M R BALAJI THE MYSORE STATE CHATHADA VAISH NAYA ASSOCIATION MYSORE ARYA VYSYA MAHASABHA BANGALORE Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since 1958 the State of Mysore has been endeavouring to make a special provision for the advancement of its socially and educationally backward classes of citizens under Article 15(4) of the Constitution, and every time when an order is passed in that behalf, its validity has been challenged by writ proceedings. Four previous orders passed in that behalf were challenged by writ proceedings taken against the State under Art. 226 in the High Court of Mysore. The present petitions filed by the respective petitioners under Art. 32 dispute the validity of the last order passed by the State of Mysore on July 31, 1962, under Art. 15(4).

(2.) Out of the twenty-three petitioners, six had applied for admission to the Pre-professional Class in Medicine in the Medical Colleges affiliated either to the Mysore University or to the Karnatak University, and seventeen had applied for admission to the First Year of the 5-Year integrated course leading to the Degree of B. E. in the University of Mysore. According to the petitioners, but for the reservation made by the impugned order, they would have been entitled to the admission in the respective colleges for which they had applied. As a result of the reservation made by the said order, students who have secured less percentage of marks have been admitted, but not the petitioners. That, in brief, is the petitioners grievance and they urge that the impugned order which has denied them the facility of admission in the respective colleges is void under Art. 15(1) and 29(2) and should not be enforced against them. Accordingly, the petitioners pray that a writ of mandamus and/or any suitable writ or direction should be issued against respondent No.1, the State of Mysore (hereinafter called the state), and the two Selection Committees which have been impleaded as respondents 2 and 3. The petitioners' case is that the impugned order which has been passed under Art. 15(4) is not valid because the basis adopted by the order in specifying and enumerating the socially and educationally backward classes of citizens in the State is unintelligible and irrational, and the classification made on the said basis is inconsistent with and outside the provisions of Article 15(4). It is also urged by them that the extent of reservation prescribed by the said order is so unreasonable and extravagant that the order, in law, is not justified by Art. 15(4), in substance, is a fraud on the power conferred by the said Article on the State.

(3.) These allegations are denied by the State and it is urged on its behalf that the classification made is both rational and intelligible and the reservation prescribed by the order is fully justified by Art. 15(4). The contention that the order is a colourable exercise of the State's power and amounts to a fraud on the Constitution is disputed.