Constitution of India – Art. 14, 15 and 19(1)(g) – Reservation – Appellant-Institute trained teachers for B.Ed. and M.Ed. courses – Appellant challenged a government policy (called “Admission Process and Guiding Principles 2022-2023”) before the High Court – Appellant’s challenge was mainly based on clause 1.5(a) of the policy, which allocates the B.Ed seats in the institute – As per which 75% of seats this Course reserved for “residents of Madhya Pradesh” and remaining 25% seats for candidates outside the State – Appellant alleged that that Institute is facing difficulties in making admissions to this course, as although the entire 25 percent seats allocated to the “outside” candidates have been filled, but almost all of the 75 percent of seats, reserved for the residents, have remained unfilled – The High Court dismissed the writ filed by the appellant – On appeal, the main issue was, whether the State Government could reserve seats for ‘residents’ of the State and, in case if it is permissible; whether 75% of the total seats, can be reserved for the residents – Held: As per Pradeep Jain case reservation in favour of residents is permissible, yet reservation to the extent of 75% of the total seats makes it a wholesale reservation, which has been held in Pradeep Jain case to be unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India – Large percentage of seats reserved for the residents of State which remains unfilled is not serving any purpose, rather it frustrates the very purpose of the reservation – Directed State to consider the observations laid down in the present case and to fix number of seats again for residents and non-residents, from the next academic year. Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. There are two questions here; first is whether the State Government can reserve seats for “residents” of Madhya Pradesh and, then, in case if it is permissible; the second question would be whether as large as 75% of the total seats, can be reserved for the residents. [Para 7][111-E]
2. As far as the first question is concerned, the same is no more res integra, as this Court in the case of Dr. Pradeep Jain and Others v. Union of India and Others (1984) 3 SCC 654, had upheld such reservation. In the case at hand, this Court is not dealing with medical education, but with the validity of reservation based on residence requirement in a professional education course i.e. B.Ed. In our considered opinion, the ratio as laid down by this Court in Pradeep Jain would be applicable in this case as this Courtll but only to an extent, not fully. The reasons as this Court have already indicated are two: firstly Pradeep Jain and all the cases which follow Pradeep Jain deal only with medical education, and secondly the ratio as laid down in Pradeep Jain has also to be seen in the context of the time when it was delivered. In short, therefore, though this Court had to follow the principles as laid down in Pradeep Jain but at the same time this Court also have to keep in mind the ground realities of the present day. This Court also have to keep in mind that this Court are presently not dealing with medical education but admission in a professional education course called B.Ed. [Paras 8, 12][111-F; 114-D-F]
3. This Court while upholding such reservations in medical education had considered factors such as huge investments the State had made in creating the infrastructure, the backwardness of the area, the presumption that the local residents after gaining the education will serve the people of that State, etc. All these factors may or may not be equally relevant while this Court are considering admission to other courses such as B.Ed in the present case. [Para 13][114-G]
4. It is apparent that the large percentage of seats reserved for the residents of Madhya Pradesh which remains unfilled is not serving any purpose. Moreover, a wholesale reservation for residents of Madhya Pradesh would also be violative of the law laid down in the case of Pradeep Jain, as this Court have referred above in this order. [Para 17][116-D]
5. Keeping 75% of the seats reserved for the residents of Madhya Pradesh is too high a percentage, and as the figures for the last two years indicate, it is also not serving any purpose. The number of seats from the next academic year shall, therefore be fixed again for residents and non-residents, keeping the observations made by this Court in this order. This Court make it clear that though reservation in favour of residents is permissible, yet reservation to the extent of 75% of the total seats makes it a wholesale reservation, which has been held in Pradeep Jain to be unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A wholesale reservation as this Court have seen is not serving any purpose rather it frustrates the very purpose of the reservation. [Paras 18, 19][116-E-G] Dr. Pradeep Jain and Others v. Union of India and Others (1984) 3 SCC 654 : [1984] 3 SCR 942 – relied on.
Preston College and Another v. State of M.P. & Ors. 2007 SCC Online MP 103; D.P. Joshi v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1955) 1 SCR 1215; Saurabh Chaudhari and Others. v. Union of India and Others (2003) 11 SCC
146 : [2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 152; Magan Mehrotra and Others v. Union of India and Others (2003) 11 SCC 186; Rajdeep Ghosh v. The State of Assam (2018) 17 SCC 524 : [2018] 11 SCR 329 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.