Madras High Court
Attavanai Ena Makkal vs The Secretary To Government on 9 June, 2014
Author: B.Rajendran
Bench: B.Rajendran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.06.2014
Coram
The Honourable Mr.Justice B.RAJENDRAN
W.P. No. 11786 of 2014
and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014
Attavanai Ena Makkal
Samuga Neethi Eyakkam rep.
by its President A.Ramamurthy ...Petitioner
vs.
1. The Secretary to Government
Ministry of Home Affairs
New Delhi.
2. The Secretary to Government
The Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare Government
of India, New Delhi.
3. The Director, JIPMER
Puducherry.
4. The Chairman
Medical Council of India
Dwarakha Phase
New Delhi. ...Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the third respondent in respect of Clause (vi) of the prospectus issued for admission to I year M.B.B.S., Course for the academic year 2014-15; to quash the same insofar as general condition of residence as provided in Clause (iv) (a) (b) of the prospectus is made applicable for admission to the Puducherry Scheduled Caste category and consequently to direct the respondents to fill up the seats earmarked for Puducherry Scheduled Caste category with the Scheduled caste candidates of Puducherry Origin on the basis of the Presidential Order, 1964.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Ajayakumar
ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the prospectus issued for admission to I year M.B.B.S., Course for the academic year 2014-15; to quash the same insofar as general condition of residence as provided in Clause (iv) (a) (b) of the prospectus is made applicable for admission to the Puducherry Scheduled Caste category and consequently to direct the respondents to fill up the seats earmarked for Puducherry Scheduled Caste category with the Scheduled caste candidates of Puducherry Origin on the basis of the Presidential Order, 1964.
2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:
(a) The petitioner is an organisation started by the Scheduled Caste people of Puducherry for the welfare and development of the Scheduled Caste candidates of Puducherry origin. According to the petitioner, under the French regime, there was a Medical College in Puducherry and the same was run by French Administration. When the Puducherry administration was taken over by the Government of India in 1954, an agreement was entered into in which Clause 30 provides that those students who are studying in the said Medical College are having the option either to get a scholarship and to continue their studies in France or to join any college under the Government of India. On the basis of the said agreement, the Government of India has started JIPMER Medical College. Totally 50 seats were available and out of which 15 seats are reserved for persons of Domicile in former French territories and three seats are reserved for the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Backward Class people. This arrangement was continued till date.
(b) The JIPMER has issued a prospectus indicating that there are 150 MBBS seats available for the academic year 2014-15 and it was divided into two categories, viz., Puducherry Category and All India Category. Out of the total number of 150 MBBS seats, 40 seats are reserved for the residents of Puducherry and that 40 seats coming under the Puducherry origin is further divided as follows:
Puducherry U.R. 23 Puducherry O.B.C. 11 Puducherry S.C. 6 Accordingly, six seats are allotted to Puducherry Scheduled Caste students.
(c) Clause (vi) of the prospectus provides that "Puducherry Scheduled Caste" means a candidate satisfying the definitions of categories (iii) as well as (iv-a)/(b). Category (iv) (a) and (b) of the prospectus states that the candidates who are having five years residence in the Union Territory of Puducherry or the candidates whose parent or parents are serving in the Union Territory of Puducherry for a period of one year prior to the submission of application form are entitled to get the benefit of reservation under the Puducherry Scheduled Caste Category.
(d) According to the petitioner, the above provision is against the rule of reservation. As per the said rule, the candidates who do not come under the above definition cannot claim admission under the Puducherry Scheduled Caste Category. The further case of the petitioner is the word "residence" has to be construed as permanent residence at the time of the proclamation of the Presidential order as provided under Section 20 of the Representation of Peoples Act. Hence providing five years residence or one year residence as stated in clause (iv) (a)/ (b) in the prospectus for the year 2014-15 is in violation of law regarding reservation.
(e) According to the petitioner, Scheduled Caste Origin alone could be considered as Scheduled Caste of Pondicherry. The Scheduled Caste migrants cannot be treated as Scheduled Caste of Pondicherry notwithstanding their residential status.
(f) Therefore, the petitioner wanted the clause regarding residential status to be quashed and a consequential direction to the respondents to fill up the seats earmarked for Puducherry Schedule Caste category with the Scheduled Caste candidates of Puducherry origin on the basis of the Presidential Order, 1964.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner after making some elaborate arguments fairly submitted that in respect of the very same subject matter, earlier three writ petitions were filed before this court and all of them were disposed of mainly stating that it cannot be claimed as a right. Ultimately it is only a concession given by the institution to the local Scheduled Castes students at large. Hence, this writ petition also has to be considered only in the light of the earlier three writ petitions.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court the order passed in the earlier writ petitions filed with regard to the same subject matter. In the latest judgment passed by this Court in W.P.No.18529 and 17346 of 2013 dated 30.09.2013, the decisions rendered by this Court in the earlier judgments were quoted, which is as follows:
"21. The prospectus makes it clear that 40 seats earmarked for Pondicherry local candidates is meant for local residents which would include the Scheduled Caste candidates. There is no reservation in favour of Scheduled Caste Origin as such.
22. The very same issue came up for consideration before this Court in Puvvala Sujatha v. Union of India & JIPMER, Pondicherry (2000) Writ Law Reporter 496. The learned Judge while rejecting similar contention raised by the Scheduled Caste Origin candidates observed thus:
"9. ............The second respondent being a Central Government institution, they have reserved eight seats for all the Scheduled Caste candidates. However, as a concession, in the place of the location of the institution, five seats are set apart for residents of Pondicherry Scheduled Castes. This is not to be treated as a reservation under Article 16(4). It is only a concession shown and a source of selection for the colleges on the basis of the location. Just like Pondicherry General where 15 seats are located to residents of Pondicherry, similarly, five seats are located to residents of Pondicherry. Those residents have no connection with the Scheduled Caste Presidential Notification. Further, it cannot be, in any way, restricting the right of the Scheduled Castes in the reservation of allotment to the eight seats reserved for Scheduled Castes.
10. ............In my view, the contention of the petitioner that the remaining five seats allotted on the basis of residence of Scheduled Caste should also be based on the Presidential notification order therefore cannot be sustained. In my view, this is a different classification and source of selection and not a reservation under Article 13(4) or 16(4) of the Constitution of India. In the colleges belonging to the Pondicherry Union Territory, they are bound to follow the principle of reservation as enunciated by the Honourable Supreme Court. In this case, the JIPMER is Central Government institution and they have followed a reservation as concession shown for selection of these candidates from the Union Territory."
23. The decision of this Court in Puvvala Sujatha was reiterated in Minor D.Ram v. Jawharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research (2004) 4 MLJ 472. This Court held:
"13. Further, as far as Central Government institutions are concerned, no distinction is made between Scheduled Caste candidates who have the origin in a particular State or Union Territory and Scheduled Caste candidates who have migrated. This clarification is obtained in the Government of India, Department of Telecom Letter No.1-13/92-SCT dated 18/31.8.1992. As per the clarification obtained from the Ministry of Welfare and Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Personnel and Training, there is no distinction between origin and migration cases as far as Central Government institutions are concerned. They are applicable only to State Government services and State Government educational institutions. Applying this criteria and in view of the fact that the conditions in Clause 3.5.1 of the Prospectus were met, respondents 4 to 12 have been admitted. The percentage of reservation for Scheduled Caste candidates in the respondent Institution is 15% and out of the 75 seats, 20 seats are reserved on residential basis and for the remaining 55, if 15% reservation is applied, it comes to 8.25 and therefore, 8 seats are given under the Open Scheduled Caste category. As regards the 20 seats, 15% reservation will actually come to three seats. On the other hand, five seats are given for Pondicherry Scheduled Castes. Therefore, the quota for Scheduled Castes has not been diminished. Out of that quota, as a concession, the Pondicherry Scheduled Caste candidates, as defined in the Prospectus, have been given five seats. The petitioner has participated in the examination quite aware of the reservation for Pondicherry Scheduled Castes. Having participated in the examinations, he now finds himself out of the running since other students who also applied under the Pondicherry Scheduled Caste category have acquired more marks than him; so, he has laid the challenge. There is no violation of the Constitutional requirement of reservation. "
24. I am in agreement with the views expressed by P. Shanmugham, J in Puvvala Sujatha and Mrs. Prabha Sridevan, J in Minor D.Ram.
25. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners by placing reliance on Section 3 of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 submitted that out of the total strength, 15% of seats should be reserved for Scheduled Caste in all the Central Government Institutions. The institution in the subject case has followed this requirement by reserving 15% seats to the Scheduled Caste candidates. The Act nowhere provided that 15% reservation should be in favour of Scheduled Caste Origin. There is no indication that 15% reservation for Scheduled Caste should be in relation to that State, where the institution is located.
26. The minor petitioner in W.P.No.17346 of 2013 applied only against the seats earmarked for Scheduled Caste. It was only when he found the chance of getting admission under that category is remote, he made a claim for seats earmarked for the local Scheduled Caste Candidates, who are residing at Pondicherry.
27. The petitioners have proceeded on a wrong premise that the seats earmarked to the local Scheduled Caste Candidates were intended to the Scheduled Caste Origin. There is no merit in the contention taken by the petitioners."
5. In the light of the above judgments and also taking into account the fact that the very same prayer has been challenged in this writ petition, the same is not maintainable. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
09.06.2014 vj2 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Note : Issue order copy on 12.06.2014 To
1. The Secretary to Government Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi.
2. The Secretary to Government The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Government of India, New Delhi.
3. The Director, JIPMER Puducherry.
4. The Chairman Medical Council of India Dwarakha Phase New Delhi.
B.RAJENDRAN,J vj2 W.P. No.11786 of 2014 09.06.2014