Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (2.42 seconds)Article 15 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 5 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 32 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
A. Periakaruppan Chettiar vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors on 15 January, 1971
Then again in Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu, the same
consideration prevailed with the Court in striking down the
scheme of selection of candidates for admission to medical
colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu for the year 1970-71. It
was a unit-wise scheme under which the medical colleges in
the city of Madras were constituted as one unit and each of
the other medical colleges in the Mofussil was constituted
as a unit and a separate selection committee was set up for
each of these units. The intending applicants were asked to
apply to any one of the committees but were advised to apply
to the committee nearest to their place of residence and if
they applied to more than one committee, their applications
were to be forwarded by the Government to only one of the
committees. The petitioners who were unsuccessful in getting
admission, challenged the validity of this unit-wise scheme
and contended that the unit-wise scheme infringed Article 14
of the Constitution, inter alia, because the applicants of
some of the units were in a better position than those who
applied to other units, since the ratio between the
applicants and the number of seats in each unit varied and
several applicants who secured lesser marks than the
petitioners were selected merely because their applications
came to be considered in other units. This challenge was
upheld by the Court and Hegde, J. speaking on behalf of the
Court observed:
The Ahmedabad St. Xaviers College ... vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 26 April, 1974
in fact.
cannot treated by identical standards; that may be equality
in law but it would certainly not be real equality. It is,
therefore, necessary to take into account de facto
inequalities which exist in the society and to take
affirmative action by way of giving preference to the
socially and economically disadvantaged persons or
inflicting handicaps on those more advantageously placed, in
order to bring about real equality Such affirmative action
though apparently discriminatory is calculated to produce
equality an a broader basis by eliminating de facto
inequalities and placing the weaker sections of the
community on a footing of equality with the stronger and
more powerful section, so that each member of the community,
whatever is his births occupation or social position may
enjoy equal opportunity of
969
using to the full his natural endowments of physique, of
character and of intelligence. We may in this connection
usefully quote what Mathew, J. said in Ahmedabad St.
Xavier's College Society and Anr. v. State of Gujarat.
"It is obvious that "equality in law precludes
discrimination of any kind; whereas equality, in fact,
may involve the necessity of differential treatment in
order to attain a result which establishes an
equilibrium between different situations."
D. N. Chanchala vs State Of Mysore And Ors. Etc.(With ... on 3 May, 1971
It will be noticed from the above discussion that
though intra-state discrimination between persons resident
in different districts or regions of a State has by an large
been frowned upon by the court and struck down as invalid as
in Minor P. Rajendran's case (supra) and Perukaruppan's
case (supra), the Court has in D.N. Chanchalla's case and
other similar cases up-held institutional reservation
effected through university wise distribution of seats for
admission to medical colleges.
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Pradip Tandon & Ors on 19 November, 1974
This was precisely the ground on which, in the State of
Uttar Pradesh v. P. Tandon this Court allowed reservation in
medical admissions for people of the hill and Uttarakhand
areas of the State of U.P. on the ground that those areas
were socially and educationally backward.