- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Union Of India v. R. Rajeshwaran And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent, having applied under the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe category for the All-India Pre-Medical Entrance Examination, 1999, discovered that no separate SC/ST list was published for the 15% all-India quota seats in MBBS/BDS courses. He therefore filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court seeking a direction that the rule of reservation be applied to those seats, asserting that failure to do so would violate Article 15(4) of the Constitution.
A learned Single Judge accepted the contention and ordered that within the 15% all-India quota, seats be reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in accordance with governmental policy. The petitioner filed a writ appeal and obtained only limited interim relief. A special leave petition was then preferred before the Supreme Court, which, by consent of counsel, transferred the writ appeal to itself under Article 139-A of the Constitution for final disposal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Article 15(4) imposes a constitutional obligation on authorities to extend SC/ST reservation to the 15% all-India quota seats in medical colleges.
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued compelling such reservation in light of the scheme formulated by the Supreme Court in Dinesh Kumar (II) (1986) 3 SCC 727 and subsequent constitutional jurisprudence.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Dinesh Kumar (Dr) (II) v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, (1986) 3 SCC 727 | Established a national scheme allocating “not less than 15%” of medical seats on an all-India basis, expressly without applying State-level reservations. | Relied upon to show that the 15% quota was intended to be free of additional reservation and that altering it would undermine national uniformity. |
| Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab, (1999) 7 SCC 209 | Held that Article 16(4) confers discretion, not a constitutional duty, to provide reservation; analogous reasoning applies to Article 15(4). | Used to conclude that courts cannot mandate the State to create reservations where the executive chooses not to do so. |
| Comptroller & Auditor General of India v. K.S. Jagannathan, (1986) 2 SCC 679 | Earlier view that mandamus could compel reservation/relaxation. | Declared not to lay down the correct law, being contrary to later Constitution Bench rulings. |
| Superintending Engineer, Public Health v. Kuldeep Singh, (1997) 9 SCC 199 | Similar proposition as in Jagannathan permitting mandamus for reservation. | Likewise held not to represent correct law and therefore not followed. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court revisited the scheme framed in Dinesh Kumar (II), under which each State first applies its own reservation policy to 85% of seats, leaving the remaining 15% for a uniform all-India quota without further reservations. The Court observed that:
- The scheme already contemplates State-level reservation within the 85% share, safeguarding interests of SC/ST candidates in their respective States.
- Introducing additional reservation within the 15% national pool would create “innumerable and insurmountable difficulties,” because the categories of SC/ST vary between States and the Centre, complicating allocation and counselling.
- In light of Ajit Singh (II), Articles 15(4) and 16(4) are enabling provisions; they do not impose a mandatory constitutional duty. Consequently, no writ of mandamus can compel the Government to introduce reservation where it has consciously chosen not to do so.
- The contrary reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge, and earlier decisions permitting such mandamus (e.g., Jagannathan and Kuldeep Singh), was inconsistent with binding constitutional precedents.
Holding and Implications
ALLOWED – The writ appeal (transferred to the Supreme Court) is allowed and the order of the Single Judge directing reservation within the 15% all-India quota is set aside. The respondent’s writ petition stands dismissed.
Implications: The decision re-affirms the integrity of the Supreme Court-devised 15% all-India medical quota, confirming that no additional SC/ST reservation is constitutionally mandated within it. The ruling maintains nationwide uniformity in medical admissions and clarifies that Articles 15(4) and 16(4) are discretionary, limiting the scope for judicially compelled reservations. No new precedent is created, but existing jurisprudence is reinforced.
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madras seeking a direction to the petitioner to apply the rule of reservation to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in respect of those seats which are set apart for all-India pool in MBBS or BDS list. He had applied specifically in the category of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe for the All-India Pre-Medical Entrance Examination, 1999. However, when the results were published, he found that no separate list had been published in respect of that category. He contended that there is a constitutional obligation to provide a special reservation to the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes in the all-India quota as otherwise it would be violation of Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India. He sought for a direction to apply the rule of reservation.
3. A learned Single Judge of the High Court held that the seats that are made available from various States are normally subject to the rule of reservation and the 15% of the seats allowed to the all-India quota would, in the ordinary circumstances, have been reserved for the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates but for the directions of this Court under a scheme. He also noticed that there is no specific order of this Court not to apply the reservation rule to the all-India quota which is provided only to overcome the difficulty of residential requirement and, therefore, these seats must also provide for reservation on the ground of social and economic backwardness in terms of Article 15(4) and the directive principles of State policy. Thus, he allowed the writ petition directing to set apart and reserve seats for the socially and educationally backward classes as per the policy of the Government making it clear that out of the 15% of the seats allocated there should be reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
4. Against that order a writ appeal was preferred by the petitioner herein with an application seeking interim order for stay of the judgment of the learned Single Judge. A limited interim order was granted to the effect that if the 15% reservation is nationally implemented and the first respondent is found eligible to get admission under that quota, he should be given admission. It is against this order this special leave petition is filed.
5. Considering the nature of the matter and the issues involved in the case, the learned counsel on both sides agreed that we should transfer the writ appeal that had been filed and dispose of the same on merits instead of merely considering the appeal against the interim order made on the interlocutory application. Hence we proceed to transfer under Article 139-A the writ appeal (filed in the High Court) to this Court and dispose of the same by this order.
6. In Dinesh Kumar (Dr) (II) v. Motilal Nehru Medical College (1986) 3 SCC 727 the question of 15% of the total seats being made available for admission to MBBS or BDS course without taking into account any reservation made by the State Government was considered in the following manner:
“Firstly, it was contended that the suggestion that 15 per cent of the total seats available for admission to MBBS/BDS course without taking into account any reservations which may be made by the State Government, would tend to produce inequality of opportunity for admission to students in different States since the percentage of reservations varied from State to State and secondly, it was urged that the proposal of the Government of India that valid reservations should not exceed 50 per cent of the total number of seats available for admission, will reduce the opportunities which were at present available to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes as a result of reservations exceeding 50 per cent of the total seats made in some of the States and particularly in the State of Tamil Nadu where the reservations exceeded 68 per cent. We agree with the second objection raised on behalf of some of the State Governments but so far as the first objection is concerned, we do not think it is well founded. There can be no doubt that if in each State, 30 per cent of the seats were to be made available for admission on the basis of All India Entrance Examination after taking into account reservations validly made, the number of seats which would be available for admission on the basis of All India Entrance Examination would vary inversely with the percentage of reservations validly made in that State. If the percentage of reservations is high as in the State of Tamil Nadu or the State of Karnataka, the number of seats available for admission on the basis of All India Entrance Examination would be relatively less than what would be in a State where the percentage of reservation is low. There would thus be total inequality in the matter of making available seats for admission on the basis of All India Entrance Examination. It would be open to a State Government to reduce the number of seats available for admission on the basis of All India Entrance Examination by increasing the number of reserved categories or by increasing the percentage of reservations. We therefore agree with the Government of India that the formula adopted by us in our main judgment dated 22-6-1984 for determining the number of seats which should be made available for admission on the basis of All India Entrance Examination should be changed. We would direct, in accordance with the suggestion made in the Scheme by the Government of India, that not less than 15 per cent of the total number of seats in each medical college or institution, without taking into account any reservations validly made, shall be filled on the basis of All India Entrance Examination. This new formula is in our opinion fair and just and brings about real equality of opportunity in admissions to the MBBS/BDS course without placing the students in one State in an advantageous or disadvantageous position as compared to the students in another State. The same formula must apply also in regard to admissions to the postgraduate courses and instead of making available for admission on all-India basis 50 per cent of the open seats after taking into account reservations validly made, we would direct that not less than 25 per cent of the total number of seats without taking into account any reservations, shall be made available for being filled on the basis of All India Entrance Examination. This suggestion of the Government of India deserves to be accepted and the objection to it must be overruled.”
(emphasis supplied)
7. In respect of undergraduate course, the scheme works out like this. If a State has a total of 100 seats and in that State 15% of the seats are reserved for Scheduled Castes and 10% for Scheduled Tribes, the State will fill up 15% seats for Scheduled Caste candidates and 10% for Scheduled Tribe candidates, of the remaining 75 seats 60 seats will be filled by the State Government as unreserved and 15 seats will be earmarked for the all-India quota.
8. Inasmuch as 15% all-India quota has been earmarked under the scheme framed by this Court and that scheme itself provides the manner in which the same should be worked out, we do not think, it would be appropriate to travel outside the said provisions to find out whether a person in the position of the petitioner would be entitled to plead in the manner sought for because each of the States could also provide for reservation for the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe category in respect of 85% of the seats available with them. If we meddle with this quota fixed, we are likely to land in innumerable and insurmountable difficulties. Each State will have different categories of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and the Central Government may have a different category and hence adjustment of seats would become difficult. The direction fixing 15% quota for all-India basis takes note of reservations and hence the High Court need not have made any further directions.
9. In Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab (1999) 7 SCC 209 this Court held that Article 16(4) of the Constitution confers a discretion and does not create any constitutional duty and obligation. Language of Article 15(4) is identical and the view in Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Gian Prakash v. K.S Jagannathan (1986) 2 SCC 679, (1986) 1 ATC 1 and Superintending Engineer, Public Health v. Kuldeep Singh (1997) 9 SCC 199 that a mandamus can be issued either to provide for reservation or for relaxation is not correct and runs counter to judgments of earlier Constitution Benches and, therefore, these two judgments cannot be held to be laying down the correct law. In these circumstances, neither the respondent in the present case could have sought for a direction nor the High Court could have granted the same.
10. Hence we allow the writ appeal transferred to this Court and set aside order made in the writ petition. The appeal also shall stand disposed of accordingly.
Alert