Holding

The university‑wise allocation of seats for MBBS courses in Kerala is constitutionally valid and does not violate the equality provisions of the Constitution.

Summary

The petitioners, a minor represented by her guardian and father, sought admission to an MBBS course in Kerala, arguing that because she belonged to the backward Calicut district she should be treated as a Calicut University student and benefit from that university's quota. The State of Kerala allocated seats on a university‑wise basis, not on a district‑wise basis, and the petitioners contended this scheme violated the Constitution. The Supreme Court examined whether the university‑wise classification for reservation purposes was constitutionally permissible and whether the petitioner could claim a right to be treated as a Calicut University candidate. The Court held that the university‑wise allocation of seats is a valid classification under the Constitution and that the petitioner’s grievance amounted to damnum sine injuria. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, with the Court urging the State to devise a comprehensive policy within constitutional limits. The decision reaffirmed that courts will not intervene in policy choices that are constitutionally permissible.

Issues considered

Is the university‑wise allocation of seats for MBBS courses in Kerala constitutionally valid under the equality clause?
Can a district‑wise backwardness classification be substituted for a university‑wise classification for reservation purposes?
Does the petitioner have a right to be treated as a Calicut University candidate based on her district of residence?

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 32

Subjects

reservationeducational admissionuniversity‑wise classificationconstitutional validityArticle 32KeralaMBBS

Judgment

829

M. R. MINI (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN A
. & FATHER M. P. RAJAPPAN
v.
• STATE OF KERALA AND ANR .
• January 28, 1980
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.] B
University-wise allocation of seats for M.B.B.S. course in Kerala, constitu-
tional validity of.
Dismissing the Writ Petition, the Court
HELD : The University-wise allocation of seats is valid.
Under the existing scheme, the c1'assification for purposes of quota is univer- c
sity-wise, not territory-wise. Belonging to backward Calicut District is not the
same as being an alumnus of the Calicut University. May be, the State could
hav'e classified candidaites University-wise, backward region-wise or otherwise,
separately or in any constitutionally permissible combination. Mystic maybes
are beyond j'udicial conjecture. Th'e misfortune of the petitioner is damnum
sine injuria. Every adversity is not an injury. Judicial remedy cannot heal
every wound or cure every sore since the discipline of the law keeps courts D
within its bounds. [830 A-DJ
Dr. /agdish Saran & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [1980] 2 SCR 83! relied
on.
Observation :
[Too long has the State been seeking ad hoc solutions and improvising reme~
dies where comprehensive studies and enduring recipes are the desid'eratum. E
• To keep the education situation uncertain across the national and the fate of
students of higher education tense or in suspense with annual challenges in court
or agitationa1 exercises in the streets is dangerous procrastination fraught with
negative resultc; where a creative undertaking of :r'esponsibility to find an endur~
ing answer to a chronic problem is the minimum that the t:Ountry exp'ects of the
concerned State instrumentality.] [830 E-G]
CrvIL ORIGINAL JuRismcnoN : Writ Petition No. 1220 of 1979. F
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution)
P. Govindan Nair and N. Sudhakaran for the Petitioner.
M. M. Khader and V. J. Francis for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KRISHNA IYER, J.-The petitioner, an aspirant for admission to G
the M.B.B.S. course in one or other of the medical college in Kerala,
has faile.d to qualify for selection from the Kerala University pool, not
having ~ecured high enongh marks, and has failed to fall within the
Calicut University pool, not having been a student of that University.
What is urged, as a claim for inclusion, is that had she been treat- H
ed as a Calicut University student her marks would have been sufficient
to gain admission and since she belongs to the Malabar region, which
1
('
830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1980] 2 S.C.R.

A is broadly served by the Calicut University, she should be given the
benefit of Calicut University students and consequential admission- "
a mixture of district-wise backwardness and university-wise preference
to reach the desired advantage. '
We cannot agree. Under the existing scheme, the classification •
for purpose of quota is university-wise, not territory-wise. Belong-
B ing to backward Calicut District is not the same as being an alu1111rns
of the Calicut University. Maybe, the State could have classified e&'l-
didates university-wise, backward region-wise or otherwise, separately
or in any constitutionally permissible combination. We are not here
concerned with the prospects of the petitioner under any different -~
c admission scheme or reservation project. Mystic maybes are beyond
judicial conjecture. Once we hold that the university-wise alloca-
tion of seats is valid the misfortune of the petitioner is damnum sine
injuria, if we may use that expression in this context. Every adversity
is not an injury. Judicial remedy cannot heal every wound or cure
every sore since the discipline of the law keeps courts within its
D bounds.
We do not preclude the State from taking any other pragmatic
formula or evolving any selection calculus, constitutionally permissible,
so as to promote equality against the backdrop of social justice. In-
deed, we have by our Judgment in Dr. Jagadish Saran & Ors. v. U1iivn
of India & Ors.('), explained the parameters, the criteria and the cor-
E
rect measures which must be initiated to marry equality to excellence, •
solemnised constitutionally.
Too long has the state been seeking ad hoc solutions and in1pro-
Vising remedies where comprehensive studies and enduring recipes are > "
the desideratum. To keep the education situation uncertain across
F the nation and the fate of students of higher education tense or in
suspense with annual challenge in court or agitational exercises in the
streets is dangerous procrastination fraught with negative results
where a creative undertaking of responsibility to find an enduring
answer to a chronic problem is the minimum that the country expects
of the concerned State instrumentality.
G
We dismiss this petition subject to the observations we have made
above, leaving it to the Kerala State and its Universities not to contri-
bute to the litigative nursery of medical candidates but to face the task
of shaping a firm policy governed by constitutional guidelines, not
other pressures.
H
S.R. Petition dismfrsd.
(1) [1980] 2 S.C.R. 831