# 247." STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS v. U.S.V. BALRAM ETC

- **Citation:** [1972] 3 S.C.R. 247
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1972-01-28
- **Bench:** C. A. Vaid!Alingam, K. K. Mathew
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/247-state-of-andhra-pradesh-and-ors-v-u-s-v-balram-etc-5525
- **Pages:** 42

## Headnote

Andhra PrGdesh M.B.B.S. course-Admission to Government Medical
Colltf;ts by merit as a result of compett'tive examination-Students who·
had passed pre-University course or Higher Secondary Course (Multipurpose) eligible for examination--40% of seats reserved for candidates
who had passed Higher Secondary Exarninc-.tion (Multipurpose)-Validity
of such reservation-Whether violative of Art. 14, Constitution of JndiaReservation of 25% in favour uj Backwnrd classes as enumerated b,v
Backward Cla1ses Commission-VGUdity of-Reservation lt·hether saved'
by Art. 15(4).
Admission to the integrated M.B.B.S. Course in the government
medic'31 co1Ieges in Andhra Pradesh was from two sources, namely, those
who had passed the pre-University Course and those who had passed the
Higher Secondary -Course (Multi-purpose) and a student from either
course had to appear at a competitive test.
By G.0. No. 1648/Health
dated July 23, 1970 40% of the seats were reserved for those candido.tes
who had passed the Higher Secondary Course (Multi-purpose).
Seats
were al.>o 'reserved for Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Caste candidates.
Apart from these there was a reservation of 25% in favour of &lckward
Cla~m as enumerated by the Andhra Pradesh Backward Classes Commission.
This reservation was provided by G.O. No. 1793/Education.
dated September 23, 1970 .. The respondents who were 03ndidates at
the entrance examination for admission to these co1leges were not selected.
on account of these reservations.
They filed writ petitions in the High
Court challenging rule 9 under which 40% reservation had been made
in favour of those passing Higher Secondary Course (Multi-pulrpo6e) and·
the aforesaid G.0. moking 25% reservation in favour of the Backward
Classes. The High Court by its judgment allowed the writ petitions and!
directed the State to give admission to the writ petitioners in the !st.year,
Integrated M.B.B.S. Course.
The High Court held that the only basis
for selection for the first year course is the marks obtained by a candidate
o.t the entrance test. The selection thereafter should only be on the basis
of highe·st number of marks irrespective of the fact as to whether the
candidate was from the plre-univen;ity course or the higher secondary
course. Rule 9 providing for the reservation of the 40%, in favour of
HSC (M.P.) .candidates was, therefore, struck down as offending Article
14 Of the Constitution. Regarding the 25 % seats in the colleges reserved
for the Backward Cflsses the High Coolt held that the government order
concerned was violative of Article IS(!) of the Constitution read with·
Artic,le 29 and that it was not saved by Article 1 S ( 4) of the Constitution.
In appeal by the State of Andhra Pradesh,
HELD : (I) It ia no doubt open to the State to prescribe the source
frQlll whii:h the <>011didates are declared eligible for applying fol' admission to the medical colleges; but when once a common entrance test has-.
been prescribed for all the candidates on the basis of which the selection'
bis to bll made the rule providing further that 40% of the seats wt'll have
le be resemd for H.S.C. candidates is atbibry. In the first pbce after:-
248
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972 J 3 S.C.R.
~common test has been prescribed there cannot be a valid classification
·Of _PUC an~ HSC. can~idates. Even assuming that such classification is
V"J.hd, the ~aid classifi~auon has no reasonable relation to the object sought
to be achieved, namely, selecting best candidate for the admission to the
Medical Colleges.
The reservation of 40% to the H.S.C. candidates has
":0 reasona~le relation to the said object.
Hence the High Court was
right when 1t struck down this reservation under rule 9 contained in G.O.
No. 1648 of 1970 as violative of Article 14. [266 C-EJ
<ii) (a) Though prima facie the list of Backward Classes which was
under attack may be considered to be on the basis of caste a closer
exami1;1ation would clearly show that it is only a descliption of 'the group
follo

## Text

_Characters 0–39,966 of 117,723. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39966 for what follows._

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
247."
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.
v.
U.S.V. BALRAM ETC.
January 28, 1972
(C. A. VAID!ALINGAM AND K. K. MATHEW, JJ.)
Andhra PrGdesh M.B.B.S. course-Admission to Government Medical
Colltf;ts by merit as a result of compett'tive examination-Students who·
had passed pre-University course or Higher Secondary Course (Multipurpose) eligible for examination--40% of seats reserved for candidates
who had passed Higher Secondary Exarninc-.tion (Multipurpose)-Validity
of such reservation-Whether violative of Art. 14, Constitution of JndiaReservation of 25% in favour uj Backwnrd classes as enumerated b,v
Backward Cla1ses Commission-VGUdity of-Reservation lt·hether saved'
by Art. 15(4).
Admission to the integrated M.B.B.S. Course in the government
medic'31 co1Ieges in Andhra Pradesh was from two sources, namely, those
who had passed the pre-University Course and those who had passed the
Higher Secondary -Course (Multi-purpose) and a student from either
course had to appear at a competitive test.
By G.0. No. 1648/Health
dated July 23, 1970 40% of the seats were reserved for those candido.tes
who had passed the Higher Secondary Course (Multi-purpose).
Seats
were al.>o 'reserved for Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Caste candidates.
Apart from these there was a reservation of 25% in favour of &lckward
Cla~m as enumerated by the Andhra Pradesh Backward Classes Commission.
This reservation was provided by G.O. No. 1793/Education.
dated September 23, 1970 .. The respondents who were 03ndidates at
the entrance examination for admission to these co1leges were not selected.
on account of these reservations.
They filed writ petitions in the High
Court challenging rule 9 under which 40% reservation had been made
in favour of those passing Higher Secondary Course (Multi-pulrpo6e) and·
the aforesaid G.0. moking 25% reservation in favour of the Backward
Classes. The High Court by its judgment allowed the writ petitions and!
directed the State to give admission to the writ petitioners in the !st.year,
Integrated M.B.B.S. Course.
The High Court held that the only basis
for selection for the first year course is the marks obtained by a candidate
o.t the entrance test. The selection thereafter should only be on the basis
of highe·st number of marks irrespective of the fact as to whether the
candidate was from the plre-univen;ity course or the higher secondary
course. Rule 9 providing for the reservation of the 40%, in favour of
HSC (M.P.) .candidates was, therefore, struck down as offending Article
14 Of the Constitution. Regarding the 25 % seats in the colleges reserved
for the Backward Cflsses the High Coolt held that the government order
concerned was violative of Article IS(!) of the Constitution read with·
Artic,le 29 and that it was not saved by Article 1 S ( 4) of the Constitution.
In appeal by the State of Andhra Pradesh,
HELD : (I) It ia no doubt open to the State to prescribe the source
frQlll whii:h the <>011didates are declared eligible for applying fol' admission to the medical colleges; but when once a common entrance test has-.
been prescribed for all the candidates on the basis of which the selection'
bis to bll made the rule providing further that 40% of the seats wt'll have
le be resemd for H.S.C. candidates is atbibry. In the first pbce after:-
248
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972 J 3 S.C.R.
~common test has been prescribed there cannot be a valid classification
·Of _PUC an~ HSC. can~idates. Even assuming that such classification is
V"J.hd, the ~aid classifi~auon has no reasonable relation to the object sought
to be achieved, namely, selecting best candidate for the admission to the
Medical Colleges.
The reservation of 40% to the H.S.C. candidates has
":0 reasona~le relation to the said object.
Hence the High Court was
right when 1t struck down this reservation under rule 9 contained in G.O.
No. 1648 of 1970 as violative of Article 14. [266 C-EJ
<ii) (a) Though prima facie the list of Backward Classes which was
under attack may be considered to be on the basis of caste a closer
exami1;1ation would clearly show that it is only a descliption of 'the group
folloW1ng the particular occupations or professions, exhaustively referred
to by. the Commission. · Even on the assumption that the list is based
exclusively on caste, it was clear from the materials before the Com.mis·
sion. and the reasons given by it in its report that the entire caste ii
socially and educationally backward and therefore the inclusion of subcaste in the list of Backward Classes is warranted by Art. IS ( 4). The
groups mentioned therein have been included in the list of
Backward
Classes as they satisfy the various tests which have been laid down by
this Court for 1!5Certaining social and educationally backward classea. 'Ibe
list of Backward Classes as well as resel"vation of 2S % of seats in Professional Colleges for the persons mentioned in the S3id list was valid
and w"' saved by Art. IS ( 4) of the Constitution and the High Court
was wrong holding·to the contrary. [285 C·D; 287 F-OJ
(b) The actual living conditions of habitation of the classea under
investigation can be satisfactorily judged and found out only on " ~
visit to the areas which will give a more accurate picture of theli" living
conditions and their surroundinl!"· If the personal inlpression gathered
by the menioers of the commission had also been utilised to augment the
various other m~terials gathered as a result of detailed investigation it
could not be said that the report of the Commission suffered from any
vice merely on the ground that they imported personal knowledge. [28S H·
286 AJ
( c) The cciticiam that the Commission had divided cbsseca into mMI
backward and 1... backward was not well founded.
On the other hand
·what the c.o.nmiMion had recommended was the distribution of -ts
amongst the reaened clasees in proportion to their population. This was
not a division of the Backward Clasoes as more backward ·and.less backward. [286· DJ
(d) If a situation arises wherein the candidates belonging to the group
included in the Jilt of backward classes are able to obtain more seats on
·the basil of their own merit it is the ·duty of the government to review
the question of further reservation of seats fOI' auch groul"!
If once a
·clo5s appears to have reached a stage of progress from ;which it .could be
·safely inferred that no further protection is necesaary the State will do
well to review such instances and suitably revile the list of Backward
<:lasses. [286 HJ
(o) In the present c~se under 0.0. No. 1793 of 1970 the total reoerva·
1ion w"' only 43%. The break up of that percentage is 2S%, 4% ond
14% for 'the Backward Classes, Scheduled 'Fn"bel and Scheduled ·Cutes
respectively. .The ·quantum 'of reservation was thUi well · within lllnlt
111entioned in Balaff•.case. [287 BJ
$tale of A.ndhro Prad111h .11114. anDther 'v, ,Lavu !'l~ndra Nai/t all4
Ot,,_.1, p971] 1,S.C.C. 6f17;.(JiJ/apalll··NaguWartl·Rao·an;l 01M;1•v,
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
A. P. STATE v. BALRAM (Vaidialingam, !.)
249
Principal Medical College, Guntur and Others, A.I.R. 1962 A.P. 212, P.
Sagar and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Health
Department, Hyderabad and Others, A.I.R. 1968 A.P. 165, State of
Altdhra Pradesh. and Another v. P. Sagar, [1968) 3 S.C.R. 595, Chitra
Ghosh and Another. v. Union of India and Others, U9701 1 S.C.R. 413,
Minor P. Rajendra v. State of Madras, fi1968] 2 S.C.R. 786, Ganga Ram
and Others v. Union of India and Others, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 2178, D. N.
Chanchala etc. v. State of Mysore artd Others A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1762,
State of Maharashtra and Another v. Lok Shikshan Sanasotha and Ors.,,
f,1971) 2 S.C.C. 410, Minor A. Periakaruppan and Anr. v. Slate of Tamil
Nadu and Ors. A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 2303, P. Suklwdev v. The Government
of Andhra Pradesh, 1966 An. W.R. 294, Triloki Nath Tiku and Anr. v.
State of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors. [1967] 2 S.C.R. 265, M. R. Balaji
and Ors. v. State of Mysore, !1963] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 438, R. ChJtralekha
and Anr. v. State of Mysore and Ors.,
~1964] 6 S.C.R. 368, State of
Madras v. Shrimati Champakam Dorairajan, [19511 S.C.R. 525 and Triloki
Nath and Anr. v. State of Jammu & Kmhmir and Ors., [11>69] 1 S.C.R.
103, refened to.
CivJL APPBLLATB JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal& Nos. 901 to
993 o! 1971.
. Appeals 1jy special leave from the judgment and order dated
May 13, 1971 o! the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petitions
Nos. 6090 of 1970, 221 o! 1971 and ~43 of 1971 respectively.
S: Y. Gupte, p. S. Shankar and P. P. Rao, for the appellants
(in C.A. No. 901of1971).
P. S. Shankar and P. P. Rao, for the appellants (in C.A. Nos.
902 and 903 of 1971).
V. M. Tarkunde and K. Rajendra Chowdhary, for the respondents (in C.A. No. 901of1971).
G. Narasimhulu and P. A. Chowdhry, for the respondent (in
p
C.A. No. 902 of 1971).
G
A. Subba Rao, for the respondent (in C.A. No. 903 of 1971).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered byVPicliaJlngam, J. These
three
appeals,
in
which
the
State of Andhra Pradesh is the first appellant,. by . special leave,
are directed against the judgment and order dated May 13, 1971
of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a batch of writ petitions,
striking ·down Rule 9; in the Rules relating to the selection of
candi.Jates for admission to the Integrated M.B.B.S. Course in th:
Government Medical College in the Andhra Pradesh area, .issued
G.O. No. 1648/Health elated July .23, 1970 as also under 0.0.
No. 1793/Educa.tion dated September 23, 1970, regarding reSetYlltion of seats· in professional · colleges for. Backward Classes
tugetlier with the . annexure to .. the said notification containing ·the
250
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 3 S.C.R.
list of Socially and Educationally Backward Classes. The Addi.
A
Director cf Medical and Health Services, Hyderabad and Principal, Government Medical College, Guntur, are also appellants
Nos .. 2 and 3 respectively in the appeals.
The Governme.nt of Andhra Pradesh by G.O. No.
1648/
Health dated July 23, 1970 announced Rules for the selection
and admission of students to the Integrated M.B.B.S. Course in
the Government Medical Colleges, in the Andhra
area.
The rules provided a pattern of allotment of seats by reference
B
to certair. qualifying examinations. The candidates eligible for
admission to the Integrated M.B.B.S. Course, being largely taken
from the students who had passed the qualifying examination for
the Pre-University Course and ·those who had passed the Higher
C
Secondary Course (Multipurpose), the rules provided for a pattern
of earmarking seats for the students according to the qualifying
examinations taken by them. It may be mentioned at this stlge
that the H.S.C. Course (Multipurpose) students are called Multipurpose candidates since they pass their examinations from Multipurpose Schools.
Rule 8 dealt with the pattern of allotment of seats in respect
of ,qualifying examination.
Rule 9 outlined the procedure. for
selection.
Rule 10 provided that all the reservations woul:l be
subject to the order of merit of marks obtained in the entrance
D
test by the
students in the relevant category of reservations,
namely, P .U.C. and H.S.C. Rule 24 provided that the selections
E
made under the Rules will be subject to any rules or orders that
may be made in regard to the reservation of seats for Socially and
Educationally Backward Classes of students, having regard to
the recommendations made by the Andhra Pradesh Backward
Classes Commission. But there was a condition that such Rules
or Orders should have been made by the Government before the
F
finalisation and communication of the selection of candidates.
On June 20, 1970, the Backward Classes Commission appointed . by the State, a couple of years back, made. its report regarding the yarious categories of persons who are to be treated as
bek>nging to Backward Classes and recommended reservation of
30% of seats to persons belongin~ to the Backward Classes. The
G
State by G.0. No. 1793/Educatlon, dated September 23, 19i0
announced reservation of 25 % of tlie seats in the M.B.B.S.
Course for candidates belonginJ! to the various Backward Qasses
enumerated therein on the basts of the report of the Backward
Classes Commission. In or about August, 1970, the valilfity of.
the entrance test provided under the Rules issued by the G.O.
9
No. 1648 of 1970 was
challenged before the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh in a batch. of writ petitions Nos. 3859, mt,
3955 attd 4052 of 1970. The challenge was on the groWld fttat
A
B
c
F
G
A. P. STATE v. BALRAM (Vaidialingam, I,)
251
the State had no power or authority to determine admission by
reference only to the result of the entrance test thereby ignoring
the results of the qualifying examinations taken by the candidates.
These writ petitions were dismissed by a learned Single Judge of
the High Court on September 5, 1970. But on Letters Patent
Appeals by the candidates, a Division Bench of the High Court on
September 18, 1970 reversed the order of the Single Judge and
struck down the provisions regarding holding of entrance test for
admission to Government Colleges as illegal.
The State came
to this Court in.Civil Appeal Nos. 2161A and 2162B of 1970.
Th:S Court by its judgment dated February 11, 1971 allowed
the appeals holding that the Government could hold an entrance
test for selection eligible candidates for admission to the medical
course in the colleges run by the Government. The said decision
is State of Andhra Pradesh and another v. Narendranath
and
others(').
On the basis of the decision of this Court in the above appeals
the Government on February 12, 1971, published an additional
list of candidates selected on the basis of the entrance test for
admission to the Integrated M.B.B.S. Course.
On December 21: 1970, the respondent in Civil Appeal
No. 901 of 1971, who was a P.U.C. candidate filed in the High
Court Writ Petition No. 6090 of 1970 challenging the v:i'lidity
of the classification of candidates into two categories as P.U.C.
and H.S.C.(M.P.) and reserving 40% of seats to the latter as also
the G.O. No. 1793/Education dated September 23, 1970 specifying certain classes as being Socially and Educationally backward
and providing for them a reservation of 25 % of seats in the colleges.
Certain other candidates belonging to the H.S.C. (M.P.)
category had filed writ petitions challenging G.0. No. 1793 of
1970 regarding the reservation made for the Backward Classes.
The P .U .C. candidate contended that the classification and reser-
• vation of 40% of seats for the H.S.C. (M.P.) candidates was violative of Art. 14 of the ConstitutiQn and that it was arbitrary and
illegal.
In particular he contended that he has obtained more
marks than some of the H.S.C(M.P.) candidates at the entrance
test and that he was entitled to admission in preference to such
candidates.
Both the P.U.C. as well as the H.S.C.(M.P.) writ
petitioners attacked G.O. No. 1793 of 1970 regarding reservation of 25% of seats for the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes as violative of Art. 15 ( 1) read with Art. 29 and
H
that it has not been saved by Art. 15(4). According to them
the classification of Backward Classes was not made on any reliable material and in the enumeration of such classes, the various
principles laid down by this Court have not been given due regard.
(1)[1971] I S.C.C. li07.
252
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1972] 3 S.C.R.
The State contested the writ petitioll5 on various
grounds.
Regarding rule 9 of G.0. No. 1648 of 1970, the stand taken by
the State was that the P.U.C. and H.S.C. (M.P.) candidates formed
two distinct categories and they did not form part of the same
class. It was further contended that the State was .entitled to lay
down the principles regarding the source from which the candidates are to be selected to the medical colleges which are run by
the Government and that in providing for equal distribution of
seats to the P.U.C and H.S.C. (M.P.) candidates, no discrimination has been made and there has been no violation ·of Art. 14.
Regarding G.O. No. 1793 of 1970, the State referred to the
appointment of a high powered commission to exhaustively investigate and report as to the persons who are to be considered as
Backward Classes for the purpose of reservation being made in
their favour. The Commission had gone into the matter and after
considering the educational and social backwardness of the various
classes of citizens in the State in the light of the various principles
and tests laid down by this Court, had submitted its report on
June 26, 1970 enumerating the various classes of persons who are
to be treated as Backward Classes. The report accepted by the
Government had also given the reasons for such classes being
treated as backward.
A
B
c
D
The High Court by its judgment, under attack, allowed the
writ petitions and also directed the State to give admissions to
E
the writ petitioners to the !st Year Integrated M.B.B.S. Course.
The High Court has held that the only basis for selection for the
ht Year Integrated M.B.B.S. Course in relation to the H.S.C.
and P.U.C.
candidates is the mark& obtained by them at the
entrance test provided by the rules framed under G.O. No. 1648
of 1970. According to the High Court when once rules have
F
been framed in that manner, the selection of candidates from these
categories must only be of those wno have obtained the highest_
number of marks in the said test irrespective of the fact as to
which category they belonged. In view of the factthat the selection is sought to be made by earmarking 40% of seats to the
H.S.C. (M.P.), the latter are having an unfair advantage over
the P.U.C. candidates, who will be denied admission,
though
they have obtained higher number of mark~. In this view the
High Court held that rule 9 providing for reservation of 40% to
G
the H.S.C. (M.P.) framed under G.O. No. 1648 of 1970 was
iJJegal as being discriminatory and as such offends Arb. 14 of the
Constitution. The said rule was struck down in consequence.
Regarding the enumeration of Backward
Classes by
the
Backward Class Commission, and the order of the Government,
G.O. No. 1795 of 1970, reserving 25% of seats in the Colleges,
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A. P. STATE v. BALRAM (Vaidialingam, I.)
2S'.3'
the High Court held that the Government order violalei Art. 15
( 1) read with Art. 29 and that the reservation was not saved by
Art: 15 ( 4). It is. the view of the High CoUrt that proper investigation and collection of data have not been done by tho Commission in accordance with the principles laid down by this Court in
its various decisions.
On the other hand, the High Court has
held that the Commission has merely enumerated the various
persons belonging to a particular caste as Backward Classes,
which is contrary to the decisions of this Court.
We will deal further with this aspect when we advert to the
validity of G.O. No. 1739 of 1970. Suffice it to say that the
High Court struck down the said Government Order as violative
of Art. ·IS ( 1) and that it was not saved by Art. b,..; of the
Constitution. The High Court declared that the writ petitioners
were entitled to be admitted to the Integrated M.B.B.S. Course
in the Medical Colleges in the Andhra area.
Before us, on behalf of the appellants Mr. S. V. Gupte, learned counsel has attacked the findings of the High Court striking
down Rule 9, issued under G.0. No. 1648 of 1970, as well as
the reservation of seats made in the Professional Colleges for the.
Backward Classes by G.0. No. 1793 of 1970.
We will first deal with the validity of Rule 9 issued under
G.O. No. 1648 of 1970 reserving 40% of seats for the H.S.C.
(M.P.) candidates.
Before we consider the contentions urged
in that regard by Mr. Gupte, on behalf of the State and Mr .. Tarkunde, on behalf of the respondents, it is necessary to broadly
refer to some of the material rules issued under G.O. No. 1648
of 1970. The rules were issued as annexure to this Government
Order. It was specifically stated in the said Government Order
that the rules specified in the annexure have to be followed in
respect of admissions of students to the Integrated
M.B.B.S.
Course in the Government Medical Colleges in the Andhra area
including Bhadrachalam Division of Khammam
District
and
Mungala Division of Nalgonda District from the academic year
1970-71.
Rule 1 referred to the availability of 550 seats in the 1st Year
Integrated M.B.B.S. Course in the four Government
Medical
Colleges, referred to therein the Andhra area.
Rule 2
dealt
with reservation of seats (viz.) for candidates outside the State,
candidates distinguished in N.C.C., Presidents' Scouts and Guides
and children of Ex. Servicemen and Armed personnel; and candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, women
candidates etc. Rule 3 deals with the age and educational qualifications. Regarding educational qualifications it is provided that
candidates possessing the minimum qualifications
of H.S.C ..
254
SUPREME COURT llEPOllTS
[1972] 3 S.C.ll.
<(M.P.), I.S.C., P.U.C. and A.l.H.S.C. or equivalent qualificaA
-tio~ are eligible to appear in the Entrance Test. But there was a
prov~so to the effect that in the qualifying examination the
candidates should have taken up physical sciences and biological
sciences and must have obtained not less than 50% of marks in
·!hose subjects put together. But in respect of candidates belong·
mg to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the provision is
B
that they should obtain n~t Jess than 40% of marks in those
11ubjects put together in their qualifying examination.
Rule 4 dealt with basis and method of admission. Clause ( i)
·Of this rule provides that all candidates who have applied for
.admission and are found eligible will be required to take Entrance
Test to be conudcted by the Director of Medical and Health
C
Services.
The said rule also dealt with the holding of the Entrance Test at the ceI!lres specified therein. Clause (v) specifically
provided that the Entrance Test will consist of four papers of 50
.marks each in (a) subject of Physical Science (Chemistry and
Physics), (b) subject of Biological Science (Zoology and Botany),
•Clause (vi) provided for the examinations in Chemistry and
D
Physics being held in the morning and the remaining two i.e.
Zoology and Botany, in the evening session and that answers
will be. written in separate answer books and that the Entrance
'Test will be conducted in a single day ..
The said rule also provided for the standard of test, type of
E
the test and the medium pf the test.
Rule 6 deals with the method of admission. It provides that
based on the result of the Entrance Test, a separate Master List
of eligible candidates will be prepared in order of merit and that
the selection will be made keeping in view the various reservations mentioned itherein. It may be mentioned at this stage that r
the reservations refered to therein are' for Scheduled Castes and
Schedule Tribes, Women candidates, children of Ex. Servicemen
·etc. There is no reservation referred to therein either of H.S.C.
or P.U.C. candidates.
Rule 7 deals with the distribution of seats. The total number
of seats available is stated to be 550. But the actual number of
G
seats available to be filled up on the basis of merit at the Entrance
Test is given as 532. The .said rule also provides for the distributiqn of seats to certain reserved groups such as Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes, women candidates etc. Here again
there is no reservation for H.S.C. or P.U.C.. candidates.
Rule 8 deals with the pattern of allotment of seats in respect
of qualifying examination. The seats are distributed as follows :
40% each to Multipurpose and P.U.C. candidates; 5% to M.Sc.
H
A
B
c
D
E
A. P. STATE v. BALRAM (Vaidialingam, 1.)
255
and B.Sc. candidates; 4% for N.C.C., President's Scouts and
Guides and Ex. Servicemen and 11 % strictly in the order of
merit in the Entranee Test from the general pool.
Rule 9 deals with the procedure for selection. Clause (D)
dealing with the Multipurpose and P.U.C. candidates, refers to
the fact that the total seats available are 545 and that according
to the pattern of distribution, 40% of the seats are reserved for
Multipurpose and 40% for P.U.C. (including I.S.C.)".
The
said clause further provides that the rate of seats to be filled up
by the candidates from the P.U.C./Multipurpose and allied qualification holders should be done so as to keep the number of seats
according to the ceiling, i.e., 40% ·as per the pattern of allot-·
ment for each group. It is this provision that was really struck
down by the High· Court.
Rule 10 specifies that all reservations would be subject to the
order of merit of marks obtained in the Entrance List. The other
rules are not material.
From a perusal of the rules, referred to above, two aspects
underlying the scheme of selection broadly emerge : ( 1 )
that
there is to be an Entrance Test for all the applicants for the
admission to the 1st Year Integrated M.B., B.S. Course; and (2)
that the result of the Entrance Test is to form the basis for·admis·
sion to the medical course. Under rule 3(2) candidates possessing the minimum qualification of H.S.C. (M.P.), l.S.C, P.U.C.
and A.l.H.S.C. or equivalent qualification are eligible to appear in
the Entrance Test. Therefore, it is clear that all the candidates
possessing these qualffications are to be put on a par and are
qualified to take the Entrance Test.
F
We have already referred to the fact that there is a proviso that
the candidates excepting those belonging to the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes should have obtained in their qualifying examination not less than 50% of marks in Physical and Biological
Sciences put together in their qualifying examination. There is
no distinction made between a P.U.C. or Multipurpose candidate.
Both of them, in order to become eligible to aPPear in the EnG
trance Tust, must have secured not less than 50% marks in their
qualifying examinations in the two
Ph.ysical
and
.Biol<?gic~l
Sciences put together.
The only relaxation, or exception, if 1t
may be so called is regarding the candidates belonging to the
Scheduled Castes' and Scheduled Tribes. These candidates
should have secured not less than 40% of the marks in those
H
subjects in their qualifying examination.
Rule 4 emphasises that all eligible candidates who have applied
for admisison are bound" to take the Entrance Test conducted by
4-L887 SuJi. Cl/72
256
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1972] 3 S.C.R.
the Director of Medical and Health Services. All the candidates,
who take the Entrance Test, must take all the four papers,
referred to therein. Here again, it will be seen that there is no
distinction made between a P.U.C. and a Multipurpose candidate. Both of them must have obtained not less than 50% marks
under rule 3 in Physical and Biological SCiences in their qualifying exa,ninations, and both of them will have to appear for
those subjects in the Entrance Test, which is common to all the
candidates.
Rule 6 specifically provides for the admission being made on
the bas;s of the results of the Entrance Test. Rule 7 regarding
distribution of seats specifically refers to 532 seats being avail-
. able to be filled up on the basis of merit in the Entrance Test.
But when we come to rules 8 and 9, it is stated in the. former
that 40% each is to be allotted on the basis of qualifying examination to Multipurpose and P.U.C. students and the latter refers_
to distribution in the same proportion to the two sets of candidates on the basis of the result of the Entrance Test. This is so,
notwithstanding the fact that rule 10 provides even in respect of
candidates for whom reservations have been made, their selection
will be in the order of merit of marks obtained in the Entrance
Test. When the scheme of the rules clearly shows that the basis of
selection for the 1st Year Integrated M.B., B.S. Course is according to the result of the Entrance Test, the question is whether the
reservation of 40% ·bf seats for the H.S.C. candidates under rule
9 is valid? Under this rule though a P.U.C. candidate may have
got higher marks than a H.S.C. candidate, he may not be able to
get admission because 40% of the seats allotted to the P.U.C.
candidates would have been filled up; wheras a H.S.C. candidate
who may have got lesser number of marks than a P.U.C. candidate may be eligible to get a seat because of 40% quota allotted
to the H.S.C. candidates has not yet been completed. Does this
amount to an arbitrary discrimination violative of Art. 14? Prima
facie having due regard to the scheme of the rules and the object
sought to be achieved, namely,, of getting the best students for
the Medical Colleges, the provision is discriminatory and it has
no reasonable relation to the object, sought to be achieved.
Mr. Gupte, learned counsel for the State urged that the P.U.C.
and H.S.C. candidates. form two separate categories and that
unless such reservation of seats is made, the H.S.C. candidates
may not be able to get adequate number of seats in the Medical
Colleges. He further contended that the Medical Colleges being
nm by the Government, it is open to the State to specify the
sources from which the candidates will have to be selected for
admission to those Colleges. He also pointed out that such a categorisation of students into two separate groups as P.U.C.
and
ll.S.C. has been held to be valid by the High Court.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A. P. STATE v. BALRAM (Vaidialingam, !.)
257
Mr. Tarkunde, learned counsel for the respondents, on the
other hand, urged that whatever may have been the circumstanc~s. ~at .origi11ally existed when the High Court then upheld the
divmon m~o separate groups of P.U.C. and H.S.C. students,
when once the rules clearly specify that there is to be a common
Ent_rance Test and that selections are to be made only on the
basts of the results of such a test, the reservation of 40% in favour
of the H.S.C:. c~ndidates is arbitrary, unjust ~nd discriminatory
and as such. it violates Art. 14 of the Constitution.
We are in ~greement with the contention of Mr. Tarkunde
regarding thls aspect and, in our opinion, the High Court was
justified in striking down the provision regarding reservation of
40% of seats to the H.S.C. candidates under rule 9.
We have
already indicated the scheme of t~:e Rules as well as the basis
for selection, as could be gathered from these rules.
We will now briefly advert to the decisions referred to by the
learned counsel on both sides. Mr. Gupte drew our attention to
the following decisions.
In Gul/apal/i Nageswara Rao and others v. Principal Medical
College, Guntur and others,.(1) the High Court had considered the
provision made in a rule by the Government regarding reservation of I/3rd of total number of seats in favour of Multipurpose
candidates in the Pre-Professional Course in medicine.
The rule,
no doubt, provided that admission for the said course should be
both from fue category of Multipurpose and P.U.c; students on
the basis of merit. Nevertheless a reservation of 1 /3rd of the
total number to be admitted was made in favour of H.S.C. This
reservation was attacked as being arbitrary and
unjust.
On
behalf of the State it was urged that the said reservation is not hlt
by Art. 14 as it was necessary to afford equal opportunities to
Multipurpose candidates.
The High Court considered in this
. connection the syllabus for study prescribed for the P.U.C. and
H.S.C. candidates in their respective courses .. The High Court
held that the ~ultipurpose candidates have to study more subjects
than the P.U.C. candidates and that their examinations also
covers a course extending over a period of four years. In this
view the High Court held that the H.S.C. candidl\tes are at a
msadvantage in the matter of securing higher percentage of marks
in their optional subjects, whereas a P .U.C. candidate had a distinct
adwntage over them.
It was further held that in such a situation
there are possibilities of P.U.C. candidates securing higher percentage of marks in their opti~nal s1;1bjects than the Multi~urpos~ c~n
didates and securing on the bastS of the result of thetr qualifymg
examination a larger number ol. seats in the Pre-Professional
Course in medicine.
Ultimately, the reservatiQ!l of 1/3rd number
(1) A.I.R.1962 A.P. 212.
258
SUPRE,ME COURT REPORTS
(1972] 3 S.c.R.
of seats in favour of the H.S.C. candidates was held by the High
Court.
It must be noted that at the time when the High Court dealt
with the matter, there was no uniform Entrance Test to be taken
by both the !'.U.C. and the H.S.C. candidates as is the position at
present.
On the other hand, the selection to the Pre-Professional
Course in medicine was then made on the basis of the marks obtained in the optional subjects by the respective students in their
previous course of study.
The above decision, in our opinion, has
no application to the facts of the present case.
The fact that the
High Court approved of reservation in the circumstances · then
existing will not help the State in the case before us.
The next decision to which our attention was drawn by Mr.
Gupte is P. Sagar and a/hers v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reprl·
sented by Health Department, Hyderabad and others('). To this
decision we will have to revert when we deal with the validity of
reservation made for the Backward Classes under G.0. No. 1793
A
B
c
of 1970.
But so far as the question of reservation for the P.U.C.
D
and H.S.C. students is concerned, it is seen that certain rules provided for reservation of percentage of seats for the candidates be·
longing to the H.S.C. and P;U.C. Here again the rule was that
1/3rd of the total numiier of seats in all categories put toi1ether
should be given to the H.S.C., Multipurpose and I.S.C. candidates
and that at least 50% of the seats should be given to the P.U.C.
candidates. It appears that the reservation of 50% of seats for
P.U.C. candidates was challenged as being unjust.
It was urged
before the High Court that the H.S.C. (Multipurpose) Examination is very difficult and as such those candidates will not be able
to secure higher marks as compared to the P.U.C. candidates and
in support of this contention the earlier decision in Gullapalli
Nag~ara Rao and others v. Principal Medical College, Guntur
P
and others(") was relied on.
Bufwe find that durinj: the course
of the hearing the Advocate-General intimated the High Court that
the Government was aware that the reservation of 50% seat8 to
the P.U.C. candidates was working a hardship on the Multipurpose
candidates and that the rules were being amended.
It was later
on represented that rules had also been amended.
Therefore, the
High Court ultimately held that in view of the amendment to the
rules, it was not :necessary to consider the challenge with respect
to the reservations made for the Multipurpose and the P .U.C. candidates.
Here again, it is to be stated that there was common
Entrance test for ii11 the candidates belonging to the P.U.C. and
H.S.C. categories. · On the other hand, the selecticihs were made
on the basis of the marks obtained by thei:p. ·in their·· qualifying
examinations. It was further held in the said decision that even
(l)A.I.R.1968 A.P.165.
(2) A.I.R.196:i A.P. 212..
G
H
A. P. STATE v. BALRAM (Vaidialingam, I.)
259
A on the basis that the qualifying examinations taken by the P.U.C.
and H.S.C. candidates were equal, still the reservation is not invalid
as discreminatory under Art. 14 of the Constitution. But here
again it is to be noted that selection were made on the basis of the
marks obtained in the qualifying examinations and not on the basis
of marks obtained in a common Entrance Test held for all the
B candidates uniformly. This decision is also, more or less similar
to the one in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao and others v. Principal
Medical College, Guntur and others. (1)
The de~ision in Sagar and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2) had also to deal with the reservation of seat in the Professional Colleges for the Backward Classes on the basis of the
C
G.O. which was then in force. It was held that the said reservation was not saved by Art. 15 ( 4). The decision of the High
Court striking down the reservation for the Backward Classes
alone was challenged by the State in this Court in State of Andhra
Pradesh a~ another v. P. Sagar.(') This Court upheld the decision of the High Court.
.
D
We will Jw.ve to refer to the above sections of the High Court
as well as of this Court when we deal with the second aspect which
arises for consideration before us regarding the reservation made
for the Backward Classes under G.0. No. 1793 of 1970.
Mr. Gupte then referred us to the decision in Chitra· Ghosh
E
and another v . .Union of India and others,(') That decision related to a challenge made by certain students who were denied admission to the Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi. The
said college was established by the Government of India. Of the
125 students, who are to be admitted annually, 15% of the seats
are reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates and 5 % for candiF
dates belonging to the Scheduled Tribes, 25 % of the seats (excluding the seats reserved for Government of India nominees) were
merved for girl students. In particular 23 seats were reserved to
certain categories and they were to be filled up by the candidates
who were nominated bly the Central Government. The categories
to which the said nomination had to be so made were as folfows :
G
H
( 1 ) Sons/ daughters of residents ol Union Territories
SJ?CCified below including displaced persons registered therein and sponsored by their respecti\le Administration of Territory :-
(a) Himachal Pradesh, (b) Tripura, ( c) Manipur, (d) Naga Hills, (e) N.E.F.A. and (f)
Andaman.
(I) A.I.R.1%2 A.P. 212.
(3) [1968J 3 S.C.R. s9s.
(2) A.l.R.1968 A.P.16S.
(4) [1910! I 8.C.R. 413.
260
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1972] 3 S.C.R.
(2) Sons/daughters of Central Government servants
posted in Indian Missions abroad.
(3) Cultural Scholars.
( 4) Colombo Plan Scholars.
(5) Thailand Scholars.
( 6) Jammu & Kashmir State Scholars.
The appel!ants therein had obtained about 62.5% marks and
were domiciled in Delhi.
According to them they were entitled
to admission on the basis of merit and would )lave been so admitted but for the reservations, which were filled by the-nominations
made by the Central Government.
H was their further contention that the students who had been so nominated lfy the Central
Government and got admission had obtained less percentage of
marks than the appellants. Mainly the power of the Central Government to make the nominations was challenged on the ground
that the provision for reservation in favour of such nominees 'ci
Central Government was not based on any reasonable classification
and suffered from the vice of dicrimination and hence the reserva'
tion was hit by Art. 14 read with els. (A) and {iv) of Art. 15 and
A.
B
c
D
Cl. (ii) of Art. 29.
This Court rejected the contention and held
that neither els.
(i) and (iv) of Art. 15 nor cl. (ii) of Art. 29
violated. In support of the challenge of discrimination under Art.
E
14, it was claimed by the appellants that merit being the sole cri-'
teria for admission, the provisions made for reservation for candidates to be nominated by the Central Government, introduced discrimination, or it had no reasonable nexus to the object sought td
be achieved.
After a reference to the provisions made in respect
of each of the categories to be nominated by the Central Government on merits, it was held that the classification in all those cases
was based on inte!ligib)e differentia, which distinguished them from
the group to which the appellants belonged.
In particular, Mr.
Gupte relied on the following oqservations in the said decision :
"It is the Central Government which bears the financial burden of running the medical college.
It is for it
to lay down the criteria for eligibility.