Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 2309-2310 of 2003
PETITIONER:
Secretary, Selection Committee (MBBS)
RESPONDENT:
N. Anirudhan (minor) and Ors. etc.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/03/2003
BENCH:
SHIVARAJ V. PATIL & ARIJIT PASAYAT
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 19429-19430/2002)
ARIJIT PASAYAT J
Leave granted.
Challenge in these appeals is to the directions given
by a learned Single Judge undisturbed by the Division Bench
of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 1736 and 1737
of 2002.
Factual scenario which is almost undisputed and leading
to the appeals is as follows:
The respondents were admitted to the MBBS degree
course. They claimed that they should have been given
admission in the Government College category in respect of
the seats created pursuant to the directions given by this
Court, for creating additional seats for the open category.
They filed writ petitions before the High Court contending
that some students who had secured lesser marks than them
had been admitted in the Government College category.
The Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of seats in educational
Institutions and of appointment or posts in services under
the State) Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the ’Act’)
was enacted by the State of Tamil Nadu. Prior to its
enactment, the ratio of admission was as follows:
Open category 50%
BC/MBC 31%
SC 18%
ST 1%
After enactment of the Act, the communal reservation to be
followed in the admissions was 31% to open competition
candidates, while the rests 69% was allotted to BC, MBC, SC
and ST candidates. Constitutional validity of the provisions
of the said Act was challenged before this Court in SLP (C)
No. 13526/1993. Pending final orders, an interim order was
passed on 18.8.1994. Essence of the order is being followed
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4
for various academic years.
The writ petitioners contended that they had secured
292.54 and 292.43 cut off marks. They were selected and
allotted to Perundurai Medical College under free seat
category by following the 69% reservation rule. Certain
additional seats were created pursuant to the directions
given by this Court. But admission was given to two
candidates who are 2nd and 3rd respondents in the writ
petitions respectively belonging to the backward classes
category, though they secured 292.08 cut off marks. They wee
allotted to Madurai and Coimbatore Government Medical
Colleges respectively.
Grievance of the writ petitioners was that they were
entitled to be allotted to the seats in Government Medical
Colleges and not the 2nd and 3rd respondents in the writ
petitions. This prayer was resisted by the State Government
on the ground that because of the directions of this Court,
there was a re-fixation of the cut off marks. The cut off
marks for the open category candidates stood lowered to
293.18 from 294.52. Since writ petitioners had secured
lesser marks, they were not entitled to be admitted.
Learned Single Judge of the High Court directed that on
the factual position as highlighted by the parties, the writ
petitioners were entitled to be admitted to the allotment in
Government seats in Government Medical Colleges. However,
the allotment to the 2nd and 3rd respondents in the writ
petitions was not disturbed. The order passed by learned
Single Judge came to be challenged before the Division Bench
which by the impugned order was dismissed. It was noticed
that the learned Single Judge had passed an order on the
basis of the directions given by this Court and had given
valid reasons for allowing the writ petitions.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted
that the approach of the High Court was erroneous. The order
passed by this Court on 18.8.1994 clearly indicated the
position as regards the number of seats to be allotted to
various categories. The seats were filled up by the
concerned authorities strictly complying with the directions
of this Court. It is further submitted that by giving
admission to the writ petitioners virtually new seats have
to be created for them which will be against the law laid
down by this Court in Medical Council of India v. Madhu
Singh and Ors. (2002 (7) SCC 258).
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-writ
petitioners submitted that the data furnished by the
appellant clearly indicate as to how misleading information
is being given. According to him, the data clearly indicates
that directions of this Court have not been complied with.
In Voice (Consumer Care) Council v. State of Tamil Nadu
(1996 (11) SCC 740) this court indicated the purport of the
order dated 18.8.1994 which is as follows:
"First, make the admissions applying the
rule of 69% reservation in favour of Backward
Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes. Second, the additional seats created
by virtue of the orders of this court be
filled with the general category candidates.
The number of seats so created was equal to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4
the number of seats which the general
candidates would have got if the rule of
fifty per cent total reservation had been
applied.
This order in effect respected the rule
of 69 per cent devised by the Government of
Tamil Nadu and sanctioned by the Tamil Nadu
Act 45 of 1994 while, at the same time,
removing the grievance of the general
category candidates by creating additional
seats for them for that year. In other words,
the sanctioned strength of seats in every
college are being allotted exclusively in
accordance with the sixty-nine per cent
reservation rule. Only the additional seats,
which are created by and only because of the
orders of this Court are being provided to
general category candidates on the basis of
merit, which category includes Backward
Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes as well. It is significant to notice
in this connection that according to the
figures supplied by the Government of Tamil
Nadu for the Academic Years 1993-94 and 1994-
95, more than eighty per cent of the seats in
the general category are being taken away by
the students belonging to Backward Classes on
the basis of their own merit. As fully
explained and illustrated in the order dated
18.8.1994, the students belonging to Backward
Classes are getting fifty per cent of the
total seats on the basis of reservation and
more than 80 per cent of the seats in the
general category (open competition category)
on the basis of their own merit. There is no
reason to believe that the situation is
different this year. Thus, the bulk of the
additional seats directed to be created by
this Court year after year (since 1994-95)
are again going to students belonging to
Backward Classes. The order of this Court is
thus not only upholding the rule of fifty per
cent ceiling on reservation affirmed by the
Special Bench of this Court in Indra Sawhney
v. Union of India (1992 Supp (3) SCC 217) but
is in truth operating to the advantage and
benefit of a number of Backward Class
students. Many of the Backward Class
students, along with certain other candidates
belonging to non-reserved categories, who
would not have otherwise got admission into
these courses, are getting seats by virtue of
these orders. And yet it is surprising to
note that the Government of Tamil Nadu has
chosen to ask for modification of the order
dated 22.7.1996. The said order is only
interlocutory in nature. Pending decision of
the several constitutional and legal
questions raised in these matters, it was
supposed to be an equitable order harming no
one. If at all, it benefited some who would
not have been able to obtain admission
otherwise and surely that fact cannot be a
ground of grievance for the State of Tamil
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4
Nadu. Only as an interim measure, certain
additional seats are being created and they
are being allotted to general category
candidates which in Tamil Nadu really
means providing the bulk of them to students
belonging to Backward Classes."
It has been rightly submitted by the learned counsel
for the appellant that there is no scope for any increase of
seats without specific permission from the concerned
authorities as was held in MCI’s case. The directions given
by this Court, as extracted above, are clear and
unambiguous. The only controversy is whether there has been
proper implementation of the order. We find that learned
Single Judge and the Division Bench have categorically noted
that persons belonging to open category who had secured
lesser marks than the writ petitioners, were admitted to the
Government Medical Colleges. From the data furnished, we
find that there were several absentees from amongst those
selected in the open category in relation to the Government
Medical Colleges. Additionally, two seats were directed to
be kept vacant by learned Single Judge which position
continued on confirmation of the Learned Single Judge’s
order by the Division Bench.
In the peculiar circumstances without elaborate
deliberations of the controversy involved in the main case
which is pending before this Court, it would be appropriate
if the writ petitioners (respondents in the present appeals)
are admitted in the Government Medical Colleges. Obviously,
this direction would not amount to creation of additional
seats and has to be done within the sanctioned seats
strength of the concerned Government College. As noted
above, there were several absentees and the interim order
passed by the learned Single Judge continued to be operative
on confirmation by the Division Bench as the writ petitions
were decided in favour of the writ petitioners. Let the
necessary steps be taken to admit the writ petitioners
(respondents in the present appeals) within three weeks from
today. Such admission shall be without prejudice to the
claims involved in the main petition pending before this
Court. We make it clear that we have not made any departure
from principles as laid down in MCI’s case (supra) and have
passed this order taking note of the undisputed factual
position of the case.
The appeals are accordingly disposed of.