STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus PRADIP TANDON & ORS.

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

PRADIP TANDON & ORS. November 19, 1974

[A. N. RAY, CJ., K. K. MATHEW AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.]

Constitution of lndia, 1950-Ans. 15 (l )( 4) and 19(1)-Rewva~ions of scats in Medical Colleges in favour of hill and Uttrakha11d areas-Canst1tutwnal validity of-Tests for determining backwardness.

For admission of students to medical colleges in the State, the State Govern-ment had made reservation for rural, hill and Uttrnkhand areas on the ground that · people comini: from these are;;s belonged to sociallv ~nd educationally backward classes. The validity of these reservations was question~d •.n the ;gh Court. The High Cou;t in one case struck them down as unconshtuhonal, with. out considering the earlier decision.

On appeal to this Court it was contended on beha.lf of the ~tate that th.e object of the classificat;on was the advancement of medical educatmn for candi-dates from the reserved areas and to give students ·from these areas the benefit of medical education. It was further contended that by Art. 41 and 46 of the Constitution the State is enjoined to promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker se:tions of the people and that the reser-vations were not on the grounds of place of birth but on the ground of residenee .D and. therefore, the reservations would not fall within the mischief of either Art. 15(1) or Art. 29.

Art. 15(1) states that the State •hal! not discriminate apinst any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, p'ace of birth or any of them. Art. 19(2) states that no citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste. language or any of them.

Allowing the appeal in part, HELD: Reservation in· favour of candidates from r.ural areas is unconsti-tutional. .The reservations for the hill and Uttrnkhand areas are severable and are valid: [773D] ·

( 1) The Constitution does not enabl·! the State to bring socially and educa-tionally backward areas within the protection of Art. 15(4). The backwardness contemplated under Art. 15(4) is both social and edu;ational. Art. 15(4) speaks of backwardness of c'asses of citizens and. therefore, socially and educa'.ionally backward classes of citizens in Art. 15(4) could not be equated with castes. r··''SC-D]

(2) Neither caste nor race nor religion can be made the basis of classification for the purposes of determining social and educational backwardness within the mcanir.g of Art. !5(4). When Art. 15(1) forbids discrimination on grounds only of religion: rnee and caste, caste cannot be 1'1ade one of the criteria for determining social ·and edu.oational backwardness. If cnste or religion is recog-nised as cri'.erion of social and educational backwardness Art. 15(4) will stultify Art. 15(1). When c'assifi:ation takes recou.rse to cast~ as one of the criteria in determining sociat[1]y and educationaliy backwa•d clnsses the expression "dasses" in that case violates the rule of ex,pressio 1tnius e<t exclusio a/terius. The socially and educationally backward classes of citizens arc groups other than groups based on caste. [766F-G]

· · ( 3) Th·e place of habitation and its environment is also determining factor in judging the social and educat:onal backwardness. Backwardness is jud~d by· economic basis t.h.at eadi region has its own measurable po~sibilities for the maintenance of human numbers, standards of l:ving and fixed property. From an economic point cf view the classes of citiums are backward when they do not make effective use of resources. Neglected opportunities and people in remote places raise walls of soci.al backwardness of people. People in the hill an1 2-L346SupC'T 17 5

Uttrakhand areas illustra~·.! the educationally backward classes of citizens because. lack of educational faciWies keep .~hem stagnant and they have neither meaning and values nor ~wareness for education. [767A; E-01

State of An(ih.·a Prad;~sll &: Anr. v. P. Sagar, [1968] 3 S.C.R. 595 and Tiiloki Nath & Anr, v. State of Jammu &: Kashmir &: Ors. [1969] 1 S.C.R. 103, referred to.

(4) The test of poverty is not the determining factor of social ba::kwardm:ss. ~~

M. R. Ba!aji &: Ors. v. State of Mysore, [1963] Supp; 1 S.C.R. 439, held inapplicable.

J. P, Parimoo v. State of Jammu &: Kashmir, [1973] 3 S.C.R. 236, referred to.

(5) division between the populati0n on the ground of poverty that the people in the urban areas arc not poor and that the people in the rural areas are poor is neither supported by facts nor by division between the urban people on the one hand and the rural people on the other that the rural people are socii~l!y and cducational.ly ba1~kward classes. It cannot be said that all citizens residing in rural areas are socially and educationally backward. [7680-H]

(6) Population cannot be class by itself. Rural element does not make it class. To suggest that the rural areas are socially and educationally backward is to have reservations for the majority of the State. The special need for mt:di-cal men in rural areas will not make the people in the rural areas socially and educationally backward classes of citizens. [769B-C]

(7) The fact that the number of marlr.11 obtained by ~andidates from rural areas were much lower than marks obtained by general candidates makes it r1ei-ther valid nor justifiable ground for determining social and educational backward. ness. On the other hand the success of candidates from rural areas at the 011ea compctitfon ind.icates that the rural areas do not represent educational backwa!rd. ness of citizens. [7690)

( 8) The re!:ervation for rural areas cannot be sustained on the ground thaf the rural areas represent socially and educationally backward classes of citizens. Poverty in rural areas cannot be .the basis of classification to support reservation for rural areas. Poverty is found in all parts of India. No reservation can be made on the basis of place of birth. This would offend Art. 15. !7690-H]

In the instant case the reservation for rural areas cannot be upheld l:iccause there is no classification based on residence lietween students comine from withirr the State and others coming without. [772B]

(9) The present case of classification of rural areas is not one of under classi-fication. This is case of dis:rimination in favour of the majority of rural JlOI'U-1alion to the prejudice of students drawn from the general category. This cla!1si-flcation is unconstitutional. [7720]

D. P. °Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat&: A11r. [1955] 1 S.C.R. 1215, R. Chitrafr~kha & Anr. v. State of Mysore &: Ors, [1964] 6 S.C.R. 368. D. N. Chancha/a v. State of Mysore &: Ors. [19711 Supp. S.C.R. 1'08, Rajendran v. State of Madra,r. [1968] 2 S.C.R. 786 and Chitra Ghosh &: Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (1970] l S.C.R. 413, distinguished.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION· : Civil Appeal No. 1542 of 1974.

From the judgment and order dated August 5, 1974 of the Allahabad High Court in C. W. Misc. Petn. No. 5287 of 1973.

Civil Appeal No. 1385 of 1974.

Appeal by Special Leave from the judgment and order dated October 27, 1972 of the. Allahabad High Court in Sp!. A. No. S•IO of 1972.

dated

Writ Petition· No. 442 of 1974.

Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.

Niren De, Attorney General of India (in C.A. No. 1542/74) and 0. P. Rana, for the 'appellant (in C.A. No. 1542/74) respondent No. 1 (in C.A. No. 1385/74) and respondents (in W.P. No. 442174).

Yogeshwar Prasad, S. K. Bagga, S. Bagga and Jagdeep Kishore, for the appellant!· (in C.A. No. 1385/74 and W.P. No. 442174). · Pramod Swarup, S. M. Dass and Marwj Swtll'up,: for the Inter-vener (Vijay Mohan Das)~

A. K •. Srivastava, for the intervener (Kum. Sangeeta Agarwala and Ors.) .

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

RAY, C. J.-Tlte principal question for consideration in these Civil Appeals' and Writ Petition is whether the instructions framed . by the . State in making reservations in favour of candidates from ·Rural Areas, Hill Areas and Uttrakhand are constitutionally valid. These reservations were made by the State Government for admission of students to medical colleges in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

In Civil Appeal No. 1542 of 1974 .the instructions for the com-bined pre-medical test for the year 1973 were impeached. The ins-tructions for the combined pre ·medical test 1973 for admission .to 7 medical ·colleges ·in Uttar Pradesh under the Meerut University pro-vided for reservation of 117 seats for rural areas, 25 seats for hill areas arid 25 seats for Uttrakhand area. The total number of seats in- the· 7 colleges. is 782. 392 seats are open to candidates under general category. There are reservations 'for Scheduled Castes, Sche-duled- Tribes, children of political sufferers and children of army per-sonnel. The reservations for rural. hill and U1trakhand areas were ch·all~nged as unconstitutional. · -

In Civil Appeal No. 1385 of 1973 the combined pre-medical test for ·admission to 5 medical colle~s at Allahabad, Kanpur, Meerut, Agra and Jhansi for_ the year 1971 was challenged. The total num-ber of- seats was 758. 26 seats were reserved for. 'the nominees of the Government ·of India un~er various heads. 132 seats were avail-ableto be filled in through the combined pre-medical test. 368 seats were :open to general competition. 89 seats were reserved for rural areas, 23 seats for hill areas and 23 seats· for Uttrakhand Division. The i;_eservations for the rural, hill and Uttrakhand areas were chal-lenged as unconstitutional.

The contention on behalf of the State was that the reservations for rural, -hill and Uttrakhand areas are . for sociallv and· educationatlv backward classes. It. was also said that these reservations are valid on .ge_ographical or territorial basis. ,. --

· The affidavit evidence on. behalf of the State was this. The Gov~ ernment inthe years 1952 alld 19~3 made reservations for Kisan and

hill area candidates. The Government reviewed the position from time to time. The reservations are considered necessary to attract graduates from. those areas which are otherwise handicapped in the matter of education. It is necessary to feed the dispensaries with medical men in adequate number to serve the people inhabiting those areas. The rural. hill and Uttrakhand areas lack educational facilities. Peo:ple living there are illiterate or have. very modest education.. Th1!ir economic colldition is unsatisfactory. The level of income ts low. There is acute poverty. There is lack and in some cases total absence of communication and transportation. Historically . these areas ha.ve been neglected. People living in those areas are socially backward. The percentage of education among them is low. Candidates from those areas on account of various difficulties and handicaps callll1ot generallv compete on parallel or eQual footing with other candidat1!S. The .State maintains and financially supports the medical colleg1!S. The State can. therefore. claim to lay down the criterion for admis-sion to those colleges. The State classified these rural, hill and Uttrakhand areas as socially and educationally backward areas.

The affidavit evidenee on behalf of the candidate at the combined pre-medical test is that candidates belonging to reserved categor'les · obtained admission althour,h they secured marks as low as 128 and other candidates were placed in the waiting list although the matks obtained by them was as low as 103. In the general category candi-dates in the waiting list secured about 266 marks. (See petiti0n in Civil Appeal No. 1542 of 1974). - In Civil Appeal No, 1385 of 1973 it was alleged that the candidates from rural Scheduled Castes, Uttra-khand and Hill areas who obtained admission obtained 281. 298 aind 163 marks respectivelv whereas the petitioner in that case obtaim~d 288 marks and could not obtain· admission because of reservatfon of seats,· ·

The High Court at Allahabad upheld the reservation for rural, hill and Uttr~hand areas in Subhpsh Chandra v. State of U.P. A.I.R 1973 All. 295. The High Court struck down the aforesaid reserva.-tion in the case of Dilip Kumar v. State of U.P. A.l.R. 1973 All. 592. The High Court in the case of Dilip Kumar (supra) however did not consider the case of Subhash Chandra which was ain earlier decision. It is desirable from the point of view of judicial propriety to refer to earlier decisions of the same High Court.

The contentions. of the Attorney General were under two broad heads. First, the State has given sufficient material which remains uncontradicted to show that the nreas concerned consisted of people who were a~ class socially and educationally backward. Among the factors gi~n by the Government were the factors recognised bv the C.ourt in determining socially and 1~ducationally backward cta~':es. These .were poverty, nature of occu1latfon, plac:: of residence, tack of educat10~ anq also the sub-standard education of the candid~t;.,. for the test m comparison to the average standard of candid~k~ from general category. Second. the classification has not bei:!n m<!rlc only on the basis Qf place of birt:h a.~ is e-.ident from the Stnto affidavit.

If this classification be neither within the vice of Article 15 (1 ) or Article 29(2) then the classification of rural, hill and Uttrakhand areas can. be. justified on .the basis of reasonable sources for the pur-pose of admission to. medical colleges. The sources are the rural, hill and Uttrakhand areas which form geographical or territorial basis. The Attorney General put in the forefront the object of the classi-B fication to be the advancement of medical education for candidates from reserved· areas. He amplified his submissions as follows. It is notorious fact that rural, hill and Uttrakhand areas are socially backward because of extreme poverty. These areas are also educa-tionally backward because the standard of fiteracy is poor and there is lack of educational facilities. There is dearth of doctors in these reserved areas. It. iS necessary to attract students from 'these areas for admission to medical colleges. This will give imeptus to students from these areas to equip themselves as doctors. · The Attorney General submitted that the object of classification is to give students from rural areas benefit of medical education. If the object is to get the best material then it would be justifiable to look at the historicallv backward rural areas which have no medical colleges. The classification may be supported either on historical or geographical exigencies of circumstances. The geographical, terri-torial, historical and the economic conditions in the rural ana hill areas were emphasised to support the classification.The Attorney General laid considerable stress on the fea,ture that Rural India is socially and educationally backward by reason of , poverty. He said that the· Court should take judicial notice of the extreme poverty in these areas. · The rural people were said to have common trai~ of agriculture and they were all conditioned by economic poverty. Articles 41 and 46 were put in the forefront that the right to education was .one of the provisions in the Directive Principles. of State Policy. The State is to promote with special care the educa-tional and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people .

. Article 15 (1 ) states that the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex place of birth or any of them. The Attorney General submitted that the reservation was not on grounds only of place of birth or caste .. Article 29(2) states that no citizen shall be deqied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds. on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them. It is said by the Attorney. General that inasmuch as place of birth is not mentioned in Article 29(2), the reservations in the present case would not offend Article 29(2). The Attorney General submitted that the reservations in the present case were not on ground of place of birth but on ground of residence. and, therefore. the reservations would not fall within the mischief of either Article 15(1) or Article 29(2).

Article 15( 4) was added by the Constitution First Amendment Act, 1951. The obiect of the amendment was to bring Articles 15 and 29 in line with Article 16(4). Article 16(4) states that 'nothing

in that Article shall prevent the State from makillg any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizeilS which in. tlie opinion of the State is 11-ot adequati::ly represented in the service.s under the State. In the State of Madras v. Smt. Champakam Dorairaian [1951] S.C.R. 525 the reservati<>D of seats for non-Brahmins, backward Hindus, Brahmins, Harijai:ts, Anglo Indians and Indian Christians and Muslim was held to offend Article 15(1) and 29(2). This Court pointed out that the omission of clause like Article 16( 4) from Article 29 indicated the intention of the Constitution makers not to introduce communal consideration in matters of 'admission to educational institutions.

reservati<>D Harijai:ts, to offend omission

Article 15(4) speaks of socially and educationally backward classes· of citiwns. The State described the rural, hill and Uttrakhand areas as socially and educationally backward areas. The Constitution does not enable the State to brin~ socially and educationally backward areas within the protection of Article 15 ( 4). The Attorney General however submitted that . the affidavit evidence established the rural, hill and Uttrakhand areas to have socially and educationally back-ward classes oJ' citizens. The backwardness contemplated under Arti-cle 15(4) is both social and educational. Article 15(4) speaks of backwardness of classes of citizens. The accent is on classes of citi-zens. Article 15(4) also speaks of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Therefore, socially and educa;tio~y backward classes of citizens in Article' 15 ( 4) could not be equated with castes. In M. R. 1Jalaji & Ors. v. State of Mysore [1963] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 439 and State 'of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. v. P. SaRar [1968] 3 S.C.R. 595 this Court held that classification of backwardness on the basis of castes would violate both Articles 15(1) and 15(4).

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) , Whe111 Article 15 (1) forbids discrimination on grounds only of religion, raci::, caste, caste cannot be made one of the criteria for determining social and educational backwardness. If caste or religion is recognised as criterion of social and educational backwardness Article 15 ( 4) will stultifv Article 15(1). It is true that Article 15(1) forbid:s discrimination onlv on the ground of religion. race. caste, but when classification taken recourse to caste as one of the criteria in determinin~ socially and educationally backward classes the expres·-sion "classes" in that case violates the rule of expressio unius est ex·· clusio alterius. The socially and educationally backward classes of citizens are ~c>ups other than groups based on caste.

Th.e expres!:ion "socially and educationally backward classes" in Article 15(4) was explained in Balaii's case (supra) to be com-· parable to Schc~duled Castes a.nd Scheduled Tribes. The reason ii: that the Schekluled Castes and SCheduled Tribes ·illustrated social and educational backwardness. It is difficult to define the expres-· sion "socially and educationally backward classes of citizens". The traditional unchanginl!. occupations of citizens may continue tn,

The reason ii: ·illustrated social R define the expres-· of citizens". The may continue tn,

social and educational backwardness. The place of ·habitation and its . environment is also determining factor in juliging the social and educational backwardness.

The expression "classes of c:tizens" indicates homogeneous section of the people who are grouped together because of certain likeliness and . common traits and who are identifiable by some com-B mon 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 class of citizens.

The traits of social backwardness are these. There is no social structure. There is no s.ocial hierarchy. There are no means of controlling the environment through technology. There is no orga-nization of the society to create inducements for uplift of the peoplt: and improvement of economy. Building of towns and industries, growth of cash eeonomy which are responsible for greater social wealth are absent among such classes. Social growth and well being can be satisfied , by massive change in resource conditions. High lands and hills are to be developed in: fiscal values and natural re-D sources. Nature is treasury. Forests, mountains, rivers can yield an advanced society with the aid of education and technology.

The hill and Uttrakhand areas in Uttai: Pradesh are instance of sociallv and educationally backward classes of citizens for these reasons. Backwardness is judged by economic basis that each re-gion has its own measurable possibilities for the maintenance of human numbers, standariis of living and fixed property. From an economic point of view the classes of citizens are backward when . they do not make effective use of resources. When large areas of land maintain sparse, disorderly and illiterate , population whose property is small and negligible the element of social backwardness is observed. When effective territorial specialisation is not possible in the absence of means of communication and technical processes as in the hill and Uttrakhand areas the people are socially backward classes of citizens. Neglected opportunities and people in remote places raise walls of social backwardness of people.Educational backwardness is ascertained with reference to these factors. where people have traditional apathy for eduKa'.i';"l on account of social and environmental conditions or ocet\pational handicaps, it is an illustration of educational backwardness. The hill and Uttrakhand areas are inaccessible. There is lack ·of ef,iucational institutions and educational aids. People in the hill and Uttrakhan<l areas illustrate the educationally backward classes of citizens be-cause lack of educational facilities keep them stagnant and they· have neither meanin11; and values nor awareness for education. Relying on the decisions of Sta<e of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. v. P. Saear (supra) and Triloki Nath & Anr . . v. StatP of .Tamnlu & Kashmir & Ors. r19691 1 S.C.R. 103 the Attorney General contend-ed that the peaple of rural areas are socially and educationally

back wart:! classes of citizens within the meaning of Article 15 ( 4). 1t 1s said that people of rural areas llI'e grouped together because or their common traits, their occupation, their residence in the rural areas and thef are identifiable by such common traits and have for long constituted and continued to constitute well-known division ot Indian society. It was emphas_ised that the people in rural areas a.re always grouped together under the general or class name of "rural people." In Tri/oki Nath & A11r. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. (supra) this Court said that the members of an entire caste or com-munity may, in the social, economic a.ntl educational scale of values at given time, be backward and may, on that account be treated as backward class, but that is not because they are members of caste or community, but because they form class. In Balaii's case (supra) this Court said that social backwardn~ss is on the ultimate analysis the result of poverty to large extent and that the problem of backward classes is in substance the problem of rural India. Extracting these observations the Attorney General contended that poverty is not only relevant but is one of the elements in determining the social backwardness. We are unable to accept the test of poverty as the determining factor of social backwardness. The 1971 Census showed population in· India to be 54.79 crores. 32.89 crores or 80.1 oer cent live in rural areas. 10.91 crores or '413.9 oer cent live in cities and towns. 11) 1921 the rural population in India was 88.8 per cent. In 1971 the rural population was re .. duced to 80. 7 per cent. The rural population of Uttar Pradesh irn '1971 was rou£hlv seven and half crores. The population in Ultra-· khand was roughly seven and ~alf lakhs. The population of Hill areas in Uttar Pradesh was near about twenty-five lakhs. It is in· comprehensible 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 b~ socially backward because of poverty. Furthe,r, it is also not possi-ble to predicate poverty as the common trait .of rural people. This Court in J. P. Parimoo v. State of lammu & Kashmir [1973) 3 S.C.R. 236 saitl that if poverty is the exclusive test 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. division be-tween the population of our country on the ground of poverty that the people in the urban areas are not poor and that the people ill the rnral areas are Poor is neither supported bv facts nor by divi-sion between the urban people on the one bani:! and the· rural people on [1]'1e other that the rural people are socially and educationally backward class,

Some people in the rural areas may be educationally backward, som ~ mav be 0 oc:anv b1c'f(ward. theri> mR:V· bo fe"' who ~rr both ~hllv an<! "OlJC'lti0t1allv hadcwRrd. hn• ;! c•nnot he ~ai<l tha+ 111 citizens residing in rnraT areas are socially and educationally back-ward.

80 per cent of the population in the State of Uttar Pradesh in rural areas cannot be sald to be homogeneous Class by itself. They are not of the same kind. Their occupation is differen_t. Their standards are different. Their lives are different. Population· cannot be class by itself. Rural· element does not make it class. To suggest that the rural areas are socially and educationally. backward 8 is to have reservation for the majority of the State. On behalf of the State it ill said that it is necessary to have re-servation of seats for the people from rural areas in order to attract people from those areas w'jlo are otherwise handicapped in the matter of education, so that they can serve the people in the rural areas on completion of their mekllcal education. In order to attract medical men for service in rural ari:as arrangements are to be made to attract them. The special need for medical men in rural areas will not make the people. in the rural areas socially and educationally back• ward classes of citizens.

It was said that the number of marks obtained by candidates froni rural areas showed that they were much lower than the marks obtained by general candidates and this woulk:I indicate ·educational backwardness. That is neither valid nor justifiable ground for determining social and educational backwardness. Educational insti-tutions should attract the best talents. It has been held by this Court in Balajj's case (supra) that 50 per cent of the seats in educa-tional institutions shoultl be left open to general competition. In tte present case, it appears that 85 candidates from rural areas were selected in the general seats. One candidate from Uttrakhand area, 7 candidates from hilJ areas and one Scheduled Caste candidate also completed for the general seats. The candidates from hill areas, Uttrakhand Division and Scheduled Castes are exceptions and th,~ir performance will not detract from the reservations for Scheduled Caste, hill and Uttrakhand areas. The performance of 85 candi-dates from rural areas speaks .. eloquently for the high standartls of education in rural areas. ·

The resel'Vation for rural areas 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 populafon of the State cannot be 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 ~eservation of seats it is provided that in the apolication form. candidate for reserved seats from rural areas must submit certificate of the District. Magistrate of the· District to which 'be befonged . that · he was born in rural area ·and had permanent home there and is residing there or that he was born in India and his pare~ts and ~~rdians are. still. living there· and earn their livelihood there. The mc1dent of birth m rural areas is made the basic qualification. No reservation can be mal:le on the basis of place of birth. as this wou1d offend Article 15.

The onus of proof is on the State to establish that the reservauuns are for sociaUy and educationally backward classes of citizens. The State has established that the ~le in hill and Uttrakhand areas are socially and . educationally oockward classes of citiZens.

The Attorney General submitted that if ~e State failed to . estab-lish that the · people in rural areas are socially and educationally backward classes of citizens the reservation for rural areas coultl be sustained on the ground that the reservations are clearly on geogra-phical or territorial basis.· The Attorney General referred te the instruction for reservation of seats and submitted that the basis of reservation is not only place of birth but place of birth as well as the residence of the applicant or place of birth as· well as the resi-Je nce of the upplicant parents or guardian. He relied on the deci-sion of this Court in D. P. Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat & Anr. [1955] 1 S.C.R. 1215 in support of the proposition that classific:a-tion on the basis of resitlence is valid as geographical or territor.lal classification. On behalf of the State it was said that under Artide 41 the State has duty to make effective provision for securing the right to educ11tion. Reliance was placed on Article 46 that the State shall promote with special care the educational and economic in-terests of the weaker sections of the people. The Attorney General submitted that the reservations for the rural areas was really to ob-tain students from the source of rural areas. ·

In D. P . .Toshi's case (supra) the State Governinent made rule that no capitation fee should be charged for students who are bona fide resitlents of Madhya Bharat but capitation fee should lbe retained for non-Madhya Bhar~t students. This rule was challeng1xl a:s an infraction of Article 14 and 15 (1 ) . This Court held that Lhe rule did not infringe the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 15 (1) because residence and P.lace of birth are two distinct conce(>'-tions with different connotations both. in law an'd fact. This Cou:rt said that Article 15 ( 1) prohibited di~~rimination based on place of birth and the prohibition could not be read as one of discrimination based on residence. division into two groups, viz., bona fide resi-dents of Madhya Bharaf a~fj non-residents of Madhya Bharat was held not to be violation of Article 14. classification based on residence was held to have fair and substantial relation to the pur-pcse of the law. It was said that if the State had to spend mom:y on education, it was not unreasonable that the State should order the educational system in such manner -that the advantage of it would to some extent ensure for t1le benefit of th~ State.

The other two decisions on which Attorney General relied on are · R. Chitralekh,r & Anr. v. State of Mvsore & Ors: f1964] 6 S.C.R. 368 and D. K. Chan.cha/av. State of Mvsore & Ors. e!c. [1971] Supp. S C.R. 608. The classification in the present case was laid by the ttornev Genl'.ral to encoura11:e hi11:her education to bona fide appli-cants from tlw- rural areas. It is also said that the candidates from rural areas will have to execute bond that they agree to serve the

Government for five vears so that doctors could be provided in rural areas. This was said to be relevant cons~eration for sup~ porting the classification.

In Chitralekh<is case (supra) the Government of Mysore defined backward classes and directed that 30 per cent of the . seats in pro-fessional and technical colleges and institutions would be reserved for them. The Mysore 0overnment laid down that classification of socially and educationally backwanl. classes should be on the basis Of (1) economic condition, and (2) occupation. According to that order, family whose income is Rs. 1,200 per annum or less and per801li or classes who followed occupations of agriculture petty biisiness, inferior services, - crafts or other occupations involving .manual labour were defined to be socially, economically and educa-c tionally backward. This Court said that the classification of back-wanl. classes basai on economic conditions and occupation does not offend Atticle 15(4). This Court explained Balaji's case (supra) by stating that the authority concerned might take costs into consi-deration in ascertaining tlie b~!cwardness of group of persons but if it did not, the order would not be bad on that account if it could ascertain the backwardness of group of persons on the basis of other relevant material. : · In Chanchala's case (supra) one of the rules made reservatio.,_ for· children of political sufferers . and another rule provided for distribu-. tion of seats according to Universities. The reservation for childreo.: of political sufferers was upheld on the ground that such classifica- . tion has reasonable nexus with object of the rules, viz., fair and just distribution of seats. With regard to the distn'bution of seats accord-ing to the Universities, the rule provided that seats in the generat po0l' would be distributed University-wise. Seats in colleges affiliated to· Kamatak University were to be allotted to persons passi.ng from colle-ges affiliated to that University and seats in colleges affiliated to Banga-lore and Mysore Universities were to be. respectively allotted to persoas passing from colleges affilillted to each such University. The· rule-F also provided that not more than 20 per cent of the seats in the colleges affiliated to any. university might in the discretion of the Selection Com-mittee, 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 nqr fo have rational nexus with the obj~ to the rules. . ·

This Court in Chanchala's case (supra) held that since the· univer-G sities were set up for satisfying the educational needs of differe11t 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 univer-sities. Such basis ·for selection did not .have disadvantage of di.-trictwise or unit-wise selection as anf student from anv part of the State could ·pas~ the qualifying examination iii any of the three uni-versities irrespet;tive 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.

In the present case, the reservation for the rural area c-annot be up-held because there is no classification based on residence between 1:tu-dents coming from within the State and .others coming from without. 1rhe object of prcividing 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 districtwise allocation _was held by this Court in Rajendran v. State of Madras [1968] (2) S.C.R. 786 to violate Article 14. The University-wise distnbution of seats which was found to be valid in Chanchala's case (supra.) does not have any application in the present case. . . .

The submission of the Attorney General that rural population would be s.ource for drawing students cannot be upheld. An illus-tration of different sources of categories of students is Chitra Ghosh & A"'· v. Union of Jndid & Ors. [1970] I: S.C.R. 413. There the cate\-gories of students were classified as residents of Delhi; sons/daughters o( Central Government servants posted .in Delhi; candidates whose father is dead and is wholly dependent on borther/sister who is Cent-ral 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 Mi& sions abroad;, cultural scholars. Colombo Plan Scholars; Thailand Scholars and Jammu and Kashmir State Scholars, Rural area in Uttar Pradesh cannot be said to be source for reservation of the tvoe in Chb·a Ghosh's case (supra).

The Attorney General relied on Beryl F. Carroll v. Greenwich Insurance Co. of New York 50, L.Ed. 246, Weaver v. Palm.er Brother Co. 70 L.ED. 654 and West Coast Hotel Co. v. Erruist Parrish 81 L.ED. 703 in support of the proposition that 1f an evil is especially experienced in particular branch of business, the Consti-tution embodies no prohibition of Jaws confined to the evil or ·doc-trinaire requirement that they should be couched in all embracing terms. It was said 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. '])tis fllile really means that there is no doctrinaire requirement that the legi.s-lation should be couched in all embracing terms. 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 case of discrimination in favour of the majority of rural population to the prejudice of students drawn from the general category. The classification is unconstitutional.

In Civil Apoeal No. 1385 of 1973 two other minor c.ontentio11s were raised. One was that the reservation was beyond 50 per sent. 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 calculatimr the per-·centage of reserved seats. If 26 seats are included it was said that tliie

reserved seats would come to 52 per cent. 26 seats form source from which selection is made. The Government bears the burden of expenses of education. provision laying down source is not re-servation [See Chanchala's case (supra)].

The other contention was that the S~ate 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 gene;·a\ seats on the basis of then better per-formance 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 chan~ed. We have already held that the success of candidates from rural areas at the open competition indi-cates that the rural areas do not represent educationally backward classes of citizens.

For these reasons we hold that the reservation in favour of candi-· du tes from rural areas is unconstitutional. The reservations for the hill and Uttrakhand areas are serverable and these are valid.

We allow. Civil Appeal No. 1385 of 1973 in part.

Civil Appeal No. 1542 of 1974 is also allowed in part. The reservations for the hill and Uttrakhand areas are upheld in both the appeals and the reservations for the rural areas in both the appeals are unconstitutional. .. .

Writ Petition No. 442 1974 succeeds in part. The reservation for rural areas aggregating 131 seats is declared unconstitutional. Reserva· tion for hill and Uttrakhand areas is held to be valid.

Parties will pay and bear their own ·costs in the wiit petition as well as in the Civil Appeals.

Appeals and Petition allowed in part.