Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

W.P Nos. 807, 820 etc of 1961

Attorney(S)

For the Appellant: A. Kuppuswami, T. Ramachandrarao, B.V. Subrahmanyam, K.V. Satyanarayana, M. Padmanabham, K. Raghavarao, I. Panduranga Rao, B. Manavala Chowdaryt P. Ramakoti, V. Parthasarathy, P.P. Suryarao, Advocates.

Judges

Chandra Reddy, C.J
Chandrasekhara Sastry, J.

Acts

provisions of the Osmania University Act, 1959.
Rule 10 of the Rules
Rule 10 (c). 36.
Rule 7 (c) (i)
Rule 10 (c)

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Judgment Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Multiple writ petitions were filed seeking writs of mandamus directing principals of various medical colleges and the State Government to consider petitioners' applications for admission to the Pre-Professional Course in Medicine ignoring a rule reserving one-third of seats for "Multi-purpose" candidates (those who passed the Higher Secondary Certificate examination from Multi-purpose schools). The petitions were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment.

Key factual details from the opinion:

Admissions are made on a regional basis. Total seats: Andhra area 462; Telangana area 265. Certain seats reserved for out-of-state nominees; additional reservations include 16% for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, 25% for socially and educationally backward classes, and 30% for women; the remainder are for open competition.
Minimum educational qualification: pass in Pre-University Science (PUC) with physical and biological sciences or a pass in the Higher Secondary Certificate (HSC) Examination (the latter being the VIIth form / 11th year under the reorganised secondary education scheme).
Selection is made on the aggregate marks in the optional subjects only (equated to a maximum of 300). For admission purposes a student who passed the VIIth form (HSC) in a Multi-purpose School and a student who passed the PUC are regarded as having equal qualifications.
The contested rule required that at least one-third of total seats "in all the categories" should be given to Multi-purpose candidates. Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of this reservation under Arts.14, 15, 16 and 29 of the Constitution.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the rule reserving one-third of seats for Multi-purpose (HSC) candidates in the Pre-Professional Course in Medicine offends Article 14 of the Constitution (i.e., whether the classification is arbitrary or lacks reasonable nexus to the object sought).
Whether the reservation infringes Articles 15, 16 or 29 of the Constitution (the petitioners claimed discrimination under these Articles).
Whether the inclusion by amendment of Senior Cambridge candidates in the note to Rule 7(c)(i) destroys the substantial relation between classification and purpose of the rule.
Whether the working out of the Multi-purpose reservation would cut down the seats reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, backward classes and women in contravention of the Constitution (interpretation of the impugned note and interaction with rules 3, 4 and 5 and Article 15(4)).
Whether the doctrine of equitable estoppel precludes the Government from amending a short-lived rule (26-6-1961 rule disqualifying candidates not passing in one attempt, later amended on 3-7-1961).
Whether the reservation for Multi-purpose candidates (and an Osmania University 3% reservation for sports/extra-curricular merit) is ultra vires provisions of the Osmania University Act, 1959 (notably Section 6 proviso (3)) or otherwise invalid.
Whether in a specific petition a candidate's defective nativity certificate justified rejection under Rule 10(c) and whether Rule 12 exemption applied to a Central Government officer's child stationed outside the capital.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

The reservation of one-third of seats for Multi-purpose (HSC) candidates is discriminatory and violates Article 14 (equal protection) and is also repugnant to Articles 15, 16 and 29 of the Constitution.
The rule discriminates in favour of Multi-purpose candidates without any rational basis and will deprive PUC candidates of chance to obtain admission because the general pool is reduced.
The amendment extending the benefit to Senior Cambridge candidates shows inconsistency and lack of a real and substantial relation between classification and object of the rule.
In one petition, equitable estoppel was invoked on the basis that a short-lived rule (disqualifying those not passing in one attempt) caused the petitioner to refrain from applying elsewhere, and the Government should be estopped from later enlarging eligibility.
In the Telangana-related petition, it was argued that the reservation is contrary to the Osmania University Act, 1959 (Section 6 proviso (3)), which, so counsel argued, restricts the Government's power to reserve seats to regional basis only.

Respondents' / State and College Authorities' Arguments

The reservation does not violate Article 14: it is founded on an intelligible differentia and bears a rational relation to the object of the rule (to afford equal opportunity to Multi-purpose candidates).
Multi-purpose (HSC) candidates study a wider syllabus (7 subjects, including Hindi and Mathematics) and are examined over four years (IV to VII form), whereas PUC candidates are examined on a one-year course; these differences mean there is no common standard of testing by optional marks alone.
Because the selection is based only on optional subjects, Multi-purpose candidates are at a disadvantage in securing high percentages in those optionals; reservation is intended to remove this handicap and to prevent discouragement from entering Multi-purpose schools (thus furthering educational policy and reorganisation).
The reservation is based on recommendations of educational authorities (Regional Committee and Academic Council) and approved by the Government; these bodies are in a position to judge and recommend such measures in the interests of education.
Regarding the Osmania Act challenge, the reservation stems from Regional Committee recommendations (under Art.371 and implemented via Sec.26 / Academic Council regulations), thus the Government had authority to make the reservation; recommendations under Art.371 carry statutory force for matters of policy in the region.
On the equitable estoppel point, respondents argued there was no representation or inducement that prevented the petitioner from applying elsewhere; the Government has power to amend rules and the short-lived rule existed for less than a week.
Concerning the nativity certificate in W.P. No.820 of 1961, Rule 10(c) permits summary rejection of an application defective in required certificates; the produced nativity certificate was defective (signed by Tahsildar rather than MLA/MLC) and thus did not meet the rule's requirements; Rule 12 exemption did not apply because petitioner’s father was not working in the capital.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Budhan Choudhary v. The State of Bihar, (1955) SCJ 163; AIR 1955 SC 191	The principle that unequal application of law does not necessarily amount to denial of equal protection unless there is shown to be an element of intentional and purposeful discrimination.	The Court applied the principle to hold that in the absence of any suggestion that the framers of the rule were motivated by a purposeful design to favour Multi-purpose candidates, the rule cannot be struck down under Article 14 on the ground of hostile discrimination.
Snowden v. Hughes, (1943) 321 U.S. 1	Observation (quoted) that "The Constitution does not assure uniformity of decisions or immunity from merely erroneous action, whether by the courts or the executive agencies of a State." — used to illustrate that unequal application may not amount to denial of equal protection absent intentional discrimination.	Quoted (through Budhan Choudhary) to support the view that judicial decision depends on facts and circumstances and that mere unequal results, without intentional discrimination, do not violate Article 14.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded in structured steps, applying constitutional principles as stated in the opinion:

Article 15, Article 16 and Article 29: The court observed these Articles are inapplicable because they prohibit discrimination on grounds such as religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or language; the alleged discrimination here is between two educationally qualified categories (PUC v. HSC Multi-purpose) and not on any of those grounds.
Article 14 framework: The court recalled the established test for reasonable classification under Article 14: (a) an intelligible differentia must distinguish those grouped from those left out; and (b) the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. The court accepted that reasonable classification is permissible and not forbidden by Article 14.
Existence of an intelligible basis and nexus: The court accepted the factual differences between the two groups:
- Multi-purpose (HSC) syllabus covers seven subjects and examinations over four years; PUC covers a one-year course with fewer subjects.
- Multi-purpose candidates examine a wider field and are examined under a different condonation/moderation regime than university PUC examinations.
- Selection being limited to marks in optionals (physical and natural sciences) places Multi-purpose candidates at a comparative disadvantage, making marks in optionals an unreliable common test of capacity.
On this basis, the court concluded there is a rational relation between the classification (reservation for Multi-purpose candidates) and the object (to afford equal opportunities and remove disadvantages suffered by Multi-purpose candidates).
Evidence of disparity: The court relied on an analysis annexed to the respondents' counter-affidavit showing that a considerably lower number of Higher Secondary (HSC) students obtained over 60% compared to PUC students, supporting the contention that the difference in systems results in disparity in optional marks.
Purpose and intent: The court noted it was not contended that the rule was intended to favour Multi-purpose students; rather the rule was meant to effectuate educational policy (reorganisation) and afford equal opportunity. Absent purposeful or intentional discrimination, the rule did not offend Article 14.
Senior Cambridge inclusion: The court considered the argument that extension of the benefit to Senior Cambridge candidates undermines the nexus. It held that even if arguable, that instance would not destroy the nexus for Multi-purpose candidates and, since the petitioners were not prejudiced by the inclusion, there was no ground (and no affected person had complained) to remove Senior Cambridge from the note.
Interaction with reservations for SC/ST, backward classes and women: The impugned note was ambiguous and poorly drafted; the court construed it harmoniously with other rules and held that deficiency in meeting the one-third Multi-purpose requirement within any reserved category must, as far as possible, be made up from the general pool — preserving the protection afforded to SC/ST, backward classes and women by rules 3, 4 and 5 and Article 15(4).
Equitable estoppel claim: The court rejected the equitable estoppel argument. No representation induced the petitioner to refrain from applying elsewhere; the Government had the power to amend rules; and the temporary disqualification rule lasted less than a week; therefore estoppel did not apply.
Osmania University Act challenge and Art.371: The court rejected the contention that Section 6 proviso (3) restricted reservation power to regional basis only. It traced the reservation to recommendations of the Regional Committee (constituted under Art.371) which the Academic Council was bound to give effect to under Sec.26 of the Act and government orders. The court held such Regional Committee recommendations have statutory force by virtue of Art.371 and could prevail in matters of policy for the region; therefore the reservation could not be impugned as beyond competence or as contravening Article 14.
Osmania University 3% sports/extra-curricular reservation: The court held that this reservation, peculiar to that University, likewise could not be impugned as inconsistent with Article 14 because Art.371 gives the Regional Committee's matters of policy immunity from such attack.
Nativity certificate and Rule 10(c): In W.P. No.820/1961, the petitioner produced a nativity certificate signed by the Tahsildar rather than the required MLA/MLC; under Rule 10(c) an application defective in required certificates may be summarily rejected. The court held the certificate did not meet the rule's requirement.
Rule 12 exemption: The petitioner sought exemption under Rule 12 (children of Central Government officers stationed in Telangana and certain State officers). The court interpreted Rule 12 as requiring the officers to be "working in the capital" to attract the exemption; petitioner’s father was stationed at a district headquarters, so the exemption did not apply.

Holding and Implications

Holding: All the writ petitions were dismissed. (Final line: "Writ petitions dismissed.")

Implications and direct consequences as stated in the opinion:

The reservation of one-third of seats for Multi-purpose (HSC) candidates in the Pre-Professional Course in Medicine was held not to be repugnant to Article 14 of the Constitution and therefore valid.
Articles 15, 16 and 29 were found not to bear on the complaint because the classification was not based on grounds mentioned in those Articles.
The inclusion of Senior Cambridge candidates in the note did not vitiate the fundamental nexus between the classification and the object so far as Multi-purpose candidates were concerned; no relief was given on that ground.
The Court construed the impugned note so as to protect the seats reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, backward classes and women — deficiency to be made up, so far as possible, from the general pool rather than by allocating those reserved-category seats to Multi-purpose candidates who do not belong to those categories.
The equitable estoppel plea was rejected; Government's power to amend rules and absence of any representation or reliance were decisive.
Challenges under the Osmania University Act and to the Osmania University 3% sports reservation were rejected, with the court holding that Regional Committee recommendations (under Art.371 and implemented via Academic Council regulations) furnished the necessary authority and afforded immunity in matters of regional policy.
In the specific petition addressed (W.P. No.820/1961), the petition was dismissed on the separate ground that the applicant's nativity certificate did not meet the formal requirement of Rule 10(c) and the claimed Rule 12 exemption did not apply.
No change was made to the rule; the direct effect is that the contested reservation stands and the petitioners obtained no relief. The opinion does not announce any wider novel constitutional principle beyond application of established Article 14 tests and the effect of Art.371 in the regional context.

Disposition: All writ petitions dismissed without costs, except as indicated in the judgment.

Show full summary ...

Gullapalli Nageswara Rao Being Minor By Guardian G. Venkateswararao And Others v. The Principal, Medical College-Guntur, And Others

Judgement

CHANDRA REDDY, C. J.:- All these petitions raise the principal question relating to the constitutionality of the rule reserving a certain percentage of seats for students who passed the Higher Secondary Certificate examination, in the Pre-Professional Course in Medicine and could be disposed by a common judgment. They are filed for the issue of writs of mandamus directing the Principals of the various Medical Colleges in this State and the State Government to consider their applications for admission into the Pre-Professional Course in Medicine ignoring the rules in so far as they reserve 1/3 of the seats to Multi-purpose candidates i.e., these who have passed the Higher Secondary certificate examination. II may be mentioned here that these students are called Multi-purpose candidates since they pass this examination from Multi-purpose Schools. A scheme for the conversion of Secondary Schools into Multipurpose schools was introduced in the Andhra area in 1956-57.

2. The material facts for the purpose of this enquiry are shortly these. All the petitioners took their Pre-University Course examinations in March-April 1961 from different colleges situate in this State securing a fairly high percentage of marks in their optional subjects biological and physical sciences. Admissions to the Professional Course are made on regional basis and the students pertaining to a particular region have to seek admission in the Colleges situated within that zone. The total number of sears in all the Colleges in the Andhra area is 462, while the number of seats available for admission in the Telangana area is 265. In the Andhra region five seats are reserved for candidates from outside the State of Andhra Pradesh, the right to nominate them vesting in the Government of India and one seat reserved for the nominee of the Kerala Government. Out of the rest of the seats 16 per cent are reserved for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, 25 per cent for socially and educationally backward classes and 30 percent for woman candidates, the remaining seats being made available for open competition.

The applicants for admission to these courses have to satisfy the qualifications prescribed for in that regard. The minimum educational qualification prescribed is a pass in the Pre-University Science course examination with physical and biological sciences as subjects or a pass in the Higher Secondary Certificate Examination of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The Higher Secondary certificate referred to in this rule means the certificate given under the re-organisation of Secondary education at the end of the 11th year or the VIIth form. The selections are made with reference to the aggregate of marks obtained in the optional subjects only (equated to a maximum of 300), in the Pre-University or the Higher Secondary examination. Students who obtain a certain minimum of marks alone are eligible for admission to this course. For the purpose of admission to the Pre-Professional Course a student who has taken the VIIth form examination in a Multi-purpose School and a student who has passed the Pre-University Course Examination are regarded as having equal qualifications.

3. Admissions for the Pre-Professional Course in Medicine should be both from the categories of Multi-purpose and Pre-University Course students on merit basis, subject to the condition that 1/3 of the total number of seats in all the categories at least should be given to multi-purpose candidates. It is this reservation that is the main subject of attack in all these petitions.

4. The petitioners being apprehensive that this reservation will deprive them of a chance of obtaining admission as the number of seats available for the general pool is reduced and candidates who have secured more than 70 per cent would alone get admission have presented these petitions, the substance of their grievance being that Multi-purpose candidates will gain an undue advantage over Pre-University Course candidates as a result of this rule. They impugn this rule as being opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, being discriminatory in nature; according to them it violates the guaranty of equal protection enshrined in Art.14 of the Constitution and is also repugnant to Arts.15, 16 and 29 of the Constitution.

5. The complaint of the petitioners is that this rule makes a discrimination in favour of Multipurpose candidates without any rational basis therefor and hence infringes Art.14 and other relevant articles of the constitution. On the other hand, it is maintained on behalf of the Principals of the different Colleges in the State and the State Government that this reservation is not hit at by Art.14 of the Constitution that it tests on an intelligible basis and that the other Articles viz. Arts.15, 16 and 29 called in aid by the petitioners do not touch this rule. This rule was enacted to afford equal opportunities to Multi-purpose candidates and not to discriminate against Pre-University Course candidates and consequently it does not fall within the inhibitation of Art.14 of the Constitution is the stand taken by the learned Government Pleader.

6. The point that calls for decision is whether this rule offends against any of the provisions of the Constitution. Before we address ourselves to this question, we have to mention that Art.15 deals with the general prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth, while Art.16 provides for equality of opportunity in matters relating to public employment and prohibits any discrimination being made on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence etc. These two Articles, therefore, do not bear on the present enquiry.

Article 29 which is concerned with Cultural and Educational Rights, lays down that no citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State Funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them. It is true that this Article deals with admissions into educational institutions. But to attract it the denial must be based on grounds of religion, race, caste, language or any of them. In fact these grounds are common to Articles 15, 16 and 29. None of them will come into play in this behalf because the alleged discrimination is not based on any of these grounds. The distinction rests upon two types of candidates i.e., those who have passed the Pre-University examination and those that have passed the Higher Secondary Certificate Examination. What remains to be considered is whether Art.14 is in any way contravened.

7. Article 14 has been the subject matter of discussion before several of the High Courts and of the Supreme Court. It is now well recognised that this Article, while forbidding class legislation does not stand in the way of reasonable classification for purposes of legislation.

8. However two conditions should be satisfied to pass the test of reasonable classification. It should be supported by intelligible differentia distinguishing persons or things that are grouped together from those left out of that group and that differentia should have a rational relation to the object sought to be attained by the statute or the rule in question. This classification can be founded on different bases viz., territorial or according to objects or occupations or the like. But the essential requirement is that there should be a nexus between the basis of the classification and the purpose of the enactment or the rule.

9-10. We have now to examine whether the distribution of seats between the two sets of candidates is permissible under Art.14 of the Constitution. It is relevant here to bear in mind, the background of this reservation for Multi-purpose candidates. It appears that recently the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Government of India have devised a scheme for the reorganisation of Secondary education. Pursuant to this scheme, they want to replace the Pre-University course by the Higher Secondary Certificate course by gradual process. For this purpose, they are converting the Higher Secondary Schools gradually into Multi-purpose schools and introducing the Multi-purpose scheme.

The syllabus for this course comprises 7 subjects viz.:

Regional language or mother tongue, Regional language or a classical language if the regional language is the mother tongue of a pupil - it being optional to him.

English.

Third language Hindi (compulsory)

Mathematics.

History and Civics.

Natural Science and

Physical science.

Whereas, students taking the Pre-University examination have to study only English and another language, Humanities and any two subjects for the optionals like Physical and Biological sciences. So the multi-purpose candidates have, to study two extra subjects viz. Hindi and Mathematics. It appears that candidates appearing for the Higher Secondary Certificate Examination are examined in courses covering a period of four years i.e., from IV form to the VII form, while the examination for the Pre-University Course candidates is confined to the subjects taught in one year.

Further, we are told that in regard to Higher Secondary students, there is a fixed condonation formula whereas in the University the moderation of marks is done by Boards of Examiners. It is under these circumstances that the impugned allotment is made for Multi-purpose candidates, argue the Government pleader. According to him a boy who qualified himself in the Higher Secondary Examination is definitely better in quality than a boy who qualifies himself in the Pre-University Course Examination as the former covers a wider field of education. Further, having regard to the fact that Multi-purpose candidates have to study more subjects than P.U.C. candidates and their examination covers courses extending over a period of four years, they are at disadvantage in the matter of securing a high percentage of marks in the optional subjects and the P.U.C. candidates have a distinct advantage over others in this regard. In such a position there are possibilities for P.U.C. candidates to secure a higher percentage of marks in the optional subjects than the Multi-purpose candidates.

Consequently, it will be difficult for the Multi-purpose candidates to compete with P.U.C. candidates in the matter of admission to the course as the selection is made on the basis of the marks obtained only in the optional subjects, namely, the physical and natural science. This will discourage students from entering Multi-purpose schools with the result that the whole scheme of Secondary education as reorganised will be upset It is to afford equal facilities and opportunities to students from Multi-purpose schools that this reservation is made, proceeds the argument of the learned Government Pleader. We are inclined to give effect to these contentions.

11. It is not disputed that the Syllabus for the Higher Secondary Certificate Examination takes in at least two subjects more than that for the P.U.C. examination and the examination covers courses taught in four years unlike P.U.C. which covers only one year course. As such, there is no common standard of testing the merits of the students of the respective classes. The capacity of the students of the respective groups cannot be measured by the same yard-stick. A Multi-purpose candidate has to cover a wider field of education, and as such he acquires greater general proficiency than the other. Different tests have to be devised to evaluate the relative capacity of the two sets of candidates. So, in judging the comparative efficiency of these two sets of students, the marks obtained in the optional subjects cannot afford a sure criterion as they do not indicate identical efficiency in the circumstances mentioned above. The mere fact that P.U.C. candidates get more marks than Multi-purpose candidates in optional subjects does not denote that they are of a higher calibre than the others. The higher percentage in that behalf is explained by the difference in the two systems of examinations and courses of study. If Multi-purpose candidates are treated on a par with P.U.C. candidates without any reservation, they will suffer a disadvantage because of the handicaps mentioned above. It is to remove these difficulties that this rule was framed.

12. We are told that this reservation is based on the recommendation of educational authorities with the approval of the University authorities. Undeniably, these bodies are in a position to gauge the merits of the respective examinations. Their recommendation must have been conceived in the interests of general standards of education and in furtherance of educational advancement.

13. It is not contended that there is no basis for the classification and it is therefore unnecessary for us to pursue the enquiry whether it is founded on an intelligible differentia dividing the two groups of students. The only complaint made on behalf of the petitioners is that there does not exist a reasonable relation between the classification and the object of the rule. We are not persuaded that there lacks a nexus between the two. The purpose of this rule is to mete out equal treatment to both the sets of candidates without giving any weightage to one as against another. Without this reservation students of Multi-purpose schools will find it hard to obtain their due share of the seats despite their possessing equal talent with those of P.U.C. candidates because they cannot score as high a percentage of marks in optional subjects as others on account of the several disadvantages they suffer.

The statement showing an analysis of the marks obtained by the pupils in the P.U.C. and H.S.C. examinations annexed to the counter-affidavit of the respondents establishes that the number of students getting over 60 per cent is considerably low in respect of the Higher Secondary Certificate Examination compared with the P.U.C. examination. This disparity is due to the reasons mentioned above. Government, which is charged with the duty of organising educational activities, obviously thought that this rule will enable students who have passed the Higher Secondary Certificate Examination to have equal treatment and equal opportunities with candidates who have passed P.U.C. examination. If that were the purpose of the rule, it is difficult to posit that it has the postulate of discrimination within the ambit of Art.14 of the Constitution. On the other hand it seems to be designed to extend to the candidates the guarantee of equal protection.

Judging the rule in the light of the special features set out above it appears it was not intended to impose any disability on the students who pass P.U.C. examination. In that situation, the classification resorted to in this rule cannot be regarded as arbitrary. It rests on a substantial distinction bearing a reasonable and just relation to the purpose sought to be attained thereby. It has not resulted in unequal treatment to P.U.C. candidates, and hence it cannot be struck down as being discriminatory in nature.

14. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners that seats reserved for Multi-purpose candidates were out of all proportion to the number of students who pass out of Multi-purpose schools is unsubstantial as the reservation seems to be in the ratio of the students that passed out of Multi-purpose schools in March-April 1961 examination.

15. We cannot accept the argument founded on Art.14 of the Constitution lor another reason also. It is not the case of any of the petitioners that this rule was made with a view to favour students of Multi-purpose schools. It is for the purpose of effectuating the policy formulated by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Government of India that they framed it. In order to attract Art.14, there must be an intentional discrimination. It should be established that the framers of the rule had a purposeful design to favour one set of students over another in making the rule. It was not suggested in this case that the Government was actuated by any such motive or desire. If the element of intentional or purposeful discrimination is absent in a piece of legislation, it does not suffer from the vice of hostile discrimination within the scope of Art.14 of the Constitution.

16. In this context, the observations of the Supreme Court in Budhan, Choudary v. The State of Bihar, 1955 SCJ 163 at p.168 : ((S) AIR 1955 SC 191 at p. 195) are pertinent. Their Lordships after referring to the following passage in the judgment of Frankfurter, J., in Snowden v. Hughes, (1943) 321 U.S. 1

"The Constitution does not assure uniformity of decisions or immunity from merely erroneous action, whether by the courts or the executive agencies of a State"

remarked :

The judicial decision must of necessity depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case and what may superficially appear to be an unequal application of the law may not necessarily amount to a denial of equal protection of law, unless there is shown to be present in it an element of intentional and purposeful discrimination.

In our opinion, the rule stated by their Lordships is applicable with full vigour to the present case.

17. For the above reaons, we are unable to uphold the plea of the petitioners that the rule impeached here is invalid. We hold that the reservation is not repugnant to Art.14 of the Constitution.

18. It is then urged that the amendment of the note under Rule 7 (c) (i) giving the benefit of the reservation to Senior Cambridge candidates shows that there is no real and substantial relation between the classification and the object of the rule. It is argued that students, who pass the Senior Cambridge Examination, do not suffer any disadvantages compared to students who pass the P.U.C. examination and this shows that there is no real and substantial relation between the classification and the purpose of the rule.

We may mention here that this ground was not taken in any of the petitions but it is explained that this could not be urged as the amendment of this rule came to their knowledge only after the filing of these petitions.

19. Even if this argument is permissible, it does not in any way destroy the nexus existing between the classification and the object of the rule so far as Multi-purpose candidates are concerned. That argues only for the exclusion of the Senior Cambridge candidates from the benefit of that rule. Exception to this inclusion could be taken by Multi-purpose candidates who are affected by the inclusion and not by any of the petitioners who are not in any way prejudiced thereby, because the extension of the advantage to the Senior Cambridge candidates has taken away a few seats allotted to other Multi-purpose Candidates. That has not in any way curtailed the rights of the petitioners. Since none of the affected persons have complained against this, there is no warrant to delete the reference to Senior Cambridge candidates in the note though there does not appear to be any justification for this inclusion. They are not shown to be under unfavaourable conditions like the Multipurpose candidates.

20. We shall next take up the question as to how this reservation affects the seats reserved for the scheduled castes, schedule tribes, backward classes and women. The argument pressed upon us by the counsel for some of the petitioners in this behalf is that the way in which the authorities concerned proposed to work out this reservation would cut down the number of seats and interfere with the safeguards provided under the Constitution to scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, backward classes and women.

21. The paragraph, which is relevant for this purpose and which is part of the note now attacked is as follows :

"In case the multi-purpose candidates fail to get at least one third of the seats in all categories i.e., general backward classes, scheduled castes and tribes and women; the number should be made up by admitting corresponding number of Multipurpose candidates who are otherwise qualified.

It is said that if sufficient number of Multi-purpose candidates in one category fail to get 1/3 of the seats in the various categories, that number was sought to be made up by admitting corresponding number of Multi-purpose candidates in other categories i.e., allotting them seats even out of the-quota reserved for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, backward classes and women, even though the allottee does not belong to the said category.

We must mention that it is not well drafted. It is very vague and presents some difficulty in interpretation. However if properly construed it cannot have that meaning. That would be opposed to rules 3, 4 and 5 under which reservations are made in accordance with the provisions of Art.15 (4) of the Constitution. So we have to read that rule in such a way as to harmonies it with other rules. As far as possible, a Court should adopt a construction which would avoid a conflict between the various sections of a statute or a rule. Bearing that principle in mind we have to say that the deficiency, if any, in any one of the three categories in this behalf has to be made up by allotting equal number of seals from out of the general pool. That would leave inviolate the protection afforded to scheduled castes, schedule tribes, backward classes and women. As we have no information in this matter, we can only give the correct interpretation of this rule and leave it to the authorities concerned to give relief to such of the petitioners as would come within that rule as so interpreted.

22. The petitioner in W.P. No.865 of 1961 raises an additional issue of equitable estoppel. That doctrine is sought to be founded5 on this. A rule was issued on 26-6-1901 which reads as follows :

"Candidates applying for admission to P.P.C. in Medicine and to the first year of M.B.B.S. course, must have passed the qualifying examination in one attempt.

A few days thereafter, i.e., on 3-7-1961, this rule was amended by omitting the clause which disabled candidates who did not pass the qualifying examination in one attempt from applying for admission to the Pre Professional Course. Thus, all the candidates, who pass the qualifying examination, whether in one attempt or two, are eligible for selection.

The argument on behalf of this petitioner is that she believed that the selection would be made on the basis of the rules prescribed for that purpose and that candidates who passed different subjects at different times would be excluded from consideration and, therefore, she did not apply to the other Medical Colleges in the Andhra area whose last date for submitting applications expired with 30th June 1961. Consequently the concerned authorities were estopped and precluded from amending the rules and enlarging the field of eligibility.

23. We fail to see how on these facts there is any scope for invoking the doctrine of equitable estoppel. Nothing prevented her from applying to the other Medical Colleges in the Andhra area. This rule did not create any obstacle in the way of her seeking admission in other Colleges. No representation is alleged to have been made by the Government which could have induced her to believe that she could be sure of a seat in that College or that candidates who have not passed in one attempt would be excluded from consideration. Moreover the operation of the amendment is not restricted to the Medical College, Guntur. It is applicable to all the colleges in Andhra area. The position is the same in this behalf in every college.

Further indisputably, Government is invested with authority to amend the rules from time to time. Therefore, there is no restraint on the power of the Government to amend these rules. It should also be borne in mind that the rule preventing students who did not qualify for admission to the College by passing all the subjects in one attempt, had, its life only for less than a week. In any event, we are unable to understand how the principle of equitable estoppel could have any application to this case. This argument is unsubstantial and does not deserve serious consideration. To say the least, it is utterly devoid of merits and has to be rejected.

24. Writ Petition No.820 of 1961 : This petition, which prays for reliefs similar to those in the other petitions, relates to admission to the pre Professional Course in one of the Colleges in the region known as Telangana. There are three Medical Colleges in this area with a total of 265 seats.

25. The petitioner is the son of an officer of the Central Government stationed in the Telangana area and passed the P.U.C. examination in 1961 with 58 per cent in biological and physical sciences. Having failed to secure admission in any one of these colleges, he had presented this petition questioning the validity of the reservation for Multipurpose candidates and also for students who have distinguished themselves in sports and extra curricular activities. Thus, this petition relates to some additional points :

26. The reservation for Multipurpose candidates is impeached on the additional ground that it is contrary to the provisions of the Osmania University Act, 1959. It is urged that under Sec.6 of that Act, the Government has power to reserve seats in Colleges under their management only on regional basis and not on any other basis. This argument is founded on Section 6 Proviso (3) which recites :

"The Government may reserve seats in Colleges under their management for women or members of educationally backward classes or allot seats on such, regional basis of the State as may be declared"

by the Government.

Since the power derived under Section 6 is restricted to the distribution of seats only on regional basis, any other type of reservation is opposed to the section and will, therefore, be illegal, is the argument of Sri B.V. Subrahmanyam. This point was not raised in the affidavit in support of the petition but mentioned in the reply-affidavit. Even otherwise, we cannot give effect to it for the following reasons :

27. Section 26 of the Act, which confers, certain powers on the Academic Council of the University, contains a provision for making regulations on the recommendations of the Regional Committee. It is in these terms :

"Provided that in making the regulations, the Academic Council shall give effect to the recommendations of the Regional Committee constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Regional Committee Order, 1958, as embodied in the orders issued by the Government in this behalf."

27a. It is not disputed that the reservations of seats for Multipurpose candidates and also for candidates who have distinguished themselves in sports and extra curricular activities were recommended by the Regional Committee and these recommendations were embodied in orders issued by the Government in this behalf. It is also not denied that it was pursuant to the regulations made by the Academic Council on the basis of the recommendations of the Committee that Government framed the rules which are under challenge.

28. Since the reservation, now the subject matter of attack, is traceable to the recommendations of the Regional Committee which are binding on the Academic Council, which is authorised to make regulations relating to the admission of students into the various colleges and which regulations formed the basis of the rules for the admission of students including the rule in question, it cannot be impugned as having been made without authority. We may here mention that the Regional Committee, as will be shown presently, has been constituted in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. Therefore, the ultimate source of power of the Government to make this reservation is Sec.28. We have already remarked that this reservation is not contrary to any of the articles of the constitution.

29. Even independently of Sec.26, the recommendations of the Regional Committee have statutory force by virtue of Art.371 of the Constitution. That Article runs as follows:

"Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution the President may by order made with respect to the State of Andhra Pradesh or Punjab, provide for the constitution arid functions of regional committees of the Legislative Assembly of the State, for the modifications to be made in the rules of business of Government and in the rules of Procedure of the Legislative Assembly of the State and for any special responsibility of the Governor in order to secure the proper functioning of me regional committees.

30. It is under this Article that a Regional Committee was constituted for the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Committee was brought into existence by an order of the President dated 1st February 1958 with respect to the State of Andhra Pradesh. The order provided for the formation of a Regional Committee of the Assembly for the Telangana region consisting of the memebrs of the Assembly who for the time being represented the constituencies within that region. Under that order, all scheduled matters, in so far as they relate to the Telengana region, shall be within the purview of the Regional Committee to the extend and in the manner provided by that order. Schedule matters is defined under Sec.2 as matters specified in the first schedule. One of the matters enumerated in the first schedule is the regulation of admission to educational institutions in the Telangana area. Section 7 of that order empowered the Regional Committees

"to consider and pass resolutions recommending to the State Government any legislative or executive action affecting the Telangana, region with respect to any scheduled matters, so however, that the executive action relates to general questions of policy and the legislative or executive action does not involve any financial commitment other than expenditure of a routine and incidental character.

31. It is plain that the Regional Committee is clothed with power to make recommendations regarding admissions to educational institutions in the Telangana area. Thus, the Regional Committee has acted within its powers in recommending reservation in this behalf. It is these recommendations that were given effect to by the Academic Council pursuant to the requirements of sec.26. They acquired the force of law apart from Sec.26 by reason of Art.371 of the Constitution and would prevail even if they are in any way inconsistent with any provision of the Constitution to the extent they bear only on matters of general policy. In our opinion, this consequence flows from the non-obstante clause of Art.371. If that is the real legal position, the reservation for Multipurpose candidates cannot be brought in issue either as being without competence or as being in contravention of Art.14 of the Constitution.

32. We will now deal with the other reservation. The Osmania University reserved a maximum of 3 per cent of the total number of seats available after deducting the number of seats reserved under R.2 from the Over-all total for candidates who have distinguished themselves in sports and extra curricular activities. This is peculiar to this University only and does not obtain in the Andhra region. This reservation also cannot be impugned as being inconsistent with Art.14 even if there does not exist a nexus between the classification and the purpose sought to be achieved, because of Art.371. We have already said that by virtue of the clause, with which Art.371 begins, the recommendations of the Regional Committee relating to matters of policy, which constitutes the functions allotted to it under the order, take effect even if they contravene or violate Art.14 of the Constitution. That clause secures immunity to the acts of the Regional Committee, which concern matters of policy with reference to the Telangana area, from challenge even if they infringe Art.14. Therefore, this particular reservation also cannot be questioned as being in conflict with any provision of law or even with Art.14.

33. In any event, the petitioner does not seem to have any chance of securing admission, the marks obtained by him being too low. It appears from the tabular statement produced before us that there are at least a dozen candidates who have secured higher marks than the petitioner. So, even if these reservations are struck down as being illegal, there is very little chance of his obtaining admission since the seats reserved under R.3 are only 8 in the Osmania University."

34. That aside, there is a weighty reason for rejecting this petition. Rule 10 of the Rules for the selection of candidates for admission to the Pre Professional Course in Medicine framed by the Osmania University, inter alia, requires a certificate of nativity in the appropriate form prescribed under the rules with documents giving particulars of the entire educational career of the candidates. Thus the production of a nativity certificate is an essential requisite and, if it is not annexed to the application for admission, it is liable to be rejected. Rule 10 (c) says :

"If the application of a candidate is defective for want of any of the above certificates or if any of the documents or certificates produced along with the application is defective in any respect the application shall summarily be rejected by the authority specified for making admissions for reasons to be recorded in writing.

35. In the instant case, a nativity certificate was produced but it was defective in that it was not signed by a Member of the Legislative Assembly or a Member of the Legislative Council of the district concerned but it was issued by the Tahsildar. That does not satisfy the requirements of the rules. The authorities concerned are not bound to take into consideration an application which is defective in any respect, by virtue of Rule 10 (c).

36. To get over this difficulty, the petitioner claims exemption under R.12 which is in these words :

"The children of the Central Government officers including Defence forces stationed in the Telangana region and the wives and the children of State, Government officials who do not possess the nativity of any district of Andhra Pradesh including Hyderabad City and are now working in the Capital (who are not in a position to produce the domicile or nativity certificate in accordance with the rules, shall be exempted from the production of these certificates along with their applications for admission into the P.P.C. in Medicine and the M.B.B.S. course in the colleges in the Telangana region. Such candidates may apply for admission to the courses in the colleges in the area in which their parents, husbands are residing at the time of applying for admission and take their chances on merit along with other candidates of the region. They should produce a certificate from the Head of the Department under whom their parents are working.

37. The learned Government Pleader contends that this rule is inapplicable to the petitioner as his father is not one of those who was working in the Capital i.e., the city of Hyderabad. On the contrary the learned counsel for the petitioner maintains that the clause "and are now working in the capital qualifies only State Government Officials and does not govern Central Government Officers occurring in the earlier part of the rule.

We cannot accede to this latter theory. In our opinion, this governs both Central Government Officers and State Government Officials as the intendment of the rule is that the children of such of the officers either belonging to the Central Government or the State Government but do not possess nativity of any of the districts of Andhra Pradesh should be given exemption provided they are working in the capital.

The argument of Sri B.V. Subrahmanyam for the petitioner that the relevant clause

"and are now working in the capital can have no relation to Central Government officers and that it applies only to the officers mentioned in the portion of the sentence immediately preceding it and is unconnected with the earlier part of it is inadmissible. It is not contested that this clause has a bearing on the previous one viz. who do not possess the nativity of any district of Andhra Pradesh including Hyderabad City. Can it be predicated that this clause"

who do not possess the nativity of any district of the Andhra Pradesh including Hyderabad City is confined only to State Government Officials? In our opinion, that relates to both State Government officials and Central Government Officials. It cannot be contended that it has no relation to Central Government Officers for the reason that the object of this rule is to give exemption to the children of both Central Government officers and State Government officials who do not possess nativity of any of the Districts of Andhra Pradesh. There is no necessity to give any exemption if Central Government officers possess nativity.

To our mind, it is clear that in this matter both categories of officers are put on the same footing. They gain the advantage of exemption if they work in the capital notwithstanding their not having nativity of any of the districts.

38. That this exemption is extended to officers working in the capital can also be seen from clause (b) of that section which has reference to the children of Andhra officers who have moved to Hyderabad. That being the real position, we feel that this exemption is unavailable to the petitioner whose father is stationed in one of the district headquarters.

39. For these reasons, we have to repel all the additional contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and dismiss the writ petition.

40. In the result, all the writ petitions are dismissed without costs, except as indicated above.

Writ petitions dismissed.

Gullapalli Nageswara... v. The Principal, Medic...