Supreme Court of India

THAPAR INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGYversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

Citation: 1996 INSC 1465
Decided: 11 December 1996
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: KULDIP SINGH

Holding

Reservation of seats for the wards of employees in technical institutions is impermissible as it contravenes Article 14, and the directions to discontinue such reservations are valid.

Summary

The Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology (TIET), Thapar Polytechnic and the Technological Institute of Textile & Science (TIT&S) reserved a small percentage of seats for the wards of their employees, despite being private or aided technical institutions. The affiliating university and the Punjab State Government directed them to cease such reservations, invoking the Supreme Court’s decision in J.P. Unni Krishnan which mandates admission solely on merit. The institutions challenged these directions, arguing that being a deemed university or unaided institution permitted such reservations. The Supreme Court held that reservation of seats for employees' wards violates Article 14 of the Constitution as it is not a reasonable classification linked to merit, and that the status of a deemed university does not exempt an institution from this principle. Consequently, the Court upheld the university’s and state’s directives and dismissed the appeals and the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether reservation of seats for wards of employees in private or aided technical institutions violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether the status of a deemed university or receipt of government aid alters the applicability of the merit‑based admission principle.
Whether the university’s and state’s directions to discontinue such reservations are legally valid.
Whether the memo prohibiting reservation in the admission brochure is infirm.

Legislation cited

University Grants Commission Act, 1956s. 3

Subjects

reservationseatswards of employeesArticle 14equalitytechnical educationdeemed universitymeritprivate unaided institution

Judgment

THAPAR INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY A
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

DECEMBER 11, 1996
B
[KULDIP SINGH, S.C. AGARWAL AND B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950: Altic/es 14 and 15.

P1ivate Technical /nstitution:.-Seats rese1ved for wards of employees
of such institutions and of company which founded such institution:.-Held C
: violative of Art. 14-Although reserved seats were in addition to general seats
and admission made Oil the basis of mm*s obtained in entrallce examination
yet admission to rese1ved seats made by drawing separate list was unconstitu-
tiollal-Even if illstitution was deemed university, it could not make admis-
sion Oil basis of such reservatioll-Principles regarding preferential treatment D
to Calldidates laid down.

The appellant-Technological Institute of Textile and Science (T.I.T.
& S) in Civil Appeal No. 4101 of 1995 was a registered Society and ran a
technical institute which awarded B.Tech/M.Tech M.M.S. degrees. The
appellant-Institute was affiliated to the respondent-University. The appel- E
lant-Institute did not receive any financial aid either from the State
• Government of the Central Government or the respondent-University or
any other local authority. The appellant-Institute also owned and ran a
textile mill wherein the students received practical training under the
actual mill working conditions. The normal intake in the B.Tech. Course F
of the T.I.T. & S. was 90 students each year and admission to these 90
seats were made according to merit on the basis of a competitive entrance
test conducted by the respondent-University. In addition to the aforesaid
90 seats, the T.l.T. & S. has provided four additional seats for the wards
of the employees of the appellant-Institute. By letter dated 15.7.1993, the G
respondent-University conveyed its decision not to permit the T.I.T. & S.
to continue with the reservation of seats for the wards of the staff of the
T.I.T. & S. in the B.Tech Course and the T.I.T. & S. was directed not to
make any admission under this category. Feeling aggrieved by the said
order of the respondent-University the appellant-Institute filed a writ
petition in the High Court which was dismissed. H
831
832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A The appellant·Thapar Institute of Engineering and Technology
(TIET) and Thapar Polytechnic in Civil Appeal arising-out of SLPs Nos.
10132 of 1995 and 10224 of 1995 were established and being run by the
Patiala Technical Educational Trust. As per declaration of the Central
Government dated 30.12.1985 under Section 3 of the University Grants
B Commission Act, 1956, the T.I.E.T. was deemed to be a university for the
purpose of the said Act. The T.I.E.T. imparted education at the Graduate
and Post-Graduate level. In the T.I.E.T. there were 180 seats in various
courses for award for degree in bachelor of Engineering, 2% seats were
reserved for the children of employees of the T.I.E.T. and the Patiala
Technical Education Trust and 5% seats were reserved for the children of
c employees of Thapar Group of Companies. The candidates for these seats
were to be sponsored by the Patiala Technical Education Trust. The
T.I.E.T. received maintenance grants for running expenses from the State
Government. The Thapar Polytechnic conducted three year courses. Ad-
mission to these courses was made on the basis of merit to be determined
D in Joint Competitive Entrance Test conducted by the State Government
through State School Education Board. Provision was, however, made for
reservation of 2% seats for wards of employees of the T.I.E.T. and the
Thapar Polytechnic to be nominated by the Patiala Technical Education
Trust. The nomination was made on the basis of relative merits of can·
E dldates but the nominated candidates were not required to appear in the
Common Entrance Test. The Poiytechnic received grant for running ex-
penses from the State Government. The State Government by its letter
dated 16.9.1991 had decided that with effect from the academic session
1991·92 onwards there shall be no reservation in admissions for wards of
F employee of Department/Institutions. Writ petitions were filed in the High
Court by the TIET' and the Patiala Technical Education Trust assailing
the decision of the Government. The High Court dismissed the writ peti·
tions.

The petitions-TIET and the Patiala Technical Education Trust filed
G Writ Petition No. 507 of 1995 before this Court for quashing Memo dated
6.6.1995 addressed by the Director, Technical Education and Industrial
Training, Punjab (Technical Education Wing) to the Coordinator, Punjabi
University, Punjab and a copy thereof endorsed to the Director of the
T.I.E.T. In the said memo dated 6.6.1995 it was stated that reservation
H proposed by the T.I.E.T. in respect of 10 seats for Thapar Organisation
lliAPAR INS1T. OFENGG. AND TECHNOLOGY v. STATE 833
'·
was not legally sustainable and should not be in the admission brochure. A
Dismissing the Civil Appeals and the Writ Petition, this Court

HELD : 1. In so far as Civil Appeal No. 4101 of 1995 is concerned,
the letter of respondent-University dated 15.1.1993 directing the T.I.T. &
S. not to continue with the reservation of seats for wards of the staff of the B
T.I.T. & S. in the B.Tech. course was taken in pursuance of the decision
of this Court in J.P. Unni Krishnan and is in consonance with the law laid
down in Chairman/Director, Combined Entrance Examination (CEE) 1990
v. Osiris Das & Ors., since the T.I.T. & S. is affiliated to the respondent·
University. It is no doubt true that the four additional seats for which C
reservation was made for the wards of the college and mill/school staff of
the T.I.T. & S. are in addition to 90 seats and admission is made on the
the basis of marks obtained in the Entrance Examination conducted by the
respondent-University. But for the purpose of admission to these four
seats a separate merit list is drawn in respect of the candidates who are
eligible for these seats and admission is not according to merit as reflected D
in the common merit list. Such reservation in favour of wards of the college
and mill/school staff of the T.I.T. & S. does not satisfy the test of admission
being given strictly on the basis of merit as laid down by this Court ali~
has been rightly held to be impermissible by the High Court. [845-C-F]
E
J.P. Unni Krishan & Ors. v. State of A.P. & Ors., [1993] 1 SCC 645
and Chairman/Director Combined Entrance Examination (CEE) 1990 v.
Osiris Das & Ors., [1992] 3 SCC 543, relied on.

2. As regards Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 10132 of
1995, though the T.l.E.T. has been declared to be a "deemed university" by F
the Central Government under the provisions of the University Grants
Commission Act, 1956, but this does not mean that it is permissible for
the T.I.E.T. to depart from the principle laid down by this Court that
admission should be made strictly on the basis of merit. It was not
permissible for the T.I.E.T. to reserve 2% of the seats for the wards of the G
employees of the T.I.E.T. and the Patiala Technical Education Trost and
5% of seats for the children of employees in the Thapar Polytechnic and
the Patiala Technical Education Trust was also impermissible. Therefore,
the directions contained in letter of the State Government dated 16.9.1991,
being in consonance witi, the said decisions, have been rightly upheld by
the High Court. [845-G-H; 846·A·D] H
834 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A J.P. Vnni Krishnan & Ors. v. State of A.P. & Ors., [1993] 1 SCC 645
and Chainnan/Director, Combined Entrance Examination (CEE) 1990 v.
Osi1is Das & Ors., [1992] 3 SCC 543, relied on.

3. As regards Writ Petition No. 507 of 1995 the direction contained
in the Memo dated 6.6.1995 does not suffer from any infirmity.
B
4. In dealing with this question the approach of this Court has been
that such preferential treatment must be consistent with the mandate of
Article 14 of the Constitution guaranteeing equality of opportunity and
that though reasonable classification is permissible, such classification
C must have a reasonable nexus "ith the object of the rules providing such
admission, namely, to select the most meritorious amongst the candidates
to have advantage of such education. Appl~ing this test this Court has
struck down, as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, provision for
allotment of seats in medical college in the State amongst the various
D districts in the State in the ratio of the population of each district to the
total population of the State. University wise distribution of seats has,
however, been upheld on the ground that the universities are set up for
satisf~ng the educational needs of different areas where they are set up
and those attached to such universities have their ambitions to have
training in specialised subjects like medicine satisfied through colleges
E attached to their own universities. It has been laid down that university
wise preferential treatment may be consistent with the rule of equality of
opportunity where it is calculated to correct an imbalance or handicap and
permit equality in the larger sense. This Court has insisted that while
nominating candidates for admission the concerned authority should fol-
F low the criterion of merit and have viewed with disfavour the conferment
of discretion in this regard on the founder of the institution or the
person/persons in management of the institution. (838-F-H; 839-A-C]

J.P. Vnni Krishnan & Ors. v. State of A.P. & Ors., [1993] 1 SCC 645;
State of Gujarat v. Meghji Pethraj Shah Charitable Trust & Ors., [1994] 3
G SCC 552; Chaim1an/Director, Combined Entrance Examination (CEE) 1990
v. Osiris Das & Ors., [1992] 3 SCC 543; Minor P. Rajendran v. S!ate of
Madras & Ors., [1968] 2 SCR 786;A. Peeriakaruppan v.State of Tamil Nadu
& Ors., [1971] 2 SCR 430; D.N. Chan cha/a v. State of Mysore & Ors., [1971]
Supp. SCR 608; Jagadish Saran & Ors. v. Union of India & 01'., [1980] 2
H SCR 831; Suman Gupta & Ors. v. State of J&K & 01'., [1983] 3 SCR 985;
THAPARINSIT.OFENGG.ANDTECHNOLOOY "·STATE [S.CAGRAWALJ.) 835

K Sujatha v. Marathawada University & Ors., [1995] Supp. 1 SCC 155; A
. Chitra Ghosh & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., [1970] l SCR 413 and Umesh
Ch. Sinha v. VN. Singh, Principal P.M. C. & Hospital & Ors., ILR 46 Pat 616,
referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 15576 of 1996 Etc. B
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.9.94 of the Punjab & Haryana
High Court in W.P. No. 1745 of 1992.

Kapil Sibal, L.K. Pandey and V.N. Raghupathy for the Appellants. C
G.K. Bansal, Nidesh Gupta and H.S. Munjral for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.C. AGRAWAL, J. Special leave granted in S.L.Ps. (C) Nos. 10132 D
of 1995 and 10224 of 1995.

These appeals and the writ petition raise common questions relating
to reservation of seats for wards of employees in the matter of admission
to institutions imparting technical education. The appeals are directed
against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated E
September 2, 1994. We will first take up the appeals.

Civil Appeal No. 4101 of 1995 relates to the Tecbnological Institute
of Textile and Science at Bhiwani i!l the State of Haryana (for Short 'the
T.I.T. & S.'). The T.I.T. & S. is a society registered under the West Bengal
Societies Registration Act, 1961. It is running a technical institute which F
imparts education/training in Textile Technology, Textile Chemistry, Com-
puter Science and Management Science leading to the award of B.Tech/M.
Tech./M.M.S. Degrees. The T.I.T. & S. is affiliated to the Maharshi
Dayanand University, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-
University'). The T.I.T. & S. also owns and runs a textile mill under the G
same roof employing about 1500 workers wherein the students receive
practical training under the actual mill working conditions. The normal
intake in the B.Tech. Course of the T.I.T. & S. is 90 students each year and
admission to these 90 seats is made according to merit on the basis of a
competitive entrance test conducted by the respondent-University. In addi-
tion to the aforesaid 90 seats, the T.I.T. & S. has provided four additional H
836 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A seats for the wards of the employees of the appellant-Institute. These seats 0

. are available to the wards of only those employees who have put in
minimum 10 years service in the T.I.T. & S.. Two of these four seats are
available in Computer Science and the other two in Textiles. Out of these
four seats two seats are earmarked for college staff and two seats for
milVschool staff. As per the rules prescribed for admission effective since
B academic session 1991-92, in order to be eligible for admission the can-
didate is required to have at least 60% marks in the aggregate of three
subjects (Physics, Chemistry and Maths) at 10 + 2 examination and admis-
sion is to be made. on the basis of merit to be earned according to the
marks secured in the Entrance Examination conducted by the respondent-
C University. Seats earmarked for college and mill/school staff can be inter-
changed in case there is no eligible candidate in one particular group and
if a seat allotted for Computer Course is not desired by the allottee, he shall
be offered a seat in the Textile Course and, if any seat remains vacant, the
requirement of service period may be relaxed with prior approval of the
Chairman of the Society. Normally this facility for wards of the staff is
D available for one seat for one employee's child but in no case it can be
extended to more than two children. The wards of the employees who secure
admission on their own merit or on reserved seats of wards are eligible for
freeship. The T.I.T. & S. does not receive any financial aid either from the
State Government or the Central Government or the respondent-University
or any other local authority. By letter dated July 15, 1993, the respondent-
E University conveyed its decision not to permit the T.I.T. & S. to continue
with the reservation of seats for the wards of the staff of the T.l.T. & S. in
the B. Tech Course in view of the judgment of this Court in J.P. Unni
Krishnan and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, (1993] 1 SCC
645, and the T.I.T. & S. was directed not to make any admission under this
F category. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the respondent-University,
the T.I.T. & S. filed a Writ Petition (C.W.P. No. 9296 of 1993) in the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana which has been dismissed by the impugned
judgment of the High Court dated September 2, 1994.

Civil Appeals arising out of S.L.Ps. Nos. 10132 of 1995 and 10224 of
G 1995 relate to the Thapar Institute of Engineering & Technology, Patiala
(for short 'the T.I.E.T.') and the Thapar Polytechnic which have been
established and are being run by the Patiala Technical Education Trust. . '
As per declaration of the Central Government dated December 30, 1985
under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, the
H T.I.E.T. is deemed to be a university for the purpose of the said Act. The
TIIAPARINSIT.OFENGG.ANDTECHNOLOGY '·STAIB (S.C.AGRAWALJ.] 837

T.I.E.T. imparts education at the Graduate and Post-Graduate level. At A
the under-graduate level it awards degree in Bachelor of Engineering an.cl
at the post-graduate level it awards the degree in Master of Engineering.
In the T.I.E.T. there are 180 seats in various courses for award of degree
in Bachelor of Engineering. 2% seats are reserved for the children of
employees of the T.I.E.T. and the Patiala Technical Education Trust and B
5% seats are reserved for the children of employees of Thapar Group of
Companies. The candidates for these seats are to be sponsored by the
Patiala Technical Education trust. The T.I.E.T. receives maintenance
grants for running expenses from the Government of Punjab. The Thapar
Polytechnic conducts three year courses. Admission to these courses is
made on the basis of merit to be determined in Joint Competitive Entrance
c
Test conducted by the Punjab Government through Punjab School Educa-
tion Board. Provision is, however, made for reservation of 2% seats for
wards of employees of the T.I.E.T. and the Thapar Polytechnic to be
nominated by the Patiala Technical Education Trust. The nomination is
made on the basis of relative merits of candidate but the nominated D
'candidates are not required to appear in the Common Entrance Test. The
Poiytechnic receives grant for running expenses from the State Govern-
ment. The Government of Punjab, by its letter dated September 16, 1991
addressed to the Director of Technical Education and Industrial Training,
Punjab, communicated that in view of the pronouncement of the High E
Court of Punjab and Haryana that reservations in admission are dis-
criminatory and unconstitutional, reservation in admission for wards of
employees working in the Department/Institutions cannot be justified on
the plea that it is done as a measure of welfare and that the Government
had decided that with effect from the academic session 1991-92 onwards F
there shall be no reservation in admissions for wards of employees of
Department/Institutions and that such reservations, wherever stipulated in
(a) Diploma level courses in Government/Private aided/Private unaided
Institutions affiliated with the State Board of Technical Education, and (b)
Certificate level courses in all such like Institutions under the purview of G
the Industrial Training wing of the said Department, shall stand cancelled
with immediate effect. As regards Degree level courses in such like Institu-
tions, falling within the purview of the said Department and affiliated with
State Board of Technical Education, it was directed that since admission
had already been finalised for the academic session 1991-92, the decision
H
838 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A would be applicable in their case with effect from the next academic year,
i'.e., 1992-93. The T.I.E.T. filed a Writ Petition (Writ Petition No. 1745 of
1992) in the High .Court and another Writ Petition (Writ Petition No. 1744
of 1992) was filed by the Patiala Technical Education Trust assailing the
said order of the Government of Punjab dated September 16, 1991. Both
B these Writ Petitions have been dismissed by the impugned judgment of the
High Court dated September 2, 1994.

The High Court has held that in view of the decision of this Court
in J.P. Unni Kiishanan & Ors. (supra) no quota can be reserved for the
management or for any family, caste or community which may have estab-
C lished the college. The High Court has rejected the contention that J.P.
Unni Kiishnan (supra) was not applicable. The High Court has also placed
reliance on the decisions of this Court State of Gujarat v. Meghji Pethraj
Shah Charitable Trust & Ors., [1994] 3 SCC 552 and Chairman/Director,
Combined Entrance Examination (CEE) 1990 v. Osiris Das & Ors., [1992]
D 3 sec 543, and has held that the orders impugned in the writ petitions do
not suffer from any illegality or unconstitutionality.

In the context of admission to an institution imparting higher educa-
tion in professional courses a question has often arisen whether the State
can make provision giving preferential treatment to candidates seeking
E admission to the institution. In dealing with this question the approach of
this Court has been that such preferential treatment must be consistent
with the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution guaranteeing equality
of opportunity and that though reasonable classification is permissible,
such classification must have a reasonable nexus with object of the rules
F providing such admission, namely, to select the most meritorious amongst
the candidates to have advantage of such education. Applying this test this
Court has struck dcwn, as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution,
provision for allotment of seats in medical college in the State amongst
the various districts in the State in the ratio of the population of each
district to the total population of the State. (See : Minor P. Rajendran v.
G State of Madras & Ors., [1968] 2 SCR 786. Similar provision for distribution
of seats on unit basis was also struck down. (See : A. Peeriakaruppan, Etc.
v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., [1971] 2 SCR 430. University wise distribu-
tion of seats has, however, been upheld on the ground that the universities
are set up for satisfying the educational needs of different areas where they
H are set up and those attached to such universities have their ambitions to
TI!APARl~.OFENGG.ANDTECHNOLOOY '·STATE (S.CAGRAWAL,J.) 839

have training in specialised subjects like medicine satisfied through colleges A
attached to their own universities. (See : D.N. Chancha/a v. State of Mysore
& Ors. Etc., (1971] Supp. SCR 608. It has been laid down that university
wise preferential treatment may be consistent with the rule of equality of
opportunity where it is calculated to correct an imbalance or handicap and
permit equality in the larger sense. (See : Jagdish Saran & Ors. v. Union of B
India & Ors., (1980] 2 SCR 831, at p.849.

The Court has insisted that while nominating candidates for admis-
sion the concerned authority should follow the criterion of merit and has
viewed with disfavour the conferment of discretion in this regard on the
founder of the institution or the person/persons in management of the C
institution. In Suman Gupta & Ors. Etc. v. State of J&K & Ors., (1983] 3
SCR 985, there was an arrangement among some of the States under which
a certain percentage of the seats in Medical Colleges was reserved for
candidates from other States on a reciprocal basis. The nominations made
by the State Governments against these seats were challenged on the D
ground that the same were made by the State Governments in their
absolute and arbitrary discretion. It was held that the principle adopted by
the State Governments of nominating candidates in their absolute and
unfettered choice to seats in medical colleges outside the State was invalid
being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court directed the
Medical Council of India to formulate a proper constitutional basis for E
determining the selection of candidates for nomination to seats in medical
colleges outside the State and that until a policy is so formulated and concrete
criteria are embodied in the procedure selected, the nominations shall be
made by selecting candidat.es strictly on the basis of merit, the candidate
nominated being those, in order of merit, immediately below the candidates F
selected for admission to the medical colleges of the home States. Similarly,
in K Sujatha v. Marathawada University & Ors., (1995] Supp. (1) SCC 155,
admission of 20% of the seats was at the discretion of the management of
the medical college. It was argued that these seats were not the open merit
seats. Rejecting the said contention, it was held that there cannot be
different eligibility rules for candidates admitted from different sources. G

In J.P. Unni Krishnan (supra) a Constitution Bench of this court was
dealing with admission to private unaided/aided recognised/affiliated
educational institutions conducting professional courses such as medical,
engineering courses etc. and charging of the capitation fees by the manage- H
840 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A ment of the institution for the purpose of admission. As regards aided
institutions it was held they have to abide by tbe rules and regulations as
may be framed by the Government and/or recognising/affiliating authorities
in the matter of recruitment of teachers and staff, their conditions of
service, syllabus, standard of teaching and so on and, in particular, in the
matter of admission of students, they have to follow the rule of merit and
B
merit alone subject to any reservation made under Article 15 and they shall
not be entitled to charge any fees higher than what is charged in
Governmental institutions for similar courses (p. 749). As regards unaided
institutions which are recognised/affiliated it was held that it may not be
insisted that the private educational institution shall charge only that fee as
C i; charged for similar courses in governmental institutions and that private
educational institutions are entitled to charge a higher fee not exceeding
the ceiling fixed in that behalf since they have to meet the cost of imparting
education on their own resources and the main source apart from dona-
tions/charities, if any, can only be the fees collected from the students. At
D the same time, it was laid down :

"No private educational institution can survive or subsist without
recognition and/or affiliation. The bodies which grant recognition
and/or affiliation are the authorities of the State. In such a situa-
tion, it is obligatory - in the interest of general public - upon the
E authority granting recognition or affiliation to insist upon such
conditions as are appropriate to ensure not only education of
requisite standard but also fairness and equal treatment in the
matter of admission of student. Since the recognising/affiliating
authority is the State, it is under an obligation to impose such
F conditions as part of its duty enjoined upon it by Article 14 of tbe
Constitution. It cannot allow itself or its power and privilege to be
used unfair!). The incidents attaching to the main activities attach
to supplemental activity ~s well. Affiliation/recognition is not there
for anybody to get it gratis or unconditionally. In our opinion, no
Government, authority or University is justified or is entitled to
G grant recognition/affiliation without imposing such conditions.
Doing so would amount to abdicating its obligations enjoined upon
it by part III; its activity is bound to be characterised as uncon-
stitutional and illegal. To reiterate, what applies to the main activity
applies equally to supplemental activity. The State cannot claim
H immunity from the obligations arising from Articles 14 and 15. If
TIIAPARIKSIT.OFENGG.ANDTECHNOLOGY '·STATE [S.C.AGRAWAL,J.] 841

so, it cannot confer such immunity upon its affiliates." [p.755] A

In J.P. Unni Krishnan (supra) this Court has evolved a scheme which
every authority granting recognition/affiliation shall impose upon the in-
stitutions seeking such recognition/affiliation. It has been observed that the
idea behind the scheme is to eliminate discretion in the management
altogether in the matter of admission because it is the discretion in the B
matter of admission that is at the root of the several ills complained of.
The scheme is in the nature of guidelines which the appropriate Govern-
ments and recognising and affiliating authorities are required to impose
and implement in addition to such other conditions and stipulations as they
may think appropriate as conditions for grant of permission, grant of C
recognition or grant of affiliation, as the case may be. The scheme postu-
lates that at least 50% of the seats in every professional college shall be
filled by the nominees of the Government or University, as the case may
be, and the students for these seats shall be selected on the basis of merit
determined on the basis of a common entrance examination where it is held
or in the absence of an entrance examination, by such criteria as may be D
determined by the competent authority or the appropriate authority, as the
case may be. The remaining 50% seats shall be filled by those candidates
who are prepared to pay the fee prescribed therefor and who have com-
plied with the instructions regarding deposit and furnishing the cash
security/Bank guarantee for the balance of the amount. As regards 'pay-
ment seats' it has been prescribed : E

"The allotment of students against payment seats shall also be done
on the basis of inter se merit determined on the same basis as in
the case of free seats. There shall be no quota reserved for the
management or for any family, caste or community which may have
established such college." (p.758)
F

The aforesaid requirement in the scheme evolved by this Court in
J.P. Unni Krishnan (supra) that the admission to professional colleges shall
be made on the basis of merit gives effect to the law laid down by this
Court that admission in professional colleges must be made on the basis G
of merit so as to secure the best possible talent.

In the State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Meghji Pethraj Shah Charitable Trust
& Ors. (supra), the M.P. Shah Medical College was established in Jamnagar
in 1954 by the then State of Saurashtra and Shri M.P. Shah had donated
Rs. 15 lakhs for establishing the college. Initially the College had 60 seats ,H
842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A and as per the arrangement between Shri M.P. Shah and the then Chief
Minister of the State, Shri Shah was entitled to nominate students for
admission to the extent of 10% of the total strength admitted every year
and this arrangement was to continue on permanent basis. In course of
time, the annual intake of students in the college rose to 175 and in 1964
the Government of Gujarat decided to reserve 12 seats for nominees of the
-
B donor and in the meanwhile Shri Shah had designated the M.P. Shah
Charitable Trust as his nominee. After the decision in J.P. Unni Krishnan,
(supra), the Government of Gujarat resolved to discontinue the 12 donor
seats in the M.P. Shah Medical College. the Trust filed a writ petition in
the Gujarat High Court challenging the validity of the said resolution of
C the Government of Gujarat which was allowed. The said decision of the
High Court was reversed by this Court and the resolution of the Govern-
ment of Gujarat was upheld. It was observed :

"Now, where an individual or an Organisation which establishes
and runs a medical college (recognised by State or affiliated to a
D university) is not entitled, according to Unni Krishnan to admit
students on its own, or in its discretion, it is inconceivable that a
person or a body which has assisted in setting up of a government
medical college would be permitted to have a quota of its own to
which it can nominate students of its own choice. There is no room
for. such an arrangement in law" (p.566)
E
Shri Kapil Sibal, the learned senior counsel appearing for the T.l.T.
& S. in Civil Appeal No. 4101 of 1995, has urged that it is permissible to
make reservation for the wards of the employees in the institution for the
purpose of admission to the institution since the T.l.T. & S. is an unaided
institution. He has placed reliance on the following observations of this
F Court in Chitra Ghosh & Another v. Union of India and Others, [1970] 1
SCR 413:

"It is the Central Government which bears the fmancial burden of
running the medical college. It is for it to lay down the criteria for
eligibility. From the very nature of things it is not possible to throw
G
the admission open to students from all the country. The Govern-
ment cannot be denied the right to decide from what sources the
admission will be made. That essentiality is a question of policy
and depends inter alia on an overall assessment and survey of the
requirements of residents of particular territories and other
H categories of persons for whom it is essential to provide facilities
TIIAPARINSIT.OFENGG.ANDTECHNOLOGY '·STAIB (S.CAGRAWAL,J.] 843

for medical education. If the sources are properly classified A
whether on territorial, geographical or other reasonable basis it is
not for the courts to interfere with the manner and method of
making the classification." (pp.418, 419)

The said contention of the learned counsel and his reliance on the
observations in Chitra Ghosh (supra) proceed on a misapprehension about B
the correct position. In the cases in hand, we are not required to consider
the validity of grant of preferential treatment to the wards of employees in
the institution in the matter of admission by the State, as defined in Article
12 of the Constitution. It is a converse case. Here the State, viz., the
Maharashi Dayanand University, has directed the T.l.T. & S. not to give
such preferential treatment and the validity of the said direction is being
c
challenged by the institution. In giving the impugned direction the respon-
dent- University is only giving effect to the law laid down by this Court in
J.P. Unni Krishnan (supra) regarding admission to unaided educational
institutions. Since the T.I.T. & S. is affiliated with it the respondent-Univer-
sity as the affiliating authority is bound to ensure that in the matter of D
admission to the institution there is no violation of the right to equality of
opportunity guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution.

In Chitra Ghosh (supra) this Court was dealing with validity of
reservation of certain number of seats in a medical coliege run by the
Central Government for candidates falling in specified categories and E
admission was to be made against those seats on the basis of nomination
by the Central Govermnent. The admission of the students on the basis of
nomination by the Central Goverrunent was challenged on the ground that
these students had obtained less percentage of marks than the appellants
in that case and reliance was placed on the Judgment of the Full Bench of
the Patna High Court in Umesh Ch. Sinha v. V.N. Singh, Principa~ P.M.C. F
& Hospital & Ors., !LR 46 Patna 616, where preferential treatment had
been given to the employees of the Patna University in the matter of
admission to the Patna Medical College and the High Court had held that
there was no reasonable nexus between the principle governing admission
to the college on the one hand and the precunniary difficulties or the G
meritorious services rendered by the employees of the Patna University on
·~
the other and that preferential treatment to the children of these employees
would amount to favouritism and patronage. Distinguishing the said
decision of the Patna High Court, this Court has said :

"There is no question of any preferential treatment being accorded H
844 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A to any particular category or class of persons desirous of receiving
medical education in the present case. The mere fact that the
Central Government has to make the nominations with regard to
the reserved seats cannot be considered to be preferential treat-
ment of any kind. As the candidates for the reserved seats have to
be drawn from different sources it would be difficult to have
B uniformity in the matter of selection from amongst them. The High
Court was right in saying that standards of the examinations passed
by them, the subjects studied by them and the educational back-
ground of each of them would be different and divergent and
therefore the Central Government was the appropriate authority
which could make a proper selection out of those categories.
c Moreover, this is being done with the facit approval and consent
of the Medical Courses Admission Committee."

(pp. 419, 420)

D The question whether reservation in the matter of admission is
permissible for wards of employees of the institution was considered by this
Court in Chaimian/Director, combined Entrance Examination (CEE) 1990
v. Osiris Das & Ors. (supra). It relates to the G.B. Pant University, which
is aided and financed by the government of U .P. The Government of U .P.
had issued a notification directing that admission of the students to the
E various Engineering Institutions in the State shall be made in order of merit
and through a Combined Entrance Examination to be conducted by an
Admission Committee. The G.B. Pant University made pro,ision for
reserving 5% seats over and above the sanctioned strength of seats for sons
and wards of the employees of the University for admission to the B.Tech
course. The State Government insisted that any such reservation was not
F justified and would be contrary to constitutional provisions. The University
accepted the said directions issued by the State Government and decided
to do away with the reservation. In writ petitions filed by the students who
failed to qualify for admission in the general category of candidates and
were claiming admission against the reserved quota, interim orders were
G passed by the Allahabad High Court for giving provisional admission.
Setting aside the said orders of the High Court, this Court has held :

"There is no dispute that the G.B. Pant University is aided and
financed by the State Government and the University is an in-
strnmentality of the State. Any instrumentality of the State cannot
H give preferential treatment to a class of persons without there being
TIIAPARINSTI.OFENGG.ANDTECHNOLOGY '·STATE [S.C.AGRAWAf.J.] 845

any justification for the same. The reservation of seats for admis- A
sion to the B. Tech course in favour of the sons and wards of the
employees of the University is violative of the doctrine of equality
enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution. There is no rational
for the reservation oi the seats in favour of the sons and wards of
the employees of the University nor any such reservation has any
rational nexus with the object which is sought to be achieved by B
the University. The State Government, in our opinion, rightly
insisted on the University to do away with the reservations in favour
of the sons and wards of the employees."

(pp. 545, 546) c
In so far as Civil Appeal No. 4101 of 1995 is concerned, the letter of
respondent-University dated January 15, 1993 directing the T.I.T. & S. not
to continue with the reservation of seats for wards of the staff of the T.I.T.
& S. in the B. Tech. Course was taken in pursuance of the decision of this
Court in J.P. Unni Krishnan (supra) and is in consonance with the law laid D
down in Chainnan/Director, Combined Entrance Examination (CEE) 1990
v. Osiris Das & Ors. (supra) since the T.I.T. & S. is affiliated to the
respondent-University. It is no doubt true that the four additional seats for
which reservation was made for the wards of the college and mi!Vschool
staff of the T.I.T. & S. are in addition to 90 seats and admission is made
E
on the basis of marks obtained in the Entrance Examination conducted by
the respondent-University. But for the purpose of admission to these four
seats a separate merit list is drawn in respect of the candidates who are
eligible for these seats and admission is not made according to merit as
reflected in the common merit list. Such reservation in favour of wards of
the college and mi!Vschool staff of the T.I.T. & S. does not satisfy the test F
of admission being given strictly on the basis of merit as laid down by this
Court and has been rightly held to be impermissible by the High Court.
The said appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

In Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 10132 of 1995 there
was reservation to the extent of 2% of seats for wards of the employees of G
the T.I.E.T. and the Patiala Technical Education Trust and there was
reservation to the extent of 5% of seats for wards of the employees of the
Thapar group of industries. In Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.
10224 of 1995, there was reservation to the extent of 2% of seats for wards
of employees in the Thapar Polytechnic and the Patiala Technical Educa- H
846 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A tion Trust. The T.l.E.T. and the Thapar Polytechnic receive maintenance
grants from the Government of Punjab and are Government aided educa-
tional institutions. It is no doubt true that the T.l.E.T. has been declared
to be a "deemed university" by the Central government under the provisions
of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. But this does not mean
B that it is permissible for the T.I.E.T. to depart from the principle laid down
by this Court that admission should be made strictly on the basis of merit.
The position of the T.l.E.T., a deemed University, cannot be better than
that of the G.B. Pant University which is a full fledged University and in
view of the decision of this Court in Chainnan/Director, Combined Entrance
Examination (CEE) 1990 v. Osiris Das & Ors., (supra) it must be held that
C it was not permissible for the T.l.E.T. to reserve 2% of the seats for the
wards of the employee of the T .I.E.T .•and the Patiala Technical Education
Trust and 5% of seats for the children of employees in the Thapar group
of industries. The reservation of 2% of seats in the Thapar Polytechnic for
wards of employees in the Thapar Polytechnic and the Patiala Technical
D Education Trust was also impermissible in view of the law laid down by
this Court in J.P. Unni Krishnan (supra) and Chainnan/Director, Combined
Entrance Examination (CEE) 1990 v. Osiris Das & Ors. (supra). The
directions contained in letter of the Government of Punjab dated Septem-
ber 16, 1991, being in consonance with the said decisions, have been rightly
upheld by the High Court and both the appeals are, therefore, liable to be
E dismissed.

Writ Petition No. 507 of 1995 has been jointly filed by the T.I.E.T.
and the Patiala Technical Education Trust under Article 32 of the Con-
stitution for quashing Memo dated June 6, 1995 addressed by the Director,
F Technical Education and Industrial Training, Punjab (Technical Education
Wing) to the Co-ordinator, Punjabi University, Punjab and a copy is
endorsed to the Director of the T.l.E.T.. In the said Memo dated June 6,
1995, issued by the Director of Technical Education and Industrial Train-
ing, Punjab, to the Punjabi University, Patiala, it is stated that reservation
proposed by the T.l.E.T. in respect of 10 seats under paragraph 3(d) of
G the Brochure-cum-Application form for admission on CET - 1995 provid-
ing for 10 seats for Thapar Organisation is not legally sustainable and
should not be reflected in the Admission Brochure and reference has been
made to the judgment in J.P. Unni Krishnan (supra). The said Memo is
challenged in the writ petition on the ground that the T.l.E.T. is a "deemed
1
H university" under the University Grants Commission Act and that the
TIIAPARINSIT.OFENGG.ANDTECHNOLOOY v. STAIB [S.CAGRAWAl.,J.) 847

decision in J.P. Unni Krishnan (supra) has no application to university A
employees. While dealing with Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.
10132 of 1995, we have considered this submission and have held that the
such reservation of seats in the T.l.E.T. is not permissible. For the same
reasons, it must be held that the direction contained in the Memo dated
June 6, 1995 does not suffer from any infirmity and the Writ Petition is also B
liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the Civil Appeals as well as the Writ petition are
dismissed. But in the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.

v.s.s. Appeals and Petition dismissed.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "reservation"Sign in to search