LexSTATE OF KERALA versus KUMARI T. P. ROSHANA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B 97 4 STATE OF KERALA v. KUMARI T. P. ROSHANA & ANR. January 17, 1979 [\'. R. KRISHNA !YER AND R S. PATHAK, JJ.] Consti:ution of India 1950-Al't. 14-Medical College admission-Selection of students /ro1n different universities with no unifonnity of standards--Reser11a- :io11 of 5<'t:1~ 011 territorial basis-Validity-H'11t:rhcr vio/,uii·e of Art. 14. • • Auiclcs 32 and 136-When root of' the r;riei'l.'liCr? and the fruit of writ are nor ilulh·id1ud but cC9llective courts power is l1Tle cf a.f]innative structuring of C rt~drt.\S 10 nu1kc it n1eani11gful and sociall.v re!~l'(l.'!f-Dccf ,.innaf t,'1tidclir.es 10 be _.- E F G gh·en. The State of K.crala appointed a Comn1i&Sion to recommend which sections oi the people required spe-.::ial tr ec.tn1ent under Art. 15 ( 4) having reganl to thl!ir scdal and educational conditions. That Commission recommended equitable allJcali()fi of seals on the basis of educational b:ick\vardness o.f the -:Vlnlahar nrca. Subgtantinlly foui.1ding itself on these recommendations the State Government evolved a formula, which by polling all applications for admission to the four medical colleges in the state, one cons.olidated list was prepared and c;indidate,s \Vere selected strictly ac,..::ording to the marks secured by thenl. This schen1~ having been stn1ck down by the High Court, a fresh exp'ert com- mittee was appointed to cxarnine the quo 111odo of admissions to medica.l colleges. 'fh:e Government on the basis of these recommendafons decided that seats avail- able for the nledical course might be distributed for the students of the two Uni1:crsities of Kcrala and Calicut in the ratio of the candidates registerl!d for the pre-degree 21nd B. Sc. course in them. In a writ petition under Art. 226 the High Court held that the ~...:h'en1e of selection for admission to the medical colleges on on assessment of inerits of students drawn from different universities with no uniforn1ity of standards is obje<."tionabl'e and the linknge of the division of seats \Vith the registered student- strength of the universities bears no nexus :ind is Yiolative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. On the question of the validity of the scheme of selection for admission to the medical roJleg'es. J!ELD : 1. Current conditions warrant the classification of student comn1u- nity on the Zonal basis-not as a legitimation of endless perpetuation but a9' a transient panacea for a geo-human handicap which the State must actively strive to undo. f980 E] 2. 1he principle of reservation with weightagc for th,,: geogrnphical area of the t1lalabar district is approved. [980 G] H 3. The reasoning of the High Court that ther'e is such substantial difference iR the pre-degree courses and evaluations bet\vecn the sister univers-ities within the same State that the breach of Art. 14 by equal treatment of the nut·rks nn- -~ ~ , ~ ' ~ ~ .. I ' ' ' ~ ;'.'::'. . Ii \- •• ' • KE!b\LJ! v. ROSHANA 97 !j ·eqillilty secured by the examinees ifi the !>Vo U11itetsi1ies may be spelt out. A Evet'f inctmsequentilll differentiation between two things does not cortstitute the . viCe or di:sctln'llnatfo .. 1, if lzm clubs them together igr.oring vanial varittnces. Atlitle l 4 is not a voodoo which visits. wi h invalidation every executive or regWahYe fu:rion of things or categories where there are no pronounced inequali .. tiCS. Matbem•tical equality is not the touchstone of constitutionality. [983 E-FJ St.W of Jammu & Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa & AllT. [1974] 1 SCC 19 B at 42; referred to. 4. A latge latitude is allowed in this area to the State to classify or declaasify based ()fl diverse considerations of relevant pragmatisn1 and the judiciary should IIOl "nlllb. in" Where the executive vatily treads. [984 A] 5. Many colleges are run by the State or institutional rnanagement9 where pre-degree or degree courses are undertaken. The teachers move from one university ju1hdiction to the o_ther, the teaching materi2J is. inevitably of a, like naturt, the sut:jects taught must ordinarily be :ilik.!. The ~·xaminers are ustinlly dra\\·n from \\'ithin the s· ate or neighbouring States. Even the coinpositio:n ot the &el'idetttit bodie~ in the two universities may have common members. The Uuivetsity Act& themselves are sub5tanti<•lly similar. To surmise discrimination. from j:los&ibilities is alien to the forensic prOC'!~5 in the <:!Jsence ot bard facls~ Grrus dt
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.