STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. versus U.S.V. BALRAM ETC.

Citation: [1972] 3 S.C.R. 247 · Decided: 28-01-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
247." 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. 
v. 
U.S.V. BALRAM ETC. 
January 28, 1972 
(C. A. VAID!ALINGAM AND K. K. MATHEW, JJ.) 
Andhra PrGdesh M.B.B.S. course-Admission to Government Medical 
Colltf;ts by merit as a result of compett'tive examination-Students who· 
had passed pre-University course or Higher Secondary Course (Multi-
purpose) eligible for examination--40% of seats reserved for candidates 
who had passed Higher Secondary Exarninc-.tion (Multipurpose)-Validity 
of such reservation-Whether violative of Art. 14, Constitution of Jndia-
Reservation of 25% in favour uj Backwnrd classes as enumerated b,v 
Backward Cla1ses Commission-VGUdity of-Reservation lt·hether saved' 
by Art. 15(4). 
Admission to the integrated M.B.B.S. Course in the government 
medic'31 co1Ieges in Andhra Pradesh was from two sources, namely, those 
who had passed the pre-University Course and those who had passed the 
Higher Secondary -Course (Multi-purpose) and a student from either 
course had to appear at a competitive test. 
By G.0. No. 1648/Health 
dated July 23, 1970 40% of the seats were reserved for those candido.tes 
who had passed the Higher Secondary Course (Multi-purpose). 
Seats 
were al.>o 'reserved for Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Caste candidates. 
Apart from these there was a reservation of 25% in favour of &lckward 
Cla~m as enumerated by the Andhra Pradesh Backward Classes Com-
mission. 
This reservation was provided by G.O. No. 1793/Education. 
dated September 23, 1970 .. The respondents who were 03ndidates at 
the entrance examination for admission to these co1leges were not selected. 
on account of these reservations. 
They filed writ petitions in the High 
Court challenging rule 9 under which 40% reservation had been made 
in favour of those passing Higher Secondary Course (Multi-pulrpo6e) and· 
the aforesaid G.0. moking 25% reservation in favour of the Backward 
Classes. The High Court by its judgment allowed the writ petitions and! 
directed the State to give admission to the writ petitioners in the !st.year, 
Integrated M.B.B.S. Course. 
The High Court held that the only basis 
for selection for the first year course is the marks obtained by a candidate 
o.t the entrance test. The selection thereafter should only be on the basis 
of highe·st number of marks irrespective of the fact as to whether the 
candidate was from the plre-univen;ity course or the higher secondary 
course. Rule 9 providing for the reservation of the 40%, in favour of 
HSC (M.P.) .candidates was, therefore, struck down as offending Article 
14 Of the Constitution. Regarding the 25 % seats in the colleges reserved 
for the Backward Cflsses the High Coolt held that the government order 
concerned was violative of Article IS(!) of the Constitution read with· 
Artic,le 29 and that it was not saved by Article 1 S ( 4) of the Constitution. 
In appeal by the State of Andhra Pradesh, 
HELD : (I) It ia no doubt open to the State to prescribe the source 
frQlll whii:h the <>011didates are declared eligible for applying fol' admis-
sion to the medical colleges; but when once a common entrance test has-. 
been prescribed for all the candidates on the basis of which the selection' 
bis to bll made the rule providing further that 40% of the seats wt'll have 
le be resemd for H.S.C. candidates is atbibry. In the first pbce after:-
248 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1972 J 3 S.C.R. 
~common test has been prescribed there cannot be a valid classification 
·Of _PUC an~ HSC. can~idates. Even assuming that such classification is 
V"J.hd, the ~aid classifi~auon has no reasonable relation to the object sought 
to be achieved, namely, selecting best candidate for the admission to the 
Medical Colleges. 
The reservation of 40% to the H.S.C. candidates has 
":0 reasona~le relation to the said object. 
Hence the High Court was 
right when 1t struck down this reservation under rule 9 contained in G.O. 
No. 1648 of 1970 as violative of Article 14. [266 C-EJ 
<ii) (a) Though prima facie the list of Backward Classes which was 
under attack may be considered to be on the basis of caste a closer 
exami1;1ation would clearly show that it is only a descliption of 'the group 
folloW1ng the particular occupations or professions, exhaustively referred 
to by. the Commission. · Even on the assumption that the list is based 
exclusively on caste, it was clear from the materials before the Com.mis· 
sion. and the reasons given by it in its report that the entir

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