GOVIND A. MANE AND ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 959 · Decided: 05-04-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

GOVIND A. MANE AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
APRIL 5, 2000 
-· 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND D.P. WADHWA. JJ.] 
B 
Education -Admission-B.Ed. Course-Denial of-District-wise distri-
bution of seats-No material to show nexus between such distribution and the 
object sought io be achieved-Constitutional validity of-Held: Such district-
wise distribution violative of Art. 14-Since the dispute has arisen five years c 
ago the affected candidates cannot be given admission now-However, such 
candidates shall be given opportunity to seek admissiOn in case of fresh 
admission-Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 14. 
The appellants sought admission to the B.Ed Coul'!!e but were not 
successful and, therefore, the appellants filed a writ petition before the 
D 
High Court on the ground that the district-wise distribution of seats was 
bad. The High Court dismissed the petition. Hence, this appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. District-wise distribution of seats for admission to the 
E 
B.Ed. Course without indicating any material to show the nexus between 
such distribution and the object sought to be achieved is violative of 
~ 
Article 14 of the Constitution. [962-B] 
Minor P. Rajendran v. State of Madras, AIR (1968) SC 1012 and Minor 
A. Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1972) 2 SCR 430, relied on. 
F 
2. However, since the dispute has arisen five years ago the appellants 
cannot be admitted to the B.Ed. Course. But the appellants shall be given 
opportunity to seek admission in case any further steps are taken by the 
respondents for fresh admission. [962-C] 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2425of2000. 
...._ 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.6.97 of the Bombay High Court 
in W.P. No. 4794 of 1996. 
Ms. Suman Bala Rastogi for the Appellants. 
H 
959 
960 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
S.S. Shinde and S.V. Deshpande for the Respondents. 
B 
c 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J. Leave granted. 
The appellants after having passed the 12th Examination, with a 
percentage of marks ranging from 63 to 65%, sought admission in B.Ed 
Course. But they were not successful and, consequently, they approached the 
~ 
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and challenged the 
selection of candidates for admission on the grounds, inter alia, that the 
districtwise distribution of seats among four districts, namely, Parbhani, 
Nanded, Beed and Latur to the extent of 200 seats, 460 seats, 310 seats and 
640 seats respectively, was bad. The Writ Petition was dismissed by the High 
Court by its judgment dated 24.6.1997 against which the present appeal has 
been filed. 
D 
Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that admission to 
B .Ed Course was based on a common admission test and, therefore, the 
distribution of seats to different districts was bad. It is contended that a 
common merit list should have been prepared and, on that basis, admission 
should have been allowed to the students who figured in the merit list. 
E 
The question whether there could be a districtwise distribution of seats 
was considered by this Court in the case of Minor P. Rajendran v. State of 
Madras and Others, AIR (1968) SC 1012 = [1968] 2 SCR 786, and it was 
held that for the purpose of admission to the First Year Integrated M.B.B.S. 
Course, the C:.istrictwise distribution of seats was violative of Article 14 of 
F 
the Constitution. It was, inter alia, observed as under:-
G 
H 
"(11) The question whether districtwise allocation is violative 
of Article 14 will depend on what is the object to be achieved in 
the matter of admission to medical colleges. Considering the· fact 
that there is a largerer number of candidates than seats available, 
selection has got to be made. The object of selection can only be 
to secure the best possible material for admission to colleges subject 
to the provision for socially and educationally backward classes. 
Further whether selection is from the socially and educationally 
backward classes or from the general pool, the object of selection 
must be to secure the best possible talent from the two sources. If 
·->-
..... 
\ -
GOVIND A. MANE v. STATE [S.S. AHMAD, J.] 
961 
that is the object, it must necessarily follow that that object would be 
defeated if seats are allocated district by district. It cannot be and has 
not been denied that the object of selection is to secure the best 
possible talent from the two so
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.