Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

sion to the said course whose rank on the basis of marks obtained in the entrance test is as under:

Marks Candidates at serial Nos. 1 and 2 were admitted to the said course. The petitioner who did his M.B.B.S. (First Degree) from Andhra University and M. S. General Surgery from All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, and who ranks third in the merit list challenged the admission of the 4th respondent initially on the ground that the allotment of seats region wise was illegal, arbitrary and mala fide as, according to him, the admissions should have been made on the basis of merit and not on the basis of region. Later, he amended the prayer in the writ petition and sought a declaration that Art. 371D of the Constitution of India is violative of the basic structure of the Constitution or alternatively to declare that the non-exclusion of the Super Speciality Second Post Graduate Discipline of M.Ch. (Genito-Urinary Surgery) from the purview of the A. P. Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions) Order, 1974 is violative of Article 371D of the Constitution of India and ultra vires the powers of President of India under the said Article.

15. As mentioned above Clause (10) of Art.371D provides that notwithstanding anything in any other provision of the Constitution, or in any other law for the time being in force the provisions of Art. 371D and of any order made by the President thereunder shall have effect. It therefore follows that the above provisions are not open to question on the touchstone of any of the provisions of the Constitution. So also the order made by the President under Cl. (1) of Art.371D is protected. Mr. Raghuram accepts this position, but says that the constitutional validity of that Article has to be examined not with reference to fundamental rights enumerated in Part III of the Constitution, but with reference to the basic structure of the Constitution.

16A. The contention that the Presidential Order is violative of the basic structure of the Constitution was again raised in Fazal Gafoor v. Union of India, , and it was rejected. The Supreme Court observed:

"By our judgment delivered to-day in Dr. C. Surekha v. Union of India, , we have already held that there is no merit in the allegation of the Presidential Order or the constitutional provision authorising the issuance of such order is hit by violation of the basic structure of the Constitution. So far as the State of Andhra Pradesh is concerned the position is as envisaged in the Presidential Order. In Dr. Pradeep Jain's case, , this Court has observed that in Super specialities there should really be no reservation. This is so in the general interest of the country and for improving the standard of higher education and thereby improving the quality of available medical services to the people, of India. We hope and trust that the Government of India and the State Government shall seriously consider this aspect of the matter without delay and appropriate guidelines shall be evolved by the Indian Medical Council so as to keep the Super Specialities in medical education unreserved open and free.

Therefore, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel that Art.371D of the Constitution is violative of the basic structure of the Constitution.

17. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Order passed by the President under Cl.(1) of Art. 371D is violative of the provisions of Art. 371D itself.

18. Article 371D provides that having regard to the requirements of the State as a whole, for providing equitable opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to different parts of'the State in the matter of public employment and in the matter of education, the President may make an order writ respect to the State of Andhra Pradesh and different provisions may be made for various parts of the State. We have already outlined the scope of the Presidential Order. We may briefly state the same again; it may be noted that the whole State is divided into 3 local areas having regard to the jurisdiction of the Universities in the State. 85 per cent of the available seats in each of the educational institutions under the control of the State Government are reserved for each local area and 15 per cent of the seats are left open as unreserved for which, inter alia, the candidates of the other local area can compete though there is also a provision in Art. 371D enabling the President to make different provisions for different parts of the State. The Order passed by the President it is obvious, provides equitable opportunities to each local area equally. Opportunities for the residents of the State are equitably distributed. This is in respect of non-Statewide institutions. In regard to the Statewide institutions, as noticed above, 85 per cent of the seats available are divided having regard to the requirements of the State in the ratio of 42:36:22. Nothing inconsistent with Article 371D is pointed out in regard to the provisions of the Presidential Order. The substance of the submission of the learned counsel is that in one local area of University there are certain courses of Super Specialities which if reserved for that local candidates would result in depriving the non-local candidates of the chance of getting admission so when the seats are limited they should be treated as unreserved. We are afraid we cannot accept this contention as it is contrary to the scheme of the Presidential Order.