ANIL KUMAR GUPTA, ETC. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 396 · Decided: 28-07-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ANIL KUMAR GUPTA, ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. 
JULY 28, 1995 
B 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND SUHAS C. SEN, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: A1ticle 15. 
ReseTVation 
for-Candidates belonging to hill and Uttranchal 
C 
areas-Relatable toA1ticle 15(4) and not toA1ticle 15(1}-In addition to 27 
percent for Other Backward Classes-Held:clearly illegal. Higher Education: 
Admission to professional courses. 
1 
Medical Courses-R.eseTVation of seats--Ho1izontal rese1vations-Over-
all or compartmentalised:--Distinction explained-Guidelines for future selec-
D tion process-Laid down 
E 
F 
The respondent Lucknow University had issued a notification calling 
for applications for admission to medial courses in the State in accordance 
with notification of May 17, 1994. The University subsequently issued a 
corrigendum stating that the extent of reservation in favour of five 
categories viz. (1) actual dependents of freedom fighters--5% (2) 
sons/daughters of soldiers/deceased/disabled in war - 2% (3) Physically 
handicapped· 2% (4) candidates of hills areas· 3%. and (S) candidates of 
Uttrakhand area • 3% (referred to as "Special categories") shall be horizon· 
tal reservations and not vertical reservations. Vertical reservations for 
Scheduled Castes Candidates-21%, Scheduled Tribe Candidates· 2% and 
other Backward Class Candidates • 27% have also been provided. 
The respondent Lucknow University issued a corrigendum calling 
upon the candidates applying under these special categories to specify to 
which social reservation category do they belong. They were asked to 
G specify whether they belonged to Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled . Castes, 
Other Backward Classes or to open competition category, as the case may 
be. Out of the 2130 candidates who had applied against the five special 
reservation categories, only nine stated that they belong to Other Back-
ward Classes. None stated that they belong to Scheduled Tribes or 
H Scheduled Castes which meant that, but for nine candidates, all the rest 
396 
(: 
AK. GUPTA v. STATE 
397 
applying under the aforesaid special categories were from the general/non-
A 
reserved category. 110 out of 112 special reservation candidates have been 
accommodated only in O.C. category and none in the O.B.C., S.C. or S.T. 
category. 
Aggrieved by the above method of filling of seats the petitioners 
preferred the present writ petitions. 
B 
On behalf of the petitioners it was conte_nded that 110 seats were 
taken away from the open competition category (0.C.), that the special 
reservation seats are to be distributed proportionately among the vertical 
reservation categories, and that only fifty four special category candidates C 
ought to have been accommodated with open competition and not 110. 
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that 110 candidates 
belonging to special categories were first adjusted against O.C. category; 
that 263 seats were filled by General candidates; and that reservation in 
favour of special category is overall and not compartmentalised. 
D 
Disposing of the writ petitions and laying down guidelines for future 
selections, this Court. 
HELD : 1.1. At the outset a glaring illegality may be mentioned which 
bas not been raised in these writ petitions. Three percent of the seats have E 
been reserved for candidates belonging to hill and Uttranchal areas which 
are treated as horizontal reservations. The reservation of fifteen percent 
of seats for special categories was on very high side. Two categories out of 
them representing six percent out of fifteen percent are really reservations 
under Article 15(4), wrongly treated as reservations under Article 15(1). F 
Even otherwise, the special reservation would be nine percent. [ 407-E, 
414-G] 
1.2. A separate horizontal reservation of six per cent of the seats in 
favour of candidates from hill and Uttaranchal areas in addition to twenty 
seven percent reservation in favour of O.B.C. is clearly illegal. [407-H] 
G 
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Pradeep Tandon, [1975) 1 S.C.C. 267 and 
Indra Sawhney and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1992] Suppl. 3 S.C.C. 
217, relied on. 
2. In view of the ambiguous language employed in the corrigendum H 
398 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
issued by the respondent Lucknow University. It is not possible to give a 
definite answer to the question whether the horizontal reservations are 
overall reservations or compartmentalised reservations. Where the sea

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