State of Arunachal Pradesh vs Tymnyak Ete and Others

The respondents herein had filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the allegations that their names were mentioned in the Merit List prepared after the Joint Entrance Examination held for selecting the candidates for the M.B.B.S. and B.D.S. Courses for the educational session 2002-03.

The Government of Arunachal Pradesh took a decision in the year 1992 communicating to the Selection Committee concerned vide Government Policy letter dated 23.6.1995 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). Under the policy decision taken by the Government, the nomination to the Medical College will not be based entirely on the merit of the candidates. As per the policy decision taken in the year 1992, the candidates from the districts of the State of Arunachal Pradesh, if they are not represented in the Merit List, then one candidate from that district shall be selected irrespective of his merit. In the other words, if a particular district is going unrepresented on account of the fact that no candidate from such district can be nominated strictly on merit then, if such a district has candidate who stands included in the Merit List on securing the minimum qualifying marks, such candidate will be nominated as representative of such unrepresented district, though such candidate may not be as meritorious as others in the Merit List. For the relevant year, seven districts are unrepresented and accordingly, the candidates from those unrepresented districts were selected superseding the claim of the petitioners who stand above the candidates in the Merit List. This policy decision is challenged by filing the writ petition.

The State respondent entered appearance and supported the policy decision taken by the State of Arunachal Pradesh. As per the State, this policy decision has been taken because it gives an opportunity for studying Medicines to the residents of all the districts of the States, the districts which are educationally and socially backward. With the help of this decision, the State Government aims development in the field of Medicines of all the districts and such decision cannot be challenged on the avail of the law of equality inasmuch as this policy decision makes no discrimination among the tribals on the basis of their place of residence, but only aims at giving benefits to all the districts of the State. The learned Single Judge has found that from the policy decision taken by the Government, it is clear that the nomination of candidates from the unrepresented districts have been resorted to in order to give reasonable opportunity of participation to some of the communities, who are educationally and socially backward and residents of particular parts of the State, so as to reduce the regional imbalance leading to tension among the different communities/tribes of the State. If these were the objects, the Government policy has to identify those part/parts and/or area/areas which are unhabited by those communities who are educationally and socially backward. The learned Judge held that the State has not been able to produce any material on record on the basis of which it can be held that particular classes of the citizens of particular districts are socially and educationally backward. Neither any material has been placed before the Court whereby it can be ascertained that particular part/parts and/or area/areas inhabited by certain communities are socially and educationally backward. In the absence of any material placed on record by the Government, the learned Singl Judge has quashed the policy decision taken by the Government holding it to be violative of the provisions of Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge, the present appeal is filed.

The learned Advocate-General appearing for the State of Arunachal Pradesh has candidly admitted that the Government could not produce any material before the Court to support the policy decision taken by the State of Arunachal Pradesh regarding the socially and educationally backward classes who are residing in a particular district. On the admission made by the learned Advocate-General, it is clear that the policy decision taken by the State of Arunachal Pradeah is not protected by virtue of Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India. In the matter of Miss Arti Sapru and Others Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others, the Supreme Court has held that it is necessary for the Government to disclose material on the basis of which State wants to sustain classification made by it. In the case reported in Miss. Nishi Maghu and Others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others, it is said by the Supreme Court that if the classification is based for rectification of regional imbalance the Government must proves to the satisfaction of the Court and identify the areas suffering from imbalance. In the absence of material, classification on the basis of resident of particular district cannot sustain. It is, however, made clear that if the Government of Arunachal Pradesh can identify a particular district to be inhabited by any such caste or tribe who are socially and educationally backward, the State may formulate a policy in conformity with the provisions of Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India.

For the aforesaid reasonse we do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid observations.