Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. Indeed, on this part of the case, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Article 340 of the Constitution and contended that as no Commission, as contemplated by that Article, has made any recommendations as to the steps that should be taken by the State to remove any difficulties faced by the residents of rural areas, hill areas and the Uttarkhand Division of Uttar Pradesh for improving their conditions, a mere opinion of a minion of the Government of Uttar Pradesh, however highly placed he may be, ought not to be accepted by the Court for judicially sanctioning that all the residents of those areas are socially and educationally backward. The submission was that only when a Commission has been appointed facts investigated and recommendations received that the Government could say with any justification that any class of citizens was socially and educationally backward and then the special provisions could be made under Article 15(4) of the Constitution. We do not think this contention put forward on behalf of the petitioner can carry his case much forward. Article 340 of the Constitution does not envisage a Commission for finding out and classifying the citizens who are socially and educationally backward. What it envisages is that for the removal of difficulties of citizens who are socially and educationally backward, the Commission may investigate facts and submit recommendations. When in regard to certain citizens, a Commission appointed by the President under Article 340 of the Constitution investigates facts and circumstances under which they live and exist, treating them as socially and educationally backward, that circumstance can only be a piece of evidence that that class of citizens has been so treated. So the absence of any report of a Commission under Article 340 of the Constitution set up for investigating the conditions of life of the residents of the hill areas, rural areas and Uttarkhand Division would not necessarily lead to the inference that they are not socially and educationally backward. Further, it appears that for the purpose of Article 15, the Government concerned may justifiably treat a class of citizens as socially and educationally backward depending on facts and circumstances and need not wait for appointment of a Commission by the President under Article 340 which may or may not be appointed by the President. Therefore, the question has to be answered on the material placed in the supplementary counter-affidavit, for it appears to be the settled law that the burden is on the respondents to establish by evidence that all citizens residing in the rural areas, hill areas and Uttarkhand Division of the State of Uttar Pradesh are socially and educationally backward. In the counter-affidavit sworn in by Sri Fateh Narain Rai, a Section Officer in Medical Section of the U. P. Civil Secretariat, the only material furnished in paragraph 22 was in the nature of a mere allegation to the effect that the State Government considered rural, hill and Uttarkhand areas of the State as economically undeveloped and also considered these areas backward socially and educationally. No data and particulars were furnished. This lacuna was sought to be remedied by a supplementary counter-affidavit sworn in by Sri Raj Kumar Vaish, Deputy Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh in Medical Department. According to this affidavit, the population as per Census conducted in 1971 of the hill areas other than Uttarkhand Division was 24,70.286, of Uttarkhand 7,55,356 and of rural areas 7,59,96,292. It is further averred to this affidavit that about 80 per cent of the Indian Population lived in villages and 20 per cent in Urban Areas. It is obvious that in case population of the rural areas of Uttar Pradesh is considered as socially and educationally backward, then 80 per cent of the population inhabiting Uttar Pradesh will be socially and educationally backward. This is a proposition which it is impossible to accept The Division Bench in Dilip Kumar's case, AIR 1973 All 592 rightly pointed out that in making reservation of seats for candidates of rural areas the Government did not seem to have applied its mind but indulged in generalization. The social and educational backwardness of the citizen residing in rural areas has not been justified on any social survey or investigation. It will be a travesty of truth to say that all the citizens residing in rural areas of Uttar Pradesh are socially and educationally backward. Some segments of the rural population may be educationally backward. Some other segments may toe socially backward. There would be few who could be said to be both socially and educationally backward. Most of such sections of population have been classified already under our Constitution as belonging to the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes.