# HEGGADE JANARDHAN SUBBARYE v. THE STATE OF MYSORE AND ANOTHER

- **Citation:** [1963] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 475
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1961-07-10
- **Case number:** Writ Petitions Nos. 130 & 133 of 1962
- **Bench:** B. P. Sinha, P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. N. Wanchco, K. C. Das Gupta, J.C. Shah
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/heggade-janardhan-subbarye-v-the-state-of-mysore-and-another-2721
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Oolkg• Admiiision-Reservation of seats for socially and
educationally backward cl<l8su struck down-Reservation for
Schtdultd Castes and Tri/Ju uphel4-0onstitution of India,
Ari. 15( 4).
The petitioners challenged the validity of the orders
issued by the State of Mysore under Art. 15(4) of the Constitution on July 10, 1961, and July 31, 1962. The petitioners
contended that they had applied for admission to the PreProfessional Class in Medicine in the Karnatak Medical
College, Hubli and they would have secured admiision to the
said medical college but for the reservation directed to be made
by the orders mentioned above. They contended that the
al/ove-mentioned orders were ultra viru. They prayed for an
appropriate writ or order restraining the respondents from
giving effect to those orders and requiring them to deal with
their applications for admission on merits.
H•ld, that the petitioners were entitled to an appropriate
writ or order as claimed by tbem and the respondents were
restrained from giving effect .to the above-mentioned orders.
JI. R. Balaji v. Statt of Jlysor• [1963] Supp. l S.C.R. 439,
followed.
The impugned orders we.e quashed only with reference
to the additional reservation made in favour of the socially ana
19i2
M. R. B•l•ji
v.
St.I< •f Mysor•
G«jeninlt«ik•r, J,
19i2
1962
Hett4ie JNWrtiilo
Suhbar_.'Ve
v.
Stat1 of Mysm
•76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
educationally backward classes and so the respondents were at
liberty to give effect to the reservation made in favour of the
Scheduled Castes and Sch"."uled
Tribes, which
was not
challei;ged at all. The said
reservation continues to be
operative.
ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION :
Writ
Petitions
Nos. 130 & 133 of 1962.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
.
8. K. Venkatarangaiengar and R. Gopalakrishnan,
for the Petitioners (In both the Petitions).
P. D. Menon, for the Respondents (In both the
Petitions).
'
1962. November 5. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
GAJENDRAGADKAR, ].-These two writ petitions
Nos. 130 of 1962 and 133 of 1962 have been filed by
Heggade Janardhan Subbarye and Ravindra Prabhu
respectively (hereinafter called the petitioners) under
Art. 32 of the Constitution, challenging the validity
of the orders issued by respondent No. I, the State of
Mysore, under Art. 15(4) of the Constitution on
July 10, 1961 and July 31, 1962, respectively. Both
the petitioners had applied for admission to the
pre· Professional Class m Medicine in the Kamatak
Medical College, Hubli, and the applications had
been submitted to respondent No. 2, the Selection
Committee appointed in that behalf by respondent
No. 1.
According to the petitioners, they would have
secured admission to the said Medical College but for
the rese1vation directed to be made by the two
impugned orders. They alleged that the orders were
ultra V'ires, and so, they prayed for an appropriate
writ or order restraining the respondent~ from giving
effect to the said orders and
~equiring them to deal
with the petitioners' applications on the merits.
I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
477
The points raised by the present petitions are
covered by the decision of this Court in the case of
M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore(1) and so, it is common
ground that the petitioners are entitled to an appropriate writ or order as claimed by them.
Learned counsel for the respondents however,
drew our attention to the fact that as a result of the
decision of this Court in the case of M. R. Balaji (1)
respondent No. I was feeling some doubras to whether
the reservation made by the impugned orders in
respect of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes was also struck down by this Court.
As the
judgment shows, respondent No. l has consistently
fixed the percentage of reservation in respect of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes at 15%
and 3% respectively.
Five orders have been passed
by respondent No. l one after the other under
Art.
15(4).
but the reservatio

## Text

1 s.c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
475
In the result, we allow the writ petitions and
direct that an appropriate writ or order or direction
should be issued restraining the three respondents from
giving effect to the impugned order in terms of the
prayer made in clauses (i) and (ii) of paragrap? 38
of the petitions. The petitioners would be entitled
to their costs, one set of hearing fees.
Petitions aUowed.
HEGGADE JANARDHAN SUBBARYE
v.
THE STATE OF MYSORE AND ANOTHER
(And connected petition)
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N.
WANCHCO, K. C. DAS GUPTA and J.C. SHAH, JJ.)
Oolkg• Admiiision-Reservation of seats for socially and
educationally backward cl<l8su struck down-Reservation for
Schtdultd Castes and Tri/Ju uphel4-0onstitution of India,
Ari. 15( 4).
The petitioners challenged the validity of the orders
issued by the State of Mysore under Art. 15(4) of the Constitution on July 10, 1961, and July 31, 1962. The petitioners
contended that they had applied for admission to the PreProfessional Class in Medicine in the Karnatak Medical
College, Hubli and they would have secured admiision to the
said medical college but for the reservation directed to be made
by the orders mentioned above. They contended that the
al/ove-mentioned orders were ultra viru. They prayed for an
appropriate writ or order restraining the respondents from
giving effect to those orders and requiring them to deal with
their applications for admission on merits.
H•ld, that the petitioners were entitled to an appropriate
writ or order as claimed by tbem and the respondents were
restrained from giving effect .to the above-mentioned orders.
JI. R. Balaji v. Statt of Jlysor• [1963] Supp. l S.C.R. 439,
followed.
The impugned orders we.e quashed only with reference
to the additional reservation made in favour of the socially ana
19i2
M. R. B•l•ji
v.
St.I< •f Mysor•
G«jeninlt«ik•r, J,
19i2
1962
Hett4ie JNWrtiilo
Suhbar_.'Ve
v.
Stat1 of Mysm
•76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
educationally backward classes and so the respondents were at
liberty to give effect to the reservation made in favour of the
Scheduled Castes and Sch"."uled
Tribes, which
was not
challei;ged at all. The said
reservation continues to be
operative.
ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION :
Writ
Petitions
Nos. 130 & 133 of 1962.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
.
8. K. Venkatarangaiengar and R. Gopalakrishnan,
for the Petitioners (In both the Petitions).
P. D. Menon, for the Respondents (In both the
Petitions).
'
1962. November 5. The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
GAJENDRAGADKAR, ].-These two writ petitions
Nos. 130 of 1962 and 133 of 1962 have been filed by
Heggade Janardhan Subbarye and Ravindra Prabhu
respectively (hereinafter called the petitioners) under
Art. 32 of the Constitution, challenging the validity
of the orders issued by respondent No. I, the State of
Mysore, under Art. 15(4) of the Constitution on
July 10, 1961 and July 31, 1962, respectively. Both
the petitioners had applied for admission to the
pre· Professional Class m Medicine in the Kamatak
Medical College, Hubli, and the applications had
been submitted to respondent No. 2, the Selection
Committee appointed in that behalf by respondent
No. 1.
According to the petitioners, they would have
secured admission to the said Medical College but for
the rese1vation directed to be made by the two
impugned orders. They alleged that the orders were
ultra V'ires, and so, they prayed for an appropriate
writ or order restraining the respondent~ from giving
effect to the said orders and
~equiring them to deal
with the petitioners' applications on the merits.
I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
477
The points raised by the present petitions are
covered by the decision of this Court in the case of
M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore(1) and so, it is common
ground that the petitioners are entitled to an appropriate writ or order as claimed by them.
Learned counsel for the respondents however,
drew our attention to the fact that as a result of the
decision of this Court in the case of M. R. Balaji (1)
respondent No. I was feeling some doubras to whether
the reservation made by the impugned orders in
respect of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes was also struck down by this Court.
As the
judgment shows, respondent No. l has consistently
fixed the percentage of reservation in respect of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes at 15%
and 3% respectively.
Five orders have been passed
by respondent No. l one after the other under
Art.
15(4).
but the reservation fixed for
the
Scheduled
Castes
and
the
Scheduled
Tribes
has always remained the same.
It is true that
the judgment of this Court does not expressly say
that the validity of the said reservation wa1 not
assailed before this Court and cannot, therefore, be
deemed to have been affected by the decision.
However, as the judgment shows, the only attack against
the validity of the impugned orders was directed
against the additional reservation made in favour of
the socially and educationally Backward Classes of
citizens in the State. The petitions filed in the said
cases were confined to the said reservation and during
the course of the arguments before this Court, it was
not suggested by the petitioners' learned counsel that
the reservation made in favour of the Scheduled
Castes and Tribes was in any manner irregular or
not justified by Art. 15(4). This position is not
disputed by the petitioners' learned counsel before
us.
Therefore, we think that in order to avoid any
doubt in the matter it is necessary to make it clear
that our judgment in that case does not affei::t the
(I) [1963] Supp. IS. 0. R. 489.
JJ62
H•Ulie ;,,.,,,;hai
Subb"J'
v.
Stalf of M.JJ9Tt
GcjmCr.,Mkcr, J.
1962
f/111.U J1n1rih.,l
Sub6"1'y1
v.
Stal• tJj Mysor1
•G•je11ir~gadk1r, J.
478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.
validity of the said reservation which is distinct and
separate from, and independent of, the other reservation which was challenged. The said reservation
continues to be operative and the fact that the
impugned orders have been quashed does not alter
that position. The said orders have been quashed
solely by reference to the additional reservation made
by the impugned orders in regard to the socially and
educationally Backward Classes, and so, respondent
No. 1 would be justified in giving effect to the
reservation made in respect of the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes.
In the result, we allowed the petitions and
direct that an appropriate writ or order should be
issued restraining the respondents from giving effect
to the two impugned orders. In the circumstances
of these cases, we direct that the petitioners should
get from the respondents costs incurred by them,
except the hearing fee.
Petitions allowed.