R. CHANDRASEKARAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the writ petition is a student who has applied for admission in the first year B.E. degree course in the Engineering College in the State of Tamil Nadu for 1997 -98. The petitioner has challenged the provisions contained in Clause 4(1) of the Information and Instructions to candidates "seeking admission in the first year B.E./B. Tech/B. Arch degree course admissions 1997 for the Tamil Nadu Engineering Admissions, 1997. The said clause reads under:

(2.) Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner made an elaborate argument and submitted that the paragraph 4(1) of the Instructions is violative of Article 14 read with Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India. Mr. G. Masilamani, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, also made a forcible plea and submitted that the above clause is not hit by Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The above paragraph has been inserted on the basis of recommendation of a High Level Committee of self financing institutions of Tamil Nadu and it was found that most of the free seats in almost all the colleges are cornered by the urban based students who have better facilities for study and opportunities for coaching, viz., and that the students passing out from in schools in rural areas were unable to compete with their urban counter parts and hence got relegated to the inevitably payment seats. It is also made clear that the reserved seats are within the overall communal reservations. Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the preference in given to the candidates coming from the Higher Secondary Schools situated within the Panchayat limits in Tamil Nadu who studied in XI and XII standards in the said High School. The learned Additional Solicitor General also made it clear that the preference in confined to the candidates coming within the communal reservation. Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has fairly submitted that the petitioner is a candidate belonging to other community and he is ineligible to apply for a seat in the reserved category, as he is not competing for the reserved seats. I am of the opinion that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the said reservation. The case of the petitioner falls under general category and it is not open to the petitioner to question the reservation made for the students coming from the rural schools in the reserved category. The preference given to such students is called horizontal reservation among the students claiming seats in the reserved quota and it does not extend to the other category students -open general candidates, called vertical reservation. More or less a similar situation came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. N.C. Singhal v/s. Union of India : [1980] 3 SCR 44 and the Supreme Court held as under: