VEENA VADINI TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTE (RUN BY VEENA VADINI SAMAJ KALYAN VIKASH SAMITI) versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. on 28 April 2023

106

[2023] 4 S.C.R.

AVEENA VADINI TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTE (RUN BYVEENA VADINI SAMAJ KALYAN VIKASH SAMITI)

v.

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.

B(Civil Appeal No. 3177 of 2023)

APRIL 28, 2023

[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.]

Constitution of India – Art. 14, 15 and 19(1)(g) – ReservationC– Appellant-Institute trained teachers for B.Ed. and M.Ed. courses– Appellant challenged a government policy (called “AdmissionProcess and Guiding Principles 2022-2023”) before the High Court– Appellant’s challenge was mainly based on clause 1.5(a) of thepolicy, which allocates the B.Ed seats in the institute – As per whichD75% of seats this Course reserved for “residents of MadhyaPradesh” and remaining 25% seats for candidates outside the State– Appellant alleged that that Institute is facing difficulties in makingadmissions to this course, as although the entire 25 percent seatsallocated to the “outside” candidates have been filled, but almostEall of the 75 percent of seats, reserved for the residents, haveremained unfilled – The High Court dismissed the writ filed by theappellant – On appeal, the main issue was, whether the StateGovernment could reserve seats for ‘residents’ of the State and, incase if it is permissible; whether 75% of the total seats, can bereserved for the residents – Held: As per Pradeep Jain caseFreservation in favour of residents is permissible, yet reservation tothe extent of 75% of the total seats makes it a wholesale reservation,which has been held in Pradeep Jain case to be unconstitutional andviolative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India – Large percentageof seats reserved for the residents of State which remains unfilled isGnot serving any purpose, rather it frustrates the very purpose ofthe reservation – Directed State to consider the observations laiddown in the present case and to fix number of seats again forresidents and non-residents, from the next academic year.

H

Disposing of the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. There are two questions here; first is whetherthe State Government can reserve seats for “residents” ofMadhya Pradesh and, then, in case if it is permissible; the secondquestion would be whether as large as 75% of the total seats,can be reserved for the residents. [Para 7][111-E]

2. As far as the first question is concerned, the same is nomore res integra, as this Court in the case of Dr. Pradeep Jainand Others v. Union of India and Others (1984) 3 SCC 654, hadupheld such reservation. In the case at hand, this Court is notdealing with medical education, but with the validity of reservationbased on residence requirement in a professional education coursei.e. B.Ed. In our considered opinion, the ratio as laid down bythis Court in Pradeep Jain would be applicable in this case asthis Courtll but only to an extent, not fully. The reasons as thisCourt have already indicated are two: firstly Pradeep Jain and allthe cases which follow Pradeep Jain deal only with medicaleducation, and secondly the ratio as laid down in Pradeep Jainhas also to be seen in the context of the time when it was delivered.In short, therefore, though this Court had to follow the principlesas laid down in Pradeep Jain but at the same time this Court alsohave to keep in mind the ground realities of the present day.This Court also have to keep in mind that this Court are presentlynot dealing with medical education but admission in a professionaleducation course called B.Ed. [Paras 8, 12][111-F; 114-D-F]

3. This Court while upholding such reservations in medicaleducation had considered factors such as huge investments theState had made in creating the infrastructure, the backwardnessof the area, the presumption that the local residents after gainingthe education will serve the people of that State, etc. All thesefactors may or may not be equally relevant while this Court areconsidering admission to other courses such as B.Ed in thepresent case. [Para 13][114-G]

4. It is apparent that the large percentage of seats reservedfor the residents of Madhya Pradesh which remains unfilled isnot serving any purpose. Moreover, a wholesale reservation for A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aresidents of Madhya Pradesh would also be violative of the lawlaid down in the case of Pradeep Jain, as this Court have referredabove in this order. [Para 17][116-D]

5. Keeping 75% of the seats reserved for the residents ofMadhya Pradesh is too high a percentage, and as the figures forBthe last two years indicate, it is also not serving any purpose.The number of seats from the next academic year shall, thereforebe fixed again for residents and non-residents, keeping theobservations made by this Court in this order. This Court makeit clear that though reservation in favour of residents ispermissible, yet reservation to the extent of 75% of the totalCseats makes it a wholesale reservation, which has been held inPradeep Jain to be unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 ofthe Constitution of India. A wholesale reservation as this Courthave seen is not serving any purpose rather it frustrates the verypurpose of the reservation. [Paras 18, 19][116-E-G]

DDr. Pradeep Jain and Others v. Union of India andOthers (1984) 3 SCC 654 : [1984] 3 SCR 942 – reliedon.

Preston College and Another v. State of M.P. & Ors.2007 SCC Online MP 103; D.P. Joshi v. State of MadhyaEPradesh (1955) 1 SCR 1215; Saurabh Chaudhari andOthers. v. Union of India and Others (2003) 11 SCC146 : [2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 152; Magan Mehrotra andOthers v. Union of India and Others (2003) 11 SCC186; Rajdeep Ghosh v. The State of Assam (2018) 17FSCC 524 : [2018] 11 SCR 329 – referred to.

Case Law Reference

H

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3177of 2023.

From the Judgment and Order dated 13.07.2022 of the High Courtof Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in WP No. 11828 of 2022.

Puneet Jain, Yogit Kamat, Ms. Shipra Singh, Mann Arora, Ms.Akriti Sharma, Umang Mehta, Ms. Christi Jain, Advs. for the Appellant.

Ms. Ankita Choudhary, Dy. AG, Shreeyash U. Lalit, PashupathiNath Razdan, Ms. Astik Gupta, Ms. Ayushi Mittal, Vipul Abhishek,Kuldeep Kumar Shukla, Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant before this Court is a training institute, run by aregistered society by the name of “Veena Vadini Samaj Kalyan VikashSamiti”. Inter-alia the institute trains teachers for B.Ed and M.Edcourses. One of the courses, which is run by the appellant-institute inGwalior, State of Madhya Pradesh, is called B.Ed (Part time), which isdesigned to impart B.Ed training to in service teachers. We have alsobeen told at the Bar that the appellant-institute is only one of the threeinstitutes in the State of Madhya Pradesh which has been given permissionto run this course, i.e. B.Ed (Part time). We are presently concernedwith the alleged difficulties the appellant-institute is facing in makingadmissions to this course, for which the appellant blames the “admissionpolicy” or the “guidelines” of the State of MP, and has challenged itsconstitutional validity before us.

3. Earlier the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging theGovernment policy dated 12.05.2022 was dismissed by the DivisionBench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, by order dated 13.07.2022.The appellant as it appears, was seeking an interference from the HighCourt in the abovementioned Government policy, on the ground that itwas violative of Articles 14, 15 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, as thegovernment had made 75% of the seats reserved for the residents ofMadhya Pradesh which is not permissible in law. The High Court,however, held against the appellant and had dismissed the petition.While doing so, it did not go into the details and disposed of the matter,in terms of the earlier Division Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AHigh Court in Preston College and Another v. State of M.P. & Ors.2007 SCC Online MP 103, which, inter alia, had held that residentialrequirement in admission was not violative of the Constitution. Wemay add here that the challenge to the above 2007 decision of theMadhya Pradesh High Court was made in an SLP (Civil) No. 5069 of2007, before the court, which was dismissed as infructuous onB14.09.2018.

4. The appellant’s challenge to the above mentioned Policy dated12.05.2022 (called “Admission Process and Guiding Principles 2022-2023”) is mainly on clause 1.5(a) of the policy, which allocates the B.Edseats in the institute in the following manner:C

“1.5 Division of seat numbers available in institutions (a) The division of seats for admission in courses like thecourses regulated by the National Council for TeacherEducation to be conducted in Madhya Pradesh, B.Ed. M.Ed.,DB.Ed., M.P.Ed. (Two Years, B.Ed.-M.Ed. (Integrated ThreeYears) B.A.B.Ed., B.Sc.B.Ed and B.L.Ed. (Integrated FourYears) and B.Ed. (Part Time), shall be as follows –

1. Original Resident of Madhya Pradesh State

2. Candidates from other outside states

E

The category and category-wise allotment of seats availablein the institution will be as per the ‘Reservation related clause’mentioned in these guidelines and its subparagraphs. Out ofthe total available seats in the institution, 75 percent seatswill be reserved for the residents of Madhya Pradesh stateFand maximum 25 percent seats will be available for theresidents outside the state of Madhya Pradesh. 25 For theoriginal residents of Madhya Pradesh state, as per theinstructions of the General Administration Department’s letternumber C-3-7-203-3-A, dated 25.09.20.4, self-attestedtestimonial for the local resident will have to be submitted asGper attached format 5.”

As per the above provision, out of the total seats, 75% are reservedfor “the residents of Madhya Pradesh” and the remaining 25% of theseats will only be available to the candidates who are from outside theState of Madhya Pradesh.H

5. The appellant-institute, has given before this Court the figuresof last two years, where although the entire 25 percent seats allocatedto the “outside” candidates have been filled, but almost all of the 75percent of seats, reserved for the residents of Madhya Pradesh, haveremained unfilled. These figures have not been denied by the State.

The figures are as follows:

6. The Case of the appellant, therefore, is that 75% of the seatswhich have been reserved for permanent residents of Madhya Pradesh,remain vacant due to the non-availability of residential candidates andas such the appellant may be permitted to fill these seats from outsidecandidates. This permission is, however, not given to the appellant.

7. There are two questions here; first is whether the StateGovernment can reserve seats for “residents” of Madhya Pradesh and,then, in case if it is permissible; the second question would be whetheras large as 75% of the total seats, can be reserved for the residents.

8. As far as the first question is concerned, the same is no moreres integra, as this Court in the case of Dr. Pradeep Jain and Othersv. Union of India and Others (1984) 3 SCC 654, had upheld suchreservation. Even prior to Pradeep Jain, residence based reservationwas justified by this Court in the case of D.P. Joshi v. State of MadhyaPradesh (1955) 1 SCR 1215, but it is only in Pradeep Jain where anelaborate discussion on this aspect was done and such reservation wereheld to be valid. This departure from the Rule of selection based onmerit was justified on two grounds. Firstly, what one may call as theState interest, which would mean the expenditure incurred by the Statein creating the educational infrastructure and the cost of its maintenanceand the second was the State’s claims to backwardness (Pradeep JainPara 14). We must add that institutional and residential requirements A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Awere further held to be permissible in the case of Saurabh Chaudhariand Others. v. Union of India and Others reported in (2003) 11 SCC146 which followed the ratio laid down in Pradeep Jain (supra). Further,this Court in Magan Mehrotra and Others v. Union of India andOthers reported in (2003) 11 SCC 186 had upheld institutionalpreference given to those who completed their undergraduate studies inBthe same institution and again in Rajdeep Ghosh v. The State of Assamreported in (2018) 17 SCC 524 followed the ratio of law laid down inPradeep Jain (supra). All these cases though were in the field of medicaleducation.

9. As far as “State interest” was concerned it was an admittedCfact that it was the State which contributed in the establishment andupkeep of the medical institutions, which required a considerable amountof financial support and if the State has to spend money on theseinstitutions, it is not unreasonable that the State should ensure at leastsome of its benefits to flow exclusively for its residents. It was for thisDreason that the different fee structure, one from the residents of MadhyaBharat, and other from the students who belong to other States wasjustified as a reasonable classification in D.P. Joshi[1]. In Pradeep Jainagain this was reiterated.

“The claim of State interest in providing adequate medicalEservice to the people of the State by imparting medicaleducation to students who by reason of their residence in theState would be likely to settle down and serve the people ofthe State as doctors has thus been regarded by the Court as alegitimate ground for laying down residence requirement forFadmission to medical colleges in the State.”[2]The claim of backwardness of the State was another justifiablereason given in Pradeep Jain and as it was held:

“…….There may be a case where a region is educationallybackward or woefully deficient in medical services and inGsuch a case there would be serious educational and healthservice disparity for that backward region which must beredressed by an equality and service minded welfare State.

1 Para 15 of D.P. Joshi (supra).H2 Para 16, Page 681 of Pradeep Jain (supra).

2 Para 16, Page 681 of Pradeep Jain (supra).

The purpose of such a policy would be to remove the existinginequality and to promote welfare based equality for theresidents of the backward region. If the State in such a caseseeks to remove the absence of opportunity for medicaleducation and to provide competent and adequate medicalservices in such backward region by starting a medical collegein the heart of such backward region and reserves a highpercentage of seats there to students from that region, it maynot be possible to castigate such reservation or preferentialtreatment as discriminatory.”[3]

While extensively relying upon D.P. Joshi, this Court in PradeepJain held as under:

“……….These decisions which all relate to admission to MBBScourse are binding upon us and it is therefore not possible forus to hold, in the face of these decisions, that residencerequirement in a State for admission to MBBS course isirrational and irrelevant and cannot be introduced as acondition for admission without violating the mandate of equalityof opportunity contained in Article 14. We must proceed on thebasis that at least so far as admission to MBBS course isconcerned, residence requirement in a State can be introducedas a condition for admission to the MBBS course.” [4]

10. But then we must also remember that in Pradeep Jain aswell as in the subsequent such cases referred above this Court weredealing with medical education in India, and the legality of ‘residencerequirement’ or reservations based on residence, in MBBS as well asPost Graduate Courses in medical education! The validity of residencerequirement was upheld in Pradeep Jain, followed by a catena ofdecisions of Supreme Court, which also took into account economicfactors as well as backwardness of the region while allowing reservationfor permanent residents of the State, in medical education. We shouldnot lose sight of this vital fact when we are dealing with the reservationsbased on residence in other fields of education, as we are doing presently.Whether the justifiable factors of ‘State interest’ and the claim forbackwardness of the State or any other factors which were relevant 3 Para 18, Page 684 of Pradeep Jain (supra).

4 Para 19, Page 686 of Pradeep Jain (Supra).

AB

CD

E

F

G

H

Afactors for residence reservations in medical education, would be equallyrelevant in other fields of education or other professional courses is stillto be determined.

11. The determination made in Pradeep Jain by this Court alsogoes 40 years back in history. This determination was made in 1984,Bwhen the social and economic conditions of the country and of the specificregions in question, weighed heavily in the minds of the learned Judges,which is reflected in passages after passages in Pradeep Jain. So isalso the state of medical education in the country as it existed at thattime. Yet, over the last 40 years, there has been a change in our medicaleducation, which has seen a growth, at least in the number of suchCmedical colleges which have come up, both in private and governmentsector. Similarly, there is a change in our social and economic conditionas well. In any case, the conditions as it exists today is not the same, aswas there 40 years earlier, when a decision in Pradeep Jain was taken.

12. In the case at hand, we are not dealing with medical education,Dbut with the validity of reservation based on residence requirement in aprofessional education course i.e. B.Ed. In our considered opinion, theratio as laid down by this Court in Pradeep Jain would be applicable inthis case as well but only to an extent, not fully. The reasons as we havealready indicated are two: firstly Pradeep Jain and all the cases whichEfollow Pradeep Jain deal only with medical education, and secondlythe ratio as laid down in Pradeep Jain has also to be seen in the contextof the time when it was delivered. In short, therefore, though we have tofollow the principles as laid down in Pradeep Jain but at the same timewe also have to keep in mind the ground realities of the present day. Wealso have to keep in mind that we are presently not dealing with medicalFeducation but admission in a professional education course called B.Ed.

13. This Court while upholding such reservations in medicaleducation had considered factors such as huge investments the Statehad made in creating the infrastructure, the backwardness of the area,the presumption that the local residents after gaining the education willGserve the people of that State, etc. All these factors may or may not beequally relevant while we are considering admission to other coursessuch as B.Ed in the present case.

14. What is equally important is that it was in Pradeep Jain againthat this Court had cautioned against largescale reservation under thisH

head i.e. residents of the State. It cautioned against such largescalereservation calling it as “wholesale” reservations. Para 20 of thisJudgment would be relevant:

“20. …We agree wholly with these observations made by thelearned Judge and we unreservedly condemn wholesalereservation made by some of the State Governments on the basisof “domicile” or residence requirement within the State or on thebasis of institutional preference for students who have passed thequalifying examination held by the university or the State excludingall students not satisfying this requirement, regardless of merit.We declare such wholesale reservation to be unconstitutional andvoid as being in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.”

15. At this juncture, before we advert to the merits of the extentof reservation in the present case, it would be prudent to examine someobservations made by this Court. In the case of Pradeep Jain (supra.),this Court had expressed its opinion on the permissible extent ofreservations based on residence. It was held that residence basedreservation should not exceed 70 percent. The observations relevant forour consideration are as follows:

“21. …So many variables depending on social and economic factsin the context of educational opportunities would enter into thedetermination of the question as to what in the case of anyparticular State, should be the limit of reservation based onresidence requirement within the State or on institutionalpreference. But in our opinion, such reservation should in no eventexceed the outer limit of 70 per cent of the total number of openseats after taking into account other kinds of reservations validlymade. The Medical Education Review Committee has suggestedthat the outer limit should not exceed 75 percent but we are of theview that it would be fair and just to fix the outer limit at 70 percent. We are laying down this outer limit of reservation in anattempt to reconcile the apparently conflicting claims of equalityand excellence. We may make it clear that this outer limit fixedby us will be subject to any reduction or attenuation which may bemade by the Indian Medical Council which is the statutory bodyof medical practitioners whose functional obligations include settingstandards for medical education and providing for its regulationand coordination…”

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

AAlthough, the State Government is within its right to reserve seatsin educational institutions for its permanent residents, yet the only questionremains as to the extent of this reservation.

16. In order to appreciate the facts of this case, we have beenshown the data of the last 2 preceding years i.e., 2021-2022 and 2022-B2023, and the appellant has tried to impress upon this court that almostall the seats which were reserved for the residents of Madhya Pradeshhave remained vacant in the last two years. For instance, in the year2021-2022, only 4 seats out of 75 reserved seats for the resident ofMadhya Pradesh had been filled and in the year 2022-2023, only 2 seatsCout of 75 reserved seats had been filled, and thus 71 and 73 seats,respectively remained vacant for the last two years.

17. Thus, it is apparent that the large percentage of seats reservedfor the residents of Madhya Pradesh which remains unfilled is not servingany purpose. Moreover, a wholesale reservation for residents of MadhyaDPradesh would also be violative of the law laid down in the case ofPradeep Jain, as we have referred above in this order.

18. Since the academic session for the year 2022-23 has alreadycommenced, we would refrain from interfering in the matter but wedirect the State of Madhya Pradesh to reappreciate this entire aspect, inEthe light of what we have said above. Though the State is within its rightto reserve seats for its own residents, but while doing so, it must keepthe ground realities in mind. Keeping 75% of the seats reserved for theresidents of Madhya Pradesh is too high a percentage, and as the figuresfor the last two years indicate, it is also not serving any purpose. Thenumber of seats from the next academic year shall, therefore be fixedFagain for residents and non-residents, keeping the observations made byus in this order. We make it clear that though reservation in favour ofresidents is permissible, yet reservation to the extent of 75% of the totalseats makes it a wholesale reservation, which has been held in PradeepJain to be unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the ConstitutionGof India[5].

19. The State Government may examine the data of last fewyears, in order to come to a realistic finding as to what should be theextent of these reservations. A wholesale reservation as we have seen H5 See Para 20 of Pradeep Jain (supra).

is not serving any purpose rather it frustrates the very purpose of thereservation. This shall be kept in mind by the authorities while taking adecision in this matter, which shall be done within two months fromtoday.

20. The appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

21. All applications including IA Nos. 66056 and 66057 of 2023also stand disposed of.

Ankit Gyan

Appeals disposed of.

(Assisted by : Adiraj Bali and Aarsh Choudhary, LCRAs)

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H