SMT. MINAKSHI SARMA, Vs. SHRI P.R. DEKA, MEMBER SECRETARY, SELECTION BOARD FOR ADMISSION TO MBBS/BDS COURSES AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ Petitioners unsuccessfully sought admission in Medical Colleges of Assam or the Regional Dental College of North East Council. The three were also unsuccessful in an administrative appeal before the State Government. They have now approached this Court for a direction to the Medical Selection Board to admit the three Petitioners for the 1989 -90 Session of the Medical Course. The facts leading to the three cases are common and fall in a very narrow compass. The facts are as follows:

(2.) IN the 1989 Rules of Medical Colleges reservation is made for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes (Plains), Scheduled Tribes (Hills), Reservation is made for sons and daughters of defence personnel. There is a reservation quota for the children of tea garden and ex -tea garden communities. The O.B.C./M.O.B.C. have their quota of reservation. There is reservation made for brothers , sisters, sons and daughters of the martyrs of Assam movement. When reservations are made for such a variety of classes under the Constitution, under the Statute and under the executive instructions it may not be incorrect to state that the general public are vitally interested to know for whom the reservation is made. What is the percentage or quota reserved for each of the classes. See the case of Balaji v. The State of Mysore : AIR 1963 SC 649. In that case it was held all reservations in educational institutions cannot exceed half of the seats. As to how in welfare measures reservations are made - -see the case of Rukma Moron v. Assam Board of Revenue, (1989) 1 GLR 379. These aspects are recounted to show that the general public are interested to know for whom the reservation is made and what percentage is allocated for what category of persons. In view of these, necessities reservations rules and decisions affecting the reservations are given wide publicity in the press and in other media besides the publication in the State and District Gazettes.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioners in support of the contention referred to a case In : AIR 1951 SC 467 Harla v. The State of Rajasthan where the issue was sustainability of conviction under Jaipur Opium Act, 1924 when Jaipur was a princely State. The Opium Act, 1924 was not published in violation of a law in Jaipur. That law required all enactments to be published in the Gazette. The Court explained not to publish the statutes and enforce them was against natural justice. It was emphasized citizens can not be punished under a law, which is not made known to the general, public. The liberty of citizens cannot be jeopardized by the provisions of law which are not published. The State it was held before enforcing any law should broadcast the enactment in the recognizable way so that all affected persons may act according to law. That a decision reached in secret recesses of chamber (as in the instant decision of the Cabinet wherein reservation of six is reduced to three) to which the public have no access and decisions in such clambers should affect liberty, lives and property of the citizens was held "abhorrent" and shocks the conscience of civilized men. In this case the State Government hardly suggested any defence for not publishing the decision under which reservation of six seats was reduced to three seats.