VEENA VADINI TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTE (RUN BY VEENA VADINI SAMAJ KALYAN VIKASH SAMITI) versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 106, Supreme Court of India, 2023
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Issues
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
106
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 106
106
VEENA VADINI TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTE (RUN BY
VEENA VADINI SAMAJ KALYAN VIKASH SAMITI)
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.
(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) – Reservation
– Appellant-Institute trained teachers for B.Ed. and M.Ed. courses
– Appellant challenged a government policy (called “Admission
Process and Guiding Principles 2022-2023”) before the High Court
– Appellant’s challenge was mainly based on clause 1.5(a) of the
policy, which allocates the B.Ed seats in the institute – As per which
75% of seats this Course reserved for “residents of Madhya
Pradesh” and remaining 25% seats for candidates outside the State
– Appellant alleged that that Institute is facing difficulties in making
admissions to this course, as although the entire 25 percent seats
allocated to the “outside” candidates have been filled, but almost
all of the 75 percent of seats, reserved for the residents, have
remained unfilled – The High Court dismissed the writ filed by the
appellant – On appeal, the main issue was, whether the State
Government could reserve seats for ‘residents’ of the State and, in
case if it is permissible; whether 75% of the total seats, can be
reserved for the residents – Held: As per Pradeep Jain case
reservation in favour of residents is permissible, yet reservation to
the extent of
75% of the total seats makes it a wholesale reservation,
which has been held in Pradeep Jain case to be unconstitutional and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India – Large percentage
of seats reserved for the residents of State which remains unfilled is
not serving any purpose, rather it frustrates the very purpose of
the reservation – Directed State to consider the observations laid
down in the present case and to fix number of seats again for
residents and non-residents, from the next academic year.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
107
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. There are two questions here; first is whether
the State Government can reserve seats for “residents” of
Madhya Pradesh and, then, in case if it is permissible; the second
question 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 no
more res integra, as this Court in the case of Dr. Pradeep Jain
and Others v. Union of India and Others (1984) 3 SCC 654, had
upheld such reservation. In the case at hand, this Court is not
dealing with medical education, but with the validity of reservation
based on residence requirement in a professional education course
i.e. B.Ed. In our considered opinion, the ratio as laid down by
this Court in Pradeep Jain would be applicable in this case as
this Courtll but only to an extent, not fully. The reasons as this
Court have already indicated are two: firstly Pradeep Jain and all
the cases which follow Pradeep Jain deal only with medical
education, and secondly the ratio as laid down in Pradeep Jain
has also to be seen in the context of the time when it was delivered.
In short, therefore, though this Court had to follow the principles
as laid down in Pradeep Jain but at the same time this Court also
have to keep in mind the ground realities of the present day.
This Court also have to keep in mind that this Court are presently
not dealing with medical education but admission
in a professional
education course called B.Ed. [Paras 8, 12][111-F; 114-D-F]
3. This Court while upholding such reservations in medical
education had considered factors such as huge investments the
State had made in creating the infrastructure, the backwardness
of the area, the presumption that the local residents after gaining
the education will serve the people of that State, etc. All these
factors may or may not be equally relevant while this Court are
considering admission to other courses such as B.Ed in the
present case. [Para 13][114-G]
4. It is apparent that the large percentage of seats reserved
for the residents of Madhya Pradesh which remains unfilled is
not serving any purpose. Moreover, a wholesale reservation for
VEENA VADINI TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTE v. STATE
OF MADHYA PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
108
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
residents of Madhya Pradesh would also be violative of the law
laid down in the case of Pradeep Jain, as this Court have referred
above in this order. [Para 17][116-D]
5. Keeping 75% of the seats reserved for the residents of
Madhya Pradesh is too high a percentage, and as the figures for
the last two years indicate, it is also not serving any purpose.
The number of seats from the next academic year shall, therefore
be fixed again for residents and non-residents, keeping the
observations made by this Court in this order. This Court make
it clear that though reservation in favour of residents is
permissible, yet reservation to the extent of 75% of the total
seats makes it a wholesale reservation, which has been held in
Pradeep Jain to be unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India. A wholesale reservation as this Court
have seen is not serving any purpose rather it frustrates the very
purpose of the reservation. [Paras 18, 19][116-E-G]
Dr. Pradeep Jain and Others v. Union of India and
Others (1984) 3 SCC 654 : [1984] 3 SCR 942 – relied
on.
Preston College and Another v. State of M.P. & Ors.
2007 SCC Online MP 103; D.P. Joshi v. State of Madhya
Pradesh (1955) 1 SCR 1215; Saurabh Chaudhari and
Others. v. Union of India and Others (2003) 11 SCC
146 : [2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 152; Magan Mehrotra and
Others v. Union of India and Others (2003) 11 SCC
186; Rajdeep Ghosh v. The State of Assam (2018) 17
SCC 524 : [2018] 11 SCR 329 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1984] 3 SCR 942
relied on
Para 8
(1955) 1 SCR 1215
referred to
Para 8
[2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 152
referred to
Para 8
(2003) 11 SCC 186
referred to
Para 8
[2018] 11 SCR 329
referred to
Para 8
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
109
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3177
of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.07.2022 of the High Court
of 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, Pashupathi
Nath 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 a
registered society by the name of “Veena Vadini Samaj Kalyan Vikash
Samiti”. Inter-alia the institute trains teachers for B.Ed and M.Ed
courses. One of the courses, which is run by the appellant-institute in
Gwalior, State of Madhya Pradesh, is called B.Ed (Part time), which is
designed to impart B.Ed training to in service teachers. We have also
been told at the Bar that the appellant-institute is only one of the three
institutes in the State of Madhya Pradesh which has been given permission
to run this course, i.e. B.Ed (Part time). We are presently concerned
with the alleged difficulties the appellant-institute is facing in making
admissions to this course, for which the appellant blames the “admission
policy” or the “guidelines” of the State of MP, and has challenged its
constitutional validity before us.
3. Earlier the writ
petition filed by the appellant challenging the
Government policy dated 12.05.2022 was dismissed by the Division
Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, by order dated 13.07.2022.
The appellant as it appears, was seeking an interference from the High
Court in the abovementioned Government policy, on the ground that it
was violative of Articles 14, 15 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, as the
government had made 75% of the seats reserved for the residents of
Madhya 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
VEENA VADINI TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTE v. STATE
OF MADHYA PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
110
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
High Court in Preston College and Another v. State of M.P. & Ors.
2007 SCC Online MP 103, which, inter alia, had held that residential
requirement in admission was not violative of the Constitution. We
may add here that the challenge to the above 2007 decision of the
Madhya Pradesh High Court was made in an SLP (Civil) No. 5069 of
2007, before the court, which was dismissed as infructuous on
14.09.2018.
4. The appellant’s challenge to the above mentioned Policy dated
12.05.2022 (called “Admission Process and Guiding Principles 2022-
2023”) is mainly on clause 1.5(a) of the policy, which allocates the B.Ed
seats in the institute in the following manner:
“1.5 Division of seat numbers available in institutions
(a) The division of seats for admission in courses like the
courses regulated by the National Council for Teacher
Education to be conducted in Madhya Pradesh, B.Ed. M.Ed.,
B.Ed., M.P.Ed. (Two Years, B.Ed.-M.Ed. (Integrated Three
Years) B.A.B.Ed., B.Sc.B.Ed and B.L.Ed. (Integrated Four
Years) and B.Ed. (Part Time), shall be as follows –
1. Original Resident of Madhya Pradesh State
2. Candidates from other outside states
The category and category-wise allotment of seats available
in the institution will be as per the ‘Reservation related clause’
mentioned in these guidelines and its subparagraphs. Out of
the total available seats in the institution, 75 percent seats
will be reserved for the residents of Madhya
Pradesh state
and maximum 25 percent seats will be available for the
residents outside the state of Madhya Pradesh. 25 For the
original residents of Madhya Pradesh state, as per the
instructions of the General Administration Department’s letter
number C-3-7-203-3-A, dated 25.09.20.4, self-attested
testimonial for the local resident will have to be submitted as
per attached format 5.”
As per the above provision, out of the total seats, 75% are reserved
for “the residents of Madhya Pradesh” and the remaining 25% of the
seats will only be available to the candidates who are from outside the
State of Madhya Pradesh.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
111
5. The appellant-institute, has given before this Court the figures
of last two years, where although the entire 25 percent seats allocated
to the “outside” candidates have been filled, but almost all of the 75
percent of seats, reserved for the residents of Madhya Pradesh, have
remained 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 seats
which have been reserved for permanent residents of Madhya Pradesh,
remain vacant due to the non-availability of residential candidates and
as such the appellant may be permitted to fill these seats from outside
candidates. This permission is, however, not given to the appellant.
7. There are two questions here; first is whether the State
Government can reserve seats for “residents” of Madhya Pradesh and,
then, in case if it is permissible; the second question would be whether
as 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 more
res integra, as this Court in the case of Dr. Pradeep Jain and Others
v. Union of India and Others (1984) 3 SCC 654, had upheld such
reservation. Even prior to Pradeep Jain, residence based reservation
was justified by this Court in the case of D.P. Joshi v. State of Madhya
Pradesh (1955) 1 SCR 1215, but it is only in Pradeep Jain where an
elaborate discussion on this aspect was done and such reservation were
held
to be valid. This departure from the Rule of selection based on
merit was justified on two grounds. Firstly, what one may call as the
State interest, which would mean the expenditure incurred by the State
in creating the educational infrastructure and the cost of its maintenance
and the second was the State’s claims to backwardness (Pradeep Jain
Para 14). We must add that institutional and residential requirements
VEENA VADINI TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTE v. STATE
OF MADHYA PRADESH [SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
112
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
were further held to be permissible in the case of Saurabh Chaudhari
and Others. v. Union of India and Others reported in (2003) 11 SCC
146 which followed the ratio laid down in Pradeep Jain (supra). Further,
this Court in Magan Mehrotra and Others v. Union of India and
Others reported in (2003) 11 SCC 186 had upheld institutional
preference given to those who completed their undergraduate studies in
the same institution and again in Rajdeep Ghosh v. The State of Assam
reported in (2018) 17 SCC 524 followed the ratio of law laid down in
Pradeep Jain (supra). All these cases though were in the field of medical
education.
9. As far as “State interest” was concerned it was an admitted
fact that it was the State which contributed in the establishment and
upkeep of the medical institutions, which required a considerable amount
of financial support and if the State has to spend money on these
institutions, it is not unreasonable that the State should ensure at least
some of its benefits to flow exclusively for its residents. It was for this
reason that the different fee structure, one from the residents of Madhya
Bharat, and other from the students who belong to other States was
justified as a reasonable classification in D.P. Joshi1. In Pradeep Jain
again this was reiterated.
“The claim of State interest in providing adequate medical
service to the people of the State by imparting medical
education to students who by
reason of their residence in the
State would be likely to settle down and serve the people of
the State as doctors has thus been regarded by the Court as a
legitimate ground for laying down residence requirement for
admission to medical colleges in the State.”2
The claim of backwardness of the State was another justifiable
reason given in Pradeep Jain and as it was held:
“…….There may be a case where a region is educationally
backward or woefully deficient in medical services and in
such a case there would be serious educational and health
service disparity for that backward region which must be
redressed by an equality and service minded welfare State.
1 Para 15 of D.P. Joshi (supra).
2 Para 16, Page 681 of Pradeep Jain (supra).
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
113
The purpose of such a policy would be to remove the existing
inequality and to promote welfare based equality for the
residents of the backward region. If the State in such a case
seeks to remove the absence of opportunity for medical
education and to provide competent and adequate medical
services in such backward region by starting a medical college
in the heart of such backward region and reserves a high
percentage of seats there to students from that region, it may
not be possible to castigate such reservation or preferential
treatment as discriminatory.”3
While extensively relying upon D.P. Joshi, this Court in Pradeep
Jain held as under:
“……….These decisions which all relate to admission to MBBS
course are binding upon us and it is therefore not possible for
us to hold, in the face of these decisions, that residence
requirement in a State for admission to MBBS course is
irrational and irrelevant and cannot be introduced as a
condition for admission without violating the mandate of equality
of opportunity contained in Article 14. We must proceed on the
basis that at least so far as admission to MBBS course is
concerned, residence requirement in a State can be introduced
as a condition for admission to the MBBS course.” 4
10. But then we must also remember that in Pradeep Jain as
well as in the subsequent such cases referred above this Court were
dealing with medical education in India, and the legality of ‘residence
requirement’ or reservations based
on residence, in MBBS as well as
Post Graduate Courses in medical education! The validity of residence
requirement was upheld in Pradeep Jain, followed by a catena of
decisions of Supreme Court, which also took into account economic
factors as well as backwardness of the region while allowing reservation
for permanent residents of the State, in medical education. We should
not lose sight of this vital fact when we are dealing with the reservations
based on residence in other fields of education, as we are doing presently.
Whether the justifiable factors of ‘State interest’ and the claim for
backwardness 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).
VEENA VADINI TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTE v. STATE
OF MADHYA PRADESH [SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
114
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
factors for residence reservations in medical education, would be equally
relevant in other fields of education or other professional courses is still
to be determined.
11. The determination made in Pradeep Jain by this Court also
goes 40 years back in history. This determination was made in 1984,
when the social and economic conditions of the country and of the specific
regions in question, weighed heavily in the minds of the learned Judges,
which is reflected in passages after passages in Pradeep Jain. So is
also the state of medical education in the country as it existed at that
time. Yet, over the last 40 years, there has been a change in our medical
education, which has seen a growth, at least in the number of such
medical colleges which have come up, both in private and government
sector. Similarly, there is a change in our social and economic condition
as well. In any case, the conditions as it exists today is not the same, as
was 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,
but with the validity of reservation based on residence requirement in a
professional education course i.e. B.Ed. In our considered opinion, the
ratio as laid down by this Court in Pradeep Jain would be applicable in
this case as well but only to an extent, not fully. The reasons as we have
already indicated are two: firstly Pradeep Jain and all the
cases which
follow Pradeep Jain deal only with medical education, and secondly
the ratio as laid down in Pradeep Jain has also to be seen in the context
of the time when it was delivered. In short, therefore, though we have to
follow the principles as laid down in Pradeep Jain but at the same time
we also have to keep in mind the ground realities of the present day. We
also have to keep in mind that we are presently not dealing with medical
education but admission in a professional education course called B.Ed.
13. This Court while upholding such reservations in medical
education had considered factors such as huge investments the State
had made in creating the infrastructure, the backwardness of the area,
the presumption that the local residents after gaining the education will
serve the people of that State, etc. All these factors may or may not be
equally relevant while we are considering admission to other courses
such as B.Ed in the present case.
14. What is equally important is that it was in Pradeep Jain again
that this Court had cautioned against largescale reservation under this
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
115
head i.e. residents of the State. It cautioned against such largescale
reservation calling it as “wholesale” reservations. Para 20 of this
Judgment would be relevant:
“20. …We agree wholly with these observations made by the
learned Judge and we unreservedly condemn wholesale
reservation made by some of the State Governments on the basis
of “domicile” or residence requirement within the State or on the
basis of institutional preference for students who have passed the
qualifying examination held by the university or the State excluding
all students not satisfying this requirement, regardless of merit.
We declare such wholesale reservation to be unconstitutional and
void as being in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.”
15. At this juncture, before we advert to the merits of the extent
of reservation in the present case, it would be prudent to examine some
observations made by this Court. In the case of Pradeep Jain (supra.),
this Court had expressed its opinion on the permissible extent of
reservations based on residence. It was held that residence based
reservation should not exceed 70 percent. The observations relevant for
our consideration are as follows:
“21. …So many variables depending on social and economic facts
in the context of educational opportunities would enter into the
determination of the question as to what in the case of any
particular State, should be the limit of reservation based on
residence requirement within the State or on
institutional
preference. But in our opinion, such reservation should in no event
exceed the outer limit of 70 per cent of the total number of open
seats after taking into account other kinds of reservations validly
made. The Medical Education Review Committee has suggested
that the outer limit should not exceed 75 percent but we are of the
view that it would be fair and just to fix the outer limit at 70 per
cent. We are laying down this outer limit of reservation in an
attempt to reconcile the apparently conflicting claims of equality
and excellence. We may make it clear that this outer limit fixed
by us will be subject to any reduction or attenuation which may be
made by the Indian Medical Council which is the statutory body
of medical practitioners whose functional obligations include setting
standards for medical education and providing for its regulation
and coordination…”
VEENA VADINI TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTE v. STATE
OF MADHYA PRADESH [SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
116
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
Although, the State Government is within its right to reserve seats
in educational institutions for its permanent residents, yet the only question
remains as to the extent of this reservation.
16. In order to appreciate the facts of this case, we have been
shown the data of the last 2 preceding years i.e., 2021-2022 and 2022-
2023, and the appellant has tried to impress upon this court that almost
all the seats which were reserved for the residents of Madhya Pradesh
have remained vacant in the last two years. For instance, in the year
2021-2022, only 4 seats out of 75 reserved seats for the resident of
Madhya Pradesh had been filled and in the year 2022-2023, only 2 seats
out 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 reserved
for the residents of Madhya Pradesh which remains unfilled is not serving
any purpose. Moreover, a wholesale reservation for residents of Madhya
Pradesh would also be violative of the law laid down in the case of
Pradeep Jain, as we have referred above in this order.
18. Since the academic session for the year 2022-23 has already
commenced, we would refrain from interfering in the matter but we
direct the State of Madhya Pradesh to reappreciate this entire aspect, in
the light of what we have said above. Though the State is within its right
to reserve seats for
its own residents, but while doing so, it must keep
the ground realities in mind. Keeping 75% of the seats reserved for the
residents of Madhya Pradesh is too high a percentage, and as the figures
for the last two years indicate, it is also not serving any purpose. The
number of seats from the next academic year shall, therefore be fixed
again for residents and non-residents, keeping the observations made by
us in this order. We make it clear that though reservation in favour of
residents is permissible, yet reservation to the extent of 75% of the total
seats makes it a wholesale reservation, which has been held in Pradeep
Jain to be unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India5.
19. The State Government may examine the data of last few
years, in order to come to a realistic finding as to what should be the
extent of these reservations. A wholesale reservation as we have seen
5 See Para 20 of Pradeep Jain (supra).
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
117
is not serving any purpose rather it frustrates the very purpose of the
reservation. This shall be kept in mind by the authorities while taking a
decision in this matter, which shall be done within two months from
today.
20. The appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.
21. All applications including IA Nos. 66056 and 66057 of 2023
also stand disposed of.
Ankit Gyan
Appeals disposed of.
(Assisted by : Adiraj Bali and Aarsh Choudhary, LCRAs)
VEENA VADINI TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTE v. STATE
OF MADHYA PRADESH [SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.]