LexSUNEEL JATLEY ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA ETC .
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
• B • . .
c
D
E
p
G
ff
272
SUNEEL JATLEY ETC.
v.
STATE OF HARYANA ETC .
30th July, 1984
[D.A. DESAI AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.]
Education Laws and Regulations-Admission to Medical Colleges-
Reservation of seats in favour of candidates coming f ro1n Rural Areas and edu·
cated in common Rural Schools upto 8th standard, for admission to M.B.B.S.
cou~se, whether is violative of Articles 14, 15 (4) and 29 t2) of th.~ Constitution
of India.
The third respondent Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak issued
a prospectus on J_une 12, 1982, inviting applications for appearing at an
Entrance Test for selecting candidates for admission to M '8.B.S./B.D.S.
course 1982. In this prospectus, besides reservation for other candidates, 25
seats were shown as reserved for "Rural Areas" and furth1:r clarifying
the term as for deciding the eligiblity of a candid<Jte from "Hural Areas"
the following criterion will be observed; a candidate .must have received
education from Class I to Class 8 and passed 81h Class examina·tion from any
Rural School situated in any village not having any Municipalhy or notified
area or Town Area Committe" ...
The petitioners, therefore, challenged only the reservatic·n of these 25
seats for candidates coming from the Rural Areas as beinB violative of
Articles 14, 15 (4) and 29 (2) of the Constitution inasmuch as (l) the classi~
fication is arbitrary, unintelligible and unrelated to the objects sought to be
achieved and not saved by Articles 15 (4) and (ii); to classify candidates on
the basis of .their education in a school in Rural Area and lfrban Area is
irrational inasmuch as before seeking admission to the Medical Faculty even
the student coming from rural areas and having been educated in common
rural school from 1st to 8th standard would l1ave taken further education for
a period of 4 years before seeking admission to the medical co11ege and that
even in respect of the earlier education from 1st to 8th standard in both the
cases, there was identical syllabus and examination-evaluation prescribed by
a common authority.
Allowing!the petitions, the Court
HllLD .:[I· I(is well-settled that Aiticle 14 forbi\I• cla!s k~islation b~I
~
Ji
I
. : ... '
' f
•
SUNIL JATLEY V. HARYANA
273
per1nits reasonable classification in the matter of legislation. In order to
sUstain the classification pcrinissible under Article 14, it has to satisfy the
- (win tests: {l) that classificaiion is founded on an intelligible differentia which
distingufahes persons or things that are grouped together from others Jeft out
of the proup and (2) the differen(a must have a rational relation to the object
sought to be achieved by the impugned provision. [278H; 279A-B]
2 : 1. Classification based on students coming from common rural
schools meaning thereby educated upto 1st to 8th siar.dard in common rural
schools vis-a-vis students educated in urban scl1ools from 1st to 8th standard
Would not provide intelligible differentia for founding a classification thereon .
The classification in such a situation will be wholJy arbitrary and irrational
and therefore the reservation based on such a classification would be consti-
tutionally invalid. The knowledge acquired in the years spent from class 1 to
,class 8th is of a general nature exposing the student to reading, ~riting,
understanding simple Arithmatics, General Knowledge of History, Geography
and in.troductory Mathematics. The introductory knowledge of these
subjects could hardly be said to equip a student for admission to medical
'college. The education imparted in class IX and X is little more than intro-
ductory. In thfSe classes, the student is being prepared for deeper study.
The selection of specialised subjects has to be made in classes XI and }t[I
and in respect of education in classes IX to XII, all students being educated
in all schooh are similarly situated, similarly circumstanced and similarly
placed with no differentiation. The earlier handicap of education in classes I
to VIII, if there be any, becomes wholly irrelevant and of no consequence and
. therefore, cannot provide an intelligible differentia which distinguishes per-
A
B
c
D
sons say students seeking admission being grouped together as having been
'edu:Cated in common rural'schools from those left out namely the rest.
E
[282F; C-B]
Arti Sapru v. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors., [1981] 3 SCR 34,
followed.
Pradeep Tandon'scase followExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.