LexMINOR P. RAJENDRAN versus STATE OF MADRAS & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MINOR P. RAJENDRAN
STATE OF MADRAS & ORS.
January 11, 1968
[K. N. WASCHOO, C.J., R. S. BACHAWAT,
J. M. SHELAT,
G. K. MITTER A!'ID C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.]
Constitutio11 of lruii.1, Aris. 14, 15-State Government promulga,ting
rules fer selection of carulidares to medical course-One rule providing
for distric/·\1·isc allocation of sears on basis of population-I/ discrimina-
rory when objecr is Io a/lracr be.<t tal•nt-Socially and ,ducational/y back-
\vrtrd classes specified by reference to easies-Whether Art. 15(1) infring-
ed-lnterl'it:w hy selection con1111irree-extent to which criterion for allolt~
inR mGrks can be indica1('d.
The petitioners challcngi.:d an order of the State Government by which
rules were promulga1ed for selection of candidates for admission to a
medical course. These rules provided for re-;ervations of scats for various
rategories of candida1cs. i.e. for he Scheduled Trube<
and
Scheduled
Castes, for 'socially and educationally backward classes', aod for women;
the remaining seats were placed in the general pool available to all. One
rule provided for the appointment of a selection rommittec of not more
than three persons 10 interview the candidates and another. Rule 8, provid-
ed that the seats reserved in the scneral pool and for the 'socially and
educationally backward classes' would be allocated among the various dis-
tricts of the State on the basis of the ratio of th' population of each
Diotrict to the tolal population of the State. It was contended,, inter alia,
on behalf of the petitioners that r. 8, in providing for district-wi"SC distribu-
tion of the seats, violated Art. 14 of !he Constitution becaUSe such alloca-
1ion of seats might result in candidates of inferior calibre being selected in
one District and those of superior calibre not being se1cc'ed in anothtr
District.
Furthermore. the provision in the application
fonn
for
the
candidates as to "nativity claimed"' waC! a camouflage for discrimination on
•he ground of place of birth and therefore violative of Art. 15(1). It was
also claimed that the reservation for 'socially and educationally backward
classes' infringed Art. 15 (I) because it was made by reference to a list
of such classes specified in ahother context and that this list wa~ nothing
but a list of certain cas:es; and that there was no objective test laid down
in the Rules for interview and the question that were put were unrelated
to s. IO(d) which lays down certain criteria for the purpose.
On behalf
of the respondent State it was con1endcd that there were. better educational
"facilities in ~fadras city as compilre<l to other district-; and thcre(ore if
district-wise selection \\'as not made candidates from Madras city would
secure mahy more scats thai. was juslified on the basis of the proportion
of the population of Madras city; furthermore. candidates coming from
various Distric's would settle down in tho:sc Districts and thus medical
help "'ould he available in sufficient measure in aJl the Dis1ricts.
HELD : Rule 8 providing for district-wise allocation was discriminatory
and violative of Art. 14. The State had made out no case for such dis-
trict-wise allocation and there was no nexus shown between such distribu·
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
tion and the object to be achieved. namely, admission of the best talent
H
among the candidates. [794 E, FJ
The district-wise distribution on the basis of population was not juUilied
even assuming that candidates from Madras city would !!et a larger number
•
..
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
RAJENDRAN v. MADRAS (Wanchoo, C.J.)
787
of seats in proportion to the population of the State. That would happen
because a candidate from Madras city was better. Even if the respondent's
contentions were to be accep'.ed that }VOuld only justify allocation of seats
between the city of Madras on one side and the rest of the State on the
other and not a district-wise allocation throughout. [793 G, H]
There were no facts and figures given to suggest that candidates from
a particular district would by and large settle down in that district. Fur-
thermore, the provisions as to "nativity claimed" by candidates showed
that candidates would have a number of districts to choose from depend-
ing upon where they thought that their chances were best and therefore
the argument. that district-wise allocation was justifiable on this ground had
no merit. [794 DJ
If the reservation in question had been basedExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.