HEGGADE JANARDHAN SUBBARYE versus THE STATE OF MYSORE AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1963] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 475 · Decided: 05-11-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

1 s.c.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
475 
In the result, we allow the writ petitions and 
direct that an appropriate writ or order or direction 
should be issued restraining the three respondents from 
giving effect to the impugned order in terms of the 
prayer made in clauses (i) and (ii) of paragrap? 38 
of the petitions. The petitioners would be entitled 
to their costs, one set of hearing fees. 
Petitions aUowed. 
HEGGADE JANARDHAN SUBBARYE 
v. 
THE STATE OF MYSORE AND ANOTHER 
(And connected petition) 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. 
WANCHCO, K. C. DAS GUPTA and J.C. SHAH, JJ.) 
Oolkg• Admiiision-Reservation of seats for socially and 
educationally backward cl<l8su struck down-Reservation for 
Schtdultd Castes and Tri/Ju uphel4-0onstitution of India, 
Ari. 15( 4). 
The petitioners challenged the validity of the orders 
issued by the State of Mysore under Art. 15(4) of the Constitu-
tion on July 10, 1961, and July 31, 1962. The petitioners 
contended that they had applied for admission to the Pre-
Professional Class in Medicine in the Karnatak Medical 
College, Hubli and they would have secured admiision to the 
said medical college but for the reservation directed to be made 
by the orders mentioned above. They contended that the 
al/ove-mentioned orders were ultra viru. They prayed for an 
appropriate writ or order restraining the respondents from 
giving effect to those orders and requiring them to deal with 
their applications for admission on merits. 
H•ld, that the petitioners were entitled to an appropriate 
writ or order as claimed by tbem and the respondents were 
restrained from giving effect .to the above-mentioned orders. 
JI. R. Balaji v. Statt of Jlysor• [1963] Supp. l S.C.R. 439, 
followed. 
The impugned orders we.e quashed only with reference 
to the additional reservation made in favour of the socially ana 
19i2 
M. R. B•l•ji 
v. 
St.I< •f Mysor• 
G«jeninlt«ik•r, J, 
19i2 
1962 
Hett4ie JNWrtiilo 
Suhbar_.'Ve 
v. 
Stat1 of Mysm 
•76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. 
educationally backward classes and so the respondents were at 
liberty to give effect to the reservation made in favour of the 
Scheduled Castes and Sch"."uled 
Tribes, which 
was not 
challei;ged at all. The said 
reservation continues to be 
operative. 
ORIGINAL 
JURISDICTION : 
Writ 
Petitions 
Nos. 130 & 133 of 1962. 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India 
for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights. 
. 
8. K. Venkatarangaiengar and R. Gopalakrishnan, 
for the Petitioners (In both the Petitions). 
P. D. Menon, for the Respondents (In both the 
Petitions). 
' 
1962. November 5. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
GAJENDRAGADKAR, ].-These two writ petitions 
Nos. 130 of 1962 and 133 of 1962 have been filed by 
Heggade Janardhan Subbarye and Ravindra Prabhu 
respectively (hereinafter called the petitioners) under 
Art. 32 of the Constitution, challenging the validity 
of the orders issued by respondent No. I, the State of 
Mysore, under Art. 15(4) of the Constitution on 
July 10, 1961 and July 31, 1962, respectively. Both 
the petitioners had applied for admission to the 
pre· Professional Class m Medicine in the Kamatak 
Medical College, Hubli, and the applications had 
been submitted to respondent No. 2, the Selection 
Committee appointed in that behalf by respondent 
No. 1. 
According to the petitioners, they would have 
secured admission to the said Medical College but for 
the rese1vation directed to be made by the two 
impugned orders. They alleged that the orders were 
ultra V'ires, and so, they prayed for an appropriate 
writ or order restraining the respondent~ from giving 
effect to the said orders and 
~equiring them to deal 
with the petitioners' applications on the merits. 
I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
477 
The points raised by the present petitions are 
covered by the decision of this Court in the case of 
M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore(1) and so, it is common 
ground that the petitioners are entitled to an appro-
priate writ or order as claimed by them. 
Learned counsel for the respondents however, 
drew our attention to the fact that as a result of the 
decision of this Court in the case of M. R. Balaji (1) 
respondent No. I was feeling some doubras to whether 
the reservation made by the impugned orders in 
respect of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled 
Tribes was also struck down by this Court. 
As the 
judgment shows, respondent No. l has consistently 
fixed the percentage of r

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