| Headnote |
A. PEERIAKARUPPAN, ~TC. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. September 23, 1970 A [J. C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE AND A: N. GROVER, JJ.J B Constitution of India, 1950, Al'ts. 14 and 15-Selection of candidates w medical co//eg"s-Co//eg" constituted into different units-Ratio o( seats to candidates d;J]erent in each unit-Candidatesinterviewed by .cUfierent selection .. ~on?mittees-Propriety, Interview system-Utility of Classification of backward classes on Hasi.< of caste-Validity of reser. C ·vation of seats to backwardclasses-Properproportion, In 1970-71, selection of candidates to variousmedical colleges ill the State of TamilNadu was done on the 'unitwise' basis. Under that schemethe medical colleges in thecityof Madraswere constituted as .one unit and eachof theothermedical colleges in the mofussU w&S constituted as a unit. In respectof eachone of the units, a separate ·selection committee was constituted.The intendingapplicants were D asked to apply to any one ofthecommitteesbut were advised to apply to the committeenearest to theirplaceof residence and, if they applied to morethan one committee,their applications were to be forwarded by the Governmentto onlyone of thecommittees.A few . seats were re•erved tocertainspecial categories of studentsand ort of the remainingseats, 41 per centwerereservedfor studentscoming from socially and educationallybackward classes, scheduled castes ·and ·sche- on the basit; of mereprobabilities.[439 C-F] ( 4) Thelist of backwardclasses appearsto include castes and not classes. But caste is a relevant circumstance in ascertaining backward· noss of a classand a classificationof backwardclasses on thebasis of caste is withinthe purviewof Art. 15 ( 4) of theConstitution if those C'1Stcs arcshownto he sociallyand educationallybackward. ' Butthe Gm ernmentcould notproceed on the basisoncea class is considered "sa backward cla'S it should continueto be a backwardclass for all time, because.once a class reachesa certainstage of progress competi· 432 SUPREM.I! COURT REPORTS [1971] 2 S.C.R lion is necessary for itsfutureprogress.The Governmentshould A therefore, always keep underreviewthe questionof reservation of seat: andonlythoseclasseswhich are really sociallyand educationally back wardshould be allowedto havethe benefit of reservation.Reservation ofseatsshouldnot be allcwed to becomea vestedinterestand the factthat,in thepresentcase, the candidate ot backward cl.isses had secured 50 percent of the seatsin thegeneralpool doesshowthat the time has come tar a de nova comprehensiveexamination of the ques· ll tion. The Government'sdecision in thisregardis open to judicial review.[442 B-C, 444 E-H] Ba/aji v. State of Mysore, [1963] Supp. I S.C.R. 438, Chitraleklra v. State of Mysore [1964] 6 S.C.R. 368, State of AndhraPradesh v. Sagar, [1963] 3 S.C.R. 595, Minor P. Rajendrar. v. State of Madras, [1968]2 S.C.R. 786, Naroyan Vasudev v. Emperor, A.LR. 1940 Born. 379 and Backward Classes Comml9s·on's Report, referredto.C (5)There is .no basis for 'thecontentionthat reservationmade for backward.classes is excessi. " While it is againstthe immediateinterest of the Nationto excludefrom the portalsof our medicalcolleges quali- fied and competentstud ·nt , immediateadvantages of the Nationhave tobeharmonisedwith th Nation's long rangeinterest.The best way of servingthe Nation' inttrest wouldto helpthe backwardclasses to march forward and· take theirplacein linewiththe advancedsections D of tne people. In Bala;i's caseit washeldthat the totalreservationfor backwardclasses, SC'heduled castes and scheduledtribes shouldnot ordinarilyexceed SO per centof theavailableseats. Since in thepresent ~ase it was only 41 percent,it couldnot be heldthat the reservation was excessive. [441 E-H;442 A-BJ (6) Forthe purposeof selectionthere is noclassificationof back ward classes as backwardand morebackward.The list sent to the selec tioncommittee was that preparedfor the purposeof fee concession. (441 F] Jn the presentcase, however,the impugnedselections already made could not be set asidebecausethe selectedcandidateshad already joined thecourseand are undergoingtraining and theyhad notbeenmade partiesto thepetitions. Since thereare 24 seatsyet to be filledup, the State shallimmediatelyconstitute a separateexpert committeeconsisting ofeminentmedical practitioners(excluding all those who weremembers of previouscommittees)for selection to theseunfilledseats. The selec tion shouldbe madeon Statewise basis.The committeeshould interview onlythosecandidateswho are shown in thewaitinglist andpersonswho umuccessfully moved the High Courtand the petitionersbefore this Court. In preparingthe gradationlist, the committeeshould allot separatemarks under the five hea'ds mentionedin theru!eand the com mitteeshouldtake into considerationonly matterslaid downin therule excludingfrom consideration all irrelevantmatters. (445 B-H] ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petitions Nos. 285 and 314 of 1970. Under Article32 of theConstitution of Indiafor enforcement E F G of theFundamentalRights.H K. K. Venugopal and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the petitioner(in W.P. No. 285 of 1970). I A 8 c D E F I G H PEERL'KARUPPAN v. TAMIL NADU (Hegde, /.) 433 M. Natesan, R. Gopalakrishnan, forthe petitioner(in W.P. No. 314of 1970). S. GovindSwaminathan,Advocate-Genera/ for theStateof Tamil Nadu, A. V. Rangam and S. Mohan, for respondents Nos. 1 to 5 (in W.P. No. 285of 1970) and the respondents(in W.P. No.314 of 1970). M. K. Ramamurthi and VineetKumar, for the interveners. TheJudgment of. the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. In thesetwo petitionsunder Art. 32 of the Con stitutionthe petitioners who unsuccessfullysought admissionto certainMedicalColleges in the Stateof TamilNadu have asked for a writof mandamus to directthe Stateof TamilNadu to allot toeachone of thema seatin oneof theGovernmentMedical Collegesin thatStateand for consequentialorders. In the Stateof TamilNadu,there are eightMedicalColleges outof whichthree are situate in the city of Madras,one in Madu rai, one in Chingleput,one in Coimbatore,one in Thanjavurand · one in Tirunelveli.The totalseatsavailablein MadrasColleges are 500. Thesanctionedstrength of seats in Madurai, Chingle put, Coimbatore,Thanjavur and Tirunelveliare 200, 50, 100,200 and 75 respectively.Thus the totalnumberof medical seats avail ablein the GovernmentColleges for 1st yearof M.B.B.S.,course intheStateof TamilNadu are 1125. We understandthat for theseseats nearly7 ,000 studentsapplied for admission. In thepreviousyears except in the year1967-68,selection of candidatesfor admission to the1st yearM.B.B.S.course was done onStatewisebasis. Jn the year1967-68,the seats were distribut ed on districtwisebasis but thatscheme was heldto beinvalidby thisCourtin Minor P. Rajendran v. State of Madrasand Ors.(') Thereafterthe selection was againmadeon Statewisebasis in the years1968-69and 1969-70 but in thecurrentyear that system was givenup andselection was directedto bemadeon thebasisof what is known as unitwisebasis. Under the presentscheme t.I:ie MedicalCollegesin thecityof Madraswere constituted as one unitand eachone of. the otherMedicalCollegesin the mofUs~il was constituted as a unit.Thus six units were created. in the State.In respectof eachone of theunitsa separateselection committee was constituted.The intendingapplicantswere asked toapplyto anyoneof thecommitteesbut theywere advised to applyto thecommitteenearest to theirplaceof residence a~ far as possibkThey were told that if theyappliedto morethan one committeetheir applications wiH be forwardedby theGovernment to on1y one of thecommittees. (!)[ 19681 2 S. C.R. 786 434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1971] 2 S.C.R A few seats out of the1125seats were reservedfor certain specialcategoriesof students.As there is no disputeabout those seats we shallnot refer to themhereafter. Out of the remaining seats 41 percentseatswere reservedfor studentscoming from sociallyand educationallybackward classes Scheduled Castes & ScheduledTribes. The rest of them were placed in thegeneral pool. In the State of TamilNadu actualmarksare notbeing given in thePre-Universityexamination. The papers were valuedon thebasisof grades.There are all togetberfour grades i.e. Grades A to D.For the purposeof selectionto first year M.B.B.S., courseonly marksobtainedin theoptionalsubjects were taken int() consideration.Selection to theseatswith which we are con cernedin these petitions is confinedto students who havetaken intheirPre-Universityexamination Physics, Chemistryand Biology as theiroptionalsubjects though each of thesesubjectscarried a maximumof 100 marks thus a totalof 300 marks,for the purpose ofselection to thefirstyearM.B.B.S.course the procedure pres cribed was to takethe minimum marksprovidedfor the grade secured by the applicantin Chemistryand Physicsand add them toF,ther andthereafterdivide the totalby twoand to thatadd the mmimum marksprovidedfor thegradesecuredby theapplicant in Biology.Thus the totalmarksin theoptionalsubjects was reduced from 300 to 200. All the applicants in the generalpool who secured 110 or more marks calculatedon thebasisof the formulaereferred to earlier were calledfor interviewby the selec tioncommittees.Selection committeeswere authorisedto give a maximumof 75 marks at the i·nterview. The selectioncommittees wereaskedto award these markson the basis of followingtests. (1) Sports orNationalCadet Corpsactivities; (2) Extra Curricularspecial services; - (3) Generalphysicalconditionand endurance; (4)Generalability, and ( 5) Aptitude. Theselectioncommittees were directed to prepare a gradation liston the basis of the totalmarksobtained by each applicantand submitthe same to the Government. Thepetitionersbefore us appear to have had brilliantacademic career.The facts mentioned by the petitionersin this regaro werenot controverted by the respondents.The petitioner in Petition No. 285 of 1970came out within first threeranksin the l 0th and11thstandardsand in the final exa!!lination he secured 451 marksout ofthe totalof 700. He stoodthird in his school. A B c D E F G H B c D • G " PEERIAKARUPPAN v. TAMIL NADU (Hegde, J.) 435 During his school career he had 'taken keen interestin extra curricularactivities. He was a N.C.C. Cadet and passedcredit ablythe 'A' certificateexamination.He had also obtainedcerti ficatein boxing. He had joinedthe correspondencecourse conducted by the VoiceProphecyInstitute, New Delhi and obtained a certificatein Healthand Hygiene.After havingpassed his Anglo IndianHigh Schoolexaminationcreditably he joined Maduraicollege, in thePre-UniversitycoursetakingPhysics, Chemistryand Biology as his science subjects. kl that course he securedfirst class with GradeD plus in Physicsand Chemistry andA plus in Biology. He stoodfourthin his college. The grade D plus represents 85 to 99 percentmarksand A plus 65 to 7 5 percentmarks. Thepetitionerin Petition No. 314 of 1970passedher Pre University examination in March,1970 from the ScottChristian College,N agercoilwhich collegestandsaffiliatedto Madurai University. She secured first classwith grade'D' (75to 85 per centmarks)in Physics;grade D plus(85 to 911 per cent)in Chemistryand D (75to 85)per centin Biology.The petitioner alsohad a brilliantcareer throughout in the HighSchoolclasses as well as in thecollegeclass. She secureda meritcard for the highestdistinctionconsecutivelyfor theyears1965-66,1966-67 and1967-68in Standards8 to 10 of St. Joseph'sConvent,Nager coil.In theS.S.L.C.examinationheld m March,1969 she secured 456 marksout of 600. She obtaineddistinctionin extra curricularactivities both in school and college. She hadbeena girl guide. She tookkeen interest in games and sportsparticularly in net-ball,throw ball and tenniquoit. She was a memberof the Representativeteam. She also passed with meritthe pianoforte playingGrade I examinationconducted by theTrinityCollegeof Music, London_ Thepetitionersbefore this Court challenged the validityof theselectionsmade on variousgrounds.They contendedthat the unitwise selectioncontravenesArts. 14 and 15 of theCon stitutioninasmuch as the sameplacesthe applicantsof some of the units in abetterpositionthan thosewho appliedto otherunits. It was allegedthat the ratiobetweenapplicants and 1'iumber of seatsin theCoimbatoreunit was 1 : 13; in Tirunelveli1 : 10; in Chingleput1 : 6: in theMadras1 : St; in Thanjavur1 : ? and in Madurai1 : 7t. It was further alJeged that several appli cants who secured l:!sser marksthan the petitionersbefore this Courtwere selectedmerely becausetheir applicationscame to be collSidered in otherunits. It was also allegedthat this unitwise scheme was merelyintended as a deviceto getoverthe decision of' this Court in Rajendran's case(1). It wa~ next contended onbehalfof thepetitionersthat the interviewheld was a farce. . (I) (1968] 2 S. C.R. 786. 436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1971]:' S.C.R. Each applicant was interviewed hardly for three minutes. During that interview irrelevant question8 were put to them. The inter view marks were manipulated so as to pull up underserving appli cants and downgrade those who had secured excellent marks in their Pre-University examination. It was said thata perusal of the mark~ list would show that the whole selection was a manipula tion. The applicants who had failed more than once and ulti mately secured bare second class were selected while the first rate applicants who had secured first class with high marks were rejected. It was urgedon theirbehalfthat even the students who get the minimum marks could be pulled up by the selection com mittee by plumping 70 or more out of 75 interview marks whereas the students who have secured 170 marks the highest marks that could have been secured under the admission rules in Pre University examination could be pulled dOWIJ. by givin~ less thar. 10 marks outof 75 marks, The petitioners' complaint is that after the interview the selection committee carried. the marks given by them to Madras and there the Government has manipulated the marks in such a way as to selecttheir favourites and reject such of them in whom the Government was not interested. It was also ur~ed that no guidelines were provided for award· ing marksat the mterview and therefore the power conferred on the selection committee is an arbitrary power which ls capable of being misuied and in 昉捴 has been misused. It wai contended that the list of backward classes provided to the committee was solely made on the basis of caste and as such that Ust did not confonn to the requirements of Art. 1~ ( 4) of tho Constitution. The petitioners also urged that the reservation made for backward classes is disproportionately high and further the division of back· ward classes into backward classes and more backward classes was impermissible under law. We shall first take up the plearegarding the division ol medl· cal scats on unitwise basis. It is admitted that the minimum marksrequired for being selected in some unit is less than m the Qther .units. Hence prima facie the scheme m question results in . discrimination against some of the applicants. In Rajendran's case(') this Courtruled that the districtwise distnbution of available seats is violative of Art. 15 of the Constitution. But it was contended on pehalf of the State that the unitwise distn'bution of seats was ·adopted for administrative convenience. It was said thatit was not pOSsible for one selection committee to interview all the applicants. Thereforeseveral committees had to be consti tuted. In the past when applicants were interviewed by sever.ti. committees there were complaints that the · standardadopted by one committee differed from that adopted by others and therefore the applicants'ability was not tested by a uniform standard. Further (I) [1968] 2 S. C.R. 786. B c D E F G II A B c D E F G H PEERIAKARUPPAN v. TAMIL NADU (Hegde, J.) 437 it was said that whenselections were made by severalcommittees there was delayin preparinga consolidatedlist. We ar~ unable toacceptthese groundsas beingreal groilnds for clasisfication.The grievancewhen selectio11s were made by severalcommitteesin a Statewiseselection the standardadopted by variouscommittees differed, would continueeven whenselectionsare madeby several committeesin a unitwiseselection.Whether the selection is made by selection committeeson Statewisebasis or unitwise basis, the standard adopted by variouscommittees is bound to vary.Hence inprincipleit makesno difference. Now coming to the question of delay, we see no reason why there shouldbe anydelayin preparinga consolidatedlist. At · alliy rate the delaycaused is not likelyto besuch as to justify departure· from the principleof selectionon thebasisof merit ona Statewisebasis. Before a clasificationcan be justified,it mustbe basedon an objectivecriteria and furtherit musthave reasonablenexus .with the objectintendedto beachieved.The object intended tobeachieved in thepresentcase is to selectthe beat candidatesfor being admitted to MedicalColleges.That ol>ject cannot be satisfactorily achieved by the methodadopted. Tlie complaintof thepetitioners is thatunitwisedistribution of seats i• but a different manifestation of the districtwisedistribu • tioD aought in 1967 ·68 hu some force thoughon thematerialon record we will not be justl1led in sayingthat the unitwise distri butioo was donefor cOIJ.ateral purpose&. Suftl.ce it tosaythat the unitwlso distribution of seatsis violative of Arts. 14 .and 15 of the Constitution.1'he fact thatan applicant is freeto apply toany one unit does nottakethe schemeoutsidethe mischiefof Arts. 14 and 15. It may be remembered that the studentswere advised as far as possible to apply to theunitnearestto their place d. residence. Earmarking 75 marksout of 275marksfor interview as ~nter view marks prima facle appearsto beexcessive. It is notdenied thatthe interviewlasted hardlyfor threeminutes for each candi date. In the courseof threeminutesinterviewit is hardly pos sible to assess the capabilityof a candidate. In mostcasesthe firstimpressionneed not necessarilybe thebestimpression.But underthe existing conditionsin thiscountry we are unableto accede to thecontentionof thepetitionersthat the system of interview, as in voguein this country is so defective as to make it useless. It is true thatvariousresearchesconductedin other countriesparticularly in U.S.A. show that thereis possibility of serious errors creeping in interviewsmade on haphazardbasis. C .. W. Valentine on "Psychology and its Bearingon Education" refers to the marks given to thesameset of personsinterviewed 438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1971] 2 S.C.R. by two differentcompetentBoards and this is what is statedin his book: "The membersof eachboardawardeda markto eachcandidateand then he wasdiscussedand an averagemark agreedon. Whenthe ordersof meritfor thetwoboardswere comparedit wasfoundthat the manplacedfirst by Board A wasput 13thby BoardB whenthe ma[ll placed I st byBoardB was1 lth withBoard A." Evenwhenthe interviewsare conductedby impartial and ·competent personson scientificlines very manyuncertainfactors likethe initialnervousness on the pa1tof some caindidates, the mood in whichtheinterviewerhappens to beandthe odd ques· tionsthat may be put to thepersonsinterviewedmay all goto affectthe resultof theinterview. But as observedby thisCourt jn R. Chitra/ekhaand Anr. v. State of Mysoreand Ors('). "In the fieldof educationthere are divergf1Dt views as regardsthe modeof testingthe capacityand calibre ofstudentsin thematter of admissionsto colJeges. Orthodox educationistsstand by themarksobtainedby astudentin theannualexamination.The modern trend of op~ion insistsupon other additionaltests, such as interview,performanceinextra-curricular acti vities, personality test, psychiatrictests etc. Obviously we are not in a positionto judgewhichmethod ii; pre ferableor whichtest is thecorrectone. If there can be manipulation or dishonestyin allottingmarks at interviews,there can equallybe manipulatiqnin the matterof awardingmarks in thewrittenexamination. In the ultimateanalysis,whatevermethod is adopted itssuccessdepends on the moralstandards or the membersconstitutingthe selection com1ruttee andtheir senseof objectivity a[lld devotionto duty.This criti· cism is more a reflectionon the examinerstha t1 on the systemitself. The schemeof selection,however, per fect it may be on paper,may be abused in practice. That it iscapableof abused is not a groundfor quashing it. So long as theorderlays down relc. ctnt objective criteria and entruststhe businessof selectiQnto qualified persons,this Court cannot obviously h~ve any say in the matter." While we do feelthatthe marksallottedfor intervieware on llhe highside and it may be appropriatefor theGovernmentto (I) [196i]6 S.C.R. 368. A B c D ! E I F G H A II c D E G H PEERIAKARUPPAN v. TAMIL NADU (Hegde, J.) 439 re-examine the queEtion, we are unable to upholdthe contention thatit was not withinthe powerof theGovernmentto provide suchhigh marks for interviewor thatthere was any arbitrary exerciseof power. It was urgedon behalfof thepetitionersthat the interviewmarks were allottedon collateralconsiderations. We are toldthatthe selectioncommitteeswere tools in the hands of the Governmentand the Governmentmanipulatedthe marks in sucha way as to facilitate the selection oi thosestudentsin whom the membersof thepartyin power were interested.These alle gations were denied by the respondents. While elaboratingtlieir argum~ts on theirplea of mala fides the learnedCounselfor the petitionersinvited our attentionto themarkslists which accord ing to themclearlyshowedthat the marks given at theinterview are-by and large-in inverseproportionto the marks obtained by the candidatesat theUniversityexamination. We werealso told that the marks lists on theirface show that the interview markswere mlljliipulated. It was said that markswere so given as to see thatcertaincandidatesgot at leastthe minimumrequired for selection. While there is some basis for thesecriticismsthere is not sufficientmaterial before us from which we couldconclude that there was any manipulationin preparingthe gradationlist. It is true thatnumerousstudents whose performancein the University examiination was nonetoo satisfactorynor fheir past records· creditable had secured very highmarksat theinterview. It is alsotruethata large numberof students who hadsecured very high marksin theUniversityexaminationand whose per formance in theearlier classes was very good hadsecured very low marksat theinterview.This circumstance is undoubtedly disturbingbut the courtscannotupholdthe plea of mala fides on the oasis of mereprobabilities. We c~ot believethat any responsibleGovernment would stoop to manipulating marks. The selection: committCC!; consistedof eminentpersons.Most of them are medicalpractitionersoccupying responsiblepositions in life. Ii would bea bad day forthiscountryif suchpersons take to. manipulati~ of .marks. Hence we cannotaccept the c.ontent1on that the mterv1ew marks were manipulatedeither by th~ Government or by the selectioncommittees. . It. was nexturgedthat no objectivecriterion was fixed for mtemew. We areunableto acceptthis contention as well. The selecto~s ~ere ask~ to interview caindidates onthe basis of the five cntena prescribed to which we havemadereferenceearlier. Tho&e tests are sufficiently objectivein character.Similar tests were held to be obje~tive by this Court in Chitralekhtis case(I). It cannotbe demedthat extracurricularactivities like sports, N.C.C., special 8Crvices, genera! physical conditionand endurance and generalability are objective tests. Theaptitude (lni964) ii S. C. R. 368~--~ 440 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1971] 2 ·S.C.R. referred to in the rule, iJll ouropinior., is aptitude for medical profession. It wasnextcontendedthat separatemarks had not been allottedfor eachone of thetests enumerated in therule.A total of7 5interviewmarks were placedat thedisposalof theselection committeeand fromout of thosethe committeecould awardmarks accordingto itssweet will andpleasure. Such a powerit was said is an arbitrnry power. We weretold that the entire 75 marks couldhave beengiven to a caindidate even if hesatisfiedonly one outof the five criterionprescribed. It is true thatthe ruledid notprescribeseparate marks tor separate heads. But thatin our opiniondid not permittheselection committeeto allotmarksas itpleased.Each one of thetestsprescribedhad its own import ance. As observedai footnote 20 at p.485of American Juris prudenceVol. 1 S that the interviewersneed inot record precise questionsand answerswhen oral testsare usedto appraise persona litytraits;it is sufficient i·f the examiner'sfindings are recordedon theappraisalsheet accordingto thepersona]qualificationsitemised formeasure.A conteintion similar to thoseadvancedby the petitionerscame up for co,nsideration beforethe MysoreHigh Courtin D. G. Viswanath v. Chief Secretary of Mysoreand Ors.(') Thereinthe courtobservedthus : "It is true that Annexure IV doesnotspecifically mentionthe marksallottedfor eachhead.But from that s;ircumstance itcannotbe heldthat tile Government hadconferredan unguidedpower on theCommittees. Intheabsenceof specificaUocationof marksfor each head,it mustbe presumedthat the Governmentconsid ered that eachof theheadsmentionedin AnnexureIV as being equal in importanceto anyother. In other words, we haveto inferthat the intentionof theGovernment wasthat eachone of those- headsshouldcarry l/Sth of the "Ii:iterview"marks." We may note that the committeehad not dividedthe interview marksunder 'variousheads nor werethe marks given on itemised basis.The markslist producedbefore us showsthat the marks weregivenin a lump.This is clearly illegal. Theinterviewheld was aJso. vitiatedfor thereasonthat the selectioncommitteetook into considerationirrelevant matters aind at the sametime failedto takeinto considerationmatters required to be takeninto consideration. In ihe counter-affidavitfiled by theChairmanof theselectioncommitteeit wasaverredthat in allottinginterviewmarks the committeetook into consideration JA.I.R. 1964 Mys. 132. A B c D E G PEEIUAKARUPPAN v. TAMIL NADU (Hegde, I.) 441 qualities such as pleasantpersonality,quick thinkingetc. One of the extra-curricularactivities that the committeewas required to take intoconsiderationwas N.C.C. training. That wasclearly an objectivetest but fromthe counter-affidavitfiled, it appears that the committeedid not think that it was sufficient if an appli cant hadgoodrecordas a cadet, but accordingto it,hemustalso B know whyhe joinedthe N.C.C.and whatrole N.C.C.plays in the flllational life. These,in ouropinion,are irrelevantconsiderations. Againthe testlikethe physicalconditionand -endurance can be best judged by a competentmedical practitionerafter a careful medicalexamination. It was in the verynatureof thingsnot possiblefor theselectioncommitteethough composedof eminent C doctors to findout the physicalconditionand enduranceby a mere lOOk at thecandidate. It is clearfromthe affidavitfiled on behalf ot' the selectioncommitteesthat at thetimeof interviewmuch attentionhad not beengivento the geinieral abilitywhich test include p8$t performanceof theapplicantsand the variedinterest taken by them. DFrom the facts placedbefore us it is clear that the candidates werenot interviewedin accordancewith the rules govellrling the interview. F G It wasnexturgedthat the classificationof backwardclasses bytheGovernmentinto backward -classes andmorebackward classes was illegaland in supportof thatcontentionour atteintion was invited to the decisionof this Court in M. R. Balaji and Ors. v. State of Mysore('). It is unnecessaryto gointothat question becausefor the purposeof thepresentselectionthe backward classeswere not suO-divided iinto backwardclasses and more back ward classes.What had happened is thatthe list of backward classes suppliedto the selectioncommitteeshowed that someof thecommunitiesare morebackwardthan othersbut thatlist was preparedfor thepurposeof feeconcession.For the purpose of the presentselectionall theclassesshown thereinwere treatedas backwardclasses. There is nobasisfor thecontentionthat the reservationmade for ~kward classes is excessive.We were atot toldwhyit is exce881ve. Undoubtedlywe shouldnot forgetthat it is againstthe immediateinterest of theNationto excludefrom the portalsof our ~icaJ. collegesqualifiedand competentstudents but thenthe unmed1ateadvantagesof theNationhave to beharmonisedwith its l~ng rangeinterests.. It ~JltOOt be deniedthat unaidedmany sections of thepeoplem this country canno~ competewith the 11!1v~ced sections of the Nation.Advantagessecured due to- H hisb_>r1~al. reasons s~ould not be considered as fuiridamental rights. ~ation s interestwill be best served-taking a longrange view ~f the backwardclasses are helpedto marchforwardand take their (IJ (1963) Supp. I S. C. R. 438. 442 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1971] 2 S.C.R place in linewiththe advancedsections of thepeople.That is. A why in Ba/aji's case(') thisCourtheld that tl1e totalof reser vationsfor backwardclasses, scheduledcastes and scheduledtribes should not ordinarilyexceed 50% of theavailableseats. In the present case it is 41 % . On thematerialbefore us we are unable to holdthat the said reservation is excessive. Considerablearguments were advancedassailing the enumera tionof backward classes. It wassaidthat the concernedlist includedonly castesand not classes.The petitiQners'case is that everyone of theclassesmentionedtherein is in realitya caste. Hencethat list cannotbe sustained.In Balaji's case C) this Courtheld that thoughcaste is a relevantfactor in ascertaining.a class for the purposeof Art. 15(4), a class cainnot beconstitutea solelyon the bas.is of caste.Gajendragadkar J. (as he thenwas) speaking for theCourtobserved: "That though castes in relationto Hindusmay be a relevantfactor to considerin determiningthe social backwardnessof groups or classesof citizensit cannot be madethe soleor thedominanttest ~n that behalf. Socialbackwardness is on theultimateanalysis the resultof poverty,to a verylargeextent.The classesof citizenswho are deplorably poor automaticallybecome sociallybackward.They do not enjoya statusin society andhave,thereforeto becontentto takea bacJ.::ward seat.It is true that socialbackwardness whichresults from poverty is likely to beaggravatedby considerations of caste to whichthe poorcitizensmay belong,but that Ol!lly shows therelevanceof bothcasteand povertyin determiningthe backwardness of citizens." In Chiter/ekJia's case(2), thisCourtreiteratedthatthe caste is arelevantcircumstancein ascertaining the backwardness of a class.Further it was observedtherein : "While this Courthas not excludedcaste from ascertainingthe backwardnessof ·a class of citizens,it hasnot made it wie of thecompellingcircumstances affording a basisfor theascertainmentof backwardness ofa class.To putit differentlythe authorityconcerned maytake casteinto considerationin ascertainingthe backwardnessof a groupof persons;but, ii' it doesnot, itsorderwill not be had on thataccount,if it can ascer- tainthe backwardness of a group of personson thebasis ofotherrelevant criteria." The sameview was. expressedby this Coµrt in State of Andhra Pradesh and anr. v. P. Sagar( 3). There in it wasobserved: (1) (1961) ~pp. I S. C.R. 418. (2) (1964) 6 S. C.R. 368 (3) (1968) 3 S. C.R. 595. B c D E F G H A B c D PEER!AKARUPPAN v. TAMIL NADU (Hegde, !.) 443 "In the context in which it occursthe expression 'class' means a homogeneous section ·of the people grouped together because of certaiAli likenesses or common traits and who are identifiable by some common attributes such as status, rank, occupation, residence in a locality,race, religion and the like. In d11termining whether a particular section forms a class, caste cannot be excluded altogether, But in the determinatiOjll of a class a test solely based upon the caste or community cannot also be accepted." A caste has always been recognised as a class. ln construing the expression "classes of His Majesty's subjects" found ins. 153-A of the IndianPenal Codei Wassoodew J. observed in Narayan· Ji'asudev v. Emperor('). "In my opinion, the expression 'classes of His Majesty's subjects'in Section 153-A elf the Code is used in restrictive sense as denoting a collection of individuals or groups bearing a common and exclusive designation and also possessing common and exclusive .characteris tics which may be associated with their orig~. race or religion, and that the term 'class' within that section carries with it the idea of numerical strength so large as could be grouped in a single homogeneous community." InParagraph10, Chapter V of the Backward Classes Com·· mission's .Report, it is observed : E "We tried to avoid caste but we find'jt difficult to F G H ignore caste in the present prevailing Q6tj!ilitiQn.S. We wish it were easy to dissociate c_aste from social back wardness at the present juncture.In modem times any body can take to any profession. The Brahman taking to tailoring, does not become a tailor by caste, 111or is his social status lowered as a Brahman. ABrahman may be a seller of boots and shoes, and yet his social status is not lowered thereby. Social backwardness, therefore, is not today due to the particular profession of a persol!, but we cann,ot escape caste in considering the social backwardness in Lndia." In Paragraph 11 of thatReportit is stated : "It is not wrong to assume that social backwardness has largely contributedto the educational backwardness of a large number of social .groups." Finally in Paragraph 13, the committee concludes with follow ing observations : . "All this goes to prove that social backwardness is mainly based on racial, tribal, caste and denominational differences." -< h X. t. R.1940 Born. 379. 444 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1971] 2 S.C.R. The validityof theimpugnedlist of _backward classes came up for considerationbefore this Court in Rajendran'scase(') and .thisis whatthis Coun observedtherein : "The contention is that the list of sociallyand educa tionallybackwardclasses for whomreservationis made. underr. 5 is nothingbut a listof certaincastes. There fore, reservation in favourof certaincastes based only oncasteconsiderationsviolates Art. 15(1), which prohi bits discriminationon thegroundof caste only. Now ii: th~ reservationin questionhad beenbased qn.!y on casteand had not takeninto accountthe soci'lll and ·educational backwardnessof thecaste in question,it wouldbe violativeof Art. 15 ( 1 ) .But it must not be ~':>rgotten thata caste is alsoa class of citizensand if thecaste as a wholeis socially aind educa,tionally back· ward,reservationcan be madein favourof sucha caste on thegroundthat it is a sociallyand educationally backwardclass of citizens within the meaningof Art. 15(4)." Rc.:jendran's case(1) is anauthorityfor the proposition that the classification of backwardclasses on thebasisof castes is ·within thepurviewof Art. 15 ( 4) if thosecastesare sholll to be ·sociallyand educationallybackward. No further materialhas been ·placed beforeus to show that the reservationfor backwardclasses withwhichwe arehereinconcerned is not in accordancewith Art. 15( 4) .There is nogainsayingthe fact the thereare numerous ·castesin this countrywhich are sociallyand educatiqn.allyback ward. To ignore their existenceis toignorethe factsof life. Hence we areunableto upholdthe contentionthat impugned ·reservation is notin accordancewith Art. 15 ( 4). But all the same ·the Governmentshould iOOt proceed on thebasisthat once a class 'is considered as abackwardclass it should continue to be back ·ward classfor all times.Such an approachwould defeatthe very ·purpose of thereservationbecause once a classreachesa stage of ·progress whichsome modemwriters call as takeoff stagethen ·competition is neces8ary< for theirfuture ·progress. The Govern mentshouldalways keep underreviewthe questionof reservation ·Of seatsand QD.1.y the classeswhich are reallysociallyand educa ·tionally backwardshould be allowedto havethe benefit of reser vation.Reservation of seats shouldnot be -allowed to becomea ·vested interest. The fact that candidatesof backwardclasses have ·secured about 50% of theseatsin thegeneral p00l doesshow that the timehas comefor a de novo comprehensiveexamination -of the question. It mustbe rememberedthat the Government's -decision m thisregardis open to judicialreview. (ll (1968) 2 S. C. R. 786. A B c D E F G H B c D E F G H PEERIAKARUPPAN v. TAMIL NADJ (Hegde, !.) 445 Forthe reasonsmentionedabove we are of opinionthat the selectionsimpugnedin thesepetitionscannot be heldto havebeen madevalidlyinasmuch as the seats were distributed on unitwise basis a,nd furtherthat the interviews were notheldin accordance withthe rules.But despitecomingto that conclusi,on we are unableto setasidethe selectionsalready made.The selected candidateshave not beenmade parties. to thesepetitions.They havealreadyjoined the courseand are undergoingtraining. Their selection c..unot beset aside withoutgiving them an opportunity to putforwardtheir case. It is true that the petitionershad filed applicationsto premitthem to haverecourse to 0. 1, r. 8 .. C.P.C. for the representationof thepersonsinterestedin opposingthese applicationsbut no order has beenpassedon thoseapplications andit is now too lateto haverecourseto thatprocedure even if that procedure is permissibleunder law. We are toldby the learnedAdvocateGeneral of TamilNadu that 24 seatsstill remain tobefilled up. IJe hasassured us on behalfof the State that those seats will be filled up inaccordancewith the qrders of this Court.There are aout80 persons, who we aretoldare in the waiting list. Some of theunsuccessfulaoplicants had movedthe HighCourtof Madrasfor reliefsimilarto thatsoughtby thepeti tionersherein.But it appearstheir writ petitiQllS hae been dis missed. Some out of themhaveintervenedin thesepetitions. Other non-selectedcandidates have evincedno interestin chal lengingthe selectionsmade. Uinder the circumstances,it is reasonable to assume that theyhaveabandonedtheir claimand it is toolatefor them to presstheir claim.Under these circum stances, after discussionwith the Counselfor theparties we have cometo theconclusionthat . thesepetitionsshould be allowed subject to thefollowingconditions: The State of TamilNadu shall immediatelyconstitute a. sepa rateexpertcommitteeconsisting of eminentmedical practitioners. (excludingall those who were members of theprevious commit tees)for selectionto the24 unfilled seats.The selectionshall be made on Statewise basis. Thecommitteeshall interviewonly ihy candidateswho are show;11 in thewaitinglist, the persons who un successfullymoved the HighCourtof Madras.and the twopeti tioners beforethis Court.They shall allot separatemarks under the five headsmentionedin therule.The committeeshall take :nto considerationonly matterslaid downin theruleexcludefrom c.onsi~eration all irrelevantmatters a,n~ thereafter pr~vare a grada tion bstto fill up the24 seatsmentioned e'ar!ier. It is ordered accordingly. We think this is a fit case wherethe petitioners should get their costs fromthe State of TamilNadu. V.P.S. Petition allowed and directions given. |
