AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sathiadev, J.—Petitioner in W.P.No.8142 of 1987 is the appellant herein and the respondents therein are the two respondent herein. The
relief claimed in the writ petition is for issue of Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to admit the petitioner in the First Year Integrated
M.B.B.S. Course in any one of the Government Medical Colleges in Tamil Nadu. She belongs to Kattunayakan community, which is a notified
Scheduled Tribe in the State of Tamil Nadu. She applied in July, 1987 for a seat in M.B.B.S. Course for the academic year 1987-88 and she
secured 170.8 marks out of 250 marks which works out to 68.32%; but yet, she was not selected even though a reservation of 18% of medical
seats was made for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (hereinafter referred to as SC/ST). Though second respondent 1st obliged in law to
reserve a separate quota of seats for ST; by fixing 18% of seats together for SC/ST, the Scheduled Tribes do not get seats in Medical Colleges in
proportion to their population. As per 1981 Census, they form 1% of the total population in Tamil Nadu, and thus they will be entitled to allotment
of 11 seats in Government Medical Colleges. Even though the Government of, India and other State Governments do not club together Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes for employment and education, it is only in Tamil Nadu, this procedure which is contrary to the directives in Art. 46
of the Constitution of India, is being followed. This failure on its part, deprives her from securing admission, in spite of her securing 68% in the
selection process.
Learned Judge dismissed the Writ Petition in limine by holding that there cannot be any compulsion to reserve separate eats for SC/ST because
Art. 15 (4) is an enabling provision and not a mandate, and that petitioner had addressed to wrong quarters for relief. It is on being aggrieved with
this approach made, without even entertaining her writ petition of this nature, this writ appeal is preferred.
In the writ appeal, respondents have filed a counter claiming that petitioner has secured 170.8 marks out of 250 in the total marks inclusive of
Entrance Examination marks, and that the cut-off marks for SC/ST Community is 199.10 during the year 1987-88 session. As her aggregate mark
was below the cut-off marks, she was not selected. As per the policy of the Government, 18% seats have been reserved for SC/ST Community
combined together. Having applied under the prescriptions for admission, and accepting them having partaken in the entrance process, she cannot
now question the system of reservation of seats. In the 1981 Census, out of the total population in Tamil Nadu, Scheduled Tribes constituted
1.07%. Hence, separate reservation of seats for the members of the Scheduled Tribes Community is not called for. As Constitution of India does
not prescribe any separate reservation or seats for Scheduled Tribes in educational institutions, and when Art.15 (4) is an enabling provision, the
relief claimed is liable to be rejected.
Mr. Abdul Kareem, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner, submits that, when the constitutional intention is to treat SC and ST as distinct
and separate class of persons and in the eye of law they being unequals, they could not be put together in extending a constitutional protection to
them. No doubt as held by the Supreme Court, Art.15(4) of the Constitution is not a mandate, but once the State decides to extend the benefit
under the Constitution, it is prohibited from treating unequals as equals. Scheduled Tribes having been socially backward because of detestable
discard practised against them by the vested majority communities, in the evolution of achieving betterness, the Scheduled Castes having
comparably better placed than Scheduled Tribes; but by locational habitation, the Schedule Tribes who are still being deprived of achieving equal
status with Scheduled Castes, are entitled to get a separate reservation in proportion to the population of the State. Even though Central
Government and more than one State Government had realised a duty to obey the Constitutional intention and earmarked separate seats for
Scheduled Tribes in educational institutions, it is only in Tamil Nadu, the Scheduled Tribes are allowed to take undue advantage of getting more
seats than what they are entitled to, by clubbing SC/ST together for reservation purposes.
The relevant Articles he had relied upon are Arts. 15(4), 16(4), 46, 330(1)(a) and (b), 330(2), 332, 335, 338, 341, 142 and 366 (24) and
(25) of the Constitution of India. By referring to those Articles, he submits that, when the Constitution itself had chosen to treat Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes as distinct and different classes of persons by resorting to define them under Art. 366 (24) and 25, they can never be
grouped together as belonging to one class of persons. When the State chooses to extend any Constitutional benefits by invoking any provision of
the Constitution, it''s distinctive nature which is Constitutionally recognised cannot be undermined by claiming that in extending the benefits, the
State would do as it likes, thus effacing the distinction which exists between Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In making provision for
reservation of seats in Parliament and Legislative Assemblies, based on population reservation having been made treating them as different class,
and when Notifications are to be issued to identify and specify Scheduled Tribes as distinct from Scheduled Castes, there could be no justification
in grouping them together, to confer educational benefits under Art.15(4).
Learned Advocate General, by referring to the decision reported in M.R. Balaji and Others Vs. State of Mysore, , submits that Art. 15(4) is an
enabling provision, and therefore, a Mandamus cannot be issued to direct the State to make a reservation for SC/ST and whatever be the specific
provision with regard to reservation of seats in Parliament and Legislature, cannot be read into Art. 15 (4) of the Constitution. Following this
decision, a Division Bench in Abdul Latiff Vs. State of Bihar and Others, held that, what is sought to be achieved under Art.15(4) is like
reservation of posts and appointments as contemplated under Art.16(4), and it should be done only within a reasonable limit. Art.15(4) only
enables the State to make special provisions in the nature of promoting the advancement of the weaker sections of the Society, and therefore has
to be read as a Proviso or an exception to Art.15(1). In this context, he also refers to the decision in Desu Rayudu and Another Vs. Andhra
Pradesh Public Service Commission, Hyderabad and Another, wherein it was held as follows:-
.........It was not incumbent upon the State Government to prepare any list of backward classes nor is it incumbent on it now to prepare any list
Both the Articles enable the State Government to make provision for extending help to socially and educationally backward classes. The State
Government therefore cannot be compelled by the issue of Mandamus to continue either what it was doing or do something in accordance with the
mandate issued............
He therefore submits that, as held by the learned Judge, when Art.15(4) is not a mandate, while extending certain benefits or reservation, it is open
to the State to prescribe the manner in which it could be achieved, and failure to differentiate between Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
cannot be assailed in the manner done by the appellant.
Supreme Court held in M.R. Balaji and Others Vs. State of Mysore, that Art.15(4) of the Constitution is only an enabling provision and does
not impose an obligation, and it is in the discretion of the appropriate Government to suitable action if necessary and provide for reservation for
SC/ST, so that they acquire educational advancement. The purport of this decision is that, it is left to the discretion of the State Government if
circumstances warrant to take appropriate steps under this Article whenever it is considered necessary. It is open to State to provide the benefits
under this Art. Only for Scheduled Castes or for Scheduled Tribes. It is equally open to the State Government either to confer or deny reservation
in educational institutions for certain Backward Classes, if they are comparably better placed than certain, other sections of the Society. If it
chooses to invoke Art. 15(4), then it is bound to treat Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as distinct from one another for reservation
purposes. It is not open to the State of Tamil Nadu to claim that Scheduled Tribes belong to the same category as Scheduled Castes and will have
to be treated alike. It is only in implementing the Constitutional provision, it had chosen to extend benefits by reserving 18% seats in educational
institutions, for those who would come under Art. 15(4) of the Constitution. In doing so, it has to treat those two class of persons only in the
manner in which they have been understood by the Constitution. In exercising their discretionary powers under Art. 15(4) they have no right to act
against the Constitutional intention of treating them as distinct and separate class of persons. Under Art. 366 (24), the Constitution had chosen to
define ""Scheduled Castes"" as follows :-
Scheduled Castes''s means such castes, races or tribes or parts of or groups within such castes, races or tribes as are deemed under article 341 to
be Scheduled Castes for the purposes of this Constitution.
As far as ""Scheduled Tribes"" are concerned, it is defined in Art. 366(25) as follows:-
''Scheduled Tribes'' means such tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within such tribes or tribal communities as are deemed under
article 342 to be Scheduled Tribes for the purposes of this Constitution.
The attempt to distinguish ""Scheduled Tribes"" from ""Scheduled Castes"" has been maintained right through in other provisions of the Constitution
whenever necessity had arisen to deal with their rights, as distinct from the other members of the Society. In part XVI of the Constitution, which
deals with ""Special provisions relating to certain to Classes""; in the House of the people seats have been reserved for SC/ST by treating them as
distinct and separate classes of Citizens. In doing so, under Art. 330 (2), the seats so reserved, shall bear a proportion to the total population of
the State. Regarding Legislative Assembly of a State, a similar provision is made under Art. 332. In relation to services and posts in connection
with the affairs of the Union or of a State, under Art. 335, their claims shall be taken into consideration consistent with the maintenance of the
efficiency of administration, and in doing so, the distinction brought out in the Constitution by treating them as separate and distinct classes had
been maintained. Articles 341 and 342 deal with separate notifications being made to identify them as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes,
which would further strengthen the proposition, that they can never be treated as one group of persons. Art. 46 enjoins upon the State to promote
with special care ""the educational and economic interests"" of SC/ST. This distinction having been purposefully and pointedly brought about in more
than one Article in the Constitution; in extending the coverage or a protection or reservation relating to them under Art. 15(4) they could not be
treated alike by the State. As earlier stated, it is certainly open to the State either to give protection only to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled
Tribes as it may deem fit; but if it chooses to extend the benefit to both of them, it has to treat each class separately, and adopt such standards as
are permissible in law to reserve seats in educational institutions separately for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
A Division Bench in Raveendra Raju v. State of Kerala ILR (1978) 2 Ker. 250= 1978 K.L.T. 754. :1990 I.L.W 83 (RCP) had observed as
follows:-
Even under the constitution, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes have been treated as separate classes and not as a composite group. They
are defined separately in clauses (24 and 25) of Article 366 and the separate provisions made in respect of Scheduled Castes and in respect of
Scheduled Tribes in Articles 330, 332, 341 and 342, etc., all go to show that the two groups have been dealt with in the Constitution as separate
and distinct from one another. It cannot be gainsaid that members of the Scheduled Tribes are by and large very much more backward socially,
educationally and economically than members of the Scheduled Castes Any scheme of reservation of posts in favour of such backward classes of
citizens cannot but take due note of this grim reality. What the State Government has done under the impugned orders Exts. P-4 and P-5 is to
effect a classification between candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and those belonging to Scheduled Tribes after taking into account the
greater degree of backwardness from which the latter group suffers and to make provision for a reservation of a small percentage of the posts
earmarked for special recruitment in favour of candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribes by stipulating that the second and thereafter every
following fifth turn shall be reserved for candidate belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. We do not see any illegality whatever in the provision for
such reservation made by Exts. P-4 and P-5. As already pointed out the members of the Scheduled Tribes being more backward socially,
educationally and economically compared to members of the Scheduled Castes there is ample justification for the two groups being classified
separately and such a classification has undoubtedly a rational nexus with the object and purpose underlying Rule 17A, namely that on securing
adequate representation in the services to the backward classes of citizens and more especially members of the Scheduled Caste and the
Scheduled Tribes. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in State of Kerala and another v. N.M. Thomas and others AIR 1979 S.C. 490, the
basic concept of the equality guaranteed by Article 16(1) of the Constitution is equality of opportunity for appointment to any offence under the
State and it is only by giving preferential treatment for members of backward classes that such equality of opportunity can be really brought about.
Equality of opportunity for unequals can only mean aggravation of inequality.
As observed by Ray, C.J., at page 497:-
Discrimination is the essence of classifications Equality is violated if it rests on unreasonable basis. The concept of equality has an inherent
limitation arising from the very nature of the constitutional guarantee. Those who are similarly circumstanced are entitled to an equal treatment.
Equality is amongst equals"". If unequals are treated alike that would amount to a violation of the guarantee of equality of opportunity...
In State of Kerala v. N. M. Thomas AIR 1979 S.C. 490, it was observed as follows:-
......Equality means parity of treatment under parity of conditions..................
The Constitution makes a classification of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in numerous provisions and gives a mandate to the State to
accord special or favoured treatment to them Article 46 contains a Directive Principle of State Policy-fundamental in the governance of the country
enjoining the State to promote with special care educational and economic interests of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and to protect
them from any social injustice and a exploitation.........
8-A. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon the following materials to show that this distinction has been taken note of by the Union
Government and several State Governments, and the ordain of the Constitution had been correctly understood and acted upon, which the
Government of Tamil Nadu had failed to implement. Department of Personnel and Training of the Government of India in its Circular dated 24-5-
1985 had revised the roster State wise by fixing separate quoats for SC/ST, taking into account the population of each State. There are many
States wherein the quota for Scheduled Tribes is much more than the reservation made for Scheduled Castes. In Nagaland, Andaman and
Nicobar Islands, Lakshwadeep and Mizoram, there is no reservation for Scheduled Castes at all. In the prospectus issued by JIPMER at
Pondicherry, for Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes, separate seats have been reserved. For Regional Engineering College, Warangal a
similar provision is made. In all Regional Engineering Colleges numbering eleventh in the Country, including for Tamil Nadu; separate reservation
has been made for SC/ST. The Brochure of Reservation for SC/ST in Service, in more than one place provides for separate quotas being fixed for
SC/ST. He therefore respectfully submits that, when this distinction spelt out in the Constitution had been scrupulously followed also for
educational purposes, the prescription of the respondents herein in the allocation of 18% for admission to Medical Colleges by grouping SC/ST
together is, therefore, illegal.
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred under Art. 341(1) of the Constitution, separate Acts had been enacted. For Scheduled Castes, the
Scheduled Castes (Amendment) Act, 1976 had been passed and in Part XVI, the Scheduled Castes in Tamil Nadu had been identified. Likewise,
the Scheduled Tribe (Amendment) Act, 1976 was passed and in Part XIV, 36 Tribes had been identified in Tamil Nadu. This is yet another factor
which clearly shows that in the eye of law, they have been differently treated and, therefore, they could not be treated alike.
While passing G.O.Ms.No. 1565 Social Welfare Department dated 30-7-1985, which is produced before Court to show that in respect of
educational institutions, 18% seats are to be ear-marked for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. This G.O. came to be passed consequent to
the decision in K.C. Vasanth Kumar and Another Vs. State of Karnataka, recognising therein existing 18% reservation for SC/ST, as found in
G.O. Ms. No. 73 S.W. dated 1-2-1980. It is claimed that based on these G.Os., the prospectus for Government Medical Colleges in Tamil Nadu
for MBBS/BDS/D. Pharm Courses, 1987 88 came to be issued.
As pointed out above, once Art.15 (4) is invoked to extend educational benefit to SC/ST. It is not then open to the State of Tamil Nadu to
group them in one category without realising that the Scheduled Tribes are by and large very much backward socially educationally and
economically than members of the Scheduled Castes. Hence, this prescription of grouping them as one category as found in the prospectus, which
in turn came to be issued, based on G.O.Ms. No. 1565, Social Welfare Department dated 30-7-1985 and G.O. Ms. No. 73, Social Welfare
Department dated 1-2-1980, is declared as invalid and illegal. The appellant cannot be granted relief for the Course for which she had applied in
the absence of appropriate reservation of quota and of particulars as to how many Scheduled Tribes have secured marks over and above her.
Therefore, in the prospectus to be issued for 1990-91, on separate quota fixed for Scheduled Tribes, it will then be open to her to apply for
admission to the Course. Hence, the only relief that could be granted is to declare that the earmarking of 18% for SC/ST for admission to
M.B.B.S., course as found in prospectus is invalid and illegal and it cannot be followed henceforth, when admissions are made in future. To this
effect, this writ appeal allowed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 1,000.