Page 1 of 14

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2023

(ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.12656 OF 2022)

VEENA VADINI TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTE (RUN BY

VEENA VADINI SAMAJ KALYAN VIKASH SAMITI) … Appellant

Versus

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS . …Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant before this Court is a training institute, run by

a registered society by the name of “Veena Vadini Samaj Kalyan

Vikash Samiti”. Inter-alia the institute trains teachers for B.Ed and

M.Ed courses. One of the courses, which is run by the appellant-

institute in Gwalior, State of Madhya Pradesh, is called B.Ed (Part

time), which is designed to impart B.Ed training to in service

teachers. We have also been told at the Bar that the appellant-

institute is only one of the three institutes in the State of Madhya

Pradesh which has been given permission to run this course, i.e.

Digitally signed by

NIRMALA NEGI

Date: 2023.04.28

17:02:40 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified 2023 INSC 457

Page 2 of 14

B.Ed (Part time). We are presently concerned with the alleged

difficulties the appellant-institute is facing in making admissions

to this course, for which the appellant blames the “admission

policy” or the “guidelines” of the State of MP, and has challenged

its constitutional validity before us.

3. Earlier the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the

Government policy dated 12.05.2022 was dismissed by the

Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, by order dated

13.07.2022. The appellant as it appears, was seeking an

interference from the High Court in the abovementioned

Government policy, on the ground that it was violative of Articles

14, 15 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, as the government had

made 75% of the seats reserved for the residents of Madhya

Pradesh which is not permissible in law. The High Court, however,

held against the appellant and had dismissed the petition. While

doing so, it did not go into the details and disposed of the matter,

in terms of the earlier Division Bench decision of the Madhya

Pradesh High Court in Preston College and Another v. State of

M.P. & Ors. 2007 SCC Online MP 103 , which, inter alia, had held

that residential requirement in admission was not violative of the

Constitution. We may add here that the challenge to the above

Page 3 of 14

2007 decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court was made in an

SLP (Civil) No. 5069 of 2007, before the court, which was

dismissed as infructuous on 14.09.2018.

4. The appellant’s challenge to the above mentioned Policy dated

12.05.2022 (called “Admission Process and Guiding Principles

2022-2023”) is mainly on clause 1.5(a) of the policy, which

allocates the B.Ed seats in the institute in the following manner:

“1.5 Division of seat numbers available in

institutions

(a) The division of seats for admission in

courses like the courses regulated by the

National Council for Teacher Education to be

conducted in Madhya Pradesh, B.Ed. M.Ed.,

B.Ed., M.P.Ed. (Two Years, B.Ed.-M.Ed.

(Integrated Three Years) B.A.B.Ed., B.Sc.B.Ed

and B.L.Ed. (Integrated Four Years) and B.Ed.

(Part Time), shall be as follows –

1. Original Resident of Madhya Pradesh State

2. Candidates from other outside states

The category and category-wise allotment of

seats available in the institution will be as per

the 'Reservation related clause' mentioned in

these guidelines and its subparagraphs. Out of

the total available seats in the institution, 75

percent seats will be reserved for the residents

of Madhya Pradesh state and maximum 25

percent seats will be available for the residents

outside the state of Madhya Pradesh. 25 For

the original residents of Madhya Pradesh state,

as per the instructions of the General

Administration Department's letter number C-3-

7-203-3-A, dated 25.09.20.4, self-attested

testimonial for the local resident will have to be

submitted as per attached format 5.”

Page 4 of 14

As per the above provision, out of the total seats, 75% are

reserved for “the residents of Madhya Pradesh” and the remaining

25% of the seats will only be available to the candidates who are

from outside the State of Madhya Pradesh.

5. The appellant-institute, has given before this Court the

figures of last two years, where 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 of

Madhya Pradesh, have remained unfilled. These figures have not

been denied by the State.

The figures are as follows:

Seats Available Seats

Filled

Seats

Vacant

AY

2021-2022

M.P. Quota 75 4 71

All India Quota 25 25 0

Total 100 29 71

AY

2022-2023

M.P. Quota 75 2 73

All India Quota 25 24 1

Total 100 26 74

6. The Case of the appellant, therefore, is that 75% of the seats

which have been reserved for permanent residents of Madhya

Pradesh, remain vacant due to the non-availability of residential

candidates and as such the appellant may be permitted to fill these

Page 5 of 14

seats from outside candidates. This permission is, however, not

given to the appellant.

7. 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.

8. 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. Even prior to Pradeep Jain, residence

based reservation was justified by this Court in the case of D.P.

Joshi v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1955) 1 SCR 1215, but it is

only in Pradeep Jain where an elaborate discussion on this aspect

was done and such reservation were held to be valid. This

departure from the Rule of selection based on merit was justified

on two grounds. Firstly, what one may call as the State interest,

which would mean the expenditure incurred by the State in

creating the educational infrastructure and the cost of its

maintenance and the second was the State’s claims to

backwardness (Pradeep Jain Para 14 ). We must add that

Page 6 of 14

institutional and residential requirements were further held to be

permissible in the case of Saurabh Chaudhari and Others. v.

Union of India and Others reported in (2003) 11 SCC 146 which

followed the ratio laid down in Pradeep Jain (supra). Further, this

Court in Magan Mehrotra and Others v. Union of India and

Others reported in (2003) 11 SCC 186 had upheld institutional

preference given to those who completed their undergraduate

studies in the same institution and again in Rajdeep Ghosh v.

The State of Assam reported in (2018) 17 SCC 524 followed the

ratio of law laid down in Pradeep Jain (supra). All these cases

though were in the field of medical education.

9. As far as “State interest” was concerned it was an admitted

fact that it was the State which contributed in the establishment

and upkeep of the medical institutions, which required a

considerable amount of financial support and if the State has to

spend money on these institutions, it is not unreasonable that the

State should ensure at least some of its benefits to flow exclusively

for its residents. It was for this reason that the different fee

structure, one from the residents of Madhya Bharat, and other

from the students who belong to other States was justified as a

Page 7 of 14

reasonable classification in D.P. Joshi

1

. In Pradeep Jain again

this was reiterated.

“The claim of State interest in providing

adequate medical service 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 has

thus been regarded by the Court as a legitimate

ground for laying down residence requirement

for admission to medical colleges in the State.”

2

The claim of backwardness of the State was another

justifiable reason given in Pradeep Jain and as it was held:

“…….There may be a case where a region is

educationally backward or woefully deficient in

medical services and in such a case there

would be serious educational and health

service disparity for that 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.”

3

1

Para 15 of D.P. Joshi (supra).

2

Para 16, Page 681 of Pradeep Jain (supra).

3

Para 18, Page 684 of Pradeep Jain (supra).

Page 8 of 14

While extensively relying upon D.P. Joshi, this Court in

Pradeep Jain held as under:

“……….These decisions which all relate to

admission to MBBS course are binding upon us

and it is therefore not possible for us to hold, in

the face of these decisions, that residence

requirement in a State for admission to MBBS

course is irrational and irrelevant and cannot

be introduced as a condition for admission

without violating the mandate of equality of

opportunity contained in Article 14. We must

proceed on the basis that at least so far as

admission to MBBS course is concerned,

residence requirement in a State can be

introduced as a condition for admission to the

MBBS course.”

4

10. But then we must also remember that in Pradeep Jain as

well as in the subsequent such cases referred above this Court

were dealing with medical education in India, and the legality of

‘residence requirement’ or reservations based on residence, in

MBBS as well as Post Graduate Courses in medical education! The

validity of residence requirement was upheld in Pradeep Jain,

followed by a catena of decisions of Supreme Court, which also

took into account economic factors as well as backwardness of the

region while allowing reservation for permanent residents of the

State, in medical education. We should not lose sight of this vital

fact when we are dealing with the reservations based on residence

in other fields of education, as we are doing presently. Whether the

4

Para 19, Page 686 of Pradeep Jain (Supra).

Page 9 of 14

justifiable factors of ‘State interest’ and the claim for backwardness

of the State or any other factors which were relevant factors for

residence reservations in medical education, would be equally

relevant in other fields of education or other professional courses

is still to be determined.

11. The determination made in Pradeep Jain by this Court also

goes 40 years back in history. This determination was made in

1984, when the social and economic conditions of the country and

of the specific regions in question, weighed heavily in the minds of

the learned Judges, which is reflected in passages after passages

in Pradeep Jain. So is also the state of medical education in the

country as it existed at that time. Yet, over the last 40 years, there

has been a change in our medical education, which has seen a

growth, at least in the number of such medical colleges which have

come up, both in private and government sector. Similarly, there

is a change in our social and economic condition as well. In any

case, the conditions as it exists today is not the same, as was there

40 years earlier, when a decision in Pradeep Jain was taken.

12. In the case at hand, we are 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

Page 10 of 14

considered opinion, the ratio as laid down by this Court in

Pradeep Jain would be applicable in this case as well but only to

an extent, not fully. The reasons as we 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 we have to

follow the principles as laid down in Pradeep Jain but at the same

time we also have to keep in mind the ground realities of the

present day. We also have to keep in mind that we are presently

not dealing with medical education but admission in a professional

education course called B.Ed.

13. 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 we are

considering admission to other courses such as B.Ed in the

present case.

Page 11 of 14

14. What is equally important is that it was in Pradeep Jain

again that this Court had cautioned against largescale reservation

under this head i.e. residents of the State. It cautioned against

such largescale reservation calling it as “wholesale” reservations.

Para 20 of this Judgment would be relevant:

“20. …We agree wholly with these observations made by

the learned Judge and we unreservedly condemn

wholesale reservation made by some of the State

Governments on the basis of “domicile” or residence

requirement within the State or on the basis of

institutional preference for students who have passed

the qualifying examination held by the university or the

State excluding all students not satisfying this

requirement, regardless of merit. We declare such

wholesale reservation to be unconstitutional and void as

being in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.”

15. At this juncture, before we advert to the merits of the extent

of reservation in the present case, it would be prudent to examine

some observations made by this Court. In the case of Pradeep

Jain (supra.), this Court had expressed its opinion on the

permissible extent of reservations based on residence. It was held

that residence based reservation should not exceed 70 percent. The

observations relevant for our consideration are as follows:

“21. …So many variables depending on social

and economic facts in the context of educational

opportunities would enter into the determination

of the question as to what in the case of any

particular State, should be the limit of

Page 12 of 14

reservation based on residence requirement

within the State or on institutional preference.

But in our opinion, such reservation should in

no event 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.

The Medical Education Review Committee has

suggested that the outer limit should not exceed

75 percent but we are of the view that it would

be fair and just to fix the outer limit at 70 per

cent. We are laying down this outer limit of

reservation in an attempt to reconcile the

apparently conflicting claims of equality and

excellence. We may make it clear that this outer

limit fixed by us will be subject to any reduction

or attenuation which may be made by the Indian

Medical Council which is the statutory body of

medical practitioners whose functional

obligations include setting standards for medical

education and providing for its regulation and

coordination…”

Although, the State Government is within its right to reserve

seats in educational institutions for its permanent residents, yet

the only question remains as to the extent of this reservation.

16. In order to appreciate the facts of this case, we have been

shown the data of the last 2 preceding years i.e., 2021-2022 and

2022-2023, and the appellant has tried to impress upon this court

that almost all the seats which were reserved for the residents of

Madhya Pradesh have remained vacant in the last two years. For

instance, in the year 2021-2022, only 4 seats out of 75 reserved

seats for the resident of Madhya Pradesh had been filled and in the

year 2022-2023, only 2 seats out of 75 reserved seats had been

Page 13 of 14

filled, and thus 71 and 73 seats, respectively remained vacant for

the last two years.

17. Thus, 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 we have

referred above in this order.

18. Since the academic session for the year 2022-23 has already

commenced, we would refrain from interfering in the matter but

we direct the State of Madhya Pradesh to reappreciate this entire

aspect, in the light of what we have said above. Though the State

is within its right to reserve seats for its own residents, but while

doing so, it must keep the ground realities in mind. 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 us

in this order. We make it clear that though reservation in favour

of residents is permissible, yet reservation to the extent of 75% of

Page 14 of 14

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

5.

19. The State Government may examine the data of last few

years, in order to come to a realistic finding as to what should be

the extent of these reservations. A wholesale reservation as we

have seen is not serving any purpose rather it frustrates the very

purpose of the reservation. This shall be kept in mind by the

authorities while taking a decision in this matter, which shall be

done within two months from today.

20. The appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

21. All applications including IA Nos. 66056 and 66057 of 2023

also stand disposed of.

..……….………………….J.

[DINESH MAHESHWARI]

...………………………….J.

[SUDHANSHU DHULIA]

New Delhi.

April 28, 2023.

5

See Para 20 of Pradeep Jain (supra).