Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. Sri Sriram, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP No. 16015 of 2001 while adopting the submissions of Mr. Rama Mohana Rao, argued that in Ritesh's case (supra), the Supreme Court has dealt with the conditions of admissions in respect of MBBS and BDS courses in the State of Maharashtra. Even the Writ Appeal No.795 of 1999 (NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada v. Y.Raghavendra (supra)) on the basis of which the impugned order was issued also related to the admissions in MBBS course only. Thus, the principles applicable in respect of admissions into medical colleges cannot be applied to admissions into engineering courses due to various combinations and permutations available for a candidate to exercise his choice in engineering stream and the said decision should be applied only in a similarly situated case. In any event, as the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3699 of 2000 filed against the judgment of this Court in WA No.795 of 1999 and batch, while disposing of the appeal left open the question of law, the matter should be considered afresh by this Bench. Once merit is taken as criterion for filling up seats available in open category, he would urge, additional option to reserved categories is inconsistent with Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India. The transfer of a seat vacated by a reserved candidate secured in the open competition to the pool of reserved categories over and above the seats earmarked for such reserved candidates violates Article 14 of the Constitution resulting in reverse discrimination. Mr. Sri Ram has in support of his contentions, relied upon the decisions in State of Bihar v. M. Neethi Chandra, , Y. Raghavendra v. NTR University of Health Sciences (supra) and Rajiv Mittal v. Maharshi Dayanand University, .

94. Articles 15(4) and 16(4) are enabling provisions. There cannot be any doubt that special protection can be extended to a category of people specified therein. The same can be either by way of legislation or executive instructions. When the State chooses to extend the policy of reservation through legislation, the executive must take action strictly in furtherance thereof. An affirmative action of the State is permissible in law when such an action is taken for bringing equality and on a principle based on eliminating de facto inequalities. The executive must stop there and cannot by reason of an executive fiat extend the said policy, which is not contemplated by the legislature. Such an attempt on the part of the executive would not only be counterproductive but would also be contrary to rule of law. A reverse discrimination is not contemplated under the constitutional physique nor can be encouraged. It may be permissible to extend the benefit of reservation to a student at more than one stage at different situations during the course of his educational career. But no law far less the Constitution would permit grant of more than one benefit to a student of reserved category at the same time at the cost of the other meritorious candidates.