Case: State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors Vs. U.S.V. Balram Etc


Decision reasoning: 1[ds]28. We are in agreement with the contention of Mr. Tarkunde regarding this aspect and, in our opinion, the High Court was justified in striking down the provision regarding reservation of 40% of seats to the H. S. C. candidates under rule 9. We have already indicated the scheme of the Rules as well as the basis for selection, as could be gathered from those rules94. At this stage it may be recalled that the State of Andhra Pradesh originally formed part of the Composite State of Madras. We sent for the paper book in Writ Petition No. 285 of 1970, the decision of which is reported in (1968) 2 SCR 786   = (AIR 1968 SC 1012  ). On a comparison of the list, which was under challenge in the said decision, but accepted as correct by this Court, with the list which is under attack before us, we find that most of the groups whose inclusion in the list by the State of Madras was held to be valid are also found in the list prepared by the Backward Classes Commission appointed by the Andhra Pradesh State96. The Commission has given very good reasons as to why it had to take into account the population figures based upon the 1921 and 1931 censuses. It was also justified in taking the average student population of Classes X and XI, especially as the said procedure has been accepted by the committee appointed by the Jammu and Kashmir Government, presided by Dr. P. B. Gajendragadkar, former Chief Justice of India. That Committee took into account IX and X standards average. The decided cases have laid down the principles for ascertaining the social and educational backwardness of a class. The Backward Classes Commission in this case has taken considerable pains in collecting date regarding the various aspects before including a particular group as Backward Class in the list97. There is a criticism levelled that the Commission has used its personal knowledge for the purpose of characterising a particular group as backward. That, in the circumstances of the case, is inevitable and there is nothing improper or illegal. The very object of the Commission in touring the various areas and visiting the huts and habitations of people is to find out their actual living conditions. After all that information has been gathered by the Commission not secretly but openly. In fact the actual living condition or habitation can be very satisfactorily judged and found out only on a personal visit to the areas which will give a more accurate picture of their living conditions and their surroundings. If the personal impressions gathered by the members of the Commission have also been utilised to augment the various other materials gathered as a result of detailed investigation, it cannot be said that the report of the Commission suffers from any vice merely on the ground that they imported personal knowledge. In our opinion, the High Court has not been fair to the Commission when it says that whenever the Commission found the figures obtained in respect of certain groups as relating to their educational standard being higher than the State average, it adopted an ingenious method or getting over that obstacle by importing personal knowledge. In fact the Commission has categorically stated that the information received from the various schools showed that the percentage of education was slightly higher than the Stage average in respect of certain small groups, but in view of the fact that their living conditions were deplorably poor, the slight higher percentage of literacy should not operate to their disadvantage98. Regarding the criticism that the Commission has divided classes into more backward and less backward, in our opinion, this is not also well founded one. On the other hand, what the Commission has recommended was the distribution of seats amongst the reserved classes in proportion to their population. This is not a division of the Backward Classes as more backward and less backward as was the case which was dealt with by this Court in 1963 Supp (1) SCR 439 = (AIR 1963 SC 649  )99. There was a contention raised by Mr. Tarkunde, learned counsel for the respondents, that the total number of seats that could be given to the candidates belonging to the Backward Classes cannot exceed the percentage of reservation made in their favour. That, is, according to the learned counsel, if more than the Backward Classes candidates, have secured seats on merit, there can be no further selection of candidates from the reserved group100. No doubt our attention was drawn to a decision of the Kerala High Court, which has held that the reservation is irrespective of some of the candidates belonging to the Backward Classes, getting admission on their own merit. The Andhra Pradesh High Court has taken a slightly different view. If a situation arises wherein the candidates belonging to the groups included in the list of Backward Classes, are able to obtain more seats on the basis of their own merit, we can only state that it is the duty of the Government to review the question of further reservation of seats for such groups. This has to be emphasised because the Government should not act on the basis that once a class is considered as a backward class it should continue to be backward for all time. If once a class appears to have reached a stage of progress, from which it could be safely inferred that no further protection is necessary, the State will do well to review such instances and suitably revise the list of Backward Classes. In fact it was noticed by this Court in AIR 1971 SC 2303   that candidates of Backward Classes had secured nearly 50% of seats in the general pool. On this ground this Court did not hold that the further reservation made for the Backward Classes is invalid. On the other hand it was held:"The fact that candidates of backward classes have secured about 50% of the seats in the general pool does show that the time has come for a denovo comprehensive examination of the question. It must be remembered that the Governments decision in this regard is open to judicial review.101. The only another aspect that has to be dealt with is the quantum of reservation made for the Backward Classes. It was held in 1963 Supp. (1) SCR 439 = (AIR 1963 SC 649  ) that the total of reservation for Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes should not ordinarily exceed 50% of the available seats. In the cases before us, under G. O. No. 1793 of 1970, the total reservation is only 43% The break-up of that percentage is 25% , 4% and 14%, for the Backward Classes, Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes, respectively. The quantum of reservation is thus well within the limits mentioned in the decision, referred to above102. For the reasons given above, we are of the opinion that the list of Backward Classes, as well as the reservation of 25% of seats in Professional Colleges for the persons mentioned in the said list is valid and is saved by Art. 15 (4) of the Constitution. We are not inclined to agree with the reasons given by the High Court that the said G. O. offends Art. 15 (4) of the Constitution103. To conclude, we agree with the findings of the High Court that reservation of 40% of seats to the H.S. C. candidates to the 1st Year Intergrated M.B.B.S. Course under Rule 9 of G. O. No. 1648 of 1970 is invalid. That provision has been rightly struck down by the High Court. To that extent the judgment and orders of the High Court are confirmed104. We, however, differ from the decision of the High Court regarding the invalidity of G. O. No. 1793 of 1970. On the other hand we hold that the said G. O. is valid and is saved by Art. 15 (4) of the Constitution. The judgment and orders of the High Court to the extent of striking down the said G. O., in consequence are set aside.