SWATI GUPTA MS Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who appeared for the Combined pre-Medical Test of 1994 held in the State of U. P. challenged a circular issued by the Lucknow University based on a letter dated 17/5/1994 issued by the secretary, government of U. P. It was claimed that reservation of 65% general seats in the medical colleges was violative of the constitutional guarantee under Articles 16, 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the ratio laid down by this court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India. After the petition was filed the government issued another notification on 17/12/1994 clarifying its stand in respect of reservations. The relevant portions of it are extracted below:

(2.) Reservation of 65% resulting in reducing the general category to 35% was undoubtedly violative of Article 16. Further by reserving 30% of the umed industries AND LAND development CO. v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 563 general seats for ladies the. general category shrank to 5%. But these glaring infirmities have been rectified by the amended circular. Reservation of 30% a for ladies has now been confined to para 3 of the amended circular. Dr dhavan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State clarified that he has instructions to make a statement on the amended circular that now there is no reservation for ladies in the general category.

(3.) Similarly, the other defect in the circular reserving 35% seats for general category has been removed. The vertical reservation is now 50% for general category and 50% for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and backward Classes. Reservation of 15% for various categories mentioned in the earlier circular which reduced the general category to 35% due to vertical reservation has now been made horizontal in the amended circular extending it to all seats. The reservation is no more in general category. The amended circular divides all the seats in CPMT into two categories- one, general and other reserved. Both have been allocated 50%. Para 2 of the circular explains that candidates who are selected on merit and happen to be of the category mentioned in para 1 would be liable to be adjusted in general or reserved category depending on to which category they belong, such reservation is not contrary to what was said by this court in Indra Sawhney. Whether the reservation for such persons should have been made or not was not challenged, therefore, this court is not required to examine it.