KRUPASHEELA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of Rule 4(1) of the Karnataka Medical Colleges (Selection of Candidates for Admission) Rules, 1984 as well as Rule 4(1) of the Karnataka Dental Colleges (Selection of Candidates for Admission) Rules, 1983, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Those Rules of 1983-84 referred to academic year 1984-85 and 1983-84 respectively for M.B.B.S. Course and Dental Surgery Course. Rule 4(1) of the Rules deals with the distribution of seats i.e., where the seats should be distributed after reservation is given effect to. The reservation is to be made in accordance with another rule in the same Rules in regard to Backward Classes, Backward Communities, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. But Rule 4(1)(a) of the Rules specifically provides for reservation of a special category of persons such as :

(2.) Somewhat similar Rule of Maharishi Dayanand University in Punjab fell for consideration by the Supreme Court in the case of Suneel Jatley v. State of Haryana Etc, AIR1984 SC 1534 , 1984 (2 )SCALE78 , (1984 )4 SCC296 , [1985 ]1 SCR272 , 1984 (16 )UJ1086 (SC ). The reservation in favour of such students was held to be unconstitutional as it was not based on any reasonable classification and therefore violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in that case I should have no hesitation to strike down the Rule as unconstitutional in so far as it relates to reservation in favour of students from rural areas But the question is whether it should be done so at the instance of the petitioner and consequential direction should be given to consider bis case for a seat in the Medical College or the Dental College in the ensuing academic years.

(3.) The learned High Court Government Pleader has argued to distinguish Suneel Jatley's case, AIR1984 SC 1534 , 1984 (2 )SCALE78 , (1984 )4 SCC296 , [1985 ]1 SCR272 , 1984 (16 )UJ1086 (SC ) with reference to another decision of the Supreme Court where the present Chief Justice has pointed out that students coming from rural areas do have a disadvantage which other students not coming from such rural areas do not have. 1 do not think I should be persuaded by such distinction sought to be made out. Without expressing any opinion about the disadvantageous conditions obtaining in rural areas in India, there is no material placed before this Court that in areas where there is a population of more than 20000, those disadvantages do not exist. Even in a metropolitan City, it is possible some schools are hopelessly ill-equipped, nevertheless given recognition and permitted to educate the students. Merely because some students for their misfortune are in the urban areas is no reason why they should not have the advantage which the rural areas have. The Ruling of the Supreme Court in Suneel Jatley's case, AIR1984 SC 1534 , 1984 (2 )SCALE78 , (1984 )4 SCC296 , [1985 ]1 SCR272 , 1984 (16 )UJ1086 (SC ) is more directly on the point. Therefore, it should be followed.