http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 14

PETITIONER:

NIDAMARTI MAHESHKKUMAR

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

STATF OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT06/04/1986

BENCH:

BHAGWATI, P.N. (CJ)

BENCH:

BHAGWATI, P.N. (CJ)

MADON, D.P.

CITATION:

1986 AIR 1362 1986 SCR (2) 230

1986 SCC (2) 534 JT 1986 501

1986 SCALE (1)967

CITATOR INFO :

R 1989 SC 177 (8)

R 1989 SC 903 (28)

E&R 1989 SC1194 (7,8)

APL 1989 SC1513 (5)

ACT:

Constitution of India, Articles 15(1)(4) and 21

Admission to Medical Colleges - Reservation of Seats for

students from backward region of State - Validity of.

Professional Colleges - Admission to - Rule B(2) of

Rules for admission to M.B.B.S. Course - Student from

school/college within jurisdiction of one university

Ineligible for admission to medical college or colleges

situated in jurisdiction of another university - Validity of

Rule - Whether violative of Article 14 of the constitution.

HEADNOTE:

The qualification required for admission to the MBBS

course in the State of Maharashtra is the passing of 12th

standard examination held by the Mahsrashtra State Board of

Secondary and Higher Secondary Education. It comprises of

three Divisional Boards - one for Vidharbha region, another

for Marathwada region and the third for the rest of

Maharashtra - and though for the purpose of convenience each

of these three Divisional Boards conducts the 12th standard

examination for the area within its jurisdiction, the

examination which is held is one and the same throughout the

State of Maharashtra, based on the same syllabus, with the

same set of questions and the same standard of evaluation.

The results of the 12th standard examination are published

division wise and the merit list is also prepared on that

basis but the question papers being same and the standard of

evaluation also being uniform throughout the three regions,

it is easy to assess the comparative merits of the

candidates in the three regions by reference to the marks

obtained by them at the 12th standard examination.

The respondent-State, instead of selecting candidates

from all over the State for the academic year 1985 on the

basis of their performance in the 12th standard examination,

made region wise classification for admission to medical

231

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 14

colleges by framing new Rules for admission to the M.B.B.S.

A course. Rule B(2) of the Rules provided that a student

from a school or college situated within the jurisdiction of

a particular university could seek admission only in the

medical college or colleges situate within the jurisdiction

of that University and he could not be eligible for

admission to medical college or colleges situate in the

jurisdiction of another university.

The appellant challenged the validity of Rule B(2) of

the Rules before the High Court on the ground that it

offends Article 14 of the Constitution. The High Court

dismissed the writ petition on the ground that since the

implementation of the order passed in Dr. Pradeep Jain &

Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. etc., [1984] 3 S.C.C. 654 that

30% of the open seats should be available for admission to

students on all India basis and that only 70% of the seats

could be reserved on the basis of residence or institutional

preference, had been deferred by the Supreme Court, the

State Government "had no other alternative but to fill in

the seats as if there were no directions from the Supreme

Court to fill in the seats on all-India basis" and Rule B(2)

of the Rules for admission to the M.B.B.S. course framed by

the State Government for the academic year 1985 was

therefore valid.

Allowing the appeal,

^

HELD: 1. The regionwise scheme adopted by the State

Government in Rule B(2) clearly results in denial of equal

opportunity violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

[245 D]

2.(i) The object of any valid scheme of admissions must

be to "select the best candidates for being admitted to

medical colleges" and that if any departure is to be made

"from the principle of selection on the basis of merit", it

must be justified on the touch-stone of Article 14. [238D-E]

Minor P. Rajendran v. State of Madras, [1968] 2 S.C.R.

786, A. Preeria-Kurappan v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1971] 2

S.C.R. 430 and Dr. Pradeep Jain & Ors. v. Union of India

Ors. etc., [1984] 3 S.C.C. 654, relied upon.

D.P. Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat, [1955] 1 S.C.R.

232

1215 and Jagdish Saran v. Union of India, [1980] 2 S.C.R.

831, referred to.

2.(ii) There are two considerations which may

legitimately weigh with the Court in justifying departure

from the principle of selection based on merit. One is what

may be called State interest and the other is what may be

described as a region's claim of backwardness. The claim of

State interest in providing adequate medical services to the

people of the State by imparting medical education to

students who by reason of their residence in the State would

be likely to settle down and serve the people of the State

as Doctors, is a legitimate ground for departing from the

strict principle of selection based on merit. [240 D-G]

2.(iii) Where the region from which the students of a

university are largely drawn is backward either from the

point of view of opportunities for medical education or

availability of competent and adequate medical services, it

would be constitutionally permissible, without violating the

mandate of the equality clause, to provide a high percentage

of reservation or preference for students coming from that

region, because without reservation or preference students

from such backward region will hardly be able to compete

with those from advanced regions since they would have no

adequate opportunity for development so as to be in a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 14

position to compete with others. By reason of their socially

or economically disadvantaged position they would not have

been able to secure education in good schools and they would

consequently be at a disadvantage compared to students

belonging to the affluent or well-to-do families who have

had best of school education. There can, therefore,

legitimately be reservation or preference in their favour so

far as admissions are concerned in case of a medical college

which is set up or intended to cater to the needs of a

region which is backward or whose alumni are largely drawn

from such backward region. It may however, be noted that the

reservation or preference in such a case may even be of a

high percentage of seats but it cannot be total. [242 F-H;

243 A-C]

2.(iv) It would not be unconstitutional for the State

Government to provide for reservation or preference in

respect of a certain percentage of seats in the medical

college or

233

colleges in each region in favour of those who have studied

in schools or colleges within that region and even if the

percentage stipulated by the State Government is on the

higher side, it would not fall foul of the constitutional

mandate of equality. There are two reasons why such

reservation or preference would be constitutionally

permissible. In the first place it would cause a

considerable amount of hardship and inconvenience if

students residing in the region of a particular university

are compelled to move to the region of another university

for medical education which they might have to do if

selection for admission to the medical colleges in the

entire State were to be based on merit without any

reservation or preference regionwise. It must be remembered

that there would be a large number of students who, if they

do not get admission in the medical college near their

residence and are assigned admission in a college in another

region on the basis of relative merit, may not be able to go

to such other medical college on account of lack of

resources and facilities and in the result, they would be

effectively deprived of a real opportunity for pursuing the

medical course even though on paper they would have got

admission in the medical college. The opportunity for

medical education provided to them would be illusory and not

real because they would not be able to avail of it. Moreover

some difficulty would also arise in case of girls because if

they are not able to get admission in the medical college

near the place where they reside they might find it

difficult to pursue medical education in a medical college

situated in another region where hostel facilities may not

be available and even if hostel facilities are available,

the parents may hesitate to send them to the hostels.

Therefore, the reservation or preference in respect of a

certain percentage of seats may legitimately be made in

favour of those who have studied in schools or colleges

within the region of a particular university, in order to

equalise opportunities for medical admission on a broader

basis and to bring about real and not formal, actual and not

merely legal, equality. [247 F-H; 248 A-E]

2(v) Not more than 70 per cent of the total number of

open seats in the medical college or colleges situate within

the area of jurisdiction of a particular university, after

taking into account other kinds of reservations validly

made, shall be reserved for students who have studied in

schools or

234

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 14

colleges situate within that region and at least 30 per cent

of the open seats shall be available for admission to

students who have studied in schools or colleges in other

regions within the States [248 G-H; 249 A-B]

Dr. Pradeep Jain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. etc.

[1984] 3 S.C.C. 654, Minor P. Rajendran v. State of Madras,

[1968] 2 S.C.R. 786, and v. Peeria-Kurappan v. State of

Tamil Nadu [1971] 2 S.C.R. 761, relied upon.

D.P. Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat, [1955] 1 S.C.R.

1215 and Jagdish Saran v. Union of India, [1980] 2 S.C.R.

831 referred to.

D.N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore, [1971] Suppl. S.C.R.

608 distinguished.

In the instant case, there is no material to show that

the entire region within the jurisdiction of the university

in Vidharbha is backward or that the entire region within

the jurisdiction of Pune University is advanced. It is also

not possible to categories the regions within the

jurisdiction of the various universities as backward or

advanced as if they were exclusive categories. As a result

of the regionwise classification a student from one region

who has secured lesser marks than another from a different

region may be selected for admission to the medical college

or colleges within his region. And moreover, a student from

one region would have no opportunity for securing admission

in the medical college or colleges in another region, though

he may have done much better than the student in that other

region. Therefore, it would plainly be violative of the

mandate of the equality clause to compartmentalize the State

into different regions and provide that a student from one

region should not be allowed to migrate to another region

for medical education and thus be denied equal opportunity

with others in the State for medical education. [243 G-H;

244 C-E]

The Court observed (a) that the number of seats

required to be made available for admission to students on

All-India basis must first be taken out and then to the

remaining number of open seats after taking into account

other kinds of reservations validly made, the percentages of

70 and 30 must be

235

applied for determining the extent to which regional

reservation or preference can legitimately be made; (b) that

the admissions made on the basis of Rule B(2) shall not be

disturbed, nor will any claim for admission be founded for

the academic year 1985 on the basis of Rule B(2). If the

State Government wants to make regionwise reservation or

preference after setting apart the seats required to be made

available for admission to students on All-India basis, the

State Government may follow the guidelines laid down by the

Supreme Court so AS to avoid clash with Article 14 of the

Constitution. [249 C-D: E-G]

JUDGMENT:

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4395 of

1985.

From the Judgment and Order dated 1st August, 1985 of

the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 2670 of 1985.

V.N. Ganpule for the Appellant.

V.S. Desai, A.S. Bhasme and A.M. Khanwilkar for the

Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

BHAGWATI, CJ. This appeal by special leave arises from

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 14

a writ petition filed by the appellant in the High Court of

Bombay challenging the validity of Rule B(2) of the Rules

framed by the State Government on 21st December 1984 for

admission to the M.B.B.S. course. The validity of this Rule

has been assailed on the ground that it offends Article 14

of the Constitution. The challenge has been negatived by the

High Court but the appellant contends in this appeal that

the decision of the High Court is erroneous and Rule B(2)

must be struck down as unconstitutional and void.

The qualification required for admission to the MBBS

course in the State of Maharashtra is the passing of 12th

standard examination held by the Maharashtra State Board of

Secondary and Higher Secondary Education. The teaching in

the first ten standards is carried on in schools while in

the 11th and 12th standards the teaching is done at some

places in schools and at others in colleges. The schools and

colleges where education is imparted in the 11th and 12th

standards are H

236

not in any way connected with the Universities within whose

jurisdiction they are situate nor have the Universities

anything to do with the 12th standard examination. There is

one Board for the whole of Maharashtra called "Maharashtra

State Board of Secondary and Higher secondary Education" and

it comprises of three Divisional Boards - one for Vidharbha

region, another for Marathwada region and the third for the

rest of Maharashtra - and though for the purpose of conve-

nience each of these three Divisional Boards conducts the

12th standard examination for the area within its

jurisdiction, the examination which is held is one and the

same throughout the State of Maharashtra, based on the same

syllabus, with the same set of questions and the same

standard of evaluation. The results of the 12th standard

examination are published divisionwise and the merit list is

also prepared on that basis but the quest{on papers being

the same and the standard of evaluation also being uniform

throughout the three regions, it is easy to assess the

comparative merits of the candidates in the three regions by

reference to the marks obtained by them at the 12th standard

examination. The admissions to the medical colleges within

the State of Maharashtra could, there fore, arguably be

determined on the basis of merit and the best candidates

could be selected from all over the State on the basis of

their performance in the 12th standard examination. But for

the academic year 1985, the State Government departed from

this principle of selection based on merit across the hoard

and made regionwise classification for admission to medical

colleges by framing new Rules for admission to the M.B.B.S.

Course on 21st December, 1984. Rule R(2) of these Rules

provided inter alia as under :

"Students who have passed H.S.C. (10+2) 12th

standard examination of the Maharashtra State

Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education

from schools/Colleges situated within the

jurisdiction of one university are not eligible

for admission to medical college or colleges

situated in the jurisdiction of another

university. The seats at the Government Medical

Colleges in Maharashtra State except those

earmarked for nominees of the Government of India

and nominees of Miraj Medical Centre and those

mentioned in Rule D(4) below are reserved for the

students of the respective university area."

237

The admissions to medical colleges were thus made subject to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 14

regionwise classification inasmuch as a student from a

school or college situated within the jurisdiction of a

particular university could seek admission only in the

medical college or colleges situate within the jurisdiction

of that University and he could not be eligible for

admission to medical college or colleges situate in the

jurisdiction of another university. This regionwise

classification made by the State Government for the purpose

of admissions to medical colleges was assailed by the

appellant by filing a writ petition in the High Court of

Bombay on the ground that it was violative of Article 14 of

the Constitution. The writ petition was heard by a Division

Bench of the High Court and by a judgment dated 1st August,

1985 the High Court dismissed the writ petition. The

principal ground on which the High Court rejected the writ

petition was that the implementation of the Order passed by

this Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain & Ors. v. Union of India &

ors. etc., [1984] 3 S.C.C. 654, that 30% of the open seats

should be available for admission to students on all-India

basis and that only 70% of the seats could be reserved on

the basis of residence or institutional preference, had been

deferred by this Court by its Order dated 8th July 1985 to

the academic year 1986 and it was not to be given effect to

in the academic year 1985. The High Court took the view that

since the implementation of this Order had been deferred by

this Court, the State Government "had no other alternative

but to fill in the seats as if there were no directions from

the Supreme Court to fill in the seats on all-India basis"

and Rule B(2) of the Rules for admission to the M.B.B.S.

Course framed by the State Government for the academic year

1985 was therefore valid. This view taken by the High Court

is impugned in the present appeal preferred by the appellant

with special leave obtained from this Court. F

The question as to what principles for selection of

students for admission to the medical colleges would be

permissible under Article 14 of the Constitution came up for

consideration before this Court in the leading case of Dr.

Pradeep Jain (supra). The judgment in this case reviewed all

the previous decisions given by this Court starting from

D.P. Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat, [1955] 1 S.C.R. 1215

and ending with Jagdish Saran v. Union of India, [1980] 2

S.C.R. 831 and after analysing these decisions the Court

laid-down the principles which should govern selection of

students for

238

admission to the medical colleges consistently with the

requirement of Article 14. The Court pointed out that the

primary consideration in selection of candidates for

admission to the medical colleges must be merit and the

object of any rules which may be made for regulating

admissions to the medical colleges must be to secure the

best and most meritorious students. This was in fact the

consideration which weighed with the Court in Minor P.

Rajendran v. State of Madras, [1968] 2 S.C.R. 786 in

striking down a Rule made by the State of Madras allocating

seats in medical colleges on district wise basis and so also

in A. Peeria-Kurappan v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1971] 2

S.C.R. 430 the same consideration prevailed with the court

in striking-down a unitwise scheme of selection of

candidates for appointment to medical colleges in the State

of Tamil Nadu, which provided for constituting the medical

colleges in the city of Madras as one unit and each of the

other medical colleges in the mofussil as a separate unit

and selection being made unitwise. The court in both these

cases clearly and categorically proceeded on the bas{s of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 14

the principle that the object of any valid scheme of

admissions must be to "select the best candidates for being

admitted to medical colleges" and that if any departure is

to be made "from the principle of selection on the basis of

merit", it must be justified on the touch-stone of Article

14. This principle was affirmed by the court in Dr. Pradeep

Jain's case (supra).

This Court then proceeded to consider in Dr. Pradeep

Jain's case (supra) as to what are the circumstances in

which departure may justifiably be made from the principle

of selection based on merit. The Court enunciated in clear

and emphatic terms the philosophy behind the concept of

equality under the Constitution and observed :

"Now the concept of equality under the

Constitution is a dynamic concept. It takes within

its sweep every process of equalisation and

protective discrimination. equality must not

remain mere idle incantation but it must become a

living reality for the large masses of people. In

a hierarchical society with an indelible feudal

stamp and incurable actual inequality, it is

absurd to suggest that progressive measures to

eliminate

239

group disabilities and promote collective equality

are antagonistic to equality on the ground that

every individual is entitled to equality of

opportunity based purely on merit judged by the

marks obtained by him. We cannot countenance such

a suggestion, for to do so would make the equality

clause sterile and perpetuate existing

inequalities. Equality of opportunity is not

simply a matter of legal equality. Its existence

depends not merely on the absence of disabilities

but on the presence of abilities. Where,

therefore, there is inequality, in fact, legal

equality always tends to accentuate it. What the

famous poet William Blake said graphically is very

true, namely, "One law for the Lion and the Ox is

oppression". Those who are unequal, in fact,

cannot be treated by identical standards; that may

be equality in law but it would certainly not be

real equality. It is, therefore, necessary to take

into account de facto inequalities which exit in

the society and to take affirmative action by way

of giving preference to the socially and

economically disadvantaged persons or inflicting

handicaps on those more advantageously placed, in

order to bring about real equality. Such

affirmative action though apparently

discriminatory is calculated to produce equality

on a broader basis by eliminating de facto

inequalities and placing the weaker sections of

the community on a footing of equality with the

stronger and more powerful sections so that each

member of the community, whatever is his birth,

occupation or social position may enjoy equal

opportunity of using to the full his natural

endowments of physique, of character and of

intelligence......... We cannot, therefore, have

arid equality which does not take into account the

social and economic disabilities and inequalities

from which large masses of people suffer in the

country. Equality in law must produce real

equality, de jure equality must ultimately find

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 14

its raison d'etre in de facto equality. The State

must, therefore, resort to compensatory State

action for the purpose of making people who are

factually

240

unequal in their wealth, education or social

environment, equal in specified areas. The State

must, to use again the words of Krishna Iyer, J.

in Jagdish Saran case 'weave those special

facilities into the web of equality which, in an

equitable setting, provide for the weak and

promote their levelling up so that, in the long

run, the community at large may enjoy a general

measure of real equal opportunity....equality is

not negated or neglected where special provisions

are geared to the larger goal of the disabled

getting over their disablement consistently with

the general good and individual merit". The scheme

of admission to medical colleges may, therefore,

depart from the principle of selection based on

merit, where it is necessary to do so for the

purpose of bringing about real equality of

opportunity between those who are unequals".

It was pointed out by the Court that there are two

considerations which may legitimately weigh with the Court

in justifying departure from the principle of selection

based on merit. One is what may be called State interest and

the other is what may be described as a region's claim of

backwardness. The legitimacy of claim of State interest was

recognised explicitly in D.P. Joshi's case (supra) and Minor

P. Rajendran's case (supra). These two cases show that the

claim of State interest in providing adequate medical

services to the people of the State by imparting medical

education to students who by reason of their residence in

the State would be likely to settle down and serve the

people of the state as Doctors, was regarded by the court as

a legitimate ground for departing from the strict principle

of selection based on merit. The decision of this Court in

D.N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore, [1971] Suppl. S.C.R. 608

also upheld university wise distribution of seats, though it

WAS not in conformity with the principle of selection based

on merit and marked a departure from it, and the

justification for taking this view was that institutional

preference was not constitutionally impermissible "firstly,

because it would be quite legitimate for students who are

attached to a university to entertain 8 desire to have

training in specialised subjects, like medicine, satisfied

through colleges affiliated to their own

241

university since that would promote institutional continuity

which has its own value and secondly, because any student

from any part of the country can pass the qualifying

examination of that university, irrespective of the place of

his birth of residence."

The second consideration which can legitimately weigh

with the court in diluting the principle of selection based

on merit is the claim of backwardness made on behalf of any

particular region. We may, in this connection, usefully

quote the following passage from the judgment of this Court

in Dr. Pradeep Jain's case (supra):

"There have been cases where students residing a

backward region have been given preferential

treatement in admissions to medical colleges and

such preferential treatment has been upheld on the

ground that though apparently discriminatory

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 14

against other it is intended to correct the

imbalance or handicap from which the students from

the backward region are suffering and thus bring

about real equality in the larger sense. Such

preferential treatment for those residing in the

backward region is designed to produce equal

opportunity on a broader basis by providing to

neglect geographical or human areas an opportunity

to rise which they would not have if not

preferential treatment is given to them and they

are treated on the same basis as others for

admissions to medical colleges, because then they

would never be able to compete with others more

advantageously placed. If creatively and

imaginatively applied, preferential treatment

based on residence in a backward region can play a

significant role in reducing uneven levels of

development and such preferential treatment would

presumably satisfy the test of Article 14, because

it would be calculated to redress the existing

imbalance between different regions in the State.

There may be a case where a region is educational-

ly backward or woefully deficient in medical

services and in such a case there would be serious

educational and health service disparity for that

242

backward region which must be redressed by an

equality and service minded welfare state. The

purpose of such a policy would be to remove the

existing inequality and to promote welfare based

equality for the residents of the backward region.

If the State in such a case seeks to remove the

absence of opportunity for medical education and

to provide competent and adequate medical services

in such backward region by starting a medical

college in the heart of such backward region and

reserves a high percentage of seats there to

students from that region, it may not be possible

to castigate such reservation or preferential

treatment as discriminatory. What is directly

intended to abolish existing disparity cannot be

accused of discrimination."

Krishna Iyer, J. said to the same effect when he observed in

Jagdish Saran'r case (supra) at page 856 of the Report :

We have no doubt that where the human region from

which the alumni of an institution are largely

drawn is backward, either from the angle of oppor-

tunities for technical education or availability

of medical services for the people, the provision

of a high ratio of reservation hardly militates

against the equality mandate viewed in the

perspective of social justice.

This was precisely the ground on which, in the State of

Uttar Pradesh v. Pradip Tandon, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 761 this

Court allowed reservation in medical admissions for people

of the hill and Uttarakhand areas of the State of U.P. On

the ground that those areas were socially and educationally

backward. Similarly, and for the same reason, the Andhra

Pradesh High Court in A. Peeria Kurappan'a case (supra) held

that preferential treatment of Telengana students in medical

admissions was justified. It is, therefore, clear that where

the region from which the students of a university are

largely drawn is backward either from the point of view of

opportunities for medical education or availability of

competent and adequate medical services, it would be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 14

constitutionally permissible, without violating the mandate

of the equality clause, to provide a high percentage of

reservation or preference for students coming from that

region, because without reservation or preference students

from such backward region will hardly be able to compete

with those from advanced regions since they would have no

adequate

243

opportunity for development so as to be in a position to

compete with others. By reason of their socially or

economically disadvantaged position they would not have been

able to secure education in good schools and they would

consequently be at a disadvantage compared to students

belonging to the affluent or well-to-do families who have

had best of school education. There can, therefore,

legitimately be reservation or preference in their favour so

far as admissions are concerned in case of a medical college

which is set up or intended to cater to the needs of a

region which is backward or whose alumni are largely drawn

from such backward region. It may, however, be noted that

the reservation or preference in such a case may even be of

a high percentage of seats but it cannot be total.

Here, in the present case, regionwise classification

for admission to medical colleges was sought to be depended

on the ground that Vidharbha and Marathwada regions are

backward as compared to Pune and Bombay regions which are

far more advanced and it was contended on behalf of the

State Government that, in the circumstances, the provision

in Rule B(2) that a student from a school or college situate

within the jurisdiction of a particular university would not

be eligible for admission to medical college or colleges

situate in the jurisdiction of another university but would

be confined only to medical college or colleges within the

jurisdiction of the same university, was intended to give

protection to students in Vidharbha, Marathwada and other

predominently rural areas the population of which is

socially, economically and educationally backward for

otherwise they would have no opportunity for medical

education since they would not be able to compete with

students from Pune and Bombay regions and consequently the

classification made by this provision was constitutionally

permissible. We are afraid this contention is not well-

founded and must be rejected. In the first place there is no

material to show that the entire region within the

jurisdiction of the university in Vidharbha is backward or

that the entire region within the jurisdiction of Pune

University is advanced. There are quite possibly even in the

region within the jurisdiction of Pune University

predominently rural areas which are backward and equally

there may be in the region within the jurisdiction of the

university in Vidharbha, areas which are not backward. We do

not think it is Possible to categorise the regions within

the jurisdiction of

244

the various universities as backward or advanced as if they

were exclusive categories and in any event there is no

material placed before us which would persuade us to reach

that conclusion. But even if the regions within the

jurisdiction of the universities in Vidharbha and Marathwada

can be said to be backward and regions within the

Jurisdiction of the universities in Bombay and Pune can be

said to be advanced, we do not think that regionwise

classification for admission to medical colleges can he

sustained. There is no reason why a brilliant student from a

region which is within the jurisdiction of a university in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 14

Vidharbha or Marathwada area should be denied the

opportunity of medical education in Bombay or Pune. Why

should he remain confined to the so-called backward region

from which he comes? Should an equal opportunity for medical

education not be made available to him as is available to

students from regions within the jurisdiction of Bombay and

Pune Universities? Why should mobility for educational

advancement be impeded by geographical limitations within

the State? Would this clearly not be a denial of equal

opportunity violative of Article 14 of the Constitution? The

answer must clearly be in the affirmative. It would plainly

be violative of the mandate of the equality clause to

compartmentalize the State into different regions and

provide that a student from one region should not he allowed

to migrate to another region for medical education and thus

be denied equal opportunity with others in the state for

medical education. This is precisely the reason why this

Court struck-down unitwise scheme for admission to medical

colleges in the state of Tamil Nadu in A. Peeria Karuppan's

case (supra). The unit-wise scheme which was held to be

constitutionally invalid in that case was a scheme under

which the medical colleges in the city of Madras were

constituted as one unit and each of the other medical

colleges in the mofussil was constituted as a unit and a

separate Selection Committee was set up for each of these

units. The intending applicants were asked to apply to any

one of the committees but were advised to apply to the

Committee nearest to their place of residence and if they

applied to more than one committee, their applications were

to be forwarded by the government to only one of the

committees. The petitioners challenged the validity of this

unit wise scheme and contended that the unit-wise scheme was

violative of Article 14 of the constitution inter alia

because the applicants of some of the units were in a better

position than

245

those who applied in other units, since the ratio between

the applicants and the number of seats in each unit varied

and several applicants who secured lesser marks than the

petitioner were selected merely because their applications

came to be considered in other units. This contention was

upheld by the Court holding that the scheme in question was

invalid as it was discriminatory against some of the

applicants. The ratio of this decision applies fully and

completely to the present case. Here also as a result of the

regionwise classification a student from one region who has

secured lesser marks than another from a different region

may be selected for admission to the medical college or

colleges within his region while the student who has secured

higher marks may not succeed in getting selected for

admission to the medical college or colleges within his

region. And moreover, a student from one region would have

no opportunity for securing admission in the medical college

or colleges in another region, though he may have done much

better than the student in that other region. The regionwise

scheme adopted by the State Government in Rule B(2) clearly

results in denial of equal opportunity violative of Article

14 of the Constitution. We may at this stage refer to the

decision of this Court in D. N. Chanchala's case (supra) on

which considerable reliance was placed on behalf of the

State Government. The reservation impugned in this case was

university-wise reservation under which preference for

admission to a medical college run by a university was given

to students who had passed the PUC examination of that

university and only 20 per cent of the seats were available

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 14

to those passing the PUC examination of other universities.

The petitioner who had passed PUC examination held by the

Bangalore University applied for admission to any one of the

medical colleges affiliated to the Karnataka University. She

did not come within the merit list on the basis of 20 per

cent open seats which were filled up and since she had not

passed the PUC examination held by the Karnataka University,

her application for admission was rejected. She therefore

filed writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution

contending inter alia that the university-wise distribution

of seats was discriminatory and hence violative of Article

14 of the Constitution. This contention was rejected by the

Court. Shelat, J. speaking on behalf of the Court gave the

following reasons in support of its conclusion :

246

"In our view, there is nothing undesirable in

ensuring that those attached to such universities

have their ambitions to have training in

specialised subjects, like medicine, satisfied

through colleges affiliated to their own

universities. Such a basis for selection has not

the disadvantage of districtwise or unitwise

selection as any student from any part of the

State can pass the qualifying examination in any

of the three universities irrespective of the

place of his birth or residence. Further, the

rules confer a discretion on the selection

committee to admit outsiders upto 20 per cent of

the total available seats in any one of these

colleges, i.e., those who have passed the

equivalent examination held by any other

university not only in the State but also

elsewhere in India. It is, therefore, impossible

to say that the basis of selection adopted in

these rules would defeat the object of the rules

as was said in Rajendran case or make possible

less meritorious students obtaining admission at

the cost of the better candidates. The fact that a

candidate having lesser marks might obtain

admission at the cost of another having higher

marks from another university does not necessarily

mean that a less meritorious candidate gets

advantage over a more meritorious one. As is well

known, different universities have different

standards in the examinations held by them."

It will be obvious on a little scrutiny of these reasons

that they cannot possibly have any application to the

regionwise classification adopted in the present case. There

are two basic differences between the regionwise

classification In the present case and the university-wise

reservation in D.N. Chanchala's case (supra). Firstly, there

was no common examination or uniform standard of evaluation

in the different universities in D.N. Chanchala's case

(supra) so that it could not be said that a candidate

obtaining lesser marks in the PUC examination held by one

university was necessarily less meritorious than another

student getting more marks in the PUC examination held by

another university. But here in the present case there is

only one common examination for the 12th

247

Standard held in the entire state with the same syllabus and

the same set of questions and uniform standard of evaluation

with the result that it can be safely predicated that a

student who gets less marks in the 12th Standard examination

may ordinarily be regarded as less meritorious than another

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 14

student getting higher marks. If there were different

examinations held by the three Division Boards with

different sets of questions and different standards of

evaluation the ratio of the decision in D.N. Chanchala's

case would have inevitably and irresistibly applied. But the

standard of comparison between students throughout the State

being clear and well-defined on account of a common 12th

Standard examination with same set of questions and uniform

standard of evaluation the decision in D.N. Chanchala's case

can have no application. Moreover in D.N. Chanchala's case

(supra) the reservation in favour of students passing PUC

examination of a particular university was not total but 20

per cent of the seats were made available to those passing

the PUC examination of other universities. Here in the

present case, however, the reservation in favour of students

who have studied in schools or colleges situate in the

region within the jurisdiction of a particular university is

100 per cent and no student who has studied in a school or

college within the region of another university can possibly

get admission in the medical college or colleges situate

within the region of that the first mentioned university. We

must therefore hold that the ratio of the decision in D.N.

Chanchala's case does not compel us to take a view different

from the one we are inclined to take on first principle.

But we would like to make it clear that it would not be

unconstitutional for the State Government to provide for

reservation or preference in respect of a certain percentage

of seats in the medical college or colleges in each region

in favour of those who have studied in schools or colleges

within that region and even if the percentage stipulated by

the State Government is on the higher side, it would not

fall foul of the constitutional mandate of equality. There

are two reasons why such reservation or preference would be

constitutionally permissible. In the first place it would

cause a considerable amount of hardship and inconvenience if

students residing in the region of a particular university

are compelled to move to the region of another university

for medical education which

248

they might have to do if selection for admission to the

medical colleges in the entire State were to be based on

merit without any reservation or preference regionwise. It

must be remembered that there would be a large number of

students who, if they do not get admission in the medical

college near their residence and are assigned admission in a

college in another region on the basis of relative merit,

may not be able to go to such other medical college on

account of lack of resources and facilities and in the

result, they would be effectively deprived of a real

opportunity for pursuing the medical course even though on

paper they would have got admission in the medical college.

The opportunity for medical education provided to them would

be illusory and not real because they would not be able to

avail of it. Moreover some difficulty would also arise in

case of girls because if they are not able to get admission

in the medical college near the place where they reside they

might find it difficult to pursue medical education in a

medical college situated in another region where hostel

facilities may not be available and even if hostel

facilities are available, the parents may hesitate to send

them to the hostels. We are therefore of the view that

reservation or preference in respect of a certain percentage

of seats may legitimately be made in favour of those who

have studied in schools or colleges within the region of a

particular university, in order to equalise opportunities

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 14

for medical admission on a broader basis and to bring about

real and not formal, actual and not merely legal, equality.

The only question is as to what should be the extent of such

reservation or preference. But on this question we derive

considerable light from the decision in Dr. Pradeep Jain'a

case (supra) where we held that reservation based on

residence requirement or institutional preference should not

exceed the outer limit of 70 per cent of the total number of

open seats after taking into account other kinds of

reservations validly made and that the remaining 30 per cent

of the open seats at the least should be made available for

admission to students on All-India basis irrespective of the

state or the university from which they come. We would adopt

the same principle in case of regionwise reservation or

preference and hold that not more than 70 per cent of the

total number of open seats in the medical college or

colleges situate within the area of jurisdiction of a

particular university, after taking into account other kinds

of reservations validly made, shall be

249

reserved for students who have studied in schools or

colleges situate within that region and at least 30 per cent

of the open seats shall be available for admission to

students who have studied in schools or colleges in other

regions within the State.

There is however one matter in respect of which it is

necessary to make some clarification. The first is that when

we talk of total number of open seats after taking into

account other kinds of reservations validly made to which

the percentages of 70 and 30 are to be applied as aforesaid,

we mean the total number of open seats after deducting such

number of open seats as are required to be made available

for admission of students on All-India basis in accordance

with the principles laid down in the decision in Dr. Pradeep

Jain's case (supra) as modified from time to time by various

subsequent judgments delivered by this Court. The number of

seats required to be made available for admission to

students on All-India basis must first be taken out and then

to the remaining number of open seats after taking into

account other kinds of reservations validly made, the

percentages of 70 and 30 must be applied for determining the

extent to which regional reservation or preference can

legitimately be made.

We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the judgment

of the High Court and declare Rule B(2) unconstitutional and

void. We may however make it clear that admissions made on

the basis of Rule B(2) shall not be disturbed, nor will as

claim for admission be founded for the academic year 1985 on

the basis of Rule B(2). If the State Government wants to

make regionwise reservation or preference after setting

apart the seats required to be made available for admission

to students on All-India basis, we have laid down the

guidelines which the State Government may follow so as to

avoid clash with Article 14 of the Constitution.

There will be no order as to costs of the appeal.

M.L.A. Appeal allowed.

250