RAMNARESH @ RINKU KUSHWAH AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

                 [2024] 8 S.C.R. 916 : 2024 INSC 611

            Ramnaresh @ Rinku Kushwah and Others
                               v.
              State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
                       (Civil Appeal No. 9628 of 2024)
                                20 August 2024
              [B.R. Gavai* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.]

                           Issue for Consideration
       Appellants-meritorious reserved candidates, who had passed from
       the Government Schools and on their own merit were entitled to
       be selected against the Unreserved Government School (UR-GS)
       quota were denied the seats against the open seats in the GS
       quota, on account of erroneous application of the methodology
       in applying the horizontal and vertical reservation. They were
       deprived admission in the Academic Session 2023-24 for MBBS
       Course against the UR-GS category. High Court whether justified
       in dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants.

                                  Headnotes†
       Reservation – Horizontal and vertical reservation –
       Misapplication – Madhya Pradesh Education Admission
       Rules, 2018 – NEET UG 2023 – Vacancies transferred from
       one category to other categories, out of 89 unreserved seats
       for Government School students, 77 were sent to the open
       category – Appellants filed writ petitions praying that the
       meritorious students of reserved category who had studied
       in Government Schools must be allotted MBBS seats of
       unreserved category government school quota before they are
       released to the open category – Dismissed – Sustainability:
       Held: Not sustainable – Even in case of horizontal reservation,
       the candidates from the reserved categories like SC/ST/OBC, if
       they are entitled on their own merit in the GS quota, will have
       to be admitted against the GS quota (UR seats) – Horizontal as
       well as the vertical reservation would not be seen as rigid “slots”,
       where a candidate’s merit, which otherwise entitles her or him to
       be shown in the open general category, is foreclosed – The open
       category is open to all, and the only condition for a candidate to

* Author
[2024] 8 S.C.R.                                                             917

              Ramnaresh @ Rinku Kushwah and Others v.
                 State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

     be shown in it is merit, regardless of whether reservation benefit of
     either type is available to her or him – The methodology adopted
     by the respondents in compartmentalizing the different categories
     in the horizontal reservation and restricting the migration of the
     meritorious reserved category candidates to the unreserved seats
     is unsustainable – Appellants were deprived of their legitimate
     claim of admission in the Academic Session 2023-24 for MBBS
     Course against the UR-GS category – Since the admission
     process for the said academic session is complete, respondents
     directed to admit the appellants in the next Academic Session
     2024-25 for MBBS Course against the seats reserved for UR-GS
     category – Impugned judgments quashed and set aside. [Paras
     12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21]

                              Case Law Cited
     Indra Sawhney and Others v. Union of India and Others [1992]
     Supp. 2 SCR 454 : (1992) Supp 3 SCC 217 – followed.
     Saurav Yadav and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
     [2020] 11 SCR 281 : (2021) 4 SCC 542; S. Krishna Sradha v.
     State of Andhra Pradesh and Others [2019] 15 SCR 93 : (2020)
     17 SCC 465; Sadhana Singh Dangi and Others v. Pinki Asati and
     Others (2022) 12 SCC 401; R.K. Sabharwal and Others v. State of
     Punjab and Others [1995] 2 SCR 35 : (1995) 2 SCC 745; Ritesh
     R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul and Others [1996] 2 SCR 695 : (1996)
     3 SCC 253 – relied on.
     Tamannaben Ashokbhai Desai v. Shital Amrutlal Nishar (2020)
     SCC OnLine Guj 2592 – referred to.

                                List of Acts

     Madhya Pradesh Education Admission Rules, 2018.

                             List of Keywords

     NEET UG; MBBS Course; Reservation; Horizontal reservation;
     Vertical reservation; Meritorious reserved candidates; Meritorious
     students of reserved category; Unreserved Government School
     (UR-GS) quota; Open seats; Open seats in the Government School
     quota; UR-GS category; UR-GS seats; Open category; General
     category; Open general category; Unreserved seats.
918                                                        [2024] 8 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


                             Case Arising From

       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9628 of 2024
       From the Judgment and Order dated 12.01.2024 of the High Court
       of M.P. at Gwalior in WP No. 23060 of 2023
       With
       Civil Appeal Nos. 9629-9630 And 9631 of 2024

                          Appearances for Parties

       K Parameshwar, Siddhartha Iyer, Aditya Shanker Pandey, Mrs.
       Rekha Bakshi, Ms. Yoothica Pallavi, Himanshu Sehrawat, Avijit Mani
       Tripathi, Advs. for the Appellants.
       Nachiketa Joshi, A.A.G., Sunny Choudhary, Sharad Kumar Singhania,
       Abhimanyu Singh, Padmesh Mishra, Advs. for the Respondents.

                 Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 Judgment
       B.R. Gavai, J.
1.     Leave granted.
2.     The present appeals challenge the judgments and orders dated 22nd
       December 2023 and 12th January 2024 passed by the High Court of
       Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Writ Petition Nos. 23998 and 23437
       of 2023, and High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in Writ
       Petition No. 23060 of 2023 respectively. By the said writ petitions,
       the writ petitioners (appellants herein) had challenged the decision
       of the Respondent-Department of Medical Education of not allotting
       MBBS Unreserved (UR) Category Government School (GS) quota
       seats to the meritorious reserved candidates, who had passed from
       the Government Schools. The appellants had also prayed for a
       direction to the Respondent-Department to allot the MBBS seats of
       Unreserved Category Government School quota to the appellants.
3.     Writ petitioners in Writ Petition No. 23060 of 2023 before the High
       Court have approached this Court by way of appeals arising out of
       Special Leave Petition (SLP) (Civil) Nos. 2111 and 2285 of 2024,
       and writ petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 23437 and 23998 of 2023
[2024] 8 S.C.R.                                                       919

              Ramnaresh @ Rinku Kushwah and Others v.
                 State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

     have approached this Court by way of appeals arising out of SLP(C)
     Nos. 2311-2312 of 2024.
4.   Since the facts giving rise to the present appeals as given below are
     identical and same, the said appeals are decided by the common
     judgment and order.
     4.1 On 19th June 2019, the amendment by the State Government
         to the Madhya Pradesh Education Admission Rules, 2018
         (hereinafter referred to as the “Admission Rules, 2018”) were
         notified. In place of sub-rules (1) and (u) of rule 2 and sub-
         rule (2) of rule 4, new sub-rules were established that defined
         “category” and the method to fill vacancies for category wise
         reservation was established.
     4.2 On 7th May 2023, the NEET (UG) Examination was conducted
         in which the appellants had participated in.
     4.3 On 10th May 2023, the State of Madhya Pradesh notified
         another amendment in the Admission Rules, 2018. Sub-rule
         (f) and (b) were added to Rule 2 that defined “Government
         School” and the students who could fall under the category
         of “Government School Students”. A new table in existing
         clause (b) of Schedule-2 detailing the quantum of reservations
         was added in which 5% of the total seats were reserved for
         government school students.
     4.4 Subsequently, the results of NEET (UG) were declared on 13th
         June 2023. Then, on 25th July 2023, an advisory was issued
         notifying that the Admission Rules, 2018 and the amendment
         thereto dated 10th May 2023 would apply to the counselling
         process.
     4.5 A chart showing the names of the appellants, marks obtained
         by them in NEET UG – 2023, their categories and their details
         in the appeals, are as under:
      S.  Name of       Marks obtained in Category     Party Details
      No. Appellant     NEET UG – 2023
      1.   Ramnaresh    412                 OBC        P1 in SLP(C) No.
           Kushwaha                                    2111/2024
      2.   Sachin       390                 OBC        P2 in SLP(C) No.
           Baghel                                      2111/2024
920                                                        [2024] 8 S.C.R.

                         Digital Supreme Court Reports



       3.    Tapsya         244               SC         P3 in SLP(C) No.
             Kutwariya                                   2111/2024
       4.    Tasmiya        409               OBC        P in SLP(C) No.
             Khan                                        2311/2024
       5.    Muskan         395               OBC        P in SLP(C) No.
             Hidau                                       2312/2024
       6.    Deepak         305               SC         P1 in SLP(C) No.
             Jatav                                       2285/2024
       7.    Vikash         297               EWS        P2 in SLP(C) No.
             Singh                                       2285/2024

       4.6 Thereafter, on 22nd August 2023, the State/Respondents issued
           the seat wise distribution of medical colleges at the end of
           the 2nd round of counselling. Since several seats remained
           vacant according to Rule 2 (g) of the Admission Rules, 2018,
           the vacancies were transferred from one category to other
           categories. In the instant case, out of 89 unreserved seats
           for Government School students, 77 were sent to the open
           category.
       4.7 Being aggrieved by the fact that the vacant seats were going
           to be released to the unreserved category, the aforesaid writ
           petitions were filed by the appellants before the High Court,
           where it was prayed that the meritorious students of reserved
           category who have studied in Government Schools must be
           allotted MBBS seats of unreserved category government
           school quota before they are released to the open category.
       4.8 The High Court, vide order dated 31st October 2023 dismissed
           a Writ Petition filed by another candidate seeking similar relief
           as aforementioned. The High Court in the Writ Petition being
           WP No. 23060 of 2023 filed by the appellants in an interim
           order dated 8th November 2023 took note of the earlier order
           dated 31st October 2023 and recorded that no prima facie
           case was made out and adjourned the matter to permit the
           appellants to make additional arguments. The said order dated
           8th November 2023 was challenged before this Court vide
           SLP (C) No. 25963 of 2023, wherein this Court vide order
           dated 28th November 2023 directed the High Court to decide
           the petition on merits or the question of interim relief at the
           earliest, preferably within 2 weeks.
[2024] 8 S.C.R.                                                       921

                  Ramnaresh @ Rinku Kushwah and Others v.
                     State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

      4.9 Ultimately, on 22nd December 2023, the Indore Bench and
          on 12th January 2024 the Gwalior Bench of the High Court
          vide the impugned judgments and orders dismissed the writ
          petitions finding the same sans merits.
      4.10 The impugned judgments and orders came to be challenged
           before this Court and after hearing all the parties, this Court
           vide order dated 12th August 2024 reserved the judgment and
           by way of an ad-interim order directed the respondent/State
           to keep seven seats vacant in MBBS course, so that in the
           event the appellants succeed, they can be accommodated
           against the said seats.
5.    We have heard Shri K. Parameshwar, learned Senior Counsel
      appearing on behalf of the appellants and Shri Nachiketa Joshi,
      learned Additional Advocate General (AAG) appearing on behalf
      of the respondents.
6.    Shri Parameshwar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
      of the appellants submitted that the GS quota was introduced
      by the State of Madhya Pradesh on 10 th May 2023. However,
      the procedure followed by the respondents in sub-classifying the
      candidates further into categories as UR-GS, SC-GS, ST-GS, OBC-
      GS and EWS-GS was totally illegal. It is submitted that, in view of
      the settled position of law as laid down by this Court in the case of
      Saurav Yadav and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others,1
      even in case of horizontal reservation, the candidates from the
      reserved categories like SC/ST/OBC, if they are entitled on their
      own merit in the GS quota, will have to be admitted against the
      GS quota (UR seats). He submitted that, on account of erroneous
      application of policy, an anomalous situation has arisen wherein,
      in the UR-GS seats, the persons who are much less meritorious
      than the appellants, who have secured as low as 214, 150 marks,
      have secured admission, whereas the appellants, who are much
      more meritorious than the UR-GS candidates have been deprived
      the admission. It is submitted that the cut-off for UR-GS was 291,
      OBC-GS was 465, SC-GS was 314 and EWS-GS was 428. He
      therefore submitted that, on account of erroneous application of
      the policy, as many as 77 seats classified as UR-GS, were not


1    [2020] 11 SCR 281 : (2021) 4 SCC 542 : 2020 INSC 714
922                                                         [2024] 8 S.C.R.

                            Digital Supreme Court Reports


       filled from the GS quota and had to be released to the open pool
       of candidates.
7.     Shri Parameshwar further submitted that the State, realizing its
       mistake, has now carried out an amendment on 2nd July 2024
       thereby intending to apply horizontal reservation correctly for this
       academic year in accordance with the judgment and decision of
       this Court in the case of Saurav Yadav (supra).
8.     To meet the situation of the admission for the Academic Session
       2023-24 which being already complete, the learned Senior Counsel,
       relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of S. Krishna
       Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others,2 submitted that
       the Court should mould the relief and direct the admission to be
       granted to the appellants in the next academic session by issuing
       appropriate directions.
9.     Shri Joshi, learned AAG appearing on behalf of the respondents
       submitted that, since the reservation in the GS category was
       horizontal, the State was justified in making a further sub-
       classification into OBC-GS, ST-GS, SC-GS, UR-GS and EWS-GS.
       He submitted that, since it was a case of horizontal reservation,
       it was not possible to shift the category of vertical reservation like
       the SC/ST/OBC/EWS to the horizontal category of UR-GS.
10. By now, it is a well-settled principle of law that a candidate belonging
    to any of the vertical reservation categories who on the basis of
    his own merit is entitled to be selected in the open or general
    category, will be selected against the general category and his
    selection would not be counted against the quota reserved for such
    vertical reservation categories. Reliance in this respect could be
    placed on the 9-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in the case of
    Indra Sawhney and Others v. Union of India and Others,3 and
    in the cases of R.K. Sabharwal and Others v. State of Punjab
    and Others4 and Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul and Others.5
11. However, this Court, in the case of Saurav Yadav (supra), had



2    [2019] 15 SCR 93 : (2020) 17 SCC 465 : 2019 INSC 1362
3    [1992] Supp. 2 SCR 454 : 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217
4    [1995] 2 SCR 35 : (1995) 2 SCC 745 : 1995 INSC 108
5    [1996] 2 SCR 695 : (1996) 3 SCC 253 : 1996 INSC 258
[2024] 8 S.C.R.                                                              923

                Ramnaresh @ Rinku Kushwah and Others v.
                   State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

     an occasion to consider for the first time as to whether the said
     principle laid down in the case of Indra Sawhney (supra) and
     followed subsequently would also apply to the cases of horizontal
     reservation. Prior to the said judgment, there were conflicting views
     of different High Courts. This Court, after surveying various earlier
     pronouncements and considering the views as expressed by the
     High Courts, observed thus:
            “43. Finally, we must say that the steps indicated by the High
            Court of Gujarat in para 69 of its judgment in Tamannaben
            Ashokbhai Desai [Tamannaben Ashokbhai Desai v. Shital
            Amrutlal Nishar, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2592] contemplate
            the correct and appropriate procedure for considering and
            giving effect to both vertical and horizontal reservations.
            The illustration given by us deals with only one possible
            dimension. There could be multiple such possibilities. Even
            going by the present illustration, the first female candidate
            allocated in the vertical column for Scheduled Tribes may
            have secured higher position than the candidate at Serial
            No. 64. In that event said candidate must be shifted from
            the category of Scheduled Tribes to Open/General category
            causing a resultant vacancy in the vertical column of
            Scheduled Tribes. Such vacancy must then enure to the
            benefit of the candidate in the waiting list for Scheduled
            Tribes-Female. The steps indicated by the Gujarat High
            Court will take care of every such possibility. It is true that
            the exercise of laying down a procedure must necessarily
            be left to the authorities concerned but we may observe
            that one set out in said judgment will certainly satisfy all
            claims and will not lead to any incongruity as highlighted
            by us in the preceding paragraphs.”
12. It could thus be seen that, this Court approved the steps indicated
    by the High Court of Gujarat in paragraph 69 of its judgment in
    the case of Tamannaben Ashokbhai Desai v. Shital Amrutlal
    Nishar 6 for considering and giving effect to both vertical and
    horizontal reservations. In the said case, this Court was considering
    horizontal reservation for the female candidates. It was observed


6   2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2592
924                                                        [2024] 8 S.C.R.

                          Digital Supreme Court Reports


       that a meritorious reserved category candidate who is entitled to
       the General category of the said horizontal reservation on his own
       merit, will have to be allotted a seat from the said General category
       of the horizontal reservation. Meaning thereby such a candidate
       cannot be counted in a horizontal seat reserved for the category
       of vertical reservation like SC/ST.
13. It will also be apposite to refer to the following observations made
    by S. Ravindra Bhat, J. in his concurring judgment:
            “66. I would conclude by saying that reservations,
            both vertical and horizontal, are method of ensuring
            representation in public services. These are not to be
            seen as rigid “slots”, where a candidate’s merit, which
            otherwise entitles her to be shown in the open general
            category, is foreclosed, as the consequence would
            be, if the State’s argument is accepted. Doing so,
            would result in a communal reservation, where each
            social category is confined within the extent of their
            reservation, thus negating merit. The open category is
            open to all, and the only condition for a candidate to be
            shown in it is merit, regardless of whether reservation
            benefit of either type is available to her or him.”
                                                  [emphasis supplied]
14. It could thus be seen that the learned Judge clearly observed that
    the horizontal as well as the vertical reservation would not be seen
    as rigid “slots”, where a candidate’s merit, which otherwise entitles
    her or him to be shown in the open general category, is foreclosed.
    It was observed that by doing so, it would result in communal
    reservation, where each social category is confined within the extent
    of their reservation, thus negating merit. It was observed that the
    open category is open to all, and the only condition for a candidate
    to be shown in it is merit, regardless of whether reservation benefit
    of either type is available to her or him.
15. The said view was reiterated by this Court in the case of Sadhana
    Singh Dangi and Others v. Pinki Asati and Others.7


7   (2022) 12 SCC 401 : 2021 INSC 907
[2024] 8 S.C.R.                                                          925

              Ramnaresh @ Rinku Kushwah and Others v.
                 State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

16. In view of the settled position of law as laid down by this Court
    in the case of Saurav Yadav (supra) and reiterated in the case
    of Sadhana Singh Dangi (supra), the methodology adopted by
    the respondents in compartmentalizing the different categories
    in the horizontal reservation and restricting the migration of the
    meritorious reserved category candidates to the unreserved seats
    is totally unsustainable. In view of the law laid down by this Court,
    the meritorious candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC, who on their
    own merit, were entitled to be selected against the UR-GS quota,
    have been denied the seats against the open seats in the GS quota.
17. It is to be noted that, in the present case, the cut-off for UR
    candidates was much less as compared to the cut-off for SC/ST/
    OBC/EWS candidates. As such, the respondents ought to have
    admitted the present appellants against the UR-GS categories. It
    is further to be noted that many seats from UR-GS category were
    required to be transferred to the General category.
18. Having held that the appellants were deprived of their legitimate
    claim of admission against the UR-GS category in the Academic
    Session 2023-24, and since the admission process for the said
    academic session is complete, we will have to consider as to what
    relief should be granted in favour of the appellants.
19. It will be apposite to refer to the observations made by this Court
    in the judgment of S. Krishna Sradha (supra), which read thus:
           “13. In light of the discussion/observations made
           hereinabove, a meritorious candidate/student who has
           been denied an admission in MBBS course illegally or
           irrationally by the authorities for no fault of his/her and
           who has approached the Court in time and so as to see
           that such a meritorious candidate may not have to suffer
           for no fault of his/her, we answer the reference as under:
           13.1. That in a case where candidate/student has
           approached the court at the earliest and without any delay
           and that the question is with respect to the admission
           in medical course all the efforts shall be made by the
           court concerned to dispose of the proceedings by giving
           priority and at the earliest.
           13.2. Under exceptional circumstances, if the court finds
           that there is no fault attributable to the candidate and the
926                                                   [2024] 8 S.C.R.

                 Digital Supreme Court Reports


       candidate has pursued his/her legal right expeditiously
       without any delay and there is fault only on the part of
       the authorities and/or there is apparent breach of rules
       and regulations as well as related principles in the
       process of grant of admission which would violate the
       right of equality and equal treatment to the competing
       candidates and if the time schedule prescribed — 30th
       September, is over, to do the complete justice, the Court
       under exceptional circumstances and in rarest of rare
       cases direct the admission in the same year by directing
       to increase the seats, however, it should not be more than
       one or two seats and such admissions can be ordered
       within reasonable time i.e. within one month from 30th
       September i.e. cut-off date and under no circumstances,
       the Court shall order any admission in the same year
       beyond 30th October. However, it is observed that such
       relief can be granted only in exceptional circumstances
       and in the rarest of rare cases. In case of such an
       eventuality, the Court may also pass an order cancelling
       the admission given to a candidate who is at the bottom of
       the merit list of the category who, if the admission would
       have been given to a more meritorious candidate who has
       been denied admission illegally, would not have got the
       admission, if the Court deems it fit and proper, however,
       after giving an opportunity of hearing to a student whose
       admission is sought to be cancelled.
       13.3. In case the Court is of the opinion that no relief
       of admission can be granted to such a candidate in the
       very academic year and wherever it finds that the action
       of the authorities has been arbitrary and in breach of
       the rules and regulations or the prospectus affecting the
       rights of the students and that a candidate is found to be
       meritorious and such candidate/student has approached
       the court at the earliest and without any delay, the court
       can mould the relief and direct the admission to be
       granted to such a candidate in the next academic year
       by issuing appropriate directions by directing to increase
       in the number of seats as may be considered appropriate
       in the case and in case of such an eventuality and if it
[2024] 8 S.C.R.                                                         927

               Ramnaresh @ Rinku Kushwah and Others v.
                  State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

            is found that the management was at fault and wrongly
            denied the admission to the meritorious candidate, in that
            case, the Court may direct to reduce the number of seats
            in the management quota of that year, meaning thereby
            the student/students who was/were denied admission
            illegally to be accommodated in the next academic year
            out of the seats allotted in the management quota.
            13.4. Grant of the compensation could be an additional
            remedy but not a substitute for restitutional remedies.
            Therefore, in an appropriate case the Court may award
            the compensation to such a meritorious candidate who
            for no fault of his/her has to lose one full academic year
            and who could not be granted any relief of admission in
            the same academic year.”
20. Undisputedly, the appellants who were meritorious and who
    could have been admitted against the UR-GS category were
    denied admission on account of an erroneous application of the
    methodology in applying the horizontal and vertical reservation. It
    is also not in dispute that many of the students, who secured much
    less marks than the appellants, have been admitted against the
    UR-GS seats. This is totally in contravention of the law laid down
    by this Court in the cases of Saurav Yadav (supra) and Sadhana
    Singh Dangi (supra). We therefore find that as held by this Court
    in the case of S. Krishna Sradha (supra), it will be appropriate to
    issue directions to the respondents to admit the appellants in the
    next Academic Session 2024-25 against the UR-GS seats. Vide
    order dated 12th August 2024, we have already directed 7 seats to
    be kept vacant in the event the appellants succeed. The appellants
    can be very well accommodated against the said seats.
21. In the rest, we pass the following order:
     (i)    The appeals are allowed;
     (ii)   The impugned judgments and orders dated 22nd December
            2023 and 12th January 2024 passed by the High Court of
            Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Writ Petition Nos. 23998 and
            23437 of 2023, and High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior
            in Writ Petition No. 23060 of 2023 respectively are quashed
            and set aside; and
928                                                      [2024] 8 S.C.R.

                          Digital Supreme Court Reports


       (iii) The respondents are directed to admit the appellants herein
             in the next Academic Session i.e. 2024-25 for MBBS Course
             against the seats reserved for UR-GS category.
22. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs..

       Result of the case: Appeals allowed.



       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey