RITESH R. SHAH versus DR. Y.L. YAMUL AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 695 · Decided: 15-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Case Allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

-· 
· RITESH R. SHAH 
A 
v. 
DR. Y.L. YAMUL AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 15, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
B 
Education : 
Admissions to Professional courses-M.B.B.S. Course-Rules framed 
for selection by the State of Maharastra-A candidate entitled to be admitted C 
on the basis of his own merit admitted against reserved categ01y quota since 
he belonged to a rese1ved categ01y-Deprival of admission to an eligible 
rese1ved category candidate-Purpose of reservation-Held, when a candidate 
is entitled to be admitted on the basis of his own merit, his admission should 
not be counted against the quota rese1ved for Scheduled Caste or Scheduled 
Tribe or any other reserved category-That will be against the constitutional D 
mandate enshrined in Article 16(4)-Constitution of India-Altic/es 15 and 
16. 
Petitioner applied for admission into MBBS Course for the year 
1995-96 in the State of Maharastra. Although he belonged to the reserved E 
category, he was not given admission because Respondent Nos. 5 to 36 were 
admitted against the reserved category though they could have been. ad· 
milted on the basis of marks secured in open merit. 
Aggrieved by his non-admission, petitioner filed the present writ 
petition. 
F 
It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that a candidate who is 
otherwise entitled to be admitted to MBBS Course on the basis of his open 
merit though belonging to a reserved category is adjusted against a seat 
meant for reserved category then the very purpose of reservation will not G 
be achieved and it affects and frustrates the purpose of the constitutional 
mandate enshrined in Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India. 
On behalf of Respondent Nos. 3 to 36, it was contended that if these 
persons who otherwise have qualified under the open category are not 
allowed to exercise their option for being admitted against the reserved H 
695 
696 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996) 2 S.C.R. 
A seats they will be forced to take admission in either private college or some 
colleges having no reputation and will be debarred from getting admission 
to the well-known and reputed colleges of the State even though they are 
found to be more meritorious than others like the petitioner who could not 
even qualify to be admitted to any of the colleges. 
B 
Allowing the writ petition, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. If a candidate is entitled to be admitted on the basis of 
his own merit then such admission should not be counted against the 
quota reserved for Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or any other 
C reserved category, since that will be against the constitutional mandate 
enshrined in Article 16(4). A student who is entitled to be admitted on the 
basis of merit though belonging to a. reserved category cannot be con-
sidered to be admitted against seats reserved for reserved category. 
[701-F, 700-F] 
D 
Indira Sawhney and Ors. v. Union of India, [1992] Supp. 3 SCC 217, 
relied upon. 
E 
F 
R.K Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, [1995] 2 SCC 745 and Union of 
India v. Vi1pal Singh Chauhan, [1995] 6 SCC 684, referred to. 
1.2. While a reserved category candidate entitled to admission on the 
basis of his merit will have the option of taking admission to the college 
where a specified number of seats have been kept reserved for reserved 
category, in computing the percentage of reservation he will be deemed to 
have- been admitted as an open category candidate and not as a reserved 
category candidate. The candidates belonging to backward class but 
selected as general candidates for admission to graduate or post graduate 
medical course are entitled to the concessions or scholarship~ and other 
benefits according to the rules or instructions of the State Government or 
the Central. Government as the case may be. [704-H, 705-D] 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 693 of 
G 1995. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) 
Rajiv Dhavan and Ejaz Maqbool for the Petitioners. 
H 
L. Nageshwara Rao, R. Santhana Krishnan and T.N. Rao for the 
R.R.SHAHv. Y.L. YAMUL[PATIANAIK,J.] 
697 
Respondents. 
D.M. Nargolkar and S. Atreyu for the State. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PATIANAIK, J. This Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitu-
tion of India raises the question whether a candidate belonging to the 
Scheduled Caste or any other reserved category even if is entitled to be 
selected for selection for admission in the open competition on the basis 
of his own merit yet can he be

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