STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.versusM.NEETHI CHANDRA, ETC. ETC.

A                        STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.
                                          v.
                      M.NEETHICHANDRA,ETC.ETC.

                                                                              ,,
                              SEPTEMBER 10, 1996                              '
B
                    [A.M. AHMADI, C.J. AND S.C. SEN, J.]


        Education : Higher Education-Admission to professional cour-
  ses-Medical Colleges-Mode of allotment of seats in various branches of the
C Post-graduate medical courses-Provisions for reservation of seats for the
  zmder-plivileged sections-Procedure adopted for allotment challenged-Can-
  didates selected 011 the basis of me1it not to be adjusted against reserved
  quota-Some candidates in the rese1ved catego1ies found themselves in a
  disadvantageous position-Fornwla devised by Patna H. C. to remove
  anomalies-The f on11ula, it followed, will result in admission being given to
D all the students of rese1ved catego1y who have secured mininmm marks,
  though there may not be adequate number of seats-Hence fon11u/a evoked
  by the H. C. stmck down-Constitution of India-A1tic/es 14 and 16.

          The Government of Bihar, Department of Personnel and Ad·
    ministrative Reforms published a resolution, providing for reservation for
E   the under privileged sections in the Professional Training Institutes. Para·
    graph 6 of the Resolution provided that the candidates selected on the
    basis of. merit for admission into Professional Training Institutes would
    not be adjusted against tile reserved quota. It appears that because of Para
    6 of the Resolution, some candidates in the reserved categories found
F   themselves in a disadvantageous position. They approached the High
    Court by way of writ petitioners. To remove the anomalies, the High Court
    devised a method of allotment of seats by which the reserved seats would          '
                                                                                      \

    be offered first (i.e. before the general seats are filed) to the candidates of
    the reserved category on merit, and after all the reserved seats are so filled
    up, all the other qualifying candidates of the reserved categmy would be
G   "adjusted" against open seats in the general category along with the general
    Merit candidates and oll!'ered seats on merit-cum-choice basis.

           In appeal to this Court, the State of Bihar contended that if the
     method suggested by the High Court is followed, all students of reserved
H    category who have secured the minimum marks will have to be admitted
                                       696
                    STATE v. M. NEETI-ll CHANDRA                           697

even though there may not be adequate number of vacancies for them.               A
Another grievance against the judgment expressed by the State was that
the students placed at the .bottom of the respective reserved categories will
be placed in the College of last choice and thus all such students will find
themselves in one College which will be arbitrary and violative of Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution.
                                                                                  B
      Disposing of the appeal, this Court

      HELD : 1. The High Court did not take note of the eventuality in
which the number of reserved category candidates who qualify on the basis
of minimum marks may far exceed the number of seats reserved for them.            C

      In a particular year, the number of such candidates may be much
larger and thus the method evolved by the High Court may create much
hardship. The method will also not be in tune with the principles of
equality. Hence the method evolved by the High Court will have to be
struck down. (701-B; 702-E-F)                                                     D
      2. The choice of subject as well as ·college will always be different for
different students and this difference will exist even for those at the end
of the list and in respect of their last choice. Even if such situation does
arise, the same cannot be said to be violative of Articles 14. and 16. The
judglnent of the High Court is set aside. In any case, the operation of the       E
circular No. 20 does not make the situation any different. (703-C-D]

       3. However, the girls qualifying on merit for general candidates be
given an option to be treated as general candidates for the purpose of
allotment of seat and only if they so opt can the circular No. 20. be given       F
effect to. Further directions, if required, may be obtained from the High
Court in the light of the present judgment of this Court. (704-C]

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 11826-29
of 1996 Etc.
                                                                                  G
     From the Judgment and Order dated 15.12.94 of the Patna High
Court in C.W.J.C. Nos. 911, 933, 1081 and 1140 of 1994.

      B.B. Singh for the Appellants.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                                  H
    698                        SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A         AHMADI, CJ. SLP (Civil) Nos. 8175-78 of 1995.
          .;i'
          Special leave granted.
                                                                                .,
          This civil appeal arises out of a common judgment of the.High Court
    of Pat~a whereby 4 writ petitions before the High Court being civil writ
B   jurisdiction cases 911, 933, 1081 and 1140 of 1994 were disposed of. The
    question involved in the writ petitions was as to the mode of allotment of
    seats in the various branches of the post-graduate medical courses in the
    State of Bihar. The authorities had made provisions for reservation of seats
    for the underprivileged sections, like the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled
C   Tribes; the Extremely Backward Class, the Backward Class and Ladies.
    The procedure adopted for allotment of seats in the post-graduate medical
    courses led to some dissatisfaction giving rise to the litigation.

          The Controller of Examinations, Health Services, Government of
    Bihar, Patna issue the prospectus for the competitive test for admission to
D   post-graduate courses in Patna Medical College, Patna, Darbhanga Medi-
    cal College, Laheria Sarai, Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi and Mahat-
    ma Garidhi Medical College, J amshedpur for the year 1992. On the
    question of reservation the prospectus had the following clause :

                ,"The reservation of seats for various categories shall be as per the
E            11 decision of the Government. there will be no economic criteria
            '.. for the reservation.

                      Scheduled Caste              14%

                      Scheduled Tribe              10%
F
                                                                                     ,.
                      Extremely Backwards class 14%

                      Backward Class               9%

                      Ladies                       3%"
G
    About selei:tion and allotment of seats, the relevant clause in Part VI of
    the prospectus was as under :

                 "VI. Selection :

H                (ii) Merit list will be prepared on the basis of the marks obtained
           STATE v. M. NEETHJ CHANDRA [AHMADI, C.J.]                      699

        in the P.G.M.A.T. and the choice of subject/course and institution A
        witl be given on merit-cum-choice basis as indicated by the can-
        didate in the Application form provided the candidate fulfil other
        criteria laid down in the prospectus."

The qualifying marks for eligibility were 50% in the Post Graduate Medical
Admission Test, but for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes,           B
the qualifying marks were only .40%.

       The Government of Bihar, Department of Personnel and Ad-
ministrative Reforms published a resolution dated 7.2.1992 being No. 11/Kl
- 1022/91-KZO (hereinafter referred to as 'resolution No. 20') on the subject
titled "provision for reservation for nominating (admission) of Scheduled
                                                                                 c
Class/Tribes/Backward Class/Extremely Backward Class/Female into the
Professional Training Institutes". Paragraph 6 of the resolution No. 20
being material for the facts of the case may be reproduced below :

         "As there is provision in direct appointment to the effect that the     D
       . candidates belonging to reserved classes, who are selected on the
         basis of merit, would not be adjusted against reserved seats,
         similarly maintaining the same arrangement here also the can-
         didates selected on the basis of merit for admission into profes-
         sional training institutes would not be adjusted against the reserved   E
         quota for the candidates of reserved classes."

       It appears that because of para 6 of the resolution quoted above,
which was applied in allotment of seats in various branches of the Post
Graduate Medical courses in the State of Bihar, some candidates in the
reserved categories found themselves in a disadvantageous position. The          F
candidates in various reservecl classes who could qualify on merit were
treated at par with the gener,al candidates and were allotted branches
which would fall to them on merit-cum-choice basis which led to allotment
of such courses, which because of their low position in general merit, were
not of their choice while the course/college of choice was available to a        G
candidate qualifying for the reserved seat although they were lower in merit
position. This led to the filing of various writ petitions before the High
Court of Patna which were decided by the impugned judgment.

      To remove the anomalies, the High Court devised a· method of
allotment of seats by which the reserved seats are offered first (i.e. before    H
    700                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A   the general seats are filled) to the candidates of the reserved category on
    merit, and after all the reserved seats are so filled up, all other qualifying
    candidates of the reserved category are "adjusted" against open seats in the
    general category along with the general merit candidates and offered seats
    on merit-cum- choice basis (see para 11 of the judgment). The High Court
    made a further arrangement for the reserved category of girls who could ·
B   get seats on merits, on their own reservation as girls as well as on reserved
    seats as Scheduled Castes{fribes etc. Girls were to be considered first for
    admission against seats reserved for them. If any girl seeking admission
    belongs to a Scheduled Castsffribe, etc. she may have a choice of one of
    the two reservations. The girls in excess of the reserved vacancies can seek
C   admissiori on general merit. The High Court held that by this procedure
    all the anomalies in the procedure for allotment of seats could be removed.
    A mention is required to be made about a resolution dated 22.3.1994 which
    according to the Government had removed the anomalies that resuked
    from the resolution No. 20. The resolution dated 22.3.1994 provides that
D   casual vacancies occurring at later stage in the general category or reserved
    category .,will be filled from amongst the candidates of the . respective
     category on merit and that in that process no candidate will be allotted
     college/course below the choice of the college or course already allotted
     to him. The High Court observed that the resolution takes due care of the
     griev~nce~ of the candidates who by reason of readjustment at the State
E    for filling up subsequent vacancies often had to lose the college/course of
     their choice but it did not address itself to the anomaly that arises when
     preparing the main merit list according ~o resolution No. 20. The judgment
     was to be followed in the future years. As for the year in question i.e., 1992
     the guideline laid down could not be followed since by the time the
F    judgme~t'was given, i.e., 15.12.1994, the students had covered a substantial
     part of the course to which they had been admitted. The present judgment
     will also. be for future guidance as the question involved has become
      infructuous for the candidate involved.                                    ·

          · The State of Bihar contends in the appeal that if the mode and
G method 'suggested by the High Court is followed, all students of reserved ·
     category ,who have secured the minimum marks will have to be. admitted
     even through there may not be adequate number of vacancies for them.
     Another agrievance against the judgment expressed by the State of Bihar
     is that in the Method suggested by the High Court, the students placed at
H    the bottom of the respective reserved categories will be placed in the
           STATE v. M. NEETI!I CHANDRA [AHMADI, C.J.]                  701

college of last choice and thus all such students will find themselves in one A
college which will be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution.

      The first apprehension expressed by the appellant appears to be
quite genuine. It appears that while laying down the procedure, the High
Court did not take note of the eventuality in which the numher of reserved   B
category candidates who qualify on the basis of minimum marks may far
exceed the number of seats reserved for them. See the following part of
paragraph 11 of the impugned judgment :

        "(I)f reserve candidates are admitted at the first instance on merit C
        reserved seats in their respective category and those of the same
        category also qualifying for admission, by virtue of reservation or
        otherwise, but placed below them are adjusted along with general
        candidates, according to merit, against open seats in the general
        category, the anomaly can be fully removed. At first glance it may
        appear somewhat incongruous but on closer examination would be D
        workable just and proper. If the procedure is changed in the
        manner that the reserve candidates arc first considered and ad-
        mitted against reserved seats of their respective categories on the
        basis of the merit they will be able to get the course and college
        of their choice because seats are already reserved for them in each E
        course or subject. The rest of the candidates of that ·particular
        category placed lower than them but qualifying for admission in
        excess of the seats reserved for them may then be adjusted against
        open seats in the general category along with general candidates
        on merit. Naturally, they will be placed at the bottom in the general
        category but coming as they do by virtue of the reservation or less F
        merit, they cannot make a grievance of that. They cannot also make
        a grievance of the fact that by virtue of their low placement in the
        merit list of the general category, they are not able to get
        course/college of their choice. That is how the interest of reserve
        category candidates can be best served without violating the norm G
        of selection and allotment of course/college on merit-cum-choice
        basis."

                                                        (emphasis added)

      The High Court has not clarified its intentions with illustrations. If H
    702                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A by the word "adjusted", the High Court means that all reserved category
    candidates qualifying on the criterion for reserved category must necessari-
    ly be given admission it will produce anomalous results.

         Let us take a situation in which in a particular reserved category
  there are x number of seats but the candidates qualifying according to
B criteria fixed for that category are x + 5 with the best among them also
  qualifying on merit as general candidates. According to the arrangement
  made by, circular No. 20, the first candidate gets a choice along with the
  general category candidate but being not high enough in the list, gets a
  choice lesser than what he could secure in the reserved category to which
c he was entitled. The x number of seats could then be filled up with the
  four qualifying candidate being denied admission for want of seats. This
  would have been harsh for the best candidate as well as violative of Articles
  14 and 16 of the Constitution. On the other hand, if the direction of the
  High Court is followed, the first x number of candidates get seats according
  to merit against the reserved seats but the remaining 5 will also have to be
D 'adjusted' against the open seats of regular candidates. These 5 will be
  those who are not qualified according to the general merit criteria and so
  will necessarily displace 5 general candidates who would be entitled to
  seats on merit.
              i
E         In a particular year, the number of such candidates may be much
    larger and thus the method evolved by the High Court may create much
    hardship. The method will also not be in tune with the principles of
    equality. Hence the method evolved by the High Court will have to be
    struck down.

F           If however, the word 'adjusted' is read to mean considered along with
     other general merit list candidates, it will lose much of its value. As per
     the above illustration, the 5 candidates qualifying on reserved category
     criteria having not secured enough marks according to general criteria,
     cannot, at all, be allotted any seat in the general category.
G          At the same time, as pointed out above, all is not well with the
     Government circular No. 20 as it operates against the very candidates for
     whom the protective discrimination is devised. The intention of the cir-
     cular No. 20 is to give full benefit of reservation to the candidates of the
     reserved categories. However, to the extent the meritorious among them
H    are denied the choice college and subject which they could secure under
            STATE v. M. NEETHI CHANDRA [AHMADI, CJ.]                       703

the rule of reservation, the circular cannot be sustained. The circular,          A
therefore, can be given effect only if the reserved category candidate
qualifying on merit with general candidates consents to being considered
as a general candidate on merit-cum-choice basis for allotment of col-
lege/institution and subject.

      There is no merit in. the second ground raised by the appellant. It is      B
alleged thai according to the procedure evolved by the High Court, the
students at the bottom of the respective reserved category will necessarily
be placed in the same college, i.e., college of last choice of the candidates
and that therefore this will be violative of Articles 14 and 16. The ap-
prehension of the appellant is totally baseless because the choice of subject     c
as well as college will always be different for different students and this
difference will exist even for those at the end of the list and in respect of
their last choice. Further, even if such a situation does arise, the same
cannot be said to be violative of Articles 14 to 16. In any case, the operation
of the circular No. 20 does not make the situation any different.
                                                                                  D
       However, in view of the discussion in the earlier part of the judgment,
the impugned judgment will have to be set aside and the operation of the
circular No. 20 will have to be given effect subject to the condition
mentioned herein above. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. No.
costs.                                                                            E
SLP (CIVIL) No. 8174 of 1995

      Leave granted.

      The Civil writ jurisdiction case No. 2586 of 1994 from which this           F
appeal arises was decided on the same day on which the C.W.J.C. No.
911/94 was decided.

        This case relates to admission to the M.B.B.S. and B.D.S. Courses in
Bihar for the year 1993. The respondent No. 2 Rajashree Sharma was the
only interested petitioner in the case since the other petitioners got relief G
during the pendency of the writ petition. Rajashree sought admission in
'girls' category. She pleaded that as there were 15 vacancies for girls and
as her position was 14th and since the circular No. 20 further allowed
candidates qualifying on general merit to be admitted along with general
candidates, she was entitled to admission. No girl with lesser marks was H
    704                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A   alleged to have been admitted. The High Court expressed grave doubts in
    this situation if the respondent No. 2 could be admitted to any college. The
    High Court reiterated the method evolved in the C.W.J.C. No. 911/94 and
    directed the appellant authorities to consider the case of the respondent
    No. 2 in the light of those observations and to issue appropriate directions.

B         By now the substantial question of admission of respondent No. 2
    has become infructuous. However, for future application we may only say
    that such admission for girls be also done according to the formula sug-
    gested by us in the SLP No. 8175-78 of 1995, viz., that the girls qualifying
    on merit for general candidates be given _an option to be treated as general
C   candidates for the purpose of allotment of seat and only if they so opt can
    the circular No. 20 be given effect. Further directions, if required, m:ay be
    obtained from the High Court in light of this judgment. The Appeal is
    disposed of accordingly; No costs.

    S.S.                                                    Appeal disposed of.




              II