A. PEERIAKARUPPAN, ETC. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

Citation: [1971] 2 S.C.R. 430 · Decided: 23-09-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 17 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A. PEERIAKARUPPAN, ~TC. 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. 
September 23, 1970 
A 
[J. C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE AND A: N. GROVER, JJ.J 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950, Al'ts. 14 and 15-Selection of candidates 
w medical co//eg"s-Co//eg" constituted into different units-Ratio o( 
seats to candidates d;J]erent in each unit-Candidates interviewed by 
.cUfierent selection .. ~on?mittees-Propriety, 
Interview system-Utility of 
Classification of backward classes on Hasi.< of caste-Validity of reser. 
C 
·vation of seats to backward classes-Proper proportion, 
In 1970-71, selection of candidates to various medical colleges ill the 
State of Tamil Nadu was done on the 'unitwise' 
basis. Under 
that 
scheme the medical colleges in the city of Madras were constituted as 
.one unit and each of the other medical colleges in the 
mofussU 
w&S 
constituted as a unit. In respect of each one of the units, a separate 
·selection committee was constituted. The 
intending 
applicants 
were 
D 
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. 
A few . seats 
were re•erved to certain special categories of students and ort of the 
remaining seats, 41 per cent were reserved for students coming from 
socially and educationally backward classes, scheduled castes ·and ·sche-
<luled tribes, and the rest were placed in the general poo:. 
E 
. Alf the applicants in the general pool who secured 110 or more marks 
-out of 200, calculated according to a certain formula, were called for 
interview and selection committees were authorised to give in addition, a 
m3"imum of 75 marks at the inte'rview. The award of these marks was 
on the basis of the following five criteria, namely, (a) Sports· or NCC 
activities, (b) extra-curricular special services, (c) general phr.;ical condi-
tion and endurance; (d) geno"ral ability; and (e) aptitude. The gradatioo 
F 
list prepared by the selection committee was to be submitted .to the 
Govel;nment. 
The petitioners, who unsu_ccessfully sought admission to the medical 
'colleges in the State, challenged the validity of the selections made. They 
-contended that : (1) The unitwise selection contravened Arts. 14 and 
15 of the Constitution because, (a) the applicants of some of the units 
were in a better position than those who applied to other units, since 
G 
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 selei.:ted merely because' their applications came to be considered in 
other units, and (b) the scheme was merely intended as a device to get over 
the d~cision of this Court in Rajendran v. State of Madras, [1968) 2 S.C.R. 
786; (2) the in!el'\iew was a farce becau~e it was held for only three 
minutes and no guidelines were provided for the award of marks at the 
interview and earmarking for interview marks. 75 out of the total of 275 
H 
was excessive; (3) the interview marks were manipulated both by the 
·selection committee and the Government in order to pull up undeserving 
·applicants; ( 4) the list of backward classes was solely made on the basis 
' 
A 
B 
c 
PEERIAKARUPPAN V. TAMIL NADU (Hegdl!, !.) 
43 ! 
of caste and therefore did not conform to Art. 15 ( 4) of the Constitu-
tion; (5) the reservation made for backward classes was jlisproportionate-
ly high; and (6) the division of backward classes into backward classes 
and more backward classes was impermissible under law. 
HELD : ( 1) (a) 'The object intended to be achieved in the present 
case, is to select the best candidates for being 
admitted 
to medical 
colleges. This object cannot be satisfactolrily achieved by the method 
adopt'ed. It is admitted ·that the minimum marks required 
for 
being 
selected in some units is less than in other units. 
Hence prima facie the 
scheme in question results in discrimination. The plea of delay in selection. 
on State-wise basis is neither real nOI' substantial. (436 F-G; 437 C-D] 
(b) The unitwise distribution of seats appears to be a different mani-
festation of the districtwise distribution which was s1i'uck down by this. 
Court in Rajendran's case. [437 D-EJ 
(2) In the course of three minutes intsrview, it is hardly possible to 
UlelS the capability of a candidate since the first impr

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.