Holding

A district‑wise allocation of seats for B.Ed. admission without a reasonable nexus to the objective of selecting the best candidates is violative of Article 14.

Summary

The appellants, having passed the 12th examination with 63‑65% marks, applied for admission to a B.Ed. course that was filled through a common entrance test. Seats were allocated on a district‑wise basis among Parbhani, Nanded, Beed and Latur, and the appellants challenged this allocation as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, but the Supreme Court examined whether such territorial classification had a reasonable nexus to the objective of selecting the best candidates. Relying on the precedents Minor P. Rajendran v. State of Madras and Minor A. Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Court held that the district‑wise distribution lacked any material showing a link to the selection objective and therefore breached the equality clause. However, because the dispute arose five years earlier, the Court could not order immediate admission, but directed that the appellants be allowed to compete for any future fresh admissions. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded.

Issues considered

Whether a district‑wise distribution of seats for admission to a B.Ed. course, without demonstrating a nexus to the purpose of the selection, violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 15

Subjects

EducationAdmissionB.Ed.District-wise allocationArticle 14EqualityClassificationDiscriminationSupreme CourtWrit petition

Judgment

GOVIND A. MANE AND ORS. A
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

-·
APRIL 5, 2000

[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND D.P. WADHWA. JJ.] B

Education -Admission-B.Ed. Course-Denial of-District-wise distri-
bution of seats-No material to show nexus between such distribution and the
object sought io be achieved-Constitutional validity of-Held: Such district-
wise distribution violative of Art. 14-Since the dispute has arisen five years c
ago the affected candidates cannot be given admission now-However, such
candidates shall be given opportunity to seek admissiOn in case of fresh
admission-Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 14.

The appellants sought admission to the B.Ed Coul'!!e but were not
successful and, therefore, the appellants filed a writ petition before the D
High Court on the ground that the district-wise distribution of seats was
bad. The High Court dismissed the petition. Hence, this appeal.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1. District-wise distribution of seats for admission to the E
B.Ed. Course without indicating any material to show the nexus between
such distribution and the object sought to be achieved is violative of
~ Article 14 of the Constitution. [962-B]

Minor P. Rajendran v. State ofMadras, AIR (1968) SC 1012 and Minor
A. Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1972) 2 SCR 430, relied on. F

2. However, since the dispute has arisen five years ago the appellants
cannot be admitted to the B.Ed. Course. But the appellants shall be given
opportunity to seek admission in case any further steps are taken by the
respondents for fresh admission. [962-C]
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2425of2000.

...._ From the Judgment and Order dated 24.6.97 of the Bombay High Court
in W.P. No. 4794 of 1996.

Ms. Suman Bala Rastogi for the Appellants. H
959
960 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A S.S. Shinde and S.V. Deshpande for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J. Leave granted.

B The appellants after having passed the 12th Examination, with a
percentage of marks ranging from 63 to 65%, sought admission in B.Ed
Course. But they were not successful and, consequently, they approached the
~
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and challenged the
selection of candidates for admission on the grounds, inter alia, that the
districtwise distribution of seats among four districts, namely, Parbhani,
c Nanded, Beed and Latur to the extent of 200 seats, 460 seats, 310 seats and
640 seats respectively, was bad. The Writ Petition was dismissed by the High
Court by its judgment dated 24.6.1997 against which the present appeal has
been filed.

D Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that admission to
B.Ed Course was based on a common admission test and, therefore, the
distribution of seats to different districts was bad. It is contended that a
common merit list should have been prepared and, on that basis, admission
should have been allowed to the students who figured in the merit list.

E The question whether there could be a districtwise distribution of seats
was considered by this Court in the case of Minor P. Rajendran v. State of
Madras and Others, AIR (1968) SC 1012 = [1968] 2 SCR 786, and it was
held that for the purpose of admission to the First Year Integrated M.B.B.S. .....
·->-

Course, the C:.istrictwise distribution of seats was violative of Article 14 of
F the Constitution. It was, inter alia, observed as under:-

"(11) The question whether districtwise allocation is violative
of Article 14 will depend on what is the object to be achieved in
the matter of admission to medical colleges. Considering the· fact
that there is a largerer number of candidates than seats available,
G selection has got to be made. The object of selection can only be
to secure the best possible material for admission to colleges subject

-
to the provision for socially and educationally backward classes.
\
Further whether selection is from the socially and educationally
backward classes or from the general pool, the object of selection
must be to secure the best possible talent from the two sources. If
H
GOVIND A. MANE v. STATE [S.S. AHMAD, J.] 961
that is the object, it must necessarily follow that that object would be A
defeated if seats are allocated district by district. It cannot be and has
not been denied that the object of selection is to secure the best
possible talent from the two sources so that the country may have
the best possible doctors. If that is the object, the argument on behalf
of the petitioners/appellant is that that object cannot possibly be
B
served by allocating seats districtwise. It is true that Article 14 does
not forbid classification, but the classification has to be justified on
the basis of the nexus between the classification and the object to
be achieved, even assuming that territorial classification may be a
reasonable classification. The fact, however, that the classification by
itself is reasonable is not enough to support it unless there is nexus C
between the classification and the object to be achieved. Therefore,
as the object to be achieved in a case of the kind with which we
are concerned is to get the best talent for adniission to professional
colleges, the allocation of seats districtwise has no reasonable
relation with the object to be achieved. If anything, such allocation D
will result in many cases in the object being destroyed, and if that
is so, the classification, even if reasonable, would result in discrimi-
nation, inasmuch as better qualified candidates from one district
may be rejected while less qualified candidates from other districts
may be admitted from either of the two sources."
E
This decision was followed in (Minor) A. Periakaruppan v. State of
Tamil Nadu & Ors., AIR (1971) SC 2303 = [1972] 2 SCR 430 = [1971] 1
sec 38, in which it was laid down as under:-
"Before a classification can be. justified, it must be based on an
objective criteria and further it must have reasonable nexus with the F
object intended to be achieved. The object intended to be achieved
in the present case is to select the best candidates for being admitted
to Medical Colleges. That object cannot be satisfactorily achieved by
the method adopted. The complaint of the petitioners is that unitwise
distribution of seats is but a different manifestation of the districtwise
distribution sought in 1967-68 has some force though on the material
G
on record we will not be justified in saying that the unitwise
distribution was done for collateral purposes. Suffice it to say that the
unitwise distribution of seats is violative of Arts. 14 and 15 of the
Constitution. The fact that an applicant is free to apply to any one unit
does not take the scheme outside the mischief of Arts. 14 and 15. H
I
962 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A It may be remembered that the students were advised as far, as'
possible to apply to the unit nearest to their place of residence."
.
The law, thus,'1having been laid down clearly by this CoUrt, the High
Court was not justified in dismissing the Writ Petition. Since it is not disputed
by the respondents that for the purpose of admission to B.Ed Course, seats
B were distributed districtwise without indicating any material to show the nexus )
between such distribution and the object sought to be achieved, it would be /
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
. ~, .-----
Unfortunately, the whole matter relates to the year 1995 and, today, after
a lapse of five years, it would not be possible to direct that the appellants may
c be admitted in B.Ed Col,]rse. All that can be said is that if any further steps
are taken by the respondents for fresh admission to B .Ed Course, the
appellants shall also be given an opportunity to seek admission in that Course.
·-
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed but w~t any order as to costs.
D v.s.s. Appeal dismissed.