P SUSILA Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are from the Kanyakumari District and claim to belong to the church of South India, and originally to South Indian United Church of the erstwhile Travan-core-Cochin State. In G. O. Ms. 1717 dated 12-7-1961, which amended G. O. Ms. 1300 dated 26-7-1957 the C. S. I. Christians of Kanyakumari district and Shenkottah Taluk of Tirunelveli District, were added to and treated as backward class for purposes of educational concessions. G. O. Ms. No. 1013 Health dated 26-9-1968 stated that Rule 5 (b) (1) relating to reservation of seats for socially and educationally backward classes was amended to read-" for the purpose of this rule socially and educationally backward classes will mean those classes which are declared as such by Government" in the prospectus issued in respect of the first year Integrated M. B. B. S. course, 1969-70, this particular community has not been mentioned as belonging to the backward class. The result was, all the petitioners were treated as (not being?)backward class and their merits were assessed, for purposes of selection to the course, on that basis.

(2.) THE contention for the petitioners, who have failed in the selection, is that when once Government classified the community as belonging to the backward class, and the same Government Order is still in force, it was unreasonable and illogical to omit the community from the list of backward classes appended to the prospectus. This very point was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in W. P. No. 3022 of 1968 (Mad) etc. and it was observed-

(3.) THOUGH, in that case, in view of the marks obtained by the particular candidate, both in the academic examination as also in the interview before the Committee she would, in any case, not be entitled to selection, the point was not finally decided there, the learned Judges sufficiently expressed their inclination. Independently of it, we take the same view. It is no doubt open to the government, from time to time, to add to or subtract from the list of backward classes. But, once a classification has been made for educational purposes, by an order of Government and the order continues to be in force, we do not see how without expressly modifying that order by a proper decision of the Government, a mere omission of a particular community from the list of backward classes, appended to the prospectus, can justify elimination of the community from consideration as backward at the selection. To do so, will be unreasonable and illogical. It cannot be that, for the purpose of concession in educational institutions, a community is considered as backward and not so for the purposes of admission in educational institutions. There appears to be no substance in the dividing line. We consider, therefore, that the petitioners ought to have received consideration, at the selection, on the basis that they belong to a backward class.