Case: State Of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Pradip Tandon &amp; Ors

of seats according to the Universities, the rule provided that seats in the general pool would be distributed University-wise. Seats in colleges affiliated to Karnataka University were to be allotted to persons passing from colleges affiliated to that University and seats in colleges affiliated to Bangalore and Mysore Universities were to be respectively allotted to persons passing from colleges affiliated to each such University. The rule also provided that not more than 2o per cent. of the seats in the colleges affiliated to any university might in the discretion of the Selection Committee, be allotted to students passing from colleges affiliated to any other university in the State or elsewhere. This classification was impeached to be neither based on any intelligible differentia nor to have a rational nexus with the object to the rules.36. This Court in Chanchalas case 1971 Supp SCH 608 = (AIR 1971 SC 1762 ) (supra) held that since the universities were set up for satisfying the educational needs of different areas where they were set up and medical colleges were established in those areas, it could safely be presumed that they also were so set up to satisfy the needs for medical training of those attached to those universities. Such a basis for selection did not have a disadvantage of district-wise or unit-wise selection as any student from any part of the State could pass the qualifying examination in any of the three universities irrespective of place of birth or residence. The discretion of the selection committee to admit outsiders upto 20 per cent. of the total available seats in any of these colleges was held to advance the interest of education by drawing the best students not only in the State but also elsewhere in India.37. In the present case, the reservation for the rural area cannot be upheld because there is no classification based on residence between students coming from within the State and others coming from without. The object of providing medical education to students in Uttar Pradesh is to secure the best possible students for admission to these colleges, It is in this context that district-wise allocation was held by this Court in Rajendran v. State of Madras, (1968) 2 SCR 788 = (AIR 1968 SC 1012 ) to violate Article 14. The University-wise distribution of seats which was found to be valid in Chanchalas case (1971) Supp SCR 608 = (AIR 1971 SC 1762 ) (supra) does not have any application in the present case.38. The submission of the Attorney General that rural population would be a source for drawing students cannot be upheld. An illustration of different sources of categories of students is Chitra Ghosh v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCR 413 = (AIR 1970 SC 35 ). There the categories of students were classified as residents of Delhi; sons/daughters of Central Government servants posted in Delhi; candidates whose father is dead and is wholly dependent on brother/sister who is a Central Government servant posted in Delhi; sons/daughters of residents of Union Territories including displaced persons registered therein; sons/daughters of Central Government servants posted in Indian Missions abroad; cultural scholars; Colombo Plan Scholars; Thailand Scholars and Jammu and Kashmir State Scholars. Rural area in Uttar Pradesh cannot be said to be a source for reservation of the type in Chitra Ghosh,s case (1970) 1 SCR 413 = (AIR 1970 SC 35 ) (supra).39. The Attorney General relied on Beryl F. Carroll v" Greenwich Insurance Co. of New York, (l905) 50 Law Ed 246; Weaver v. Palmer Brothers Co., (1925) 70 Law Ed 654 West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, (1936) 81 Law Ed 703 in support of the proposition that if an evil is especially experienced in a particular branch of business, the Constitution embodies no prohibition of laws confined to the evil or doctrinaire requirement that they should be couched in all embracing terms. It was said that if the law was intended to remove the evil where it was most felt it was not to be overthrown because there were other instances to which it might have been applied. This rule really means that there is no doctrinaire requirement that the legislation should be couched in all embracing terms. A case of under classification would be an instance of this rule. The present case of classification of rural areas is not one of under classification. This is a case of discrimination in favour of the majority of rural population to the prejudice of students drawn from the general category. This classification is unconstitutional.40. In Civil Appeal No. 1385 of 1973 two other minor contentions were raised. One was that the reservation was beyond 50 percent. The total number of seats to be filled in through the combined test is 732.The number of general seats is 368. 26 seats are reserved for Government of India nominees under various heads. The reservation of 26 seats was contended to be considered while calculating the percentage of -reserved seats. If 26 seats are included it was said that the reserved seats would come to 52 per cent. 26 seats form a source from which selection is made. The Government bears the burden of expenses of education.A provision laying down a source is not a reservation (See Chanchalas case (1871) Supp SCR 608 = (AIR 1971 SC 1762 ) (supra).41. The other contention was that the State Government changed the percentage of reserved seats after the premedical test was held. The contention was that candidates belonging to reserved classes were able to secure some of the general seats on the basis of their better performance in competitive test and therefore more seats went to people from reserved classes The Government did not change the number of seats for reserved classes. Candidates belonging to the reserved classes were selected by reason of their excellence in education. The reservation has not been changed. We have already held that the success of candidates from rural areas do not represent educationally backward classes of citizens.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]15. Broadly stated, neither caste nor race nor religion can be made the basis of classification for the purposes of determining social and educational backwardness within the meaning of Article 15 (4). When Article 15 (1) forbids discrimination on grounds only of religion, race, caste, caste cannot be made one of the criteria for determining social and educational backwardness. If caste or religion is recognised as a criterion of social and educational backwardness Article 15 (4) will stultify Article 15 (1). It is true that Article 15 (1) forbids discrimination only on the ground of religion, race, caste, but when a classification takes recourse to caste as one of the criteria in determining socially and educationally backward classes the expression "classes" in that case violates the rule of expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The socially and educationally backward classes of citizens are groups other than groups based on caste.16. The expression "socially and educationally backward classes" in Article 15 (4) was explained in Balajis case 1963 Supp 1 SCR 439 = (AIR 1963 SC 649  ) (supra) to be comparable to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The reason is that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes illustrated social and educational backwardness. It is difficult to define the expression "socially and educationally backward classes of citizens." The traditional unchanging occupations of citizens may contribute to social and educational backwardness. The place of habitation and its environment is also a determining factor in judging the social and educational backwardness.17. The expression Classes of citizens" indicates a homogeneous section of the people who are grouped together because of certain likeliness and common traits and who are identifiable by some common attributes. The homogeneity of the class of citizens is social and educational backwardness. Neither caste nor religion nor place of birth will be the uniform element of common attributes to make them a class of citizens.18. The traits of social backwardness are these. There is no social structure. There is no social hierarchy. There are no means of controlling the environment through technology. There is no organization of the society to create inducements for uplift of the people and improvement of economy. Building of towns and industries, growth of cash economy which are responsible for greater social wealth are absent among such classes. Social growth and well being can be satisfied by massive charge in resource conditions. High lands and hills are to be developed in fiscal values andNature is a treasury. Forests, mountains, rivers can yield an advanced society with the aid of education and technology.In (1969) 1 SCR 103   = (AIR 1969 SC 1  ) (supra) this Court said that the members of an entire caste or community may, in the social, economic and educational scale of values at a given time, be backward and may, on that account be treated as a backward class, but that is not because they are members of a caste or community, but because they form aare unable to accept the test of poverty as the determining factor of social backwardness.24. The 1971 Census showed population in India to be 54.79 crores.. 43.89 crores or 80.1 per cent. live in rural areas 10.91 crores or 19.9 per cent live in cities and towns. In 1921 the rural population in India was 88.8 per cent. In 1971 the rural population was reduced to 80.1 per cent. The rural population of Uttar Pradesh in 1971 was roughly seven and half crores. The population in Uttrakhand was roughly seven and a half lakhs. The population of Hill areas in Uttar Pradesh was near about twenty five lakhs. It is incomprehensible as to how 80.1 per cent of the people in rural areas or 7 crores in rural parts of Uttar Pradesh can be suggested to be socially backward because of poverty. Further, it is also not possible to predicate poverty as the common trait of rural people. This Court in J. P. Parimoo v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1973) 3 SCR 236   = (AIR 1973 SC 930   = 1973 Lab IC 565) said that if poverty is the exclusive test a large population in our country would be socially and educationally backward class of citizens. Poverty is evident everywhere and perhaps more so in educationally advanced and socially affluent classes. A division between the population of our country on the ground of property, that the people in the urban areas are not poor and, that the people in the rural areas are poor is neither supported by facts nor by a division between the urban people on the one hand and the rural people on the other that the rural people are socially and educationally backward class.25. Some people in the rural areas may be educationally backward, some may be socially backward, there may be a few who are both socially and educationally backward, but it cannot be said that all citizens residing in rural areas are socially and educationally backward.26. 80 per cent. of the population in the State of Uttar Pradesh in rural areas cannot be said to be a homogeneous class by itself. They are not of the same kind. Their occupation is different. Their standards are different. Their lives are different. Population cannot be a class by itself. Rural element does not make it a class. To suggest that the rural areas are socially and educationally backward is to have reservation for the majority of theis neither a valid nor a justifiable ground for determining social and educational backwardness. Educational institutions should attract the best talents. It has been held by this Court in Balajis case 1963 Supp 1 SCR 438 = (AIR 1963 SC 649  ) (supra) that 50 per cent. of the seats in educational institutions should be left open to general competition. In the present case, it appears that 85 candidates from rural areas were selected in the general seats. One candidate from Uttrakhand area, 7 candidates from hill areas and one Scheduled Caste candidate also competed for the general seats. The candidates from hill areas, Uttrakhand Division and Scheduled Castes are exceptions and their performance will not detract from the reservations for Scheduled Caste, hill and Uttrakhand areas. The performance of 85 candidates from rural areas speak. eloquently for the high standards of education in rural areas.29. The reservation for rural area cannot be sustained on the ground that the rural areas represent socially and educationally backward classes of citizens. This reservation appears to be made for the majority population of the State. 80 per cent of the population of the State cannot be a homogeneous class. Poverty in rural areas cannot be the basis of classification to support reservation for rural areas. Poverty is found in all parts of India. In the instructions for reservation of seats it is provided that in the application form a candidate for reserved seats from rural areas must submit a certificate of the District Magistrate of the District to which he belonged that he was born in rural area and had a permanent home there, and is residing there or that he was born in India and his parents and guardians are still living there and earn their livelihood there. The incident of birth in rural areas is made the basic qualification. No reservation can be made on the basis of place of birth, as this would offend Article 15.30. The onus of proof is on the State to establish that the reservations are for socially and educationally backward classes of citizens. The State has established that the people in hill and Uttrakhand areas are socially and educationally backward classes of citizens.In the present case, the reservation for the rural area cannot be upheld because there is no classification based on residence between students coming from within the State and others coming from without. The object of providing medical education to students in Uttar Pradesh is to secure the best possible students for admission to these colleges, It is in this context thatallocation was held by this Court in Rajendran v. State of Madras, (1968) 2 SCR 788 = (AIR 1968 SC 1012  ) to violate Article 14. Thedistribution of seats which was found to be valid in Chanchalas case (1971) Supp SCR 608 = (AIR 1971 SC 1762  ) (supra) does not have any application in the present case.38. The submission of the Attorney General that rural population would be a source for drawing students cannot be upheld. An illustration of different sources of categories of students is Chitra Ghosh v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCR 413   = (AIR 1970 SC 35  ). There the categories of students were classified as residents of Delhi; sons/daughters of Central Government servants posted in Delhi; candidates whose father is dead and is wholly dependent on brother/sister who is a Central Government servant posted in Delhi; sons/daughters of residents of Union Territories including displaced persons registered therein; sons/daughters of Central Government servants posted in Indian Missions abroad; cultural scholars; Colombo Plan Scholars; Thailand Scholars and Jammu and Kashmir State Scholars. Rural area in Uttar Pradesh cannot be said to be a source for reservation of the type in Chitra Ghosh,s case (1970) 1 SCR 413   = (AIR 1970 SC 35  )rule really means that there is no doctrinaire requirement that the legislation should be couched in all embracing terms. A case of under classification would be an instance of this rule. The present case of classification of rural areas is not one of under classification. This is a case of discrimination in favour of the majority of rural population to the prejudice of students drawn from the general category. This classification ishave already held that the success of candidates from rural areas do not represent educationally backward classes of citizens.