Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
M. R. MINI (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN & FATHER M.P.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA AND ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT28/01/1980
BENCH:
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
BENCH:
KRISHNAIYER, V.R.
PATHAK, R.S.
CITATION:
1980 AIR 838 1980 SCR (2) 829
1980 SCC (2) 216
ACT:
University-wise allocation of seats for M.B.B.S. course
in Kerala, constitutional validity of.
HEADNOTE:
Dismissing the Writ Petition, the Court
^
HELD: The University-wise allocation of seats is valid.
Under the existing scheme, the classification for
purposes of quota is university-wise, not territory-wise.
Belonging to backward Calicut District is not the same as
being an alumnus of the Calicut University. May be, the
State could have classified candidates University-wise,
backward region-wise or otherwise, separately or in any
constitutionally permissible combination. Mystic maybes are
beyond judicial conjecture. The misfortune of the petitioner
is damnum sine injuria. Every adversity is not an injury.
Judicial remedy cannot heal every wound or cure every sore
since the discipline of the law keeps courts within its
bounds. [830 A-D]
Dr. Jagdish Saran & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
[1980] 2 SCR 831 relied on
Observation:
[Too long has the State been seeking ad hoc solutions
and improvising remedies where comprehensive studies and
enduring recipes are the desideratum. To keep the education
situation uncertain across the national and the fate of
students of higher education tense or in suspense with
annual challenges in court or agitational exercises in the
streets is dangerous procrastination fraught with negative
results where a creative undertaking of responsibility to
find an enduring answer to a chronic problem is the minimum
that the country expects of the concerned State
instrumentality.] [830 E-G]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 1220 of
1979.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution)
P. Govindan Nair and N. Sudhakaran for the Petitioner.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
M. M. Khader and V. J. Francis for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KRISHNA IYER, J.-The petitioner, an aspirant for
admission to the M.B.B.S. course in one or other of the
medical college in Kerala, has failed to qualify for
selection from the Kerala university pool, not having
secured high enough marks, and has failed to fall within the
Calicut University pool, not having been a student of that
University.
What is urged, as a claim for inclusion, is that had
she been treated as a Calicut University student her marks
would have been sufficient to gain admission and since she
belongs to the Malabar region, which
830
is broadly served by the Calicut University, she should be
given the benefit of Calicut University students and
consequential admission-a mixture of district-wise
backwardness and university-wise preference to reach the
desired advantage.
We cannot agree. Under the existing scheme, the
classification for purpose of quota is university-wise, not
territory-wise. Belonging to backward Calicut District is
not the same as being an alumnus of the Calicut University.
Maybe, the State could have classified candidates
university-wise, backward region-wise or otherwise,
separately or in any constitutionally permissible
combination. We are not here concerned with the prospects of
the petitioner under any different admission scheme or
reservation project. Mystic maybes are beyond judicial
conjecture. Once we hold that the university-wise allocation
of seats is valid the misfortune of the petitioner is damnum
sine injuria, if we may use that expression in this context.
Every adversity is not an injury. Judicial remedy cannot
heal every wound or cure every sore since the discipline of
the law keeps courts within its bounds.
We do not preclude the State from taking any other
pragmatic formula or evolving any selection calculus,
constitutionally permissible, so as to promote equality
against the backdrop of social justice. Indeed, we have by
our Judgment in Dr. Jagadish Saran & Ors. v. Union of India
& Ors.(1), explained the parameters, the criteria and the
correct measures which must be initiated to marry equality
to excellence, solemnised constitutionally.
Too long has the state been seeking ad hoc solutions
and improvising remedies where comprehensive studies and
enduring recipes are the desideratum. To keep the education
situation uncertain across the nation and the fate of
students of higher education tense or in suspense with
annual challenge in court or agitational exercises in the
streets is dangerous procrastination fraught with negative
results where a creative undertaking of responsibility to
find an enduring answer to a chronic problem is the minimum
that the country expects of the concerned State
instrumentality.
We dismiss this petition subject to the observations we
have made above, leaving it to the Kerala State and its
Universities not to contribute to the litigative nursery of
medical candidates but to face the task of shaping a firm
policy governed by constitutional guidelines, not other
pressures.
S.R. Petition dismissed.
831