1962 JTR(SC) 349
1963 AIR(SC) 702 ; 1963 Supp1 SCR 475
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
5th November, 1962
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N. WANCHOO, K.C. DAS GUPTA AND J.C. SHAH, JJ.
Heggade Janardhan Subbaraya, Petitioner
Versus
The State of Mysore and others, Respondents.
Petns. Nos. 130 and 133 of 1992.
Advocates appeared
(In both the Petition):-M/s. S.K. Venkatarangaiengar and R. Gopalakrishnan Advocates, for Petitioners; (In both the Petitions):-P. D. Menon, for Respondents.
Reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes remain valid and operative even if a court quashes reservation orders based on invalid additional reservations for socially and educationally backward classes, provided the SC/ST reservations were not specifically challenged.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
: Art.15(4)
(A) Constitution of India - Art 15(4) - Reservation for backward classes - Validity of reservation orders - Where a prior decision of the Court struck down additional reservations for socially and educationally backward classes, such a decision does not affect the validity of reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes if those were not assailed or challenged and are distinct and separate from the challenged reservations. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners applied for admission to a medical college and alleged that they would have secured admission but for the reservation directed by impugned orders issued by the State under Art 15(4) of the Constitution. They challenged the validity of these orders, praying for a writ to restrain the respondents from giving effect to the said orders.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to the relief claimed based on a prior decision of the Court. It further clarified that the reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes remains operative as it was distinct and independent from the additional reservation for socially and educationally backward classes which was struck down.
Issues: Whether the impugned reservation orders issued under Art 15(4) of the Constitution were valid and whether the invalidation of reservations for socially and educationally backward classes extended to reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court reasoned that since the attack in the prior decision was confined to additional reservations for socially and educationally backward classes and did not challenge the reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the latter remain valid and independent. The quashing of the impugned orders was solely due to the additional reservation for backward classes.
Result: Petitions allowed.
Facts of the case:
Petitioners applied for admission to a medical college and alleged that they would have secured admission but for the reservation directed by impugned orders issued by the State under Art 15(4) of the Constitution. They challenged the validity of these orders, praying for a writ to restrain the respondents from giving effect to the said orders.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to the relief claimed based on a prior decision of the Court. It further clarified that the reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes remains operative as it was distinct and independent from the additional reservation for socially and educationally backward classes which was struck down.
Issues: Whether the impugned reservation orders issued under Art 15(4) of the Constitution were valid and whether the invalidation of reservations for socially and educationally backward classes extended to reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court reasoned that since the attack in the prior decision was confined to additional reservations for socially and educationally backward classes and did not challenge the reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the latter remain valid and independent. The quashing of the impugned orders was solely due to the additional reservation for backward classes.
Result: Petitions allowed.
Reservation - The court relied on this decision to conclude that the impugned orders regarding additional reservations for socially and educationally backward classes were invalid.
P.D.MENON, R.GOPAL KRISHNAN, S.K.VENKATARANGA IYENGAR
Judgment
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. : These two Writ Petitions Nos. 130 of 1962 and 133 of 1962 have been filed by Heggade Janardhan Subbaraya and Ravindra Prabhu respectively (hereinafter called the petitioners) under Art 32 of the constitution, challenging the validity of the orders issued by respondent No. 1, the State of Mysore, Under Art. 15(4) of the Constitution on July 10, 1961 and July 31, 1962 respectively. Both the petitioners had applied for admission to the pre- Professional Class in Medicine in the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli, and the applications had been submitted to respondent No. 2, the Selection Committee appointed in that behalf by respondent No. 1. According to the petitioners, they would have secured admission to the said Medical College but for the reservation directed to be made by the two impugned orders. They alleged that the orders were ultra vires and so, they prayed for an appropriate writ or order restraining the respondents from giving effect to the said orders and requiring them to deal with the petitioners applications on the merits.
2. The points raised by the present petitions are covered by the decision of this Court in the case of M. R. Balali. v. State of Mysore, W. Ps. Nos. 90 to 112 of 1962, D/- 28-9-1962: and so, it is common ground that the petitioners are entitled to an appropriate writ or order as claimed by them.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents however drew our attention to the fact that as a result of the decision of this Court in the case of M. R. Balaji W. Ps. Nos. 90 to 112 of 1962, D/- 28-9-1962: respondent No. 1 was feeling some doubt as to whether the reservation made by the impugned orders in respect of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes was also struck down by this Court. As the judgment shows, respondent No. 1 has consistently fixed the percentage of reservation in respect of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes at 15% & 3% respectively. Five orders have been passed by respondent No. 1 one after the other under Art. 15(4), but the reservation fixed for the Scheduled Tribes has always remained the same. IT is true that the judgment of this Court does not expressly say that the validity of the said reservation was not assailed before this Court and cannot, therefore, be deemed to have been affected by the decision. However, as the judgement shows, the only attack against the validity of the impugned orders was directed against the additional reservation made in favour of the socially and educationally Backward Classes of citizens in the State. The petitions filed in the said cases were confined to the said reservation and during the course of the arguments before this Court, it was not suggested by the petitioners learned counsel that the reservation made in favour of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes was in any manner irregular or not justified Art. 15(4). This position is not disputed by the petitioners learned counsel before us. Therefore, we think that in order to avoid any doubt in the matter it is necessary to make clear that our judgment in that case does not affect the validity of the said reservation which is distinct and separate from, and independent of the other reservation which was challenged. The said reservation continues to be operative and the fact that the impugned orders have been, quashed does not alter that position. The .said orders have been quashed solely by reference to the additional reservation made by the impugned orders in regard to the socially and educationally backward classes, and so, respondent No. 1 would be justified in giving effect to the reservation made in respect of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
4. In the result, we allow the petitions and direct that an appropriate writ or order should be issued restraining the respondents from giving effect to the two impugned orders. In the circumstances of these cases, we direct that the petitioners should get from the respondents costs incurred by them, except the hearing fee.
Petitions allowed.
For Citation : AIR 1963 SC 702