DEEPAK SIBAL & ORS versus PUNJAB UNIVERSITY AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1989] 1 S.C.R. 689 · Decided: 14-02-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. DUTT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

DEEPAK SIBAL & ORS. 
v. 
PUNJAB UNIVERSITY AND AN01HER 
FEBRUARY 14, 1989 
(MURARI MOHON DUTT AND T.K. 1HOMMEN, JJ.) 
Constitution of India, 1950: Am. 14 & 15(4)-Admission of 
•e•»<::ning .cJasses of LL. B. Degree of Punjab University-Rule restricting 
a•Zniission to 'egular employees of Government and semi-Government 
institutions-Validity of-Classification should satisfy tests laid down-
Surrounding circumstances-When relevant-Classification by identifi-
cation of sources should noi be arbitrary-Oent percent reservation of 
seats for certain classes of persons 'to the ·excl1isi'?n of'merit cimdidates-
Whether valid. 
A 
c 
A rt. 13-Doctrine of severability-When part of a rule held viola-
0 
tive of Art. 14 and prima facie not severable ftom valid part-Wh~ther 
entire rule to be struck down . 
.. 
.. ,L 
Professional 
Colleges~Admission to: Punjab University-
\ 
Admission to evening class of LLB. course-Rule providing that 
\
admission open only to 'regular employees' of Government/Semi-
Government institutions-Employees of private institutions excluded-
\ Whether discriminatory and violative of Art. 14-Cent perc~nt reserva~ 
"twn of seats for certain classes of persons only to the exlcuswn of merit 
) candidates-Whether valid. 
~-
The prospectus for the year i9ssis9, for admission in tiie evenlii~ F 
' classes of the Three-Year Lt.Ii. Degree Course conducted by the be' 
partment of Laws of the Punjab University, prescribed that admission 
to evening classes was open only io regular employees of Government/ 
Semi-Government institutions/affiliated Colleges/Statutory Corpora• 
lions and Government Companies and that a candidate should attach 
No Objection/Permission ietter from his empfoyer wlih his application {l 
for admission. Out of the 150 seats available in the evening classes, 64 
_,, 
~ were reserved for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, backward classes, 
physically handicapped persons, outstanding· spottstneil and defence 
personnel and the remaining 86. were reserved for tegulat employees of 
Government/Semi-Government institutions etc., as rnentionetl in ill~ 
aforesaid rule for admission. 
689 
A 
B 
690 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[19891 1 S.C.R. 
The two appellants, one employed In a Limited Company, a joint 
venture with an Undertaking of the State Government and the other 
working as a temporary employee in a State Government office, applied 
for admission in the evening classes with 'No Objection Certificates' 
from their employees. Both were interviewed but were not selected, 
although their positions in the merit list were 29 and 19 respectively, on 
the ground that while one or the appellants was an employee of a Public 
Limited Company and did not fall within the exclusive categories as 
mentioned in the impugned rule, the other was only a temporary 
employee. 
. 
/ --
Both the appellants filed writ Jl\ltitions in the High Court, cbal- "( 
c lenging the validity of the impugned rule. Petitions were also filed by 
five other refused candidates. It was contended that the impugned rule 
whas vi~lativ~ of ArtWb. 14 of the Cdonstitution. The High Court dismissed 
~­
t e .writ petitions. 
lie uphol ing the validity of the impugned rule, 
the High Court held that Government employees bad protection of Art. 
311 of the Constitution which non-Government employees did not have 
D 
and that the employees of the Semi-Government institutions w"re also 
on the same footing. Hence the two appellants filed appeals in this 
Court. 
In the counter affidavit filed in this Court the respondents sought 
l,.,.: 
to justify the exclusion of private employees, restricting admission to 
, 
E 
evening classes only to the Government employees and similar other 
institutions on the grounds of production of bogus certificates of emp-
loyment from private employers and imparting of legal educatlo1m to the 
~ 
employees of the Government/Semi-Government and other insti'tutions 
as in public interest. It was also contended that a candidate should have, 
an assured tenure of employment likely to continue for three years and ! 
F 
that, as far as possible, there should be no possibility or wastage or a~-, aa 
seat. 
Allowing the appeals, 
HELD: I.I Article 14 forbids legislation, but does not forbid 
G 
reasonable classification. Whether a classificali'on is a permissible clas-
sification under Art. 14 or not, two conditions must be satisfied, 
namely, (l) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible 
differentia whi

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