Holding

Reservation of 25 MBBS seats for candidates from rural areas educated in common rural schools up to class 8 is unconstitutional as it fails the tests of intelligible differentia and rational nexus under Article 14.

Summary

The State of Haryana, through Maharshi Dayanand University, reserved 25 MBBS seats for candidates who had studied up to class 8 in a common rural school. The petitioners challenged this reservation as violative of Articles 14, 15(4) and 29(2) of the Constitution, arguing that the classification was arbitrary, lacked intelligible differentia and had no rational nexus to the intended objective. The Court examined whether the distinction between students from rural schools and those from urban schools satisfied the twin tests of reasonable classification. It held that the education up to class 8 is identical in syllabus for rural and urban schools and bears no relevance to medical college admission, rendering the classification irrational and arbitrary. Consequently, the reservation was struck down and the petitioners were directed to admit students on the general merit list. The writ petitions were allowed.

Issues considered

Whether reservation of seats for candidates educated in common rural schools up to class 8 violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether such reservation can be justified under Article 15(4) as a measure for advancement of socially and educationally backward classes.
Whether the reservation infringes Article 29(2) of the Constitution.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 15(4), s. Article 29(2)

Subjects

ReservationMedical college admissionArticle 14Article 15(4)Article 29(2)Intelligible differentiaRational nexusRural educationAffirmative action

Judgment

A 272

SUNEEL JATLEY ETC.

v.
• B
.•. STATE OF HARYANA ETC .

30th July, 1984
~

[D.A. DESAI AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.] Ji
c
Education Laws and Regulations-Admission to Medical Colleges-
Reservation of seats in favour of candidates coming f ro1n Rural Areas and edu·
cated in common Rural Schools upto 8th standard, for admission to M.B.B.S.
cou~se, whether is violative of Articles 14, 15 (4) and 29 t2) of th.~ Constitution
of India.
D
The third respondent Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak issued
a prospectus on J_une 12, 1982, inviting applications for appearing at an
Entrance Test for selecting candidates for admission to M '8.B.S./B.D.S.
course 1982. In this prospectus, besides reservation for other candidates, 25
seats were shown as reserved for "Rural Areas" and furth1:r clarifying
the term as for deciding the eligiblity of a candid<Jte from "Hural Areas" I . :... '
E the following criterion will be observed; a candidate .must have received
education from Class I to Class 8 and passed 81h Class examina·tion from any
Rural School situated in any village not having any Municipalhy or notified
area or Town Area Committe" ...

The petitioners, therefore, challenged only the reservatic·n of these 25
p seats for candidates coming from the Rural Areas as beinB violative of
Articles 14, 15 (4) and 29 (2) of the Constitution inasmuch as (l) the classi~
fication is arbitrary, unintelligible and unrelated to the objects sought to be
achieved and not saved by Articles 15 (4) and (ii); to classify candidates on
the basis of .their education in a school in Rural Area and lfrban Area is
irrational inasmuch as before seeking admission to the Medical Faculty even
the student coming from rural areas and having been educated in common
rural school from 1st to 8th standard would l1ave taken further education for
G a period of 4 years before seeking admission to the medical co11ege and that
even in respect of the earlier education from 1st to 8th standard in both the
cases, there was identical syllabus and examination-evaluation prescribed by
a common authority.

Allowing!the petitions, the Court

'
HllLD .:[I· I(is well-settled that Aiticle 14 forbi\I• cla!s k~islation b~I
ff f
SUNIL JATLEY V. HARYANA 273
per 1nits reasonable classification in the matter of legislation. In order to A
sUstain the classification pcrinissible under Article 14, it has to satisfy the
- (win tests: {l) that classificaiion is founded on an intelligible differentia which
distingufahes persons or things that are grouped together from others Jeft out
of the proup and (2) the differen(a must have a rational relation to the object
sought to be achieved by the impugned provision. [278H; 279A-B]

2 : 1. Classification based on students coming from common rural B
schools meaning thereby educated upto 1st to 8th siar.dard in common rural
schools vis-a-vis students educated in urban scl1ools from 1st to 8th standard
Would not provide intelligible differentia for founding a classification thereon .
•
The classification in such a situation will be wholJy arbitrary and irrational
and therefore the reservation based on such a classification would be consti-
tutionally invalid. The knowledge acquired in the years spent from class 1 to
,class 8th is of a general nature exposing the student to reading, ~riting, c
understanding simple Arithmatics, General Knowledge of History, Geography
and in.troductory Mathematics. The introductory knowledge of these
subjects could hardly be said to equip a student for admission to medical
'college. The education imparted in class IX and X is little more than intro-
ductory. In thfSe classes, the student is being prepared for deeper study.
The selection of specialised subjects has to be made in classes XI and }t[I D
and in respect of education in classes IX to XII, all students being educated
in all schooh are similarly situated, similarly circumstanced and similarly
placed with no differentiation. The earlier handicap of education in classes I
to VIII, if there be any, becomes wholly irrelevant and of no consequence and
. therefore, cannot provide an intelligible differentia which distinguishes per-
sons say students seeking admission being grouped together as having been
'edu:Cated in common rural'schools from those left out namely the rest. E
[282F; C-B]
Arti Sapru v. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors., [1981] 3 SCR 34,
followed.

Pradeep Tandon'scase followed.

" ' Amar Bir Singh & Ors. v, Maharishi Dayanand Unil'ersity, .Rohtak & F
Ors. !LR Punjab & Haryana [1980) 2 493, overruled.

2 : 2. The classification is not founded on intellegib1e ditferentia and
at any rate, it has no rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. It
does not take into account the following : (i) in order to take advantage of
the reservation, students from nearby urban areas can join any rural school G
on the periphery aglomeration; (ii) All rural schools without an exception
.~an.not be condemned as ill-house, ill-stafTcd and ill-equipped. Agriculture
'irt Haryana has been a very profitable pursuit and standard of life of average
farmer in rural area has gone up ccn1pared to middle class and industrial
worker and the slu1n dweilers whose children will attend as a necessity urban
schools. And yet the better placed will enjoy reservation; (iii) The knowledge
acquired by t11e stt1dents whi1e taking instructions in class I to VIII has
hardly any relevance 10 his being equipped for taking the test fQr entrance to
·u
274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985] l S'.C.ll.
A tbe Medical College. The real challenge would come in standa:rd XI and
XII. In this behalf all students those coming from any rural schools and I '
urban school arc similarly placed and similarly situated and yet by a refe-
rence to a past event who1ly unrelated to the objects sought to be achieved,
they are artificially divided; and (iv) There is no guarantee save ,a wishful
thinking that the candidates classified as coming from rural areas that is with.
education from class 1 to VIII or otherwise would return to rural ari:aes after
the M.B.B.S. degree, [285H; 284F-G; 285C-D]
B
Sukhvlnder Kaur v. State of Himacha/ Pradesh & Ors., A.LR. 1974 HP
35, distinguished. •

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition Nos. 7014, 7426-28 of
1982, 7419, 7377-78, 7278, 6460, 7078, 6461, 5720, 7428, 7454
c 6896, 6894, 7288, 6895, 6892-97, 7421, 75~0, 7289, 7525, 7422, 6897, •
6462, 7378, 5720, 5719 & 7290-91 of·l~82.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)_
,
With
D
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9149 of 1982.

From the Judgment and Order dated the 14th September, 1982
of the Punjab and Haryan; High Court in C.W.P. No. 3460 of
1982.
E
And

Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9076 of 1982.

From the Judgment and Order dated the 1st September, 1982
F of the Punjab and Hayana High Court in WP No. 3299 of 1982.

And

Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9289 of 1982.

Dr. Adarsh Kapoor & Mrs. V.D. Khanna for the Petitioners.
G
P.P. Rao, R. Venkataraman, A. Mariapatham & Ms. Aruna
Mathur for M.D. University.

R.N. Poddar for the State.

The Judsment of the Court was delivered hr
SUN!t JATLEY v. HARYANA (Desai, J.) 215
DESAI J. As the matter brooked no delay, at the conclusion A
of the arguments, the Court pronounced the following orde.r reser-
ving reasons to be given at a later date.

"The petitions succeed to the extent herein indicated.
B
Let a writ be issued quashing reservation of 25 seats in
favour of candidates "coming from Rural Areas and edu-
cated in common Rural School for admission to MBBS
Course 1982 at Medical College, Rohtak affiliated to
Maharshi Dayanand Universty. Consequently the respon-
dents are directed to admit in !st MBBS Course of the c
same College commencing from July, 1983, such number
of students who secured admission against the reservation
• for candidates coming from Rural Areas and educated in
Common Rural School in 1982, according to the general
merit list drawn up in respect of candidates, who sought
admission and in the absence of such a list, a waiting list D
should be drawn up according to merits, for the year 1982.
The respondents are directed to work out the admissions
as per the direction herein made before May 31, 1983 and
give intimation to the students who become eligible' for
admission. There will be OCJ order as to costs. Reasons to
follow," E

Here are the reasons.

In this group of petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution,
the petitioners questioned the validity and legality of reservation
F
of 25 seats for candidates coming from rural areas for admission
to first M.B.B.S./B.D.S. Course for 1982 session in the Medical
Faculty of the Third respondent-Maharishi Dayanand University
Rohtak ('University' for short). The University issued a prospectus
on June 12, 1982 inviting applications for appearing at an En-
trance Test for selecting candidates for admission to MBBS/BDS
Course, 1982. In this prospectus, reserved seats were shown a1 G
under :
"(A) RESERVED SEATS :

Categories No. of Seats
(a) Scheduled Caste/Tribes 30
(b) Rural areas 25 H
276 SUP~rnE COURT REPORTS (1985] 1 s.c.k.

A , . (i) Out of these 5 are reserved for gids, if available,
otherwise these will also be for boys.

(ii) For deciding the eligibility of a candidate from rural
areas, the following criterion will be observed :
B
A candidate must have received education, from
Class I to Class 8 and passed 8th class examination from a
'•
common Rural School situated in any village not having
any Municipality or notified area or Town Area Commit-
tee. For this purpose a certificate is required to be
c submitted which may be seen in Appendix 'C'.
•
.........................................................................."
In short out of a total of 148 seats available for admission,
D 80 seats were to be filled-in according to the merit list drawn-up
on the performance at the entrance examination and the rest were
reserved for different classes of candidates. The petitioners chal-
lenge only the reservation of 25 seats for candidates coming from
the rural areas as being violative of Arts. 14, 15(4) and 29 (2) of
the Constitution inasmuch as the classification is arbitrary, unin-
E telligible and unrelated to the objects sought to be achieved and
not saved by Art. 15(4). It was alleged that to classify candidates
on the basis of their education in a school in rural area and urban
area is irrational inasmuch as before seeking admission to the Medi-
cal Faculty even the student coming from rural areas and hav-
ing been educated in common rural school from lst to 8th . stan·
F
dard would have taken further education for a period of 40, years
before seeking admission to the medical college. It was therefore
said that earlier education from lst to 8th standard either in urban
schools or common rural schools both having identical syllabus and
examination evaluation prescribed by a common authority is hardly
of any relevance while considering the merit for admission to. the
medical college more so because all students coming either from
G urban schools or those educated in common rural schools were requi-
red to undergo further education for a period of 4 years after the 8th
standard in urban schools or schools which can be compared with
urban schools. The petitioners contend that the reservation is not
sustainable under Art. 15(4) because candidates educate<. in common
rural school cannot as a class be said to be socialy and educatio-
H
SUNIL JATLEY v. f!ARYANA (Desai, i.) 277

- nally backward and therefore, the reservation would not- satisfy
the test prescribed by Art. J 5( 4) of the. Constitution. The petiiioners
aver that the syllabus for !st to 8th standard adopted in common
rural schools and urban schools is entirely identical prescribed by
the same Government and the qualification of teachers for being
appointed in the urban schools or the common rural school is the f' B
same and they are transferable from one area to' the other
area. It was also contended that the majority of the population
in the State of Haryana as in whole country is residing in rural
areas and the reservation in favour of majority would be ovoid
ab initio. Lastly it was said that the classification apart from being
arbitrary and irrational does not satisfy the twin tests of it 'being 'J c
• based on intelligible differentia and having any nexus to the
objects sought to be achieved. The petitioners say that some from
amongst respandents 5 to 49 have been admitted against reser-
vation for candidates coming from rural areas and even though
the petitioners had obtained higher marks at the entrance exami-
nation and were placed higher in the merit list yet they have
been denied admission on account of the constitutionally invalid
reservation and therefore, their admissions should be struck
down and the University may be directed by a mandamus to recon-
sider the eligiblity for admission after ignoring the reservation in
favour of students from rural nr eas. :I E
. ' . iii
Mr. K. L . Guglani, Registrar of the University filed his affi-
davit-in-opposition inter a/ia contending that the classification and
the consequent reservation is valid under Art. 14 of the Constitution.
It was submitted that in order to correct the regional imbalan.ce in
the matter of admissions to medical college, the Govt. of Haryana
had carried out a sample survey of the comparative facility/in~quali
ties between the students of the schools situated in the rural and.the
urban areas at the primary, middle and high school stages in 1979
which revealed that the students studying in common rural· schools
suffer from serious handicap such as non-availabilty of electric
fans in summer and on the onset of rainy season, the difficulty. of
access to the school resulting in shortening of the academic yenr in ,G
such schools with consequent disadvantages in their academic
achievment as compared to children in the urban schools where
the academic sessions goes undisturbed by extreme summer or rainy
season. The sample survey further revealed that most or'' the
common rural schools are ill-houses, ill-staffed and ill-equipped.
There is no provision for regular medical check:up of students at
I
'
278 SUPREME coURt REPORTS (1985] l S.C.R,

A any common rural school resulting in the neglect for tbe upkeep of
their health and this becomes a factor for the low achievements of
students in rural schools. The sample survey also revealed that
the teachers attached to common urban schools residing in urban
areas reached the school premises just in time to take the classes and
leave soonafter the school time is over thus denying the establish-
B ment of personal contact with the students resulting in the denial
to such students an opportunity of development. It was further
submitted that the students coming from urban areas after taking
medical education declined to settle down in rural areas and this
will help in extending medical facilities solely needed for rural
c population. In order to correct this imbalance and the utter handi-
cap felt by the students studying in common rural schools, students
seeking admission were divided into different classes based on •
intelligible differentia and that if the object of medical education is
to extend medical facilities where it is needed the most, reservation
for candidates coming from rural areas would achieve the object
D and therefore, the Stae Govt. was perfectly justified in making this
reasonable and rational classification.

At a later date Dr. D.C. Mehrotra, Director-Principal, Medical
College, Rohtak filed affidavit in-opposition on behalf of respon-
B dents 1 to 3 which appears to be a carbon copy of the affidavit
filed by the Registrar Mr. Guglani.

The only question which needs answer is whether reservation
of '25 seats for rural areas' for admission to 1982 session in the
Medical College attached to the University is constitutionally

' valid. It must at once be made clear that the respondents did
not at all ~ttempt to sustain the reservation under sub-Art. (4)
of Art. 15 which enabled the State to make special provision for
advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes
of citizens or for the scheduled caste and scheduled tribes. The
respondents contended that the reservation of 25 seats for
0 candidates coming from rural area~ is valid and can be sustained
under Art. 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, the question is:
whether the classification between the stujents educated in urban
school and common rural schools is based on any intelligible
differentia which has a rational nexus to the objects sought to be
achieved 7

H It is well-settled that Art. 14 forbids class legislation but
SUNIL 1ATLEY •• IIARYANA (Desai, J.) 279

permits reasonable classification in the matter of legislation. In A
order to sustain the classification permissible under Art. 14, it bas
to satisfy the twin tests : (1) that the classification is founded on
an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that
are grouped together from others left out of the group and (2) the
differentia must have a rational 'relation to the object sought to be B
achieved by the inpugned provision. ·
I.
.. Does the· classification on the basis of candidates coming
from rural areas against urban area in the matter of admission to

r. medical college satisfy the twin tests.- If the attempt at amplifica-
tion of the classification resorted to by. the respondents is ignored
for the time being, the broad classification is that the students com-
ing from rural areas are. classified separately for the purpose of
c

admission to the medical college. The reservation is described in
. the prospectus as: 'Rural areas-25 seats'. If the matter were to
rest here, it would have been unnecessary to write this judgment in D
view of the decision of this Court in State of U.P. v • Pradeep
Tandon.''! In that case the State of· U.P. had made reservation
.. for admission to medical callege in favour of the candidates from
rural, hill and Uttarkhand areas on the ground that the people
) coming from these areas 'belonged to socially and educationally
. backward cla<Ses. The reservation was challenged as being viola- E
tive of Arts. 14 and 15 and not protected by Art. 15(4). The State
sought to sustain the classification under Art. 15(4) urging that the
object of the classification was the advancment of facility for
medical education for candidates coming from reserved areas as
·the people coming from these areas belonged to socially and educa-
F
tionally backward classes. This contention was accepted in part
and negatived in pa·t. Striking down reservation of candidates
coming from rural areas, the Court held that reservation for rural
areas cannot be sustained on the ground that the rural areas repre-
• sent socially and educationally backward classes of citizens and the
reservation appears to be made for the majority population of the
State and on the ground of place of birth. The Court upheld reser- . G
vation in favour of candidates from Hill and Uttarkhand areas on
• the ground that reservation in favour of the people in those areas
who belonged to socially and educationally backward classes of
citizens. Distinguishing the case of reservation in favour of
candidates coming from rural areas, the Court observed that the
backwardness contemplated by Art. 15('9 is _both social and educa- .H
A
280 SiJPllEi.IE COURT REPORTS [1985] 1 s.C.R.
..
tional backwardness of the citizens, the accent being on classes of
citizens socially and educationally backward and therefore, socially
and educationally backward citizens cannot be equated with areas
as a whole socially and educationally backward. The Court conclu-
ded that some peo le in the rural areas may be educationally
backward, some may be socially backward and there may be few
B who are both socially and educationally backwanJ but it cannot be
said that all citizens residing in rural areas are socially and educa-
tionally backward. Accordingly, the reservation iu favour of
candidates coming from rural areas was he,ld as constitutionally v
invalid. This reasoning would apply mutatis mutandis to the facts
c in the present case because the reservation is in favour of candi-
dates coming from rural areas.
•
It was however, contended by Mr. P.P. Rao on behalf of the
University that \he Court should not merely confine itself to the
headline in the prospectus but read the entire entry specifying reser-
D vation especially the conditions of eligibility for the reserved seats.
Reading it thus it was said that the reservation was in favour of
students not coming from rural areas but in favour of students who
were educated in common rural schools. Proceeding along it ·was
said that before making the reservation the State Government had
undertaken a sample survey, portions of which are extracted in
E certain correspondence annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition which
when examined in proper perspective would show· that the students
educated in common rural schools suffered certain handicaps and
are comparatively at a disadvantage in the matter of attaining high

F
merit for competing with students coming from urban schools and
therefore, the State deemed it proper to extend the protection in
the matter of admission to such handicapped students. This sub-
-
mission was further amplified by saying that students coming from
urban areas and joining medical colleges are generally disinclined
to go to rural areas for rendering medical service while if students
coming from rural areas are encouraged by reservation to take the
G
medical education, one can reasonably expect them to return to
the rural areas, the habitat of their childhood, and to make such
rural places their field of activity, which would simultaneously extend
medical service to rural areas which is otherwise ill-starved in this ....
behalf. It was pointed out that the common rural schools have
neither laboratories nor library facilities and that it is ill-equipped,
ill-housed and ill-manned in the matter of staff, facilities and equip-
H ment. To over-come these handicaps and to provide an opportunity
SUNIL JAtLliY v. HARYANA (Desai, J.) 281

to the students educated in such schools against fierce competition
from those students coming from well-equipped and manned
by highly trnined staff urban schools, the classification between the
students coming from common rural schools and those coming from
urban school in the matter of admission to the medical college
satisfied the twin tests of constitutionally valid classification.
B
Before anyone becomes eligible to compete for admission to
• the medical college in the year 1982, it was incumbent upon such
a student to clear the 12th standard examination. This is true in
respect of all students seeking admission to medical college irres-
pective of the fact whether they have been educated in the common c
• rural schools or urban schools. Now the reservation is in favour
of candidates from rural areas which expression in amplified to
mean 'a candidate must have received education from Class I to
class 8 and passed 8th Class examination from a common Rural
School situated in any village not having any Municipality or
Notified Area or Town Area Committee.' It would at once appear D
that every candidate seeking admission to medical college must
have studied upto the 12th class which would mean that even a
candidate coming from the common rural school meaning thereby
one who has taken his education' upto 8th standard in such a
school, yet subsequently he has joined a school which imparts edu- E
cation upto the 12 standard. Such a candidate has joined a school
for a period of 4 years after having come out of the common rural
school. It is nowhere suggested that this education for 4 years by
a student coming frum common rural school is in a school which is
either unequal to the urban school or comparatively ill-equipped,
ill-housed or ill-staffed. The necessary inference that follows from F
this is that all students seeking admission to the medical college
have atleast taken education for the last 4 years, in schools which
are comparatively similar. What then is the relevance of the
education taken from Class I to Class 8 for the purpose of admis·
sion to a medical college. It was conceded tha the specialised
subjects which will qualify a student for appearing at the entrance G
examination for admission to medical college are to be selected
from the I Ith standard onwards. It was also conceded that the
syllabus for students from Class I to Class 8 either for urban
. schools or common rural schools is entirely identical and prescri-
bed by the same authority, and this syllabus includes subjects of
general knowledge. It does not provide any specialised knowledge ..
Therefore, it passes comprehension as to what importance can be H
282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1~85] I s.c.R.

A attached to education from Class I to Class 8 for admission to

B
medical college which is divided by a span of over 4 years that of
Class IX to Class Xll (both inclusive) and in respect of which
students coming from all schools are similarly situated, similarly
circumstanced and similarly placed and similary treated and
exposed to same educational environments without the slightest
-
difference. The question then is : can the previous differentiation,
if there by any, provided a ralio11al basis for classification The
answer obviously is in the negative. The knowledge acquired in
the years spent from Cla>s I to Class VIII is of a general nature •
exposing the student to reading, writing, understanding simple
c arithmatics, general knowledge of History, Geography and intro-
ductory mathematics. The introductory knowledge of these subjects
could hardly be said to equip a student for admission to medical •
college. The education imparted in Class IX and X is little more
than introductory. Jn these classes, the student is being prepared
for deeper study. The selection of specialised subjects has to be
D made in Classes XI and XII and in respect of education in Classes
IX to XII, all students being educated in all schools are similarly
situated, similarly circumstanced and similarly placed with no
differentiation. The earlier handicap of education in Classes I to
8, if th,re be any, becomes wholly irrelevant and of no consequence •
and tlierefore, cannot provide an i-ltelligible differentia which
E
distinguishes persons say students seeking admission being grouped
together as having been educated in common rural schools from
those left out namely the rest. It would therefore, follow as a
corollary that classification based on students coming from common
rural schools meaning thereby educated upto I to 8th standard in
F common rural schools vis-a-vis students educated in urban schools
from !st to 8th standard would not provide intelligible differentia
for founding a classification thereon. The classification in such a
situation will be wholly arbitrary and irrational and therefore the
reservation based on such a classification would be constitutionally
invalid. This view which we are takiug finds support from a deci-
sion of this Court in Arti Sapru v. State of Jammu and Kashmir &
G Ors.'" wherein this Court struck down reservation of 20~0 of the
'seats to be filled on the basis of inter se merit to ensure rectifica-
tion of imbalance in the admission for various parts of the State,
if any, so as to give equitable and uniform treatment to those parts.
-
The Court following the decision in Pradeep Tandon'S case held
that the classification attempted by the State suffers from the vice
H (ll (1981] 3 S.C.R. 34.
SUNIL JATLEY v. HARYANA (Desai, J.) 283

of arbitrariness and must be declared invalid. A

It was however, contended on behalf of the respondents that
the decision in Prade,•p Tandon's case would not be of any assis·
tance and is distinguishable because in that case reservation was in
favour of candidates corning from rural, hill and Uttarkhand areas B
on the ground that people coming from these areas belonged to
socially and educationally backward classes while the reservation
in the instant case is founded on the lack of facility for education
in common rural schools functioning in rural areas and also that in
Pradeep Tandon's case, one of the contentions which found favour
with the Court was that the reservation was in favour of a majority a
• which aspect does not arise in the present case. In support of this
submission, learned counsel for the respondents extensively read
before us the decision of the full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana
High Court in Amar Bir Singh & Ors. v. Maha Rishi Dayanand
University, Rohtak & Ors.'" The full Bench of the High Court
D
presided over by the then learned Chief Justice upheld the
impugned reservation. The High Court distinguished the decision
in Pradeep Tandon's case observing that the State sought to sustain
the reservation under Art. 15 (4) contending that candidates
corning from rural areas belonged to socially and educationally
backward classes of citizens and the submission did not find favour E
with the Court though the Court unreservedly accepted that
candidates corning from hill and Uttrakhand areas belonged to
socially and educationally backward classes of citizens and sustained
reservation in favour of the latter. It is true that the State did not
attempt to sustain the reservation under Art. 14 but certain obser-
vations in the judgment would leave no room for doubt that the F
aspect of valid classification was present to the mind of the Court.
Jt was observed that 80% of the population reside in rural areas
and it cannot be said to be a homogeneous class. Rural habita·
lion cannot constitute it into class. And it is reservation related to
place of birth. The Court thus examined whether candidates
corning from rural areas cons!itute a distinct homogeneous class for
the purpose of admission to medical college and rejected it. The G
High Court in Amar Bir Singh's case on the contrary attempted to
sustain the classification of students educated in common rural
schools which does not carry conviction. Having read this judg-
ment minutely and with care and attention that a judgment of th~
(ll l.L.~· 1' ~ H [1984) 2 493. ff
284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] 1 S.C.R.
A Full Bench of High Court bearing on the same topic merits. we are
of the opinion that the manner in l'hich Pradccp Tandon's case, was
sought to be distinguished was artificial apart from being unintelli-
gible. Undoubtedly the State in Pradeep T,,ndon's case attempted
to sustain the classification under Art. 15 (4) but that was not the
B crux of the matter. The reservation was in favour of candidates
coming from a certain area to wit rural areas. Now if the ampli-
fication of what constitutes candidates coming from rural areas
will not enlarge or restrict the operative portion, indisputably the
reservation was for candidates coming from rural areas which we1 e
styled Pradeep Tandon's case as socially and educationally backward
c areas. lt is true that one of the reasons which weighed with the
Court in striking down reservation in Pradeep Tandon's case was
•
that the reservation was in favour of a majority. Such an argument
though available in the present case was not advanced, because
any day rural area is comparatively much larger in area and size
population to urban area in the State of Haryana. Therefore, we
D
are not impressed by the submission that the judgment in Pradeep
Tandon's case is distinguishable. In fact, this Court in Arti Sapru's
case followed the decision in Pradecp Tandon's case.

Assuming that the decision in Pradeep Tandon's case does not
conclude the point as herein raised, the differentia on which the
classification is founded appears to us arbitrary and irrational. How
arbitrary and irrational it is, can be demonstrably established. In
order to take advantage of the reservation students from nearby
urban areas can join common rural school on the periphery of
F urban aglomeration. And all rural schools without an exception
cannot be condemnnd as ill-housed, ill-staffed and ill-equipped.
Agriculture in Haryana has been a very profitable pursuit and
standard of life of average farmer in rural area has gone up
compared to middle class and industrial workers and the slum
dwellers whose children will attend as a necessity urban schools.
G And yet the better place will enjoy reservation. Further the basis
of classification based on education• upto 8th standard is wholly
irrational. And it has no nexus to the object sought to be achieved,
of providing extra facility to students coming from rural schools to
enter medical college.

What was the object sought to be achieved by the classifica-
tion ? l\ was s~id that students taking education in common rural
SUNIL JA1'LEY v. HVRYANA (Dosai, J.) 285

schools from Ist to 8th standard are at a comparative disadvantage A
to those· taking education in urban schools in the same standards.
The comparison in our opinion is fallacious for the reason that the
same Government prescribes standards of education, equipment,
grants and facilities including the qualification of the staff for
B
being employed in urban and rural schools imparting instructions
from Ist to 8th Standard. However, ~s pointed out earlier, the
knowledge acquired by the students while taking instructions in
Class I to Vfll has hardly any relevance to his being cquiped for
taking the test for entrance to the medical college. The real
challenge would come in Standard Xf and XII. ln this behalf all c
students those coming from common rural school and urban school
are similarly placed and similarly situated and yet by a reference to
' a past event wholly unrelated to the objects sought to be achieved,
they are artificially divided.

It was however said that there was another discernible purpose D
in making the reservation. The urbanised students are disinclined
to go to rural areas for practice or service and therefore if the
students coming from rural common schools are en£ouraged to seek
admission they may return after obtaining qualification to their
childhood habitat and thus help extend efficient medical service to
rural areas at present wholly neglected.- It was urged if a region is E
woefully deficient in medical services, there occurs serious educa-
tional and health service disparity for that human region which must
be redressed by a Welfare State.· It was submitted that t'1e reser-
vation was a step in this directiop. This submission was sought to
be supported by referring to .Tagdish Saran v. Union of India. 'll This F
approach overlooks the fact that even students educated in common
rural schools would be joining urban schools for four years before
going to medical college and then spend about five years in
medical college. There is no guarantee save a wishful thinking that
they would return to rural areas. This is so flimsy a material to
sustain classification. ,
0
We are therefore satisfied that the classification is not fo~nded
on intelligible differentia and at any rate it has no rational nexus to
the object sought to be achieved. The classification is irrational
and arbitrate. The reservation based on such classification is
constitutionally invalid.

11, p9so12 s.c.R. s31,
286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985] 1 S.C.R.

A Before we conclude, a reference to Sukhvindkr Kaur v. State
of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ' 11 may be made. In that case the High
Court upheld reservation of J 2 seats for candidates who have passed
matriculation or Higher Secondary examination from schools
located in the rural areas. The afore-mentioned reservation was
upheld by merely observing that it does not appear to be unreaso-
B nable inasmuch as the children in the rural areas who usually
attend such schools are socially, economically and educationally
poor and they cannot compete with the children of their age-group
coming from the urban area. The judgment does not refer to the
material on which the finding was based that the children attending
the schools in rural areas cannot compete with children of the same
ai:e-group coming from the urban areas. That apart the situation
in that case was that the students took education upto the Higher •
Secondary examination in the schools situated in the rural areas and
had thereafter straightaway to compete for entrance to the medical
college with students coming from urban areas. Such is not the
D situation before us. As pointed out earlier, in the instant case, the
students in whose favour the reservation is made took education
only upto the Sth standard in common rural school and for the last
4 years they ~re on par in every respect with students coming
from urban &reas. Therefore, this decision is of no assistance.

E
These were the reasons which weighed with us in allowing
the writ petitions.

S.R. Petitions allowed.

(I) A.t.R. 1984 fll'. 3~.