The State Government issued an order under Article 15(4) of the constitution, reserving 68% of seats to backward and more backward classes and allocating 32% of seats to the merit pool in Medical and Engineering Colleges. The validity of the order was challenged by a student who had secured more marks than those admitted under the order. Decide
Facts of the Case:
- The State Government issued an order reserving 68% of seats for backward and more backward classes, leaving 32% of seats for the merit pool in Medical and Engineering Colleges.
Issues in the Case:
- Is the State Government’s reservation order, which allocates 68% of seats to backward and more backward classes, valid under Article 15(4) of the Constitution?
- Can the reservation order be challenged by a student who secured more marks than those admitted under the reservation?
Principle:
- Article 15(4) of the Indian Constitution allows the State to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, as well as for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Judgement:
- In Balaji v. State of Mysore (AIR 1963 SC 649) and Chitralekha v. State of Mysore (AIR 1964 SC 1823), the Supreme Court held that sub-classification beyond 50% reservation is not justified under Article 15(4).
- The Court noted that the reservation system, where 90% of the population is deemed backward, is inconsistent with Article 15(4). It would not be justifiable for the State to ignore the advancement of the rest of society while promoting the welfare of backward classes.
- The Court suggested that special provisions should generally be less than 50%, depending on the prevailing circumstances in each case.
- In the Mandal Commission case, the Supreme Court held that sub-classification of backward classes for the purpose of Articles 15(4) and 16(4) is permissible, but the total reservation should not exceed 50%.
- In State of A.P. v. V. Balram and K.C. Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka, the Court ruled that the total reservation shall not exceed 50%, although exceptions may be made for certain extraordinary situations.
Based on the interpretations provided by the Supreme Court, the State Government’s reservation order, allocating 68% of seats to backward and more backward classes, is not valid under Article 15(4) of the Constitution. Additionally, the reservation order can be challenged by a student who secured more marks than those admitted under the reservation.