Case: Kumari K.S. Jayasree and Anr.  Vs. State of Kerala

2. The first petitioner applied for admission to the MBBS course for6 in one of the medical colleges at Trivandrum in the State of Kerala Clause 9e (vi) in the prospectus for admission provided among other things that the applicant should produce certificate of community and income (from all sources) in the prescribed form in the case of candidates belonging to the communities recognised by the Government as socially and educationally backward classes3. The petitioner produced the certificate from the Tahsildar, showing that the total income of her family from all sources is Rs. 11,752 for the year6 and that she is an Ezhava4. The minimum marks prescribed for admission for candidates belonging to Ezhava community in the State is 363 in the optional subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology. The petitioner obtained 372 marks. The petitions alleges that the list of candidates belonging to the Ezhava/Thiyya community selected for the seats reserved to them under Art.15(4) of the Constitution was published on October 10, 1975 and the first petitioner was not selected though candidates belonging to Ezhava community who had obtained less marks than the first petitioner had been selected. The petitioners further allege that the list shows that candidate Nos. 6 to 27 obtained marks ranging between 371 and 357. The Principal, Medical College sent a memorandum to the first petitioner that, as the income exceeds Rs. 10,000 her case cannot be considered under reservation scheme5. Clause 11 of the prospectus for6 for admission to MBBS course in medical colleges in the State is as follows :11. Selection for admission, reservation for S.Cs./S.Ts./socially and educationally backward class and reservation regional basis :Selection of candidates will be on the basis of merits as laid down in G. R. Rt. 1361/70/Health dated 18.6.1970 and D. O. Ms. M. O. No. 216/71/Health dated 8.7.1971 and subject to the provisions contained in G. O. (P) 208/66/Edn. dated 2.5.1966 and subsequent orders of the Government regarding reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other socially and educationally backward class, reservation for Malabar and Travancore Cochin, area etc. The decision of the Government on matters concerning admission shall be final6. On May 2, 1966 the State Government issued an order, inter alia, that only applicants who are members of families consisting of Ezhavas, whose aggregate annual income is below Rs. 6,000 would be entitled to admission to the seats reserved for students belonging to the socially and educationally backward class. It should be stated here that the said order of the State Government came to be issued on the consideration of the report of the commission appointed by the State to enquire into the social and educational conditions of the people and report as to what sections of the people in the State of Kerala should be treated as socially and educationally backward classes7. The commission assumed office on July 14, 1964 and submitted its report on December 31, 1965. The Recommendation of the commission was that only citizens who are members of families which have an aggregate income of less than Rs. 4200 per annum and which belong to the castes and communities mentioned in Appendix VIII constitute socially and educationally backward classes for purposes of Art.15(4).

Court's reasoning:
It is necessary to remember that special provision is contemplated for classes of citizens and not for individual citizens as such, and so, though the caste of the group of citizens may be relevant, its importance should not be exaggerated. If the classification is based solely on caste of the citizen, it may not be logical. Social backwardness is the result of poverty to a very large extent. Caste and poverty are both relevant for determining the backwardness. But neither caste alone nor poverty alone will be the determining tests. When the commission has determined a class to be socially and educationally backward it is not on the basis of income alone, and the determination is based on the relevant criteria laid down by the Court. Evidence and material are placed before the commission. Art.15(4) which speaks of backwardness of classes of citizens indicates that the accent is on classes of citizens. Art.15(4) also speaks of schedule castes and scheduled tribes. Therefore, socially and educationally backward classes of citizens in Art.15(4) cannot be equated with castes. In R. Chitralekha v. State of Mysore (1964 (6) SCR 368   : AIR 1964 SC 1823  ) this Court said that the classification of backward classes based on economic conditions and occupations does not offend Art.15(4)21. In ascertaining social backwardness of a class of citizens it may not be irrelevant to consider the caste of the group of citizens. Caste cannot however be made the sole or dominant test. Social backwardness is in the ultimate analysis the result of poverty to a large extent. Social backwardness which results from poverty is likely to be aggravated by considerations of their caste. This shows the relevance of both caste and poverty in determining factor of social backwardness of citizens. Poverty by itself is not the determining factor of social backwardness. Poverty is relevant in the context of social backwardness. The commission found that the lower income group constitutes socially and educationally backward classes. The basis of the reservation is not income but social and educational backwardness determined on the basis of relevant criteria. If any classification of backward classes of citizens is based solely on the caste of the citizen it will perpetuate the vice of caste system. Again, if the classification is based solely on poverty it will not be logical. The society is taking steps for uplift of the people. In such a task groups or classes who are socially and educationally backward are helped by the society. That is the philosophy of our Constitution. It is in this context that social backwardness which results from poverty is likely to be magnified by caste consideration. Occupations, place of habitation may also be relevant factors in determining who are socially and educationally backward classes. Social and economic consideration come into operation in solving the problem and evolving the proper criteria of determining which classes are socially and educationally backward. That is why our Constitution provided for special consideration of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens as also schedule castes and tribes. It is only by directing the society and the State to offer them all facilities for social and educational uplift that the problem is solved. It is in that context that the commission in the present case found that income of the classes of citizens mentioned in Appendix VIII was a relevant factor in determining their social and educational backwardness22. The problem of determining who are socially and educationally backward classes is undoubtedly not simple. Sociological and economic consideration come into play in evolving proper criteria for its determination. This is the function of the State. The Courts jurisdiction is to decide whether the tests applied are valid. If it appears that the tests applied are proper and valid the classification of socially and educationally backward classes based on the tests will have to be consistent with the requirements of Art.15(4). The commission has found on applying the relevant tests that the lower income group of the communities named in Appendix VIII of the report constitute the socially and educationally backward classes.In dealing with the question as to whether any class of citizens is socially backward or not, it may not be irrelevant to consider the caste of the said group ofIt is necessary to remember that special provision is contemplated for classes of citizens and not for individual citizens as such, and so, though the caste of the group of citizens may be relevant, its importance should not be exaggerated. If the classification is based solely on caste of the citizen, it may not be logical. Social backwardness is the result of poverty to a very large extent. Caste and poverty are both relevant for determining the backwardness. But neither caste alone nor poverty alone will be the determining tests. When the commission has determined a class to be socially and educationally backward it is not on the basis of income alone, and the determination is based on the relevant criteria laid down by the Court. Evidence and material are placed before the commission. Art.15(4) which speaks of backwardness of classes of citizens indicates that the accent is on classes of citizens. Art.15(4) also speaks of schedule castes and scheduled tribes. Therefore, socially and educationally backward classes of citizens in Art.15(4) cannot be equated with castes. In R. Chitralekha v. State of Mysore (1964 (6) SCR 368   : AIR 1964 SC 1823  ) this Court said that the classification of backward classes based on economic conditions and occupations does not offend Art.15(4)23. The different castes that have been described in Appendix VIII to the commission report have not been accepted by the commission as embodying the group of socially and educationally backward classes of people. Only those among the members of the castes mentioned in Appendix VIII whose economic means was below that stated by the commission were treated as socially and educationally backward. The educational backwardness is reflected to a certain extent by the economic conditions of the group15. The object of the reservation under Art.15(4) is to recognise the factual existence of socially and educationally backward classes in our country and to make a sincere attempt to promote the welfare of the weaker sections of the community. Art.15(4) gives effect to this principle. The concept of backwardness in Art.15(4) is not intended to be relative in the sense that classes who are backward in relation to the most advanced classes of society should be included in it15. The object of the reservation under Art.15(4) is to recognise the factual existence of socially and educationally backward classes in our country and to make a sincere attempt to promote the welfare of the weaker sections of the community. Art.15(4) gives effect to this principle. The concept of backwardness in Art.15(4) is not intended to be relative in the sense that classes who are backward in relation to the most advanced classes of society should be included in