REGISTRAR OSMANLA UNIVERSITY Vs. V RAJA SATYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant appeals, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, have arisen from the judgment in a petition (W.P.No.24563 of 1995) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by V. Rajasatyanarayana, minor, represented by his father.

(2.) Relevant facts giving rise to the writ petition and the appeals are as follows: The Osmania University Academic Council created supernumerary seats in favour of its employees' children in the year 1981 and enforced it from the academic year 1981-82 and followed it by such reservations for the employees of the constituent colleges as well. It received representations from the employees of the affiliated colleges for similar benefit and it agreed to extend the reservation to the children of the employees of affiliated colleges by its Circular No.3308/D/351/II/84/Acad., dated 5-9-1994. Validity of the said reservation, however, was questioned before this Court and in Vijaya Govind vs. Osmania University the Court held the reservation for the children of the employees for various courses of study invalid. Appeal against the said judgment before the Supreme Court failed (Civil Appeal No.1637 of 1987,order dated 9-3-1987). Basing, however, the claim on the above circular, one V. Sita Rama Sastry, Office Manager of MVSR. Engineering College, Saidabad requested the college to extend the benefit to his son. Executive Council of the college authorised the Principal of the college to forward the application to the Registrar of Osmania University and the Commissioner of Technical Education. Government of Andhra Pradesh. The Principal accordingly forwarded the application and requested the University and the Commissioner of Technical Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh to clarify whether in view of the judgment in Vijaya Govind vs. Osmania University, any such practice of supernumerary seats for children of its employees is in vogue or is revived for being continued. Writ petitioner-respondent filed W.P.No.24563 of 1995 with a prayer for a direction to the respondent-college to admit the petitioner in B.E. course in the supernumerary seat. The Court in W.P.M.P. No.30218 of 1995 directed the respondent-college to admit the petitioner-respondent into B.E. course for the academic year 1995-96 in the quota of children of college employees, if such a scheme was operative insofar as the respondent-college was concerned. Before, however, the interim direction of the Court, the Commissioner of Technical Education on 17-10-1995 informed the respondent-college that there was no such provision to provide admission to children of staff on supernumerary basis. The University also informed the college accordingly on 5-12-1995, which the respondent-college received on 18-12-1995, that his request for creation of supernumerary seat could not be accepted. In view, however, of the interim order of the Court, the petitioner-respondent was admitted on condition that it was subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. On 1-1-1996 the University advised the Principal of the college to cancel the admission as otherwise University would not permit the student to write the examination. Some further correspondence passed between the parties. Finally, however, on 30-1-1996 the respondent-college issued a letter to the petitioner-respondent stating that his admission would be cancelled unless he got proper approval from the authorities or orders of the Court within ten days. Facts were/are not in dispute and the writ petition was taken up for final hearing by the learned single Judge who has held that the scheme was in vogue under which the petitioner-respondent was rightly admitted and there is no reason why his admission should be cancelled or he be denied the benefit of the said reservation. Learned single Judge has observed as follows:

(3.) The State shall not deny to any person equality before law or the equal protection of the laws is one of such fundamental rights which is guaranteed by the Constitution to achieve equality of status and of opportunity, which is an essential feature of the democracy. It does not, however, mean equality in such absolute terms that by its adherence inequality existing in the society is perpetuated. Treating unequals as equals is against the very spirit of equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws and making unequals equals in the matter of opportunity would hit at the root of the equality of status. To make the general and abstract principle of equality real and pervasive, Constitution has made specific provisions, particularly for the citizens of India as enshrined under Article 15 thereof prohibiting discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth and permitted the State to make special provisions for women and children and for socially and educationally backward classes of citizens, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Reservations for a class of people, who are socially and educationally backward or Schedules Castes and Scheduled Tribes, however, are intended as special provisions to remove inequality without in any manner infringing the nexus between the legislation and its object. Plethora of decisions of various Courts as well as the Supreme Court are available which show the way when and how to make reservations and special provisions for some such persons who are suffering some disadvantage and unless they are protected, they may not achieve the cherished equality of status and of opportunity. Wo need, however, no authority to understand that there should be some affliction which must be shown to exist in a person or a class of persons which is required to be removed by making special provisions. By no stretch of imagination, one can think of being a child of an employee of an institution is an affliction which needs a protection of reservation by way of special provision under Article 15(3)and (4) of the Constitution of India or otherwise even under Article 14 for the purposes of ensuring the equal protection of law and equality before law. This Court has left no manner of doubt in respect of the above and pronounced in no uncertain terms that such a reservation for the children of the employees of the University is not permissible in Vijay Govind vs. Osmania University (supra). The same has to apply to the case of the children of the employees of the affiliated colleges.