VEENA VADINI TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTE (RUN BY VEENA VADINI SAMAJ KALYAN VIKASH SAMITI) versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: [2023] 4 S.C.R. 106 · Decided: 28-04-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
106
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 106
106
VEENA VADINI TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTE (RUN BY
VEENA VADINI SAMAJ KALYAN VIKASH SAMITI)
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3177 of 2023)
APRIL 28, 2023
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.]
Constitution of India – Art. 14, 15 and 19(1)(g) – Reservation
– Appellant-Institute trained teachers for B.Ed. and M.Ed. courses
– Appellant challenged a government policy (called “Admission
Process and Guiding Principles 2022-2023”) before the High Court
– Appellant’s challenge was mainly based on clause 1.5(a) of the
policy, which allocates the B.Ed seats in the institute – As per which
75% of seats this Course reserved for “residents of Madhya
Pradesh” and remaining 25% seats for candidates outside the State
– Appellant alleged that that Institute is facing difficulties in making
admissions to this course, as although the entire 25 percent seats
allocated to the “outside” candidates have been filled, but almost
all of the 75 percent of seats, reserved for the residents, have
remained unfilled – The High Court dismissed the writ filed by the
appellant – On appeal, the main issue was, whether the State
Government could reserve seats for ‘residents’ of the State and, in
case if it is permissible; whether 75% of the total seats, can be
reserved for the residents – Held: As per Pradeep Jain case
reservation in favour of residents is permissible, yet reservation to
the extent of 75% of the total seats makes it a wholesale reservation,
which has been held in Pradeep Jain case to be unconstitutional and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India – Large percentage
of seats reserved for the residents of State which remains unfilled is
not serving any purpose, rather it frustrates the very purpose of
the reservation – Directed State to consider the observations laid
down in the present case and to fix number of seats again for
residents and non-residents, from the next academic year.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
107
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. There are two questions here; first is whether
the State Government can reserve seats for “residents” of
Madhya Pradesh and, then, in case if it is permissible; the second
question would be whether as large as 75% of the total seats,
can be reserved for the residents. [Para 7][111-E]
2. As far as the first question is concerned, the same is no
more res integra, as this Court in the case of Dr. Pradeep Jain
and Others v. Union of India and Others (1984) 3 SCC 654, had
upheld such reservation. In the case at hand, this Court is not
dealing with medical education, but with the validity of reservation
based on residence requirement in a professional education course
i.e. B.Ed. In our considered opinion, the ratio as laid down by
this Court in Pradeep Jain would be applicable in this case as
this Courtll but only to an extent, not fully. The reasons as this
Court have already indicated are two: firstly Pradeep Jain and all
the cases which follow Pradeep Jain deal only with medical
education, and secondly the ratio as laid down in Pradeep Jain
has also to be seen in the context of the time when it was delivered.
In short, therefore, though this Court had to follow the principles
as laid down in Pradeep Jain but at the same time this Court also
have to keep in mind the ground realities of the present day.
This Court also have to keep in mind that this Court are presently
not dealing with medical education but admission in a professional
education course called B.Ed. [Paras 8, 12][111-F; 114-D-F]
3. This Court while upholding such reservations in medical
education had considered factors such as huge investments the
State had made in creating the infrastructure, the backwardness
of the area, the presumption that the local residents after gaining
the education will serve the people of that State, etc. All these
factors may or may not be equally relevant while this Court are
considering admission to other courses such as B.Ed in the
present case. [Para 13][114-G]
4. It is apparent that the large percentage of seats reserved
for the residents of Madhya Pradesh which remains unfilled is
not serving any purpose. Moreover, a wholesale reservation for
VEENA VADINI TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTE v. STATE
OF MADHYA PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
108
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
residents of Madhya Pradesh would also be violative of the law
laid down in the case of Pradeep Jain, as this Court ha

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