V ARUNACHALAM Vs. REGISTRAR UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred against the order dated 21.6.1993 in W.P. No. 11353 of 1993 passed by the learned single Judge. In the writ petition, the petitioner sought for quashing a portion of paragraph 4 of the ?Instructions to the candidates? which states ?in case of candidates from other States, all of them except SC/ST will be considered as O.C. category only? and also to issue appropriate directions in the matter of admission to M.B.A. course in the University of Madras.

(2.) THE learned single judge has rejected the prayer holding that there is nothing wrong with the aforesaid clause contained in paragraph 4 of the Instructions to Candidates, as issued by the University of Madras. Hence, the petitioner has come up in Writ Appeal.

(3.) AS far as community-wise reservation of the candidates belonging to Tamil Nadu State are concerned, the same is permissible and that it is permissible is not also disputed before us. It is held by the Supreme Court in Pradeep Jain v. Union of India (AIR 1984 S.C. 1420) thus: Thus, a certain percentage of reservation on the basis of residence requirement may legitimately be made in order to equalise opportunities for medical admission on the broader basis to brine about real and not formal, actual and not merely legal, equality. The percentage of reservation made on this count may also include institutional reservation for students passing the PUC or Pre-medical examination of the same University or clearing the qualifying examination from the school system of the educational hinterland of the medical colleges in the State and for this purpose, there should not be distinction between schools affiliated to State Board and schools affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education. However, such reservation should in no event exceed the outer limit of 70 per cent of the total number of open seats after taking into account other kinds of reservations validly made?. Therefore, the reservation made for backward and mostbackwad classes, i.e., 30% and 20% respectively cannot be held to be violative of any of the provisions of the Constitution. Even clause (4) of Article 15 of the Constitution itself specifically provides that ?Nothing in this Article or in clause (2) of Article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes.? It is under this provision only, the State makes reservations for backward class, most backward class and scheduled caste and scheduled tribe. Hence, we are of the view that this contention cannot be accepted.