the written examination was held on 27.5.2011 and the result was declared on 3.6.2011. Petitioners No.1 to 4 belong to backward area as defined under the prospectus. However, only petitioner Shivani Thakur and Priyanka Thakur find their place in the combined merit list.

2. Mr. Bimal Gupta has strenuously argued that up to academic session 2009-20 10, three seats were reserved always for backward area candidates in I.G.M.C. Shimla and also two seats are now reserved for this category in Dr. Rajinder Prashad Government Medical College, Tanda and H.P. Government Dental College, Shimla. His precise prayer is that mandamus be issued to the respondent-State for providing three seats for candidates belonging to backward area and thereafter the petitioners be considered accordingly. He also argued that the action of the respondent-State of not providing reservation in I.G.M.C. Shimla and providing the same in Dr. Rajinder Prashad Government Medical College, Tanda and H.P. Government Dental College, Shimla is arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable and thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He lastly contended that in Dr. Rajinder Prashad Government Medical College, Tanda the seats have also been increased from 60 to 100 as per Annexure R-7 dated 15.7.2011.

3. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that a policy decision has been taken by the State not to provide reservation for backward area candidates in I.G.M.C. Shimla after the seats have been increased from 65 to 100 and the zone of consideration is enlarged. According to him, Article 15 of the Constitution of India is enabling provision and no mandamus can be issued to the State Government to provide reservation for the candidates belonging to backward area in I.G.M.C. Shimla. He then contended that it is always open to the State Government to review periodically the reservation provided in educational institutions. He lastly contended that out of 551 Panchayats, only 11 Panchayats are backward area a































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top