INDER MOHAN NAGAR Vs. DTE OF TRAINING T E

JUDGEMENT

(1.) [Ed. facts ; Respdt. 1 is an Office of Delhi Adm. (Respdt. 2). It is running 4 Polytechnics at G.T. Road, Okhla and at Pusa. At G.T. Road and Okhia there are 30 seats each for evening course in Electrical Engg. Petitioner applied for same and his position was 21st in merit list. At Okhia there is 100% reservation for Sch. Castes & Tribes. So petitioner was not given admission. He has challenged constitutional validity of this reservation. Respdt. no. 3. Director of Dte. filed affidavit saying that the seats at Okhia were newly created for Sch. Castes & Tribes and hence reservation for them.] After detailing above judgment proceeds :

(2.) Counsel for the respondents has argued that in view of Art. 15 (4) read with Art. 46 of the Constitution the respondents were fully justified in creating cent per cent seats in its institutions for giving training to the candidates belonging to the said lower strata of the society. It is, no doubt, a laudable object that the State should endeavour to create more and more opportunities which should enable the lower strata of the society to equip itself in joining the main stream of the society for earning a better livelihood. It is the duty of the welfare State like ours to try to ameliorate the social conditions of all sections of the society. But in view of the paucity of resources the State has to strike a balance. It cannot be the object of the State that the vast sections who are in majority should be deprived of the facilities and amenities completely in order to give all the benefits to the lower strata of the society so that the citizens belonging to the lower strata of the society should come up in life while the citizens belonging to other sections of the society should completely go down to the poverty line. In view of these conflicting areas, the highest Court lias laid down in a number of judgments that there cannot be given a complete go by to Art. 15 (1) of the Constitution taking resort to the exception incorporated in Art. 15(4). It has been laid down that by taking resort to Art. 15 (4) read with Art. 46 of the Constitution the State can provide for reservation of seats for Scheduled Tribe candidates and also candidates belonging to other backward classes to the extent of 50% seats. All important decision given by the Supreme Court on the point is M.R. Balajl vs. State of Mysore. AIR 1963 SC 659. unanimously. The Supreme Court observed : "......A special provision contemplated by Article 15(4) like reservation of posts and appointments contemplated by Article 16(4) must be within reasonable limits. The interests of weaker sections of society which are a first charge on the Stales and the Centre have to be adjusted with the interests of the community as a whole. The adjustment of these competing claims is undoubtedly a difficult matter, but if under the guise of making a special provision a State reserves practically all the seats available in all the colleges, that clearly would be subverting the object of Article 15 (4). In this matter again, we are reluctant to say definitely what would be a proper provision to make. Speaking generally anil in a broad way, a special provision should be less than 50 per cent ; how much less than 50 percent would depend upon the relevant prevailing circumstances in each case. In this particular case it is remarkable that when the State issued its orders on July 10, 1961, it emphatically expressed its opinion that the reservation of 68% recommended by the Nagan Gowda Committee would not be in the larger interests of the State. What happened between July 10, 1961 and July 31, 1962, does not appear on the record. But the State changed its mind and adopted the recomendation of the Committee ignoring its earlier decision that the said recommendation was contrary to the larger interests of the State. In our opinion when the State makes a special provision for the advancement of the weaker sections of society specified in Article 15 (4) it has to approach its task objectively and in a rational manner. Undoubtedly it has to take reasonable and even generous steps to help the advancement of weaker elements, the extent of the problem must be weighed, the requirements of the community at large must be borne in mind and a formula must be evolved which would strike a reasonable balance between the several relevant consideration. Therefore, we are satified that the reservation of 68% directed by the impugned order is plainly inconsistent with Article 15(4)......"

(3.) In T. Devadasan v. U.O.I. AIR 1964 SC 179, the Supreme Court had even gone to the extent of laying down that even if certain seats reserved for backward classes are not filled in, even then when vacancies arise in a particular year the rule of 50% reservation to the maximum has to be followed. Counsel for the respondents has made reference to State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas AIR 1976 SC 490 and Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v. U.O.I. AIR 1981 SC 298, in support of his arguments that the ratio laid down in case of Balaji (supra) and Devadasan (supra) stands whittled down by the pronouncement in the said later decisions of the Supreme Court. I need not go in detail and discuss the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court because fortunately all these judgments came up for consideration before a F.B. of A.P. High Court in V. Narayana Rao v. State of A.P. AIR 1987 A.P. 53, and all these judgments were discussed in detail and elaborate reasons have been given which 1 need not reproduce for coming to the conclusion that the ratio of law laid down in the cases of Balaji (supra) and Devadasan (supra) still holds the field. I entirely endorse the reasoning given in the aforesaid judgement.