By Navya Yadav[1]
In Supreme Court of India
| NAME OF THE CASE | State of Uttar Pradesh v. Pradip Tandon & Others |
| CITATION | 1975 AIR 563, 1975 SCR (2) 761 |
| DATE OF THE JUDGEMENT | 19 November, 1974 |
| APPELLATE | State of Uttar Pradesh |
| RESPONDENT | Pradip Tandon & Others |
| BENCH/JUDGE | A.N. Ray (CJ), Mathew, Kuttyil Kurien Untwalia, N.L. |
| STATUTES/CONSTITUTION INVOLVED | Constitution of India |
| IMPORTANT SECTIONS INVOLVED | Constitution of India- Article 15(1)(4), 29(2), 41, 46 |
ABSTRACT
This case deals with the issue of admission of students to medical college in the state. The government had made reservation for students from rural, hill and Uttarakhand areas on the ground that the students coming from these areas belonged to socially and educationally backward classes and they need to be given special benefits for admission in the medical colleges. The validity of these reservations was questioned in High Court and the High Court in one of its case said that this is unconstitutional without looking into its previous decisions. On appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the State that the object of the classification was the enhancement of medical education for students from the reserved areas and to give students from these areas the advantage of medical education.
INTRODUCTION
In this case it was was further contended that by Art. 41 and 46 of the Constitution the State is enjoined to promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people and that ‘the reservations were not on the grounds of place of birth but on the ground of residence and, therefore, the reservations would not fall within the mischief of either Art. 15(1) or Art. 29. Art. 15(1) states that the State shall not discriminate against any citizen grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. Art. 29(2) states that no citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste. language or any of them.
In this case appeal was that reservations for rural areas are unconstitutional and invalid, whereas reservations for the hill and Uttarakhand areas are severable and are valid. They said that Constitution does not enable the State to bring socially and educationally backward areas within the protection of Art. 15(4). The backwardness contemplated under Art. 15(4) is both social and educational. Art. 15(4) speaks of backwardness of classes of citizens and, therefore, socially and educationally backward classes of citizens in Art. 15(4) could not be equated with castes’.
Neither caste nor race nor religion can be made the basis of classification for the Purposes of determining social and educational backwardness within the meaning of Art. 15(4). When Art. 15(1) forbids discrimination on Grounds only of religion. race and caste, caste cannot be made one of the criteria for determining social and educational backwardness. If caste or religion is recognized as a criterion of social and educational backwardness Art. 15(4) will stultify Art. 15(1). When a classification takes recourse to caste as one of the criteria in determining socially and educationally backward classes the expression classes” in that case violates the rule of expression unius est exclusio alterius.The socially and educationally backward classes of citizens are groups other than, groups based on caste[2].
FACT OF THE CASE
The Government in the years 1952 and 1953 made reservations for Kisan and hill area candidates. The Government reviewed the position from time to time. The reservations are considered necessary to attract graduates from those areas which are otherwise handicapped in the matter of education. It is necessary to feed the dispensaries with medical men in adequate number to serve the people inhabiting those areas. The rural, hill and Uttarakhand areas lack educational facilities, People living there are illiterate or have’ a very modest education. Their economic condition is unsatisfactory. The level of income is low. There is acute poverty. There is lack and, in some cases, total absence of communication and transportation. Historically these areas have been neglected. People living in those areas are socially backward. The percentage of education among them is low. Candidates from those areas on account of various difficulties and handicaps cannot generally compete on parallel or equal footing with other candidates. The State maintains and financially supports the medical colleges.
The State can. therefore, claim to lay down the criterion for admission to those colleges. The State, classified these rural, hill and Uttarakhand areas as socially and educationally backward areas. The affidavit evidence on behalf of the candidate at the combined pre-medical test is that candidates belonging to reserved categories obtained admission although they secured marks as low as 128 and other candidates were placed in the waiting list although the marks obtained by them was as low as 103. In the general category candidates in the waiting list secured about 266 marks. (See petition In Civil Appeal No. 1542 of 1974).
In Civil Appeal No. 1385 of 1973 it was alleged that the candidates from rural Scheduled Castes, Uttarakhand and Hill areas who obtained admission obtained 281, 298 and 163 marks respectively whereas the Petitioner in that case obtained 288 marks and could not obtain admission because of reservation of seats. The High Court at Allahabad upheld the reservation for rural, hill and Uttarakhand areas in Subhash Chandra v. State of U.P[3]. The High Court struck down the aforesaid reservation in the case of Dilip Kumar v. State of U.P.[4] The High Court in the case of Dilip Kumar (supra) however did not consider the case of Subhash Chandra which was an earlier decision.
It is desirable from the point of view of judicial propriety to refer to earlier decisions of the same High Court. The contentions of the Attorney General were under two broad heads. First, the State has given sufficient material which remains uncontradicted to show that the areas concerned consisted of people who were as a class socially and educationally backward. Among the factors given by the Government were the factors recognized by the Court in determining socially and educationally backward classes.
These were poverty, nature of occupation. place of residence, lack of education and also the sub-standard education of the candidates for the test in comparison to the average standard of candidates from general category. Second, the classification has not been made only on the basis of Place of birth as is evident from the State affidavit.
If this classification be neither within the vice of Article 15(1) or Article 29(2) then the classification of rural, hill and Uttarakhand areas can be justified on the basis of reasonable sources for the purpose of admission to medical colleges. The sources are the rural, hill and Uttarakhand areas which form geographical or territorial basis.
The Attorney General put in the forefront the object of the classification to be the advancement of medical education for candidates from reserved areas. He amplified his submissions as follows. It is a notorious fact that rural, hill and Uttarakhand areas are socially backward because of extreme poverty. These areas are also educationally backward because the standard of literacy is poor and there is lack of educational facilities. There, is dearth of doctors in these reserved areas. It is necessary to attract students from these areas for admission to medical colleges. This will give impetus to students from these areas to equip themselves as doctors.
The decisions on which Attorney General relied on are R. Chitralekha & Anr v. State of Mysore & Ors.[5] [1964] 6 S.C.R. 368 and D. K. Chanchala v. State of Mysore & Ors.[6] etc. [1971] Supp. S C.R ‘ 608 The classification in the present case was laid by the Attorney General to encourage higher education to bona fide applicants from the rural areas. It is also said that the candidates from rural areas will have to execute a bond that they agree to serve the government for five years so, that doctors could be provided in rural areas. This was said to be a relevant consideration for supporting the classification.
The Attorney General submitted that the object of classification is to give students from rural areas benefit of medical education. If the object is to get the best material, then it would be, justifiable to look at the historically backward rural areas which have no medical colleges. The classification may be supported either on historical or geographical exigencies of circumstances, The geographical, territorial, historical and the economic conditions in the rural and hill areas were emphasized to support the classification.
The Attorney General laid considerable stress on the, feature that Rural India is socially and educationally backward by reason of poverty. He said that the Court should take judicial notice of the extreme poverty in these areas. The rural people were said to have common traits of agriculture and they were all conditioned by economic poverty.
The Attorney General submitted that the object of classification is to give students from rural areas benefit of medical education. If the object is to get the best material, then it would be, justifiable to look at the historically backward rural areas which have no medical colleges. The classification may be supported either on historical or geographical exigencies of circumstances, The geographical, territorial, historical and the economic conditions in the rural and hill areas were emphasized to support the classification.
The Attorney General laid considerable stress on the, feature that Rural India is socially and educationally backward by reason of poverty. He said that the Court should take judicial notice of the extreme poverty in these areas. The rural people were said to have common traits of agriculture and they were all conditioned by economic poverty. Articles 41 and 46 were put in the forefront that the right to education was one of the provisions in the Directive Principles of State Policy.
ISSUES RAISED BEFORE THE COURT
- Whether the instructions framed by the State in making reservations in favour of candidates from Rural Areas, Hill Areas and Uttarakhand are constitutionally valid?
- Whether the reservations made by the State Government for admission of students of backward class in this way cause any discrimination with other classes or cause any harm to other class students?
ARGUMENTS FROM THE APPELANT SIDE
- Appelant argued that reservation of few students on the basis of caste, social and educational backwardness and place of living is discrimination with other students.
- Appelant also said that this type of classification for a particular group of students will not lead to admission of most capable students and the one who is actually entitled to have that seat.
ARGUMENTS FROM THE RESPONDENT SIDE
- The Attorney General put in the forefront the object of the classification to be the advancement of medical education for candidates from reserved areas. He amplified his submissions as follows. It is a notorious fact that rural, hill and Uttarakhand areas are socially backward because of extreme poverty.
- The Attorney General submitted that the object of classification is to give students from rural areas benefit of medical education.
RELATED PROVISIONS
Constitution of India
Article 15(1)(4)- Nothing in this article or in clause ( 2 ) of Article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes[7].
Article 29(2)- No citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them[8].
Article 41- Right to work, to education and to public assistance in certain cases The State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of undeserved want[9].
Article 46- Promotion of educational and economic interests of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other weaker sections The State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and, in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation[10].
JUDGEMENT
In the present case, the reservation for the rural area cannot be upheld because there is no classification based on residence between students coming from within the State and others coming from without. The object of providing medical education to students in Uttar Pradesh is to secure the best possible students for admission to these colleges. It is in this context that district-wise allocation was held by this Court in Rajendran v. State of Madras[11] to violate Article 14. The university-wise distribution of seats which was found to be valid in Chanchala’s case (supra) does not have any application in the present case. The submission of the Attorney General that rural population would be a source for drawing students cannot be upheld. An illustration of different sources of categories of students is Chitra Ghosh & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.[12].
There the categories of students were classified as residents of Delhi; sons/daughters of Central Government servants posted in Delhi; candidates whose father is dead and is wholly dependent on brother/sister who is a Central Government servant posted in Delhi; sons/daughters of residents of Union Territories including displaced persons registered therein; sons/daughters of Central Government servants posted in Indian Missions abroad; cultural scholars. Colombo Plan Scholars; Thailand Scholars and Jammu and Kashmir State Scholars, Rural area in Uttar Pradesh cannot be said to be a source for reservation of the type in Chira Ghosh’s case (supra).
The Attorney General relied on Beryl F. Carroll v. Greenwich Insurance Co. of New York 50, L.Ed. 246, Weaver v. Palmer Brother Co. 70 L.ED. 654 and West Coast Hotel Co. v. Ernest Parrish 81. L.ED. 703 in support of the proposition that if an evil is especially experienced in a particular branch of business, the Constitution embodies no prohibition of laws confined to the evil or doctrinaire requirement that they should be couched in all-embracing terms. It was said if the law was intended to remove the evil where it was most felt it was not to be overthrown because there were other instances to which it might have been applied. This rule really means that there is no doctrinaire requirement that the legislation should be couched in all-embracing terms. A case of under classification would be an instance of this rule.
The present case of classification of rural areas is not one of underclassification. This is a case of discrimination in favour of the majority of rural population to the prejudice of students drawn from the general category. The classification is unconstitutional. In Civil Appeal No. 1385 of 1973 two other minor contentions were raised. One was that the reservation was beyond 50 per sent. The total number of seats to be filled in through the combined test is 732. The number of general seats is 368. 26 seats are reserved for Government of India nominees under various beads. The reservation of 26 seats was contended to be considered while calculating the percentage of reserved seats. If 26 seats are included, it was said that the reserved seats would come to 52 per cent. 26 seats form a source from which selection is made. The Government bears the burden of expenses of education. A provision laying down a source is not a reservation [see Chanchala’s case (supra)].
The other contention was that the State Government changed the percentage of reserved seats after the premedical test was held. The contention was that candidates belonging to reserved classes were able to secure some of the general seats on the basis of then better performance in competitive test and therefore more seats went to people from reserved classes. The Government did not change the number of seats for reserved classes. Candidates belonging to the reserved classes were selected by reason of their excellence in education. The reservation has not been changed. We have already held that the success of candidates from rural areas at the open competition indicates that the rural areas do not represent educationally backward classes of citizens. For these reasons we hold that the reservation in favour of candidates from rural areas is unconstitutional. The reservations for the hill and Uttarakhand areas are severable and these are valid.
CONCLUSION
In the present case according to me its valid to give special benefit to the students from economically backward classes or students who are from rural areas as they are always neglected and not given equal opportunity. Some people in the rural areas may be educationally backward, some may be socially backward. there may be few who are both socially and educationally backward. bit it cannot be said that all citizens residing in rural areas are socially and educationally backward. 80 per cent of the population in the State of Uttar Pradesh in rural areas cannot be said to be a homogeneous class by itself. They are not of the same kind. Their occupation is different. Their standards are different. Their lives are different. Population cannot be a class by itself. Rural element does not make it a class. To suggest that the rural areas are socially and educationally backward is to have reservation for the majority of the State.
On behalf of the State, it is said that it is necessary to have reservation of seats for the people from rural areas in order to attract people from those areas who are otherwise handicapped in the matter of education, so that they can serve the people in the rural areas on completion of their medical education. In order to attract medical men for service in rural areas arrangements are to be made to attract them. The special need for medical men in rural areas will not make the people in the rural areas socially and educationally backward classes of citizens. It was said that the number of marks obtained by candidates from rural areas showed that they were much lower than the marks obtained by general candidates, and this would indicate educational backwardness. That is neither a valid nor a justifiable ground for determining social and educational backwardness. Educational institutions should attract the best talents.[13]
[1] Author is 3rd semester student at Amity Law School, Lucknow.
[2] Indian Kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1734464/( Last Visited on 5, Aug. 2022).
[3] Subhash Chandra v. State of U.P, A.I.R. 1973 All. 295.
[4] Dilip Kumar v. State of U.P. A.I.R. 1973 All. 592.
[5] R. Chitralekha & Anr v. State of Mysore & others, [1964] 6 S.C.R. 368.
[6] D. K. Chanchala v. State of Mysore & others, [1971] Supp. S C.R ‘ 608.
[7] The Constitution of India, 1949, Article 15(1)(4).
[8] The Constitution of India, 1949, Article 29(2).
[9] The Constitution of India, 1949, Article 41.
[10] The Constitution of India, 1949, Article 46.
[11] Rajendran v. State of Madras, [1968] (2) S.C.R. 786.
[12] Chitra Ghosh & Anr. v. Union of India & Others, [1970] 1 S.C.R. 413.
[13] Indian Kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1734464/( Last Visited Aug. 6,2022).