Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11
PETITIONER:
SUNEEL JATLEY ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF HARYHANA ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT30/07/1984
BENCH:
DESAI, D.A.
BENCH:
DESAI, D.A.
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
CITATION:
1984 AIR 1534 1985 SCR (1) 272
1984 SCC (4) 296 1984 SCALE (2)78
ACT:
Education Laws and Regulations-Admission to Medical
Colleges-Reservation of seats in favour of candidates coming
from Rural Areas and educated in common Rural Schools upto
8th standard for admission to M.B.B.S. course, whether is
violative of Articles 14 15 (4) and 29 (2) of the
Constitution of India.
HEADNOTE:
The third respondent Maharshi Dayanand University,
Rohtak issued a prospectus on June 12, 1982, inviting
applications for appearing at an Entrance Test for selecting
candidates for admission to M.B.B.S./B.D.S. course 1982. In
this prospectus, besides reservation for other candidates,
25 seats were shown as reserved for "Rural Areas" and
further clarifying the term as for deciding the eligibility
of a candidate from "Rural Areas" the following criterion
will be observed; a candidate must have received education
from Class I to Class 8 and passed 8th Class examination
from any Rural School situated in any village not having any
Municipality or notified area or Town Area Committee".
The petitioners, therefore, challenged only the
reservation of these 25 seats for candidates coming from the
Rural Areas as being violative of Articles 14, 15 (4) and 29
(2) of the Constitution inasmuch as (1) the classification
is arbitrary, unintelligible and unrelated to the objects
sought to be achieved and not saved by Articles 15 (4) and
(ii); to classify candidates on the basis of their education
in a school in Rural Area and Urban Area is international in
as much as before seeking admission to the Medical Faculty
even the student coming from rural areas and having been
educated in common rural school from 1st to 8th standard
would have taken further education for a period of 4 years
before seeking admission to the medical college and that
even in respect of the earlier education from 1st to 8th
standard in both the cases, there was identical syllabus and
examination-evaluation prescribed by a common authority
Allowing the petitions, the Court
^
HELD: 1. It is well-settled that Article 14 forbids
class legislation but
273
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11
permits reasonable classification in the matter of
legislation. In order to sustain the classification
permissible under Article 14, it has to satisfy the twin
tests: (1) that classification is founded on an intelligible
differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are
grouped together from others left out of the proup and (2)
the differentia must have a rational relation to the object
sought to be achieved by the impugned provision. [278H;
279A-B]
2:1. Classification based on students coming from
common rural schools meaning thereby educated upto 1st to
8th standard in common rural schools vis-a-vis students
educated in urban schools from 1st to 8th standard would not
provide intelligible differentia for founding a
classification thereon. The classification in such a
situation will be wholly arbitrary and irrational and
therefore the reservation based on such a classification
would be constitutionally invalid. The knowledge acquired in
the years spent from class 1 to class 8th is of a general
nature exposing the student to reading, writing,
understanding simple Arithmetics, General Knowledge of
History, Geography and introductory Mathematics. The
introductory knowledge of these subjects could hardly be
said to equip a student for admission to medical college.
The education imparted in class IX and X is little more than
introductory. In these classes, the student is being
prepared for deeper study. The selection of specialised
subjects has to be made in classes XI and XII and in respect
of education in classes IX to XII, all students being
educated in all schools are similarly situated, similarly
circumstanced and similarly placed with no differentiation.
The earlier handicap of education in classes I to VIII, if
there be any, becomes wholly irrelevant and of no
consequence and therefore, cannot provide an intelligible
differentia which distinguishes persons say students seeking
admission being grouped together as having been educated in
common rural schools from those left out namely the rest.
[282F; C-E]
Arti Sapru v. State of Jammu and Kahmir & Ors., [1981]
3 SCR 34, followed.
Pradeep Tandon’s case followed.
Amar Bir Singh & Ors. v. Maharishi Dayanand University,
Rohtak & Ors. ILR Punjab & Haryana [1980] 2 493, overruled.
2:2. The classification is not founded on intelligible
differentia and at any rate, it has no rational nexus to the
object sought to be achieved. It does not take into account
the following: (i) in order to take advantage of the
reservation, students from nearby urban areas can join any
rural school on the periphery agglomeration; (ii) All rural
schools without an exception cannot be condemned as ill-
house, ill-staffed and ill-equipped. Agriculture in Haryana
has been a very profitable pursuit and standard of life of
average farmer in rural area has gone up compared to middle
class and industrial worker and the slum dwellers whose
children will attend as a necessity urban schools. And yet
the better placed will enjoy reservation; (iii) The
knowledge acquired by the students while taking instructions
in class I to VIII has hardly any relevance to his being
equipped for taking the test for entrance to
274
the Medical College. The real challenge would come in
standard XI and XII. In this behalf all students those
coming from any rural schools and urban school are similarly
placed and similarly situated and yet by a reference to a
past event wholly unrelated to the objects sought to be
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11
achieved, they are artificially divided; and (iv) There is
no guarantee save a wishful thinking that the candidates
classified as coming from rural areas that is with education
from class 1 to VIII or otherwise would return to rural
areas after the M.B.B.S. degree. [285H; 284G; 285C-D]
Sukhvinder Kaur v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.,
A.I.R. 1974 HP 35, distinguished.
JUDGMENT:
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition Nos. 7014, 7426-28
of 1982, 7419, 7377-78, 7278, 6460, 7078, 6461, 5720, 7428,
7454 6896, 6894, 7288, 6895, 6892-97, 7421, 75-0, 7289,
7525, 7422, 6897, 6462, 7378, 5720, 5719 & 7290-91 of 1982.
(under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
With
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9149 of 1982.
From the Judgment and order dated the 14th September,
1982 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 3460
of 1982.
And
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9076 of 1982.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 1st September,
1982 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in WP No. 3299 of
1982.
And
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9289 of 1982.
Dr. Adarsh Kapoor & Mrs. V.D. Khanna for the
Petitioners.
P.P. Rao, R. Venkataraman, A. Mariapatham & M/s. Aruna
Mathur for M.D. University.
R.N. Poddar for the State.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
275
DESAI J. As the matter brooked no delay, at the
conclusion of the arguments, the Court pronounced the
following order reserving reasons to be given at a later
date.
"The petitions succeed to the extent herein
indicated. Let a writ be issued quashing reservation of
25 seats in favour of candidates coming from Rural
Areas and educated in common Rural School for admission
to MBBS Course 1982 at Medical College, Rohtak
affiliated to Maharshi Dayanand University.
Consequently the respondents are directed to admit in
1st MBBS Course of the same College commencing from
July, 1983, such number of students who secured
admission against the reservation for candidates coming
from Rural Areas and educated in Common Rural School in
1982, according to the general merit list drawn up in
respect of candidates, who sought admission and in the
absence of such a list, a waiting list should be drawn
up according to merits, for the year 1982. The
respondents are directed to work out the admissions as
per the direction herein made before May 31, 1983 and
give intimation to the students who become eligible for
admission. There will be no order as to costs. Reasons
to follow,"
Here are the reasons.
In this group of petitions under Art. 32 of the
Constitution, the petitioners questioned the validity and
legality of reservation of 25 seats for candidates coming
from rural areas for admission to first M.B.B.S./B.D.S.
Course for 1982 session in the Medical Faculty or the Third
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11
respondent-Maharishi Dayanand University Rohtak
(’University’ for short). The University issued a prospectus
on June 12, 1982 inviting applications for appearing at an
Entrance Test for selecting candidates for admission to
MBBS/BDS Course, 1982. In this prospectus, reserved seats
were shown as under:
"(A) RESERVED SEATS:
Categories No. of Seats
(a) Scheduled Caste/Tribes 30
(b) Rural areas 25
276
(i) Out of these 5 are reserved for girls, if
available, otherwise these will also be for boys.
(ii) For deciding the eligibility of a candidate from
rural areas, the following criterion will be
observed:
A candidate must have received education from
Class I to Class 8 and passed 8th class examination
from a common Rural School situated in any village not
having any Municipality or notified area or Town Area
Committee. For this purpose a certificate is required
to be submitted which may be seen in Appendix ’C’.
......................................................"
In short out of a total of 148 seats available for
admission, 80 seats were to be filled-in according to the
merit list drawn-up on the performance at the entrance
examination and the rest were reserved for different classes
of candidates. The petitioners challenge only the
reservation of 25 seats for candidates coming from the rural
areas as being violative of Arts. 14, 15(4) and 29 (2) of
the Constitution inasmuch as the classification is
arbitrary, unintelligible and unrelated to the objects
sought to be achieved and not saved by Art. 15(4). It was
alleged that to classify candidates on the basis of their
education in a school in rural area and urban area is
irrational inasmuch as before seeking admission to the
Medical Faculty even the student coming from rural areas and
having been educated in common rural school from 1st to 8th
standard would have taken further education for a period of
40 years before seeking admission to the medical college. It
was therefore said that earlier education from 1st to 8th
standard either in urban schools or common rural schools
both having identical syllabus and examination evaluation
prescribed by a common authority is hardly of any relevance
while considering the merit for admission to the medical
college more so because all students coming either from
urban schools or those educated in common rural schools were
required to undergo further education for a period of 4
years after the 8th standard in urban schools or schools
which can be compared with urban schools. The petitioners
contend that the reservation is not sustainable under Art.
15(4) because candidates educated in common rural school
cannot as a class be said to be society and educatio-
277
nally backward and therefore, the reservation would not
satisfy the test prescribed by Art. 15(4) of the
Constitution. The petitioners aver that the syllabus for 1st
to 8th standard adopted in common rural schools and urban
schools is entirely identical prescribed by the same
Government and the qualification of teachers for being
appointed in the urban schools or the common rural school is
the same and they are transferable from one area to the
other area. It was also contended that the majority of the
population in the State of Haryana as in whole country is
residing in rural areas and the reservation in favour of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11
majority would be void ab initio. Lastly it was said that
the classification apart from being arbitrary and irrational
does not satisfy the twin tests of it being based on
intelligible differentia and having any nexus to the objects
sought to be achieved. The petitioners say that some from
amongst respondents 5 to 49 have been admitted against
reservation for candidates coming from rural areas and even
though the petitioners had obtained higher marks at the
entrance examination and were placed higher in the merit
list yet they have been denied admission on account of the
constitutionally invalid reservation and therefore, their
admissions should be struck down and the University may be
directed by a mandamus to reconsider the eligibility for
admission after ignoring the reservation in favour of
students from rural areas.
Mr. K.L. Guglani, Registrar of the University filed his
affidavit-in-opposition inter alia contending that the
classification and the consequent reservation is valid under
Art. 14 of the Constitution. It was submitted that in order
to correct the regional imbalance in the matter of
admissions to medical college, the Govt. of Haryana had
carried out a sample survey of the comparative
facility/inequalities between the students of the schools
situated in the rural and the urban areas at the primary,
middle and high school stages in 1979 which revealed that
the students studying in common rural schools suffer from
serious handicap such as non-availabilty of electric fans in
summer and on the onset of rainy season, the difficulty of
access to the school resulting in shortening of the academic
year in such schools with consequent disadvantages in their
academic achievement as compared to children in the urban
schools where the academic sessions goes undisturbed by
extreme summer or rainy season. The sample survey further
revealed that most of the common rural schools are ill-
houses, ill-staffed and ill-equipped. There is no provision
for regular medical check-up of students at
278
any common rural school resulting in the neglect for the
upkeep of their health and this becomes a factor for the low
achievements of students in rural schools. The sample survey
also revealed that the teachers attached to common urban
schools residing in urban areas reached the school premises
just in time to take the classes and leave soon after the
school time is over thus denying the establishment of
personal contact with the students resulting in the denial
to such students an opportunity of development. It was
further submitted that the students coming from urban areas
after taking medical education declined to settle down in
rural areas and this will help in extending medical
facilities solely needed for rural population. In order to
correct this imbalance and the utter handicap felt by the
students studying in common rural schools, students seeking
admission were divided into different classes based on
intelligible differentia and that if the object of medical
education is to extend medical facilities where it is needed
the most, reservation for candidates coming from rural areas
would achieve the object and therefore, the State Govt. was
perfectly justified in making this reasonable and rational
classification.
At a later date Dr. D.C. Mehrotra, Director-Principal,
Medical College, Rohtak filed affidavit in-opposition on
behalf of respondents 1 to 3 which appears to be a carbon
copy of the affidavit filed by the Registrar Mr. Guglani.
The only question which needs answer is whether
reservation of ’25 seats for rural areas’ for admission to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11
1982 session in the Medical College attached to the
University is constitutionally valid. It must at once be
made clear that the respondents did not at all attempt to
sustain the reservation under sub-Art. (4) of Art. 15 which
enabled the State to make special provision for advancement
of any socially and educationally backward classes of
citizens or for the scheduled caste and scheduled tribes.
The respondents contended that the reservation of 25 seats
for candidates coming from rural areas is valid and can be
sustained under Art. 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, the
question is: whether the classification between the students
educated in urban school and common rural schools is based
on any intelligible differentia which has a rational nexus
to the objects sought to be achieved ?
It is well-settled that Art. 14 forbids class
legislation but
279
permits reasonable classification in the matter of
legislation. In order to sustain the classification
permissible under Art. 14, it has to satisfy the twin tests:
(1) that the classification is founded on an intelligible
differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are
grouped together from others left out of the group and (2)
the differentia must have a rational relation to the object
sought to be achieved by the impugned provision.
Does the classification on the basis of candidates
coming from rural areas against urban area in the matter of
admission to medical college satisfy the twin tests. If the
attempt at amplification of the classification resorted to
by the respondents is ignored for the time being, the broad
classification is that the students coming from rural areas
are classified separately for the purpose of admission to
the medical college. The reservation is described in the
prospectus as: ’Rural areas-25 seats’. If the matter were to
rest here, it would have been unnecessary to write this
judgment in view of the decision of this Court in State of
U.P. v. Pradeep Tandon(1) In that case the State of U.P. had
made reservation for admission to medical college in favour
of the candidates from rural, hill and Uttarkhand areas on
the ground that the people coming from these areas belonged
to socially and educationally backward classes. The
reservation was challenged as being violative of Arts. 14
and 15 and not protected by Art. 15(4). The State sought to
sustain the classification under Art. 15(4) urging that the
object of the classification was the advancement of facility
for medical education for candidates coming from reserved
areas as the people coming from these areas belonged to
socially and educationally backward classes. This contention
was accepted in part and negatived in past. Striking down
reservation of candidates coming from rural areas, the Court
held that reservation for rural areas cannot be sustained on
the ground that the rural areas represent socially and
educationally backward classes of citizens and the
reservation appears to be made for the majority population
of the State and on the ground of place of birth. The Court
upheld reservation in favour of candidates from Hill and
Uttarkhand areas on the ground that reservation in favour of
the people in those areas who belonged to socially and
educationally backward classes of citizens. Distinguishing
the case of reservation in favour of candidates coming from
rural areas, the Court observed that the backwardness
contemplated by Art. 15(4) is both social and educa-
280
tional backwardness of the citizens, the accent being on
classes of citizens socially and educationally backward and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11
therefore, socially and educationally backward citizens
cannot be equated with areas as a whole socially and
educationally backward. The Court concluded that some people
in the rural areas may be educationally backward, some may
be socially backward and there may be few who are both
socially and educationally backward but it cannot be said
that all citizens residing in rural areas are socially and
educationally backward. Accordingly, the reservation in
favour of candidates coming from rural areas was held as
constitutionally invalid. This reasoning would apply mutatis
mutandis to the facts in the present case because the
reservation is in favour of candidates coming from rural
areas.
It was however, contended by Mr. P.P. Rao on behalf of
the University that the Court should not merely confine
itself to the headline in the prospectus but read the entire
entry specifying reservation especially the conditions of
eligibility for the reserved seats. Reading it thus it was
said that the reservation was in favour of students not
coming from rural areas but in favour of students who were
educated in common rural schools. Proceeding along it was
said that before making the reservation the State Government
had undertaken a sample survey, portions of which are
extracted in certain correspondence annexed to the
affidavit-in-opposition which when examined in proper
perspective would show that the students educated in common
rural schools suffered certain handicaps and are
comparatively at a disadvantage in the matter of attaining
high merit for competing with students coming from urban
schools and therefore, the State deemed it proper to extend
the protection in the matter of admission to such
handicapped students. This submission was further amplified
by saying that students coming from urban areas and joining
medical colleges are generally disinclined to go to rural
areas for rendering medical service while if students coming
from rural areas are encouraged by reservation to take the
medical education, one can reasonably expect them to return
to the rural areas, the habitat of their childhood, and to
make such rural places their field of activity, which would
simultaneously extend medical service to rural areas which
is otherwise ill-starved in this behalf. It was pointed out
that the common rural schools have neither laboratories nor
library facilities and that it is ill-equipped, ill-housed
and ill-manned in the matter of staff, facilities and
equipment. To over-come these handicaps and to provide an
opportunity
281
to the students educated in such schools against fierce
competition from those students coming from well-equipped
and manned by highly trained staff urban schools, the
classification between the students coming from common rural
schools and those coming from urban school in the matter of
admission to the medical college satisfied the twin tests of
constitutionally valid classification.
Before anyone becomes eligible to compete for admission
to the medical college in the year 1982, it was incumbent
upon such a student to clear the 12th standard examination.
This is true in respect of all students seeking admission to
medical college irrespective of the fact whether they have
been educated in the common rural schools or urban schools.
Now the reservation is in favour of candidates from rural
areas which expression in amplified to mean ’a candidate
must have received education from Class 1 to class 8 and
passed 8th Class examination from a common Rural School
situated in any village not having any Municipality or
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11
Notified Area or Town Area Committee.’ It would at once
appear that every candidate seeking admission to medical
college must have studied upto the 12th class which would
mean that even a candidate coming from the common rural
school meaning thereby one who has taken his education upto
8th standard in such a school, yet subsequently he has
joined a school which imparts education upto the 12
standard. Such a candidate has joined a school for a period
of 4 years after having come out of the common rural school.
It is nowhere suggested that this education for 4 years by a
student coming from common rural school is in a school which
is either unequal to the urban school or comparatively ill-
equipped, ill-housed or ill-staffed. The necessary inference
that follows from this is that all students seeking
admission to the medical college have atleast taken
education for the last 4 years, in schools which are
comparatively similar. What then is the relevance of the
education taken from Class I to Class 8 for the purpose of
admission to a medical college. It was conceded that the
specialised subjects which will qualify a student for
appearing at the entrance examination for admission to
medical college are to be selected from the 11th standard
onwards. It was also conceded that the syllabus for students
from Class I to Class 8 either for urban schools or common
rural schools is entirely identical and prescribed by the
same authority, and this syllabus includes subjects of
general knowledge. It does not provide any specialised
knowledge. Therefore, it passes comprehension as to what
importance can be
282
attached to education from Class 1 to Class 8 for admission
to medical college which is divided by a span of over 4
years that of Class IX to Class XII (both inclusive) and in
respect of which students coming from all schools are
similarly situated, similarly circumstanced and similarly
placed and similarly treated and exposed to same educational
environments without the slightest difference. The question
then is: can the previous differentiation, if there by any,
provided a rational basis for classification The answer
obviously is in the negative. The knowledge acquired in the
years spent from Class 1 to Class VIII is of a general
nature exposing the student to reading, writing,
understanding simple arithmetics, general knowledge of
History, Geography and introductory mathematics. The
introductory knowledge of these subjects could hardly be
said to equip a student for admission to medical college.
The education imparted in Class IX and X is little more than
introductory. In these classes, the student is being
prepared for deeper study. The selection of specialised
subjects has to be made in Classes XI and XII and in respect
of education in Classes IX to XII, all students being
educated in all schools are similarly situated similarly
circumstance and similarly placed with no differentiation.
The earlier handicap of education in Classes 1 to 8, if
there be any, becomes wholly irrelevant and of no
consequence and therefore, cannot provide an intelligible
differentia which distinguishes persons say students seeking
admission being grouped together as having been educated in
common rural schools from those left out namely the rest. It
would therefore, follow as a corollary that classification
based on students coming from common rural schools meaning
thereby educated upto 1 to 8th standard in common rural
schools vis-a-vis students educated in urban schools from
Ist to 8th standard would not provide intelligible
differentia for founding a classification thereon The
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11
classification in such a situation will be wholly arbitrary
and irrational and therefore the reservation based on such
classification would be constitutionally invalid. This view
which we are taking finds support from a decision of this
Court in Arti Sapru v State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors.(1)
wherein this Court struck down reservation of 20% of the
seats to be filled on the basis of inter se merit to ensure
rectification of imbalance in the admission for various
parts of the State, if any, so as to give equitable and
uniform treatment to those parts. The Court following the
decision in Pradeep Tandon’s case held that the
classification attempted by the State suffers from the vice
283
of arbitrariness and must be declared invalid.
It was however., contended on behalf of the respondents
that the decision in Pradeep Tandon’s case would not be of
any assistance and is distinguishable because in that case
reservation was in favour of candidates coming from rural,
hill and Uttarkhand areas on the ground that people coming
from these areas belonged to socially and educationally
backward classes while the reservation in the instant case
is founded on the lack of facility for education in common
rural schools functioning in rural areas and also that in
Pradeep Tandon’s case one of the contentions which found
favour with the Court was that the reservation was in favour
of a majority which aspect does not arise in the present
case. In support of this submission, learned counsel for the
respondents extensively read before us the decision of the
full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Amar Bir
Singh & Ors v. Moha Rishi Dayanand University, Rohtak &
Ors(1) The full Bench of the High Court presided over by the
then learned Chief Justice upheld the impugned reservation.
The High Court distinguished the decision in Pradeep
Tandon’s case observing that the State sought to sustain the
reservation under Art. 15 (4) contending that candidates
coming from rural areas belonged to socially and
educationally backward classes of citizens and the
submission did not find favour with the Court though the
Court unreservedly accepted that candidates coming from hill
and Uttrakhand areas belonged to socially and educationally
backward classes of citizens and sustained reservation in
favour of the latter. It is true that the State did not
attempt to sustain the reservation under Art. 14 but certain
observations in the judgment would leave no room for doubt
that the aspect of valid classification was present to the
mind of the Court. It was observed that 80% of the
population reside, in rural areas and it cannot be said to
be a homogeneous class. Rural habitation cannot constitute
it into class. And it is reservation related to place of
birth. The Court thus examined whether candidates coming
from rural areas constitute a distinct homogeneous class for
the purpose of admission to medical college and rejected it.
The High Court in Amar Bir Singh’s case on the contrary
attempted to sustain the classification of students educated
in common rural schools which does not carry conviction.
Having read this judgment minutely and with care and
attention that a judgment of the
284
Full Bench of High Court bearing on the same topic merits,
we are of the opinion that the manner in which Pradeep
Tandon’s case, was sought to be distinguished was artificial
apart from being unintelligible. Undoubtedly the State in
Pradeep Tandon’s case attempted to sustain the
classification under Art. 15 (4) but that was not the crux
of the matter. The reservation was in favour of candidates
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11
coming from a certain area to wit rural areas. Now if the
amplification of what constitutes candidates coming from
rural areas will not enlarge or restrict the operative
portion, indisputably the reservation was for candidates
coming from rural areas which were styled Pradeep Tandon’s
case as socially and educationally backward areas. It is
true that one of the reasons which weighed with the Court in
striking down reservation in Pradeep Tandon’s case was that
the reservation was in favour of a majority. Such an
argument though available in the present case was not
advanced, because any day rural area is comparatively much
larger in area and size population to urban area in the
State of Haryana. Therefore, we are not impressed by the
submission that the judgment in Pradeep Tandon’s case is
distinguishable. In fact, this Court in Arti Sapru’s case
followed the decision in Pradeep Tandon’s case.
Assuming that the decision in Pradeep Tandon’s case
does not conclude the point as herein raised, the
differentia on which the classification is founded appears
to us arbitrary and irrational. How arbitrary and irrational
it is, can be demonstrably established. In order to take
advantage of the reservation students from nearby urban
areas can join common rural school on the periphery of urban
agglomeration. And all rural schools without an exception
cannot be condemned as ill-housed, ill-staffed and ill-
equipped. Agriculture in Haryana has been a very profitable
pursuit and standard of life of average farmer in rural area
has gone up compared to middle class and industrial workers
and the slum dwellers whose children will attend as a
necessity urban schools. And yet the better place will enjoy
reservation. Further the basis of classification based on
education upto 8th standard is wholly irrational. And it has
no nexus to the object sought to be achieved, of providing
extra facility to students coming from rural schools to
enter medical college.
What was the object sought to be achieved by the
classification ? It was said that students taking education
in common rural
285
schools from Ist to 8th standard are at a comparative
disadvantage to those taking education in urban schools in
the same standards. The comparison in our opinion is
fallacious for the reason that the same Government
prescribes standards of education, equipment, grants and
facilities including the qualification of the staff for
being employed in urban and rural schools imparting
instructions from Ist to 8th Standard. However, as pointed
out earlier, the knowledge acquired by the students while
taking instructions in Class I to VIII has hardly any
relevance to his being equipped for taking the test for
entrance to the medical college. The real challenge would
come in Standard XI and XII. In this behalf all students
those coming from common rural school and urban school are
similarly. placed and similarly situated and yet by a
reference to a past event wholly unrelated to the objects
sought to be achieved, they are artificially divided.
It was however said that there was another discernible
purpose in making the reservation. The urbanised students
are disinclined to go to rural areas for practice or service
and therefore if the students coming from rural common
schools are encouraged to seek admission they may return
after obtaining qualification to their childhood habitat and
thus help extend efficient medical service to rural areas at
present wholly neglected. It was urged if a region is
woefully deficient in medical services, there occurs serious
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11
educational and health service disparity for that human
region which must be redressed by a Welfare State. It was
submitted that the reservation was a step in this direction.
This submission was sought to be supported by referring to
Jagdish Saran v. Union of India.(1) This approach overlooks
the fact that even students educated in common rural schools
would be joining urban schools for four years before going
to medical college and then spend about five years in
medical college. There is no guarantee save a wishful
thinking that they would return to rural areas. This is so
flimsy a material to sustain classification.
We are therefore satisfied that the classification is
not founded on intelligible differentia and at any rate it
has no rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved.
The classification is irrational and arbitrate. The
reservation based on such classification is constitutionally
invalid.
286
Before we conclude, a reference to Sukhvindkr Kaur v.
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.(1) may be made. In that
case the High Court upheld reservation of 12 seats for
candidates who have passed matriculation or Higher Secondary
examination from schools located in the rural areas. The
aforementioned reservation was upheld by merely observing
that it does not appear to be unreasonable inasmuch as the
children in the rural areas who usually attend such schools
are socially, economically and educationally poor and they
cannot compete with the children of their age-group coming
from the urban area. The judgment does not refer to the
material on which the finding was based that the’ children
attending the schools in rural areas cannot compete with
children of the same age-group coming from the urban areas.
That apart the situation in that case was that the students
took education upto the Higher Secondary examination in the
schools situated in the rural areas and had thereafter
straightaway to compete for entrance to the medical college
with students coming from urban areas. Such is not the
situation before us. As pointed out earlier, in the instant
case, the students in whose favour the reservation is made
took education only upto the 8th standard in common rural
school and for the last 4 years they were on par in every
respect with students coming from urban areas. Therefore,
this decision is of no assistance.
These were the reasons which weighed with us in
allowing the writ petitions.
S.R. Petitions allowed.
287