K. DURAISAMY AND ANRversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

A                       K. DURAISAMY AND ANR.
                                   v.
                     STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

                               JANUARY 23, 2001

B                 [DR. A.S. ANAND, C.J., R.C. LAHOTI AND
                           DORAISWAMY RAJU, J.]


          Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 15(4) and 16(4).

c          Postgraduate Medical Courses-Reservation of seats-In-service and
    non-service candidates-Classification of-Validity-Government Order
    stipulated 50% reservation for in-service candidates and 50% for non-
    service candidates or open quota, both based on merits-50% of the seats
                                                                                      >
    available in each speciality were also to be allotled exclusively to in-service
    candidates--Only enumerated categories of Medical Officers were to be
D
    treated as service candidates for selection against 50% of seats allocated to
    them-In service candidates filed writ petitions challenging the manner of
    allocation of seats for in-service and non-service candidates-Single judge
    allowed the writ petitions and held that reservation of 50% of seats for non-
    service candidates have lo be given effect lo or worked out by selecting
                                                                                      •
E   candidates from in-service and non-service, on the basis of merit in the first
    instance and thereafter the 50% seats reserved for in-service candidates shall
    be filled up by in-service candidates who could not gain selection on the
    basis of merit as against the other 50% earmarked as ""open"-However, Full
    Bench dismissed the appeals-Held : Government has the right and authority
    lo decide from what sources admissions in educational institutions are lo be
F
    made and in what proportion-Government has the power to fix a quota
    exclusively for in-service and non-service candidates-Classification of in-
    service and non-service candidates cannot be tested on the touchstone of
    Arts. 15(4) or 16(4)-Hence, scheme adopted for selection of candidates for
    admission to postgraduate medical courses providing for a definite quota for
G   in-service and non-service candidates, valid-Education Admission to Post-
    Graduate Medical Courses-Reservation.                                             1   ......

         The Government Order envisaged 50% reservation in postgraduate
    medical courses for the academic session 1999-2000 in favour of in-service
H   candidates on merit basis and further stipulated that 50% of the seats in
                                         490
                              K. DURAISAMYv. STATE                              491
     each of the speciality shall be allotted exclusively to service candidates. The    A
     Government Order also enumerated various categories of Medical Officers,
     who alone would be treated as service candidates and considered for selection
     against the 50% of the seats allocated exclusively for service candidates.
     The remaining 50% seats were referred to as open quota and all non-service
     Medical Officers were eligible to apply for the same.
                                                                                        B
           The appellant-in-service candidates filed writ petition before the High
     Court challenging the manner of allocation of seats for in-service and non-
     service candidates. Single Judge allowed the writ petitions and held that
     reservation of 50% of seats for non-service candidates have to be given
     effect to or worked out by selecting candidates from in-service and non-           C
     service, on the basis of merit in the first instance and thereafter the 50%
     seats reserved for in-service candidates shall be filled up by in-servire
     candidates who could not gain selection on the basis of merit as against the
     other 50% earmarked as "open". However, a Full Bench of the High Court
     dismissed the writ petitions. Hence this appeal.

           Dismissing the appeal, the Court
                                                                                        D

           HELD : I. That the Government possess the right and authority to
     decide from what sources the admissions in Educational Institutions or to
     particular disciplines and courses therein have to be made and that too in
     what proportion, is well established and by now a proposition well settled too.    E
     It has been the consistent and authoritatively settled view of the Court that
     at the super-speciality level in particular and even at the postgraduate level
     reservations of the kind known as "protective discrimination" in favour of
     those considered to be backward should be avoided as being not permissible.
_.   Reservation, even if it be claimed to be so in this case, for and in favour of
     in-service candidates; cannot be equated or treated on par with communal           F
     reservations envisaged under Articles 15(4) or 16(4) and extended the special
     mechanics of their implementation to ensure such reservations to be the
     minimum by not counting those selected in open competition on the basis of
     their own merit as against the quota reserved on communal considerations.
                                                                  (499-F-H; 500-A(      G
           State of Tamil Nadu v. T. Dhilip Kumar, ( 1995( 5 SCALE 67, referred
     to.

           2.1. If the Government can be said to possess the power to fix a quota
     for the exclusive benefit of "in-service" candidates, it is beyond comprehension
     or dictates of either reason or logic as to why the Government cannot equally      H
    492                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     (200 I] I S.C.R.

A exclusively earmark the remaining seats in favour of "non-se..Vice" or
    private candidates, thereby confining the claims of service candidates to the
    number of seats earmarked and allocated to them. As there can be a classified
    category of 'service candidates', it is open to the Government to make
    classification of all those other than those falling in the category of service       ...
B   candidates, as non-service candidates and allocate the remaining seats after
    allotment to the service candidates for exclusive benefit of the source of non-
    service or private candidates. There is nothing in law, which deprive the
    Government of any such powers. [501-B-DI

          2.2. It does not lie in the mouth of the writ petitioners to raise a bogey
C of selection based on merit alone, only in respect of a portion of the seats
    available for admission to non-service candidates, when they belong to and
    are part of a category or class who have got in their favour fifty percent of
    the number of seJts in each of the disciplines allocated to their category of
    "in-service" candidates to be filled up exclusively from such "in-service"
  · candidates on the basis of their own inter se merit and not on the overall
D merit performance of all the candidates - both in-service and non-service put
    together. The writ petitioners are found to have applied as in-service candidates
    and merely because they could not be selected within the number of seats
    earmarked for their category or class on the basis of the inter se merits
    among their own class, they cannot be allowed to contend to the contrary in
E retrospect and on hind sight experience of having obtained more marks, than
    those who got selected as against the seats earmarked and allocated to non-
    service candidates. The justification, both in law and on facts for exclusive
    allocation and stipulation of a definite quota or number of seats for non-
    service or private candidates lies in the very principle, which warranted or
    enabled the fixation ofa quota offifty percent of seats and exclusively allotted
F to the in-service candidates. Any countenance of such claims of the appellants
    is likely to also endanger the very allocation of 50 per cent of the seats
    exclusively to the category of in-service candidates too. 1501-D-Hl

          3.1. The State Government, in the undoubted exercise of its power, has
G   rightly decided, as a matter of policy, so far as the admissions to super-
    speciality and postgraduate medical courses for the academic session 1999-
    2000 are concerned to have a scheme or pattern of two sources of candidates
    based upon a broad classification into two categories, i.e., in-service candidates
    and non-service or private candidates with each one of them allocated
    exclusively for their own respective category of candidates fifty per cent of
H   the seats, the ultimate selection for admission depending upol) the inter se
                                K. DURA ISAMY v. STA TE                            493
      merit performance amongst their own category of candidates.(502-A-CI                A
             3.2. The mere use of the word 'reservation' per se does not have the
       consequence of ipso facto applying the entire mechanism underlying the
       constitutional concept of a protective reservation, specially designed for the
       advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens
      or for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to enable them to enter            B
       and be adequately represented in various fields. The meaning, content and
       purport of that expression will necessarily depend upon the purpose and
      object with which it is used. Since reservation has diverse natures and may
       be brought abut in diverse ways with varied purposes and manifold objects,
       the peculiar principles of interpretation laid down by the Courts for              C
      implementing reservations envisaged under the Constitution in order to
      ensure adequate and effective representation to the backward classes as a
       whole cannot be readily applied, out of context and unmindful of the purpose
      of reservations as the one made in this case, more to safeguard the interest
      of candidates, who were already in servh:e to enable such in-service candidates
      to acquire higher and advanced education in specialised fileds to improve           D
      their professional talents for the benefit of the patients to be treated in such
      Medical Institutions where the in-service candidates are expected to serve.
      That apart, where the Scheme envisaged is not by way of a mere reservation
-4.   but is one of classification of the sources from which admissions have to be
      accorded, fixation of respective quota for such classified groups, the principles   E
      at times applied in construing provisions relating to reservation simpliciter
      will have no relevance or application. Though the prescription of a quota may
      involve in a general sense reservation in favour of the particular class or
      category in whose favour a quota is fixed, the concepts of reservation and
      fixation of quota drastically differ in their purport and conent as well as the
~     object. Fixation of a quota in a given case cannot be said to be the same as        F
      a mere reseriation and whenever a quota is fixed or provided for one or more
      of th~ classified groups or category, the candidates falling in or answering
      the description of different groups in whose favour a respective quota is fixed
      have to confine their respective claims against the quota fixed for each of
      such category, with no one in one category having any right to stake a claim        G
      against the quota earmarked for the other class or category.
                                                                  (502-G-H; 503-A-El

           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5760-5761
      of 1999.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 1.11.99 of the Madras High Court            H
    494                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (200 I] I S.C.R.

A   in W.A. Nos. 952 and 955 of 1999.

                                         WITH

          C.A. Nos. 5910, 6995-96of1999 and W.P. (C) No. 562of1999.

B        K.V. Vishwanathan, Atul Kumar Sinha and K.V. Venkataraman for the
    Appellants.

          M.A .. Krishnamoorthy for the Respondents.

C         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          RAJU, J. The above appeals have been filed against the decision of a
    Full Bench of the Madras High Court dated I. I 0.1999 in Writ Appeal Nos.929/       j
    99, etc. The Writ Petition (C) No.562 of 1999 has been filed by a person
    similarly placed like the appellants, directly in this Court raising identical
D   issues as are raised in the appeals, canvassing at the same time the correctness
    of the decision of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court.

          Having regard to the question decided by the Full Bench and the issues
    raised in the above Appeals and Writ Petition, it is unnecessary to advert to
E   the factual details relating to the Courses applied by the respective parties
    or as to the total number of seats available, number of seats reserved, the
    marks obtained by the respective candidates and the inter se ranking in the
    merit list. It is.stated that Civil Appeal No.5910 of 1999 concerns D.M.
    (Obstetrics) & (Gynaecology), a post-graduate course, and the courses
    involved in the other Appeals and the Writ Petition are said to be super
F   speciality courses.

            The Government of Tamil Nadu, Health and Family Welfare (MCA)
     Department, issued G.0. Ms. No. 55 dated 9.2.99 laying down the procedure
     for selection of candidates for admission to Post-graduate Diploma, Degree,
G    M.D.S. and Higher Speciality courses for the academic session 1999-2000,
     with Annexure-1 thereto containing the Prospectus pertaining to Post-graduate
     Diploma/Degree/M.D.S. courses and Annexure-11 containing the Prospectus
     relating to Higher Speciality courses. The Government Order envisaged
     reservation confining up to 50% in favour of in-service candidates on merit
     basis and further stipulated that 50% of the seats available in each of the
H   ·speciality, shall be allotted exclusively to service candidates. The Government
                           K. DURAISAMY v. ST ATE [RAJU, .I.)                       495
       Order also enumerated various categories of Medical Officers, who alone will A
       be treated as service candidates and considered for selection against the 50%
       of the seats allocated exclusively for service candidates. As for the remaining
       50%, referred to as Open Quota, while stipulating the criteria for selection to
       what has been referred to as the remaining 50% Open Quota, it has been
       stated that all other eligible Medical Officers, except those enumerated
       categories of Medical Officers, shall be eligible to apply for the same. The B
       further stipulation, which requires to be noticed, is the one providing that all
       procedures in respect of such of those matters enumerated in the relevant
       clause of the Order followed during 1998-1999 shall be followed for 1999-2000
       also. The above stipulations in respect of allocation of seats exclusively for
       the service candidates and the other for non-service candidates have been C
       carried out in the Prospectus, both relating to the Post-graduate Degree/
       Diploma courses as well as the Higher Speciality courses. So far as the Post-
       graduate Degree/Diploma courses are concerned, the same were incorporated
       under the heading "IX. METHOD OF SELECTION AND ADMISSION", and
       in respect of Higher Speciality courses, they were incorporated under the
       heading "X. METHOD OF SELECTION AND ADMISSION". The necessary D
       program has been published prescribing the last date for receipt of application
       forms, the dates for undertaking Entrance Examination, publication of merit
....   lists, etc. After conduct of written Entrance Examination for the purpose and'
       publication of the results ofsele~ted candidates, it came to be known, according
       to the appellants, that they were not selected due to a particular understanding E
       of the Orders of the Government and stipulations contained in the Prospectus
       relating to earmarking or allocation of seats for in-service candidates and non-
       service candicates in a mannet by which the claims of in-service candidates
       based on merit on the basis of marks came to be ignored in respect of 50%
~      of the seats allocated as 'Open Quota' by confining them exclusively to non-
       service candidates and considering claims of in-service candidates like the F
       appellants only in respect of 50% allocated to and reserved for service
       candidates.

              This resulted in the ap~ellants and others filing Writ Petitions before
       the High Court. A learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petitions held      G
       that reservation of 50% of seats for non-service candidates have to be given
       effect to or worked out by selecting candidates from in-service and non-
       service, on the basis of merit in the first instance and thereafter the 50% seats
       reserved for in-service candidates shall be filled up by in-service candidates
       who could not gain selection on the basis of merit as against the other 50%
       earmarked as "open". The learned Judge, even overlooking the fact that a            H
    496                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [200 II I S.CR.

A description of the respective cfassification has been given, was of the view
  that there is no category as "non-service candidates", and it is only the in-
  service candidates who form a separate class. The learned Judge also drew
  inspiration from decisions of Courts pertaining to reservation under Article
   16 (4) of the Constitution of India to hold in these cases also that those
B candidates belonging to special categories who have a reservation in their
  favour but could get or got selection purely on the basis of their own merits
  shall not be counted against the number reserved for that class or category
  and must be treated as having got in against the seats available in open
  competition. Aggrieved, son1e of the selected candidates who had intervened
  in the writ petitions filed in Writ Appeal Nos. 905, 906 and 918 of 1999 but
C the same were dismissed on 18.6.99 even at the stage of admission, summarily.
  The appeals filed by the State in Writ Appeal Nos. 929, 952 to 956 of 1999
  came up subsequently before another Division Bench and finding themselves
  unable to agree with order of dismissal of the earlier appeals, the matters were
  referred for consideration by a larger Bench after obtaining orders of the Chief
  Justice. This Division Bench was of the view that the decision of the Single
D Judge was not correct. Thereupon the matters were placed before the Full
  Bench, which, in turn, reversed the judgment of the learned Single Judge and
  dismissed the Writ Petitions.

           The Full Bench, whose judgment is under challenge before us, was of
E   the view that the interpretation given by the Single Judge, particularly on the
    basis of the guidelines of the earlier year cannot be sustained, that the writ
    petitioners who participated in the written examination and selection process
    duly proclaimed cannot challenge the same subsequently on finding themselves
    unsuccessful and cautioned the authorities to be more careful to avoid vague
    clauses/language of doubtful purport and import leading to unnecessary and
F   avoidable litigation, in future.

        The learned counsel for the appellants and the writ petitioner, while
  adopting the line of reasoning of the learned Single Judge in the High Court,
  vehemently contended that the interpretation placed by the Full Bench on
G some of the clauses in the Government order/prospectus was not justified in
  law and that the manner of working out the policy of reservation indicated
  by the Full Bench is opposed to the well-settled principles laid down by
  Courts in the matter of implementing reservation policies and if allowed to
  stand. according to the appellants, would defeat the policy and objects of
  reservation, itself. The learned counsel for the State supported the reasoning
H of the Full Bench by contending that the classification made as service quota
                       K. DURAi SAMY v. STATE [RA.JU, J.]                        497

-   and open quota for non-service candidates for purposes of confining the
    respective class/category of candidates to the percentage earmarked for them
    exclusively is permissible and well within the powers of the State which
                                                                                         A


    establish, administer and maintain the Medical Colleges and that such
    prescription of quota cannot be treated on par with communal and other
    reservations, ordinarily made. It was also urged that in law there can be
    different sources of recruitment under classified heads or categories such as        B
    service candidates and non-service or private candidates, they having distinct
    and different identity based on intelligible criteria and that too when made
    with a definite purpose and object.

          Before dealing with contentions of parties, it is useful and necessary to C
    refer to the clauses. on which there had been divergent views of the High
    Court. The Government order dated 9.2.99, which forms the basis for the
    prospectus issued and the relevan~ clauses found extracted therein, lays
    down the criteria, as follows:-

             "I. (iii) (a) The reservation will be confined to and kept at 50% in        D
            favour of in-service candidates on merit basis.

             (b) 50% of the seats available in each of the specialities shall be
            allotted exclusively to service candidates.

             (c) If sufficient number of eligible service candidates are not available   E
            for the seats reserved exclusively for them, such vacancies shall be
            filled up by the non-service candidates from the merit list/waiting list
            in the respective reserved compartments. If vacancies exist even after
            this, such vacancies shall be filled up applying the ordtir of preference
            indicated in the prospectus.
                                                                                         F
             (d) The following categories of Medical Officers only will be treated
            as Service candidates and considered for selection against 50% of
            seats allocated exclusively for service candidates:-

            (I) All Medical Officers selected by the TNPSC and appointed in
                Tamilnadu Medical Services on regular basis, who have put in             G
                minimum of 2 years continuous service as on 1.2.99.

            (2)   Medical Officers (or) Health Officers in the Public Health
                  Department who have been selected by the TNPSC and working
                  under the control of DPH & PM and who apply for Public Health
                  Course i.e., Diploma in Public Health can be considered as Service     H
    498                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    (2001) l S.C.R.

A               candidates for DPH as the above qualification namely Dip. in
                Public Health is essential for declaration of probation. However,
                to consider under service quota for MD (SPM), the candidates
                                                                                          --
                must have completed 2 years of service like the other
                postgraduate courses.

B         (3)   Medical Officers who have put in 2 years of continuous service
                and who are working in :-

                (i) Local Bodies/Municipalities in Tamil Nadu.

                (ii) Government of India Institutions in Tamil Nadu.
c               (iii) Public Sector Undertaking and Organisation under the control
                of Govt. of India in Tamil Nadu.

                (iv) Undertakings and Organisations of Government of Tamil
                                                                                      >
                Nadu. These Medical Officers should produce bona-fide
D               certificates from the concerned authorities with the declaration
                to serve in the respective institutions for a minimum period of
                5 years after completion of the course.

           (e) Criteria for selection under 50% open quota:-

           All other eligible Medical Officers except those specified in clause
E
          (iii) (d) above are eligible to apply under 50% open quota.

           (iv) (a) The Rule of reservation i.e. 31% for open competition, 30%
          for backward classes, 20% for most backward classes/De-notified
          communities, 18% for Scheduled Castes and I% for Scheduled Tribes
F         shall apply to 50% seats reserved for service candidates and to the
          50% seats to be filled up on the basis of merit from service and non-
          service candidates separately under each speciality.

           (b) The rule of reservation shall apply to any course with 8 seats and
          above both for open and service quota, in a discipline.
G
           (v) The cost of application form shall be Rs. 600 (Rupees Six Hundred
          only) for all the courses. The cost of the application form shall be paid
          by a crossed Demand Draft on any Nationalised Bank drawn in favour
          of the Secretary Selection Committee KMCH campus Kilpauk, Chennai-
          600010. As per G.O. MS No. I I I Adi Dravidar & Tribal Welfare
H         Department dated 22.9.98 SC/ST candidates are exempted from payment
                                       K. DURAi SAMY v. STATE [RAJU, J.]                                                                   499

-   """
                  of DD for Rs. 600.

               ............................................................................................................................
                                                                                                                                                      A


               ....................................................................................................................................
                  6. The Government direct that all procedures such as reservation of
                                                                                                                                                      B
                  25% of seats in Post Graduate Courses for all India Quota, conduction
                  of Entrance Examination at Chennai only, eligibility criteria to apply
                  allocation of seats between open quota and service candidates on
                  50:50 basis, the procedure for filling up of vacant seats allott~d to
                  service candidates in the event of non-availability of candidates,
                  awarding of one mark to each answer with correct response, Negative                                                                 c
                  Mark System for incorrect response, determination of inter se merit of
    ~-            candidates obtaining equal marks, mentioning of number of seats in
                  each specially college-wise and course-wise in the Annexure to the
                  prospectus, payment of stipend and other procedures relating to
                  execution of security bond and surety bond, obtaining written
                  undertaking from all non-service candidates to serve within the country
                                                                                                                                                      D
                  for a period of not less than 5 years, computerisation of application/
                  coding sheet, evaluation of answer papers, taking of anti-Hepatitis-B
                  injection by selected candidates and incurring of expenditure for ·the
                  conduct of entrance examination, scrutiny of applications, evaluation,
                  the expenditure relating to introduction of optical mark reader system                                                              E
                  in admission to various courses from the personal deposit account
                  maintained by the Secretary Selection Committee followed during
                  1998-99 shall be followed for the academic year 1999-2000 also."
    ,           That the Government possess the right and authority to decide from
          what sources the admissions in Educational Institutions or to particular F
          disciplines and courses therein have to be made and that too in what
          proportion, is well established and by now a proposition well settled, too. It
          has been the consistent and authoritatively settled view of this Court that at
          the super speciality level in particular and even at the Post-Graduate level
          reservations of the kind known as "protective discrimination" in favour of
                                                                                         G
    •     those considered to be backward should be avoided as being not permissible .
          Reservation, even if it be claimed to be so in this case, for and in favour of
          in-service candidates, cannot be equated or treated on par with communal
          reservations envisaged under Articles 15(4) or 16(4) and extended the special
          mechanics of their implementation to ensure such reservations to be the
          minimum by not counting those selected in open competition on the basis of H
     500                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (200 I) I S.C.R.

A their own merit as against the quota reserved on communal considerations.
            Properly speaking, in these cases, we are concerned with the allocation
                                                                                        ,,    -
     of seats for admission in the form of a quota amongst in-service candidates
     on the one hand and non-service or private candidates on the other and the
    method or manner of working out in practice the allocation of seats among
B   the members of the respective category. Could the State Government have
     legitimately made a provision allocating 50% of seats exclusively in favour of
     in-service candidates and keep open the avenue for competition for them in
                                                                                       •
    respect of the remaining 50% along with others denying a fair contest in
    relation to a substantial or sizeable number of other candidates, who are not
c    in service and who fall under the category of non-service candidates, will
    itself be open to serious doubt. One such attempt seems to have been put
    in issue before the Madras High Court which held that reservation in favour
    of in-service candidates for the academic year 1992-93 should be confined to
    50% and awarding of two additional marks, instead of one additional mark for
    each completed year of service in primary health centres, was unconstitutional
D   and when the matter was brought to this Court, in the decision reported in
    State of Tamil Nadu v. T. Dhilip Kumar & Ors., (1995) 5 SCALE 67 the
    decision of the High Court has been upheld. This Court also further observed
    that the Government should appoint a highly qualified committee to determine       ....
    from year to year what, in fact, should be the percentage-wise reservation
E   required for in-service candidates, having regard to the then prevailing
    situation and that the percentage of fifty percent shall, if found appropriate,
    be reduced.

        The stipulations governing the selection for admissions in these cases
  have got to be viewed and construed in the above backdrop of events and
F legal position. The learned Single Judge, in our view, was certainly not right
                                                                                       .
  in equating the provisions made for allocation of seats in the form of fixation
  of quota in this case with the usual form of communal reservations and
  allowing himself to be carried away by the peculiar method of working out                   ...
  such reservations in order to ensure adequate representation to such
  candidates, and applying those principles to construe a provision of the
G nature involved in these cases. Yet another error in the reasoning of the
  learned Single Judge lies in his assumption that "open quota" seats have to          •
  be thrown open to all and are meant only to be filled up purely on the basis
  of merit performance and no one from even the class of candidates in whose
  favour a special quota has already been provided can be excluded from
H consideration as against the "open quota". This reasoning of the learned
                    K. DURAISAMY v. STATE [RAJU, .1.)                       501

Single Judge not only ignores the object and scheme underlying the allocation       A
of seats for admissions for the academic year 1999-2000, but has the
consequence of rewriting the Prospectus and introducing altogether a different
 pattern of admissions, overriding the policy of the Government aimed at
meeting out equal justice and affording equality of opportunity to the different
categories classified for the purpose. If the Government can be said to             B
 possess the power to fix a quota for the exclusive benefit of "in-service"
candidates, it is beyond comprehension or dictates of either reason or logic
as to why the Government cannot equally exclusively earmark the remaining
seats in favour of "non-service" or private candidates, thereby confining the
claims of service candidates to the number of seats earmarked and allocated
to them. As there can be a classified category of 'service candidates', it is       C
open to the Government to make classification of all those other than those
falling in the category of service candidates, as non-service candidates and
allocate the remaining seats after allotment to the service candidates for
exclusive benefit of the source of non-service or private candidates. There is
nothing in law which deprive the Government of any such powers and no
such impediment has either been brought to our notice at the time of hearing        D
or seems to have been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge to
warrant any such construction, as has been adopted by him. We are also of
the view that it does not lie in the mouth of the writ petitioners to raise a
bogey of selection based on merit alone, only in respect of a portion of the
seats available for admission to non-service candidates, when they belong to        E
and are part of a category or class who have got in their favour fifty percent
of the number of seats in each of the disciplines allocated to their category
of "in-service" candidates to be filled up exclusively from such "in-service"
candidates on the basis of their own inter se merit and not on the overall merit
performance of all the candidates - both in-service and non-service put
together. The writ petitioners are found to have applied as in-service candidates   F
and merely because they could not be selected within the number of seats
earmarked for their category or class on the basis of the inter se merits among
their own class, they cannot be allowed to contend to the contrary in retrospect
and on hind sight experience of having obtained more marks, than those who
got selected as against the seats earmarked and allocated to non-service            G
candidates. The justification, both in law and on facts for exclusive allocation
and stipulation of a definite quota or number of seats for non-service or
private candidates, in our view, lies in the very principle which warranted or
enabled the fixation of a quota of fifty percent of seats and exclusively
allotted to in-service candidates. Any countenance of such claims of the
appeHants is likely to also endanger the very allocation of 50% of the seats        H
    502                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [200 I] I S.C.R.

A exclusively to the category of in-service candidates, too.
                                                                                         ,
         On a consideration of the reasoning of the Full Bench as also the
  construction placed upon the Government Order and the Prospectus, we are
  of the view that State Government, in the undoubted exercise of its power,
  has rightly decided, as a matter of policy, so far as the admissions to super
B speciality and Post Graduate Diploma/Degree/MOS courses for the academic
  session 1999-2000 are concerned to have scheme or pattern of two sources
  of candidates based upon a broad classification into two categories, i.e., in-
  service candidates and non-service or private candidates with each one of
  them allocated exclusively for their own respective category of candidates
C fifty percent of the seats, the ultimate selection for admission depending upon
  the inter se merit performance amongst their own category of candidates. As
  pointed out by the Full Bench, the change in the nomenclature of the
  categorisation from "open competition" in 1998-1999, to "open quota" in                >
  1999-2000 and the conspicuous omission in the scheme and the Prospectus
  for 1999- 2000 of a specific stipulation like the one contained in clause X (5)
D in the Prospectus for 1998-1999 that the 50% of the seats available for open
  competition shall be made available for selection and admission of both
  service and non-service candidates, as also the stipulation contained in the
  Government Order and the Prospectus for 1999-2000 under the caption 'criteria
  for selection under 50% open quota', which specifically reads that all other
E eligible Medical Officers exc.!pt those specified in clause (iii)(d) above (meaning
  thereby Medical Officers who will be treated as service candidates and allowed
  to apply as such) are eligible to apply under 50% of the open quota, supports
  the stand of the State Government and the Selection Committee and justify
  the selections for admission already made by them. The further stipulation
  that the reservation will be confined to and kept at 50% in favour of in-service
F candidates on merit basis, coupled with the other provisions noticed above
  make it abundantly clear that the selection of in-service candidates is confined
  to and has to be kept at 50% only of the total seats and not against any of
  the other seats, exclusively eannarked for the non-service or private candidates.

G        The mere use of the word 'reservation' per se does not have the
  consequence of ipso facto applying the entire mechanism underlying the
  constitutional concept of a protective reservation specially designed for the
  advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens
  or for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to enable them to enter and
  adequately represented in various fields. The meaning, content and purport
H of that expression will necessarily depend upon the purpose and object with
                   K. DURAISAMY v. STATE [RAJU, .I.]                     503

which it is used. Since reservation has diverse natures and ·may be brought A
about in diverse ways with varied purposes and manifold objects, the peculiar
principles of interpretation laid down by the Courts for implementing
reservations envisaged under the Constitution in order to ensure adequate
and effective representation to the backward classes as a whole cannot be
readily applied, out of context and unmindful of the purpose of reservations B
as the one made in this case, more to safeguard the interest of candidates,
who were already in service to enable such in-service candidates to acquire
higher and advanced education in specialised fields to improve their
professional talents for the benefit of the patients to be treated in such
Medical Institutions where the in-service candidates are expected to serve.
That apart, where the Scheme envisaged is not by way of a mere reservation C
but is one of classification of the sources from which admissions have to be
accorded, fixation of respective quota for such classified groups, the principles
at times applied in construing provisions relating to reservation simpliciter will
have no relevance or application. Though the prescription of a quota may
involve in a general sense reservation in favour of the particular class or
category in whose favour a quota is fixed, the concepts of reservation and D
fixation of quota drastically differ in their purport and content as well as the
object. Fixation of a quota in a given case cannot be said to be the same as
a mere reservation and whenever a quota is fixed or provided for one or more
of the classified group or category, the candidates falling in or answering the
description of different classified groups in whose favour a respective quota E
is fixed have to confine their respective claims against the quota fixed for each
of such category, with no one in one category having any right to stake a
claim against the quota earmarked for the other class or category. Since we
are of the view that the Full Bench has correctly come to the conclusion that
the scheme adopted for selection of candidates for admissions in question
provided for a definite and fixed quota for the respective classified sources F
of admission and the reasons assigned therefor do not suffer from any
infirmity whatsoever to call for any interference at our hands, these appeals
fail and are dismissed.

       In view of the above discussion, it is unnecessary for us to deal with G
the issue of estoppel on which also the Full Bench has chosen to reject the
claim of the appellants. In view of the conclusion of ours in the appeals, the
Writ Petition also shall stand dismissed. There will be no order as to cost.

V.S.S.                                      Appeals and Petition dismissed.