2025 INSC 342
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(HON’BLE B.R.
GAVAI, J. AND HON’BL AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.)
JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH
(RETD.)
Petitioner
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA
Respondent
Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 452 of 2019-Decided on 25-02-2025
Education
Constitution of India,
Article 31 - Andhra Pradesh Medical Colleges (Admission into Post Graduate
Medical Courses) Rules, 1997, clauses
(viii) and (ix) of Rule II - Telangana Medical Colleges (Admission into Post
Graduate Medical Courses) Rules, 2017,
clauses (viii) and (ix) of Rule II – Public Interest Litigation – Admission to medical course - Challenge to validity of clauses
(viii) and (ix) of Rule II of the Rules, 1997 and 2017 – Admission – Post
Graduate Medical Courses – Reservation – Contention that the Meritorious
Reserved Candidates who are entitled to be admitted against a reserved seat on
their own merits have to be treated as open category candidates for the purpose
of reservation so that another reserved category candidate is not deprived of
his claim to the admission – It is submitted that due to Rules which are
continued by the State of Telangana, if a reserved category candidate, who is
entitled to get admission in ‘A’ Category on his own merits, does not accept
the same and decides to take admission in ‘B’ Category, where he is entitled to
be admitted only against a reserved seat, even in such a case the seat in ‘A’
Category should be filled in by a reserved category candidate - He submits that
if that is not done, there will be a reduction of the reserved category seats -
Held that the issues involved with regard to the reliefs sought by the
petitioner cannot be considered unless the Court considers specific cases of grievances
raised by any particular individuals.
The
question involved in the present case would require consideration of various
complexities on account of the availability of opportunity to an MRC to slide
to any super- specialties or non-availability of such an opportunity and
restricting it only to sliding to the same speciality from an open category to
a reserved category and the resultant effect thereon on the position of the
reservation vis-a-vis the position of the seats available to an open category as
against the seats available to a reserved category - No doubt that the concern
of the petitioner for maintaining the percentage of reservation of seats
in medical specialities for the reserved category candidates could be genuine
but unless the specific cases of the candidates arise for consideration before
the Court, such an issue cannot be decided in abstract - Furthermore, such an
issue cannot be decided without hearing other candidates who may be adversely
affected by any such adjudication – Held that
such a question cannot be considered in a Public Interest Litigation -
Writ petition disposed of by observing
that whenever any such issue arises for consideration before any of the High
Courts, the High Courts would consider the same on its individual merits, in
accordance with law, as laid down by this Court.
(Para
5, 15 to 18)
JUDGMENT
B.R. Gavai, J. :- On an oral prayer,
the learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner is discharged and the
petitioner is permitted to argue the case himself.
2.
This is a petition by All India Backward Classes Federation through its
President who is a former Judge of the High Court in public interest inter-alia
for a writ of mandamus seeking a declaration that Rule II (vii) and (viii) of
the G.O.Ms No.43 dated 13th March 2013 issued by Respondent No.3 herein (State
of Andhra Pradesh) and pari- materia provisions in the relevant Rules issued
by Respondent No.4 herein (State of Telangana) as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the
principles laid down by this Court.
3.
At the outset, Justice V. Eswaraiah (Former Judge), who is appearing in person,
fairly states that in the prayer clause of the present Writ Petition Rule II
(vii) has been erroneously mentioned and he states that as a matter of fact the
challenge in effect is to clauses (viii) and (ix) of Rule II of the Andhra
Pradesh Medical Colleges (Admission into Post Graduate Medical Courses) Rules,
1997 and the pari-materia provisions of the Telangana Medical Colleges
(Admission into Post Graduate Medical Courses) Rules, 2017. He further fairly
states that after the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh into
the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, the State of Andhra Pradesh has
amended the Rules to bring them in conformity with the judgments of this Court
on the issue. He, however, submits that the State of Telangana is yet to amend
the Rules to bring them in conformity with the law laid down by this Court in
various judgments.
4.
Shri Eswaraiah, who appears in-person states that the law insofar as the
present issue is concerned has been laid down by this Court in the cases
of Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul and Others[(1996) 3 SCC 253 : 1996 INSC 258] , Samta Aandolan
Samiti and Another v. Union of India and Others[(2014) 14 SCC 745 : 2013 INSC 822] and Tripurari
Sharan and Another v. Ranjit Kumar Yadav and Others[(2018) 2 SCC 656 : 2018 INSC 25].
5.
Placing reliance on the aforesaid judgments of this Court, it is submitted by
the petitioner-in-person that the Meritorious Reserved Candidates (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the MRC’), who are entitled to be admitted against a reserved
seat on their own merits have to be treated as open category candidates for the
purpose of reservation so that another reserved category candidate is not
deprived of his claim to the admission. He submits that due to Rules which are
continued by the State of Telangana, if a reserved category candidate, who is
entitled to get admission in ‘A’ Category on his own merits, does not accept
the same and decides to take admission in ‘B’ Category, where he is entitled to
be admitted only against a reserved seat, even in such a case the seat in ‘A’
Category should be filled in by a reserved category candidate. He submits that
if that is not done, there will be a reduction of the reserved category seats.
6.
Shri Gaurav Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel appears on behalf of the State
of Telangana and Ms. Prerna Singh, learned counsel appears on behalf of the
State of Andhra Pradesh.
7.
We have heard the petitioner-in-person at length and also heard the learned
Senior Counsel and counsel appearing for the respondent-States.
8. Insofar
as the judgment of this Court in the cases of Ritesh R. Sah (supra)
and Samta Aandolan Samiti (supra) relied upon by the petitioner-in-person
are concerned, the same pertains to the admission in MBBS Course.
9.
The law on this issue is very well crystallized by the Constitution Bench
judgments of this Court right from the case of Indra Sawhney and Others v.
Union of India and Others[1992 Supp (3)
SCC 217]. It will be relevant to refer to the following observations
of this Court in the case of Indra Sawhney (supra):
“811. In this
connection it is well to remember that the reservations under Article
16(4) do not operate like a communal reservation. It may well happen that
some members belonging to, say, Scheduled Castes get selected in the open
competition field on the basis of their own merit; they will not be counted
against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes; they will be treated as open
competition candidates.”
10.
The aforesaid position was again reiterated by another Constitution Bench of
this Court in the case of R.K. Sabharwal and Others v. State of Punjab and
Others[(1995) 2 SCC 745 : 1995 INSC 108]:
“4. When a percentage
of reservation is fixed in respect of a particular cadre and the roster
indicates the reserve points, it has to be taken that the posts shown at the
reserve points are to be filled from amongst the members of reserve categories
and the candidates belonging to the general category are not entitled to be
considered for the reserved posts. On the other hand the reserve category
candidates can compete for the non- reserve posts and in the event of their
appointment to the said posts their number cannot be added and taken into
consideration for working out the percentage of reservation. Article
16(4) of the Constitution of India permits the State Government to make
any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any
Backward Class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State is not adequately
represented in the Services under the State. It is, therefore, incumbent on the
State Government to reach a conclusion that the Backward Class/Classes for
which the reservation is made is not adequately represented in the State
Services. While doing so the State Government may take the total population of
a particular Backward Class and its representation in the State Services. When
the State Government after doing the necessary exercise makes the reservation
and provides the extent of percentage of posts to be reserved for the said
Backward Class then the percentage has to be followed strictly. The prescribed
percentage cannot be varied or changed simply because some of the members of
the Backward Class have already been appointed/promoted against the
general seats. As mentioned above the roster point which is reserved for a
Backward Class has to be filled by way of appointment/promotion of the member
of the said class. No general category candidate can be appointed against a
slot in the roster which is reserved for the Backward Class. The fact that
considerable number of members of a Backward Class have been appointed/promoted
against general seats in the State Services may be a relevant factor for the State
Government to review the question of continuing reservation for the said class
but so long as the instructions/rules providing certain percentage of
reservations for the Backward Classes are operative the same have to be
followed.
Despite any number of
appointees/promotees belonging to the Backward Classes against the general
category posts the given percentage has to be provided in addition………”
11.
Again, this Court reiterated the said position in the case of Union of
India and Others v. Virpal Singh Chauhan and Others[(1995) 6 SCC 684 : 1995 INSC 609] .
12.
As such, there should be no difficulty when the issue is with regard to
admission in MBBS Course. Insofar as the admission to MBBS Course is concerned,
there should be no difficulty inasmuch as the question of taking admission in
the specialty does not arise for consideration therein.
13.
The difficulty would arise only in the methodology to be adopted while
admitting the students in the Post Graduate Courses.
14.
The petitioner herein is All India Backward Classes Federation represented
through its President, who is a former Judge of the High Court. No doubt, that
this Court in the case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India and Another[1981 Supp SCC 87 : 1981 INSC 209], has
diluted the rigid rule of locus standi insofar as approaching this Court
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India or the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is concerned. It has
been held by this Court that when a legal wrong or legal injury is caused to a
person or to a determinate class of persons by reason of violation of any
constitutional or legal right or where any burden is imposed in contravention
of any constitutional or legal provisions or without authority of law then such
a person or determinate class of persons, who by reason of poverty,
helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position
are not in a position to approach the Court for any relief then any member of
the public can maintain an application for an appropriate directions, order or
writ either under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the
High Court or for breach of any fundamental right before this Court under Article
32 of the Constitution of India seeking judicial redress. It has been held
that the Court has to innovate new methods and devise new strategies for the
purpose of providing access to justice to larger masses of people who are
denied their basic human rights or to whom freedom and liberty have no meaning.
15.
However, in the present case it is clear that the issues involved with regard
to the reliefs sought by the petitioner cannot be considered unless the Court
considers specific cases of grievances raised by any particular individuals.
The question involved in the present case would require consideration of
various complexities on account of the availability of opportunity to an MRC to
slide to any super- specialties or non-availability of such an opportunity and
restricting it only to sliding to the same speciality from an open category to
a reserved category and the resultant effect thereon on the position of the
reservation vis-a-vis the position of the seats available to an open category
as against the seats available to a reserved category.
16.
No doubt that the concern of the petitioner for maintaining the percentage
of reservation of seats in medical specialities for the reserved category
candidates could be genuine but, in our considered view, unless the specific
cases of the candidates arise for consideration before the Court, such an issue
cannot be decided in abstract. Furthermore, such an issue cannot be decided
without hearing other candidates who may be adversely affected by any such
adjudication.
17.
In our considered view, such a question cannot be considered in a Public
Interest Litigation.
18.
We, therefore, dispose of this writ petition and observe that whenever any such
issue arises for consideration before any of the High Courts, the High Courts would
consider the same on its individual merits, in accordance with law,
as laid down by this Court.
19.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
------