D.A.DESAI - (1.) AS the matter brooked no delay. at the conclusion of the arguments, the Court pronounced the following, order reserving reasons to be given at a later date. "The petitions succeed to the extent herein indicated. Let a writ be issued quashing reservation of 25 seats in favour of candidates coming from Rural Areas and educated in Common Rural School for admission to MBBS Course 1982 at Medical College, Rohtak affiliated to Maharishi Dayanand University. Consequently the respondents are directed to admit in 1st MBBS Course of the 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 should be drawn up according to merits, for the year 1982. The respondents are directed to work out the admission as per the direction herein made before 31/05/1983 and give intimation to the students who become eligible for admission. There will be no order as to costs. Reasons to follow." Here are the reasons.
(2.) IN this group of petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution. the petitioners questioned the validity and legality of reservation of 25 seats for candidates coming from rural areas for admission to First MBBS/BDS 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 12/06/1982 inviting applications for appearing at an Entrance Test for selecting candidates for admission to MBBS/BDS Course, 1982. IN this prospectus, reserved seats were shown as under : "(A) RESERVED SEATS: JUDGEMENT_296_4_1984Html1.htm (i) Out of these 5 are reserved for girls, 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: 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. For this purpose a certificate is required to be submitted which may be seen in Appendix 'C'. ... " IN short out of a total of 148 seats available for admission. 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 challenge 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, unintelligible 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 Medical Faculty even the student coming from rural areas and having been educated in common rural school from 1st to 8th standard would have taken further education for a period of 4 Years before seeking admission to the medical college. It was therefore said that earlier education from 1st 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 urban schools or those educated in common rural schools were required 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 educated in common rural schools cannot as a class be said to be socially and educationally backward and therefore, the reservation would not satisfy the test prescribed by Art. 15 (4) of the Constitution. The petitioners aver that the syllabus for 1st 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 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 the whole country is residing in rural areas and the reservation in favour of majority would be void ab initio. Lastly, it was said that the classification apart from being arbitrary and irrational does not satisfy the twin test of it being based on intelligible differentia and having any nexus to the objects sought to be achieved. The petitioners say that some from amongst respondent 5 to 49 have been admitted against reservation for candidates coming from rural areas and even though the petitioners had obtained higher marks at the entrance examination 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 reconsider the eligibility for admission after ignoring the reservation in favour of students from rural areas. Mr. K. L. Guglani, Registrar of the University filed his affidavit-in-opposition inter alia 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 imbalance in the matter of admissions to medical college, the Government of Haryana had carried out a sample survey of the comparative facility/inequalities 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-availability 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 year in such schools with consequent disadvantages in their academic achievement as compared to children in the urban schools where the academic sessions go undisturbed by extreme summer or rainy season. The sample survey further revealed that most of the common rural schools are ill-housed, ill-staffed and ill-equipped. There is no provision for regular medical check-up of students at any common rural school resulting in the neglect for the 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 schools premises just in time to take the classes and leave soon after the shool time is over thus denying the establishment 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 sorely needed for rural population. In order to correct this imbalance and the utter handicap felt by the students studying in common rural schools, students seeking admission were divided into two different classes based on intelligible differentia and that if the object of medical education is to extend medical facilities where they are needed the most reservation for candidates coming from rural areas would achieve the object and therefore, the State Government 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 respondents 1to 3 which appears to be a carbon copy of the affidavit filed by the Registrar Mr. Guglani.
(3.) 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 attempt 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 tribes. THE respondents contended that the reservation of 25 seats for candidates coming from rural areas is valid and can be sustained under Art. 14 of the Constitution. THErefore, the question is: whether the classification between the students educated in urban schools and common rural schools is based on any intelligible differentia which has a rational nexus to the objects sought to be achieved? It is well settled that Art. 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification in the matter of legislation. In order to sustain the classification permissible under Art. 14, it has 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 achieved by the impugned provision.;