Holding

The amended circular, by making the 15% reservation horizontal and fixing vertical reservations at a 50‑50 split, complies with the constitutional provisions and the 50% ceiling established in Indira Sawhney.

Summary

The petitioner, a candidate in the 1994 Combined Pre‑Medical Test in Uttar Pradesh, challenged a university circular that reserved 65% of seats in medical colleges for reserved categories, alleging violations of Articles 16, 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the 50% ceiling set in Indira Sawhney. After the petition was filed, the Uttar Pradesh Government issued a clarification converting the 15% reservation for certain groups into horizontal reservation applicable to all seats and adjusting vertical reservations to a 50‑50 split between general and reserved categories. The Court examined whether the amended circular remedied the earlier infirmities and complied with the Indira Sawhney ratio. It held that the clarification eliminated the illegal reduction of the general category and that horizontal reservation does not contravene the Supreme Court’s earlier pronouncement. Consequently, the petitioner's grievance was deemed to have no remaining basis, and the interim stay on the results was lifted. The case was therefore disposed of without further relief to the petitioner.

Issues considered

Whether the reservation of 65% of seats in medical colleges in Uttar Pradesh violates Articles 16, 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
Whether the 65% reservation exceeds the 50% ceiling for reservations laid down in Indira Sawhney v. Union of India.
Whether the Government's clarification converting certain reservations to horizontal and adjusting vertical reservations to a 50‑50 split complies with constitutional guarantees and the Indira Sawhney ratio.

Subjects

reservationvertical reservationhorizontal reservationconstitutional lawequalityaffirmative actionArticles 16, 14, 19, 21Indira Sawhney ratiomedical college admissions

Judgment

MS. SWATI GUPTA A
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 2, 1995

[R.M. SAHAI AND S.C. SEN, JJ.) B

Constitution of India. Arts 16, 14, 19 and 21-Vertical rest!rvation of
65% general seats in medical college in u:P.-Whether violative of constitu-
tional guarantees and ratio in Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, [ 1992] Supp.
3 SCC 217-Subsequent circular of the University-Clarification regarding dif- c
ferent categories-Horizontal as well as vertical reservation.

The petitioner claimed that reservation of 65% in general seats in t
medical colleges in U.P. was violative of Arts. 16, 14, 19 and 21 of the
Constitution and the ratio laid down in the Indira Sawhney case.
D
After filing of the petition under Article 32, the U.P. Government
issued another notification and clarified its policy in respect of reservation
in the medical colleges. The clarification outlined horizontal reservation
on total seats to be filled through the five specified groups in the
prescribed percentage fixed for each group. The candidates of the said five. E
categories selected on the basis of merit would be kept under the categories
of SC/ST/OBC/General to which they belonged and there was no additional
reservation of 15% seats for them. Vertical reservation for SC/ST/OBC
would be 21%,2% and 27% seats respectively and 30% seats in each of these
categories would be reserved for ladies.
F
Disposing of the petition, this Court;
' '

HELD : 1.1 The amended circular has rectified the glaring infir·
mities by making vertical reservations on a 50-50 basis for general and
SC/ST/OBC categories and reservation of f5% seats i'n various other G
categories has been made horizontal i.e. extending to all seats. [830-F-G]

1.2 The grievance of the petitioner does not survive with the
Government's clarification that candidates selected on merit belonging to
the five specified horizontal group would be adjusted in general or
reserved category depending on the category they belong to. Such reserva- H
827
828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 1 S.C.R.

A tion is not contrary to what was laid in Indira Sawh11ey. [831-A]
I11dia Sawhney and Ors. v. Union of Indira a11d 01:5., [1992] Supp. 3
sec 217, referred to.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Civil Writ Petition No. 777
B of 1994.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

~
Ashraf Chaudhary, Ms. M. Chaudhary, Shahid Rizvi and R.N. Kesh-
wani for the Petitioner.
c
Dr. Rajeev Dhawan and R.B. Misra for the Respondent.

Pradeep Misra for the Respondent No. 3

The following Order of the Court was delivered :
D
The petitioner who appeared for the Combined Pre-Medical Test of
1994 held in the State of U.P. Challenged a circular issued by the Lucknow
University based on a letter dated 17th May 1994 issued by the Secretary,
Government of U.P. It was claimed that reservation of 65% general seats
E in the medical colleges was violative of the constitutional guarantee under
Articles 16,14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the ratio laid down by this
• Court in Indira Sawhney & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1992] Supp. 3
SCC 217. After the petition was filed the Government issued another
notification on 17.12.1994 clarifying its stand in respect of reservations. The
relevant portions of it are extracted below :
F ~-

"In continuation of G.O. No. 2697/Sek-14/v- 94/111/93, dated
17.5.94, on the above subject, I am directed to say, clarifying the
Govt, policy that horizontal reservation be granted in all medical
colleges on total seats of all the courses to be filled through
G combined Pre medical test (C.P.M.T.) 1994 as given below:
,.
1. Real dependents of freedom fighters 05 percent ~

2. Sons/daughtt;rs of deceased/disabled soldiers 02 percent

H 3. Physically handicapped candidates 02 percent
....

SWATI GUPTAv. STATE OF U.P. 829

4. Candidates belonging to hill areas 03 percent A

5. Candidates belonging to Uttaranchal areas 03 percent

2. The above reservation would be 'horizontal' and the candidates
of the above categories, selected on the basis of merit, would be
kept under the categories of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled B
Tribes/Other Backward Classes/General to which they belong. For
example, if a candidate dependent on a Freedom Fighter selected
on the basis of reser.vation, belongs to the Scheduled Caste, he will
be adjusted against the seats reserved for scheduled caste. Similar-
ly, if a physically handicapped candidate selected on the basis of C
reservation belongs to other backward class or general category,
he would be adjusted against the seats reserved for other backward
classes or general category.

3. I am also directed to say that "vertical" reservation shall be
granted in all medical colleges on total seats of all courses to be D
filled through C.P.M._T. 1994 as given below:

"Out of the total seats being filled up through the C.P.M.T. 1994,
35 % seats are reserved for the candidates belonging to the general
category and remaining 65% seats shall be for the reserved G
categories which are limited to the percentage mentioned against
the following categories of the candidate :

Reserved Categories Percentage of the reserved seats
1. Backward Classes 27% (of them 30% reserved for ladies)
H
830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) 1 S.C.R.

A 2. _Hilly area (of them 30 per cent reserved for
3%
ladies.)
3. Utrakhand Area 3% (30% reserved for ladies)
4. Scheduled Caste 21% (30% reserved for ladies)

B 5. Schedule Tribes 2% (30% reserved for ladies )
6. Actual dependents (30% reserved for ladies)
of the freedom 5%
fighters
7. Daughter/sons of (30% reserved for ladies)
c soldiers who became
2%
handicapped or
killed in action/war.
8. For handicapped (30% reserved for ladies.)
2%
candidates
D 65%

The remaining seats will be of the General category in which 30%
reservation will be for the ladies."

Reservation of 65% resulting in reducing the general category to
E 35% was undoubtedly violative of Article 16. Further by reserving 30% of
the general seats for ladies the general category shrinked to 5% But these
glaring infirmities have been rectified by the amended circular. Reservation
of 30% for ladies has now been confined to paragraph (3) of the amended
circular. Dr. Dhawan, the learned senior counsel appearing fqr the State
F clarified that he has instructions to make a statement on the amended
circular that now there is no reservation for ladies in the general category.

Similarly, the other defect in the circular reserving 35% seats for
general category has been removed. The vertical reservation is now 50%
for general category and 50% for scheduled caste, scheduled tribes and
G backward classes: Reservation of 15% for various categories mentioned in
the earlier circular which reduced the general categGry to 35% due to
vertical reservation has now been made horizontal in the amended circular
extending it to all seats. The reservation is no more in general category.
The amended circular divides all the seats in C.P.M.T. into two categories-
H one, general and other reserved. Both have been allocated 50%. Paragraph
SWATI GUPTAv. STATE OF U.P. 831

2 of the circular explains that candidlltes who are selected on merit and A
happen to be of the category mentioned in Paragraph 1 would be liable to
be adjusted in general or reserved category depending on to which category
they belong, such reservation is not contrary to what was said by this Court
in Indira Sawhney (supra). Whether the reservation for such persons should
have been made or not was not challenged, therefore, this Court is not B
required to examine it.

In the result this petition is disposed of by directing that in view of
the circular issued by the Government on 17.12.1994 clarified by paragraph
(2) the grievance of the petitioner cannot be said to survive. The interim
order passed by this Court staying the declaration of results .is discharged.
c
A.G. Petition disposed of.