LexM. R. MINI (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN & FATHER M. P. RAJAPPAN versus STATE OF KERALA AND ANR .
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•
•
•
829
M. R. MINI (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN
.
& FATHER M. P. RAJAPPAN
v .
STATE OF KERALA AND ANR .
January 28, 1980
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND R. S. PATHAK, JJ.]
University-wise allocation of seats for M.B.B.S. course in Kerala, constitu-
tional validity of.
Dismissing the Writ Petition, the Court
HELD : The University-wise allocation of seats is valid.
Under the existing scheme, the c1'assification for purposes of quota is univer-
sity-wise, not territory-wise. Belonging to backward Calicut District is not the
same as being an alumnus of the Calicut University. May be, the State could
hav'e classified candidaites University-wise, backward region-wise or otherwise,
separately or in any constitutionally permissible combination.
Mystic maybes
are beyond j'udicial conjecture.
Th'e misfortune of the petitioner is damnum
sine injuria.
Every adversity is not an injury. Judicial remedy cannot heal
every wound or cure every sore since the discipline of the law keeps courts
within its bounds. [830 A-DJ
Dr. /agdish Saran & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [1980] 2 SCR 83! relied
on.
Observation :
[Too long has the State been seeking ad hoc solutions and improvising reme~
A
B
c
D
dies where comprehensive studies and enduring recipes are the desid'eratum.
E
To keep the education situation uncertain across the national and the fate of
students of higher education tense or in suspense with annual challenges in court
or agitationa1 exercises in the streets is dangerous procrastination fraught with
negative resultc; where a creative undertaking of :r'esponsibility to find an endur~
ing answer to a chronic problem is the minimum that the t:Ountry exp'ects of the
concerned State instrumentality.] [830 E-G]
CrvIL ORIGINAL JuRismcnoN : Writ Petition No. 1220 of 1979.
F
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution)
P. Govindan Nair and N. Sudhakaran for the Petitioner.
M. M. Khader and V. J. Francis for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KRISHNA IYER, J.-The petitioner, an aspirant for admission to
G
the M.B.B.S. course in one or other of the medical college in Kerala,
has faile.d to qualify for selection from the Kerala University pool, not
having ~ecured high enongh marks, and has failed to fall within the
Calicut University pool, not having been a student of that University.
What is urged, as a claim for inclusion, is that had she been treat-
H
ed as a Calicut University student her marks would have been sufficient
to gain admission and since she belongs to the Malabar region, which
830
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
('
(1980] 2 S.C.R.
1
A
is broadly served by the Calicut University, she should be given the
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
benefit of Calicut University students and consequential admission-
"
a mixture of district-wise backwardness and university-wise preference
to reach the desired advantage.
'
We cannot agree. Under the existing scheme, the classification
for purpose of quota is university-wise, not territory-wise. Belong-
ing to backward Calicut District is not the same as being an alu1111rns
of the Calicut University. Maybe, the State could have classified e&'l-
didates university-wise, backward region-wise or otherwise, separately
or in any constitutionally permissible combination. We are not here
concerned with the prospects of the petitioner under any different
admission scheme or reservation project. Mystic maybes are beyond
judicial conjecture.
Once we hold that the university-wise alloca-
tion of seats is valid the misfortune of the petitioner is damnum sine
injuria, if we may use that expression in this context. Every adversity
is not an injury.
Judicial remedy cannot heal every wound or cure
every sore since the discipline of the law keeps courts within its
bounds.
We do not preclude the State from taking any other pragmatic
formula or evolving any selection calculus, constitutionally permissible,
so as to promote equality against the backdrop of social justice. In-
deed, we have by our Judgment in Dr. Jagadish Saran & Ors. v. U1iivn
of India & Ors.('), explained the parameters, the criteria and the cor-
rect measures which must be initiated to marry equality to excellence,
solemnised constitutionally.
Too long has the state been seeking ad hoc solutions and in1pro-
Vising remedies where comprehensive studies and enduring recipes are
the desideratum.
To keep the education situation uncertain across
the nation and theExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.