Holding

Rule B(2), which provides 100% reservation for students from the same university region, is unconstitutional and void as it violates Article 14.

Summary

The appellant challenged the Maharashtra Government's Rule B(2), which restricted MBBS admissions to students who had studied within the jurisdiction of a particular university, arguing it violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The High Court had upheld the rule, relying on a deferred Supreme Court order concerning the 30% all‑India seat requirement. The Supreme Court examined the principle that admissions should be based on merit and that any departure must be justified under Article 14, considering state interest and regional backwardness. It held that a 100% regional reservation denies equal opportunity and is unconstitutional, reiterating that reservation cannot exceed 70% of open seats after accounting for other valid reservations, with at least 30% reserved for all‑India candidates. The Court set aside the High Court judgment, declared Rule B(2) void, but ordered that admissions already made under the rule not be disturbed.

Issues considered

Whether Rule B(2) of the Maharashtra admission rules, which reserves all seats for students from the same university region, violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether the State can justify regional reservation on grounds of state interest or regional backwardness.
What is the permissible extent of regional reservation in professional college admissions under Article 14.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 15(1)(4), s. Article 21

Subjects

AdmissionMedical collegesReservationArticle 14EqualityRegionwise reservationMeritConstitutional law

Judgment

230

A
NIDAKARTI MAHESHKUMAR
v.
STATE OF MAHARASm'RA & ORS.

APRIL 6, 1986

B rP.N. RHAQJATI, C.J. AND D.P. MAnoN, JJ.l
y-
Constitution of India, Articles 15(1)(4) and 21
Admission to ME?dical Colleges - RE?sE?rvati on of Seats for
students from hackward region of StatE?- Va1i~ity of. .,..
c Professional Colleges - Admission to - RuJt=> B(2) of\_--
Rules for admission to M.B.R.S. Course - Student from
school/co]lege within juriscHction of one university --t·-
Ineligible for admission to medical college or colleges
situated in jurisdiction of another university- Validity of
Rule- Whether violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
D
The qualification required for admission to the MBBS
course in the State of Maharashtra is the passing of 12th
standard examination held by the Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary and Higher Secondary Education. It comprises of i--
three Divisional Boards - one for Vidharbha region, another
E for Marathwada region and the third for the rest of Maharash-
tra - and though for the purpose of convenience each of these
three Divisional Boards conducts the 12th standarrl examination
for the area within its jurisdiction, th~ examination which is
held is one and the same throughout the State of Maharashtra,''f
based on the same syllabus, with the same set of questionsand).
F the same standard of evaluation. The results of the 12th
standard examination are published divisionwise and the merit
list is also prepared on that basis but the question papers
being same and the standard of evaluation also being uniform
throughout the three regions, it is easy to assess the
comparative merits of the candidates in the three regions by
G reference to the marks obtained by them at the 12th standard
examination.
}-""'~
'
The respondent-State, instead of selecting candidates
from all over the State for the academic year 1985 on the
basis of their performance in the 12th standard examination,
H made regionwise classification for admission to medical
NIDAMARTI MAHESHKUMAR v. STATE 231

• colleges by framing new Rules for admission to the M.B.B.S. A
~ourse. Rule E(2) of the Rules provided that a student from 8
school or college situated within ~he jurisdiction of a
particular university could seek admission only in the medical
college or colleges situate within the jurisdiction of that ·
University and he could not be eligible for admission to B
medical college or colleges situate in the jurisdiction of
~~ another university.

The appellant challenged the validity of Rule B(2) of
the Rules before the High Court on the ground that it offends
\ Article 14 of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the
writ petition on the ground that since the implementation of
.. the order passed in Dr. Pradeep Jain & Ora. v. Uniou of India C
)C& Ors. et~ •• {1984] 3 s.c.c. 654 that 30% of the open seats
r should be available for admission to students on all India
basis and that only 70% of the seats could be reserved on the
basis of residence or institutional preference, had been
deferred by the Supreme Court, the State Gcvernme1t "had no
D
other alternative but to fill in the seats as if there were no
directions from the Supreme Court to fill in the seats on
~ all-India basis" and Rule B(2) of the Rules for admission to
the M.B.B.S. course framed by the State Government for the
academic year 1985 was therefore valid.
E
\. Allowing the appeal,

HELD: 1. The regionwise scheme adopted by the State
Government in Rule B(2) clearly results in denial of equal
opportunity violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
~ [245 D] F
,.-" 2.(i) nte object of any valid sch~ of admissions must
be to "select the best candidates for being admitted to
medical colleges" and that if any departure is to be" made
"from the principle of selection on the basis of merit • 1t
must be justified on the touch-stone of Article 14. f23S D-E 1 G

Minor P. Rajendran v. State of Madras. (1968] 2 S.C.R.
786, A. P~rta-«urappan v. State of Tamil Nadu. (1971] 2
S.C.R. 430 and Dr. Pradeep Jain & OT&. v. Union of India &
Ora. etc., [1984] 3 s.c.c. 654, relied upon.
H
D.P. Joshi •• Stat~ of Madhya Bharat. {1955] 1 S.C.R.
'
232. \r SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19861 2 s.c.R.

A .>
1215 and Jagdish Saran v. Union of Imfa, [1980) -~ S.,'. ·.R. 831,
referred to.

2.(ii) There are two considerations which may
' legitimately weigh with the Court in justifying departure
from the principle of selection based on merit. One is what
may be call~ State interest and the other is what may be
B
described as a region's claim of backwardness. The claim of
State interest in providing adequate medical services to the
people. of. the State by imparting medical education to students
who by reason of their residence in the State would be likely
· to settle down and serve the people of the State as Doctors,
~c
is a legitimate ground for departing from the strict principle
of selection based on merit. [240 D-G]

2.(1ii) Where ·the· region from· which the students of a
mrlversity'are largely drawn is backward either from the point
of view'of opportunities for medical education or availability
of ·ComPetent :and adequate medical services, it would be
D
constitutionally permissible, Without violating the mandate of.
the equality\ clause, to ··provide a high percentage of
reservation or preference for students coming from that
region, because without reservation or preference students
from such backward region will hardly be able to compete with
those from,advanced regions since they would have no adequate
E
opportunity for development so as to be in a position to
compete with others. By reason of their socially or
economically disadvantaged position they would not have been
able to. secure education in good schools and they . would
"·-. ·· ~_consequently be at a disadvantage conypared . ·to students
F belonging to the affluent or well-to-do families who· have had
best of school education. There can, therefore, legitimately
be. reservation . or preference in their favour so far as
admissions are concerned in case of a medical college which is
set up or intended to cater to the needs of a region which is
backward or whose alumni are largely drawn from. such backward
G
region. ·It may , however,. be· noted ·that . the reservation or
preference in such a cas·e . may· even be of a high percentage of
seats but it cannot be total. [242 F-H; 243 A-c)

. 2. (iv) It would not be· unconstitutional for the State
Government to provide for reservation or preference in respect
H
of a certain percentage of seats in the medical college or
\ ;
'
' NIDAMARTI MAHEsm<IJMAR v. STATE 233

,l colleges in each region in favour of those who have studied in A
schools or co~leges within that region and ev~n if the
percentage sllpulated by the State Government: is on· the_ higher
side, it would not fall foul of the constitutiOnal mandate of
equality. There are two reasons why such reservation or
preference would be constitutionally pennissible. : ·tn the B .
first plaee it .would eause a considerable 'amount- of hafdship
and inconvenience if students residing in the ··,,regi~nof a
particular university are compelled to move to the'· region of
another university for medical education which they ~ght have
to do if selection·· for admission .to the medical colleges in
the entire State were to be based on merit without any
reservation or preference regionwise. It m1st be remembered
that there would be a large number of students who, if they do C
not get admission in the medieal college near·their residence
and are assigned admission in a college in another region on ·.
the basis of relative merit, may not be abie' to go to such
other medical college on account of lack of resources and
. facilities and in the result, they ·would be.. ~~fectively
;deprived of a real opportunity for pursuing tl'!e me~ic31 cou~e D·
even . though on paper they . would have got aC!mfssiOtt -in the··
medical college. The . opportunity for medic.al-. education:
provided to them would be illusory and not real ~cause they
·would not be able to avail of it. Moreover some difficulty
would also arise in case of girls because if tht!J are not able E
· to get admission in the medical college .near the- place where
they reside they might find ·it difficult to pursue medical
education in a medical college situated in another . region
where hostel facilities . may not be available· and even if
hOstel fa~ilities are available, the parents may hesitate to
send thein. to the . hostels. Therefore·,· the reservation or F
._,. preference in respect of a certain percentage of seats may
, legitimately be made in favour o! those who have studied in
scltools .·or colleges ·within the region of 8 particular
· university, in order to equalise opportunities for medical
admission -on a broader basis and to bring about real and not
formal, actual and not merely legal, equality. (247 F-H; G ·
248 A-E)

2(v) Not more than 70 per cent of the total number of
open seats in·the medieal · ~ollege or colleges situate within
the area of jurisdiction of a particular university, after
taking into a~count other kinds of reservations validly made, H
shall be reserved for students who have studied in schools or
. --·-------------- --------------"""'1
23~ SUPREME OJURT REPORTS [ 19R6 J 2 S.C.R.

A colleges situate within that region and at least 30 per eentr
of the open seats shall be avatl_able for admisst~ .£-o students
who have studied in schools or colleges ·in : -\ther regions
~thin the State. [248 G-H; 249 A-B]

Dr. Pradeep Jain ·& Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. · et~.
(1984] 3 s.c.c. 654, ·lUnor P. Rajendrait v. State of Madraa, \
B
(1968] 2 s.c.R. 786, and A. Peeria-Kurappan v. State of Tamil
Nadu (1971] 2 s.c.R. 761, relied upon.
'

· D~P~···Joohi v. State of Madhya Bharat:, [1955) 1 s.c.R.
1215 and Jsgdish Saran v. union of India, [1980) 2 s.c.R. 831
· referred to.
c
D.N. Chanchala v. State of ~ore, (1971] Suppl.· S.C.R. ~
608 distinguished.
·. ..
.• ~. •' •'I. '

· ln the instant case, there is no material to show that
I _-
the entire region within the jurisdiction of the university in
D
V:ldharbha is backward or •that ·the entire region Within the
jurlsdi~tion of Pune University is advanced.· It is also not
possible to categories the regions within the jurisdiction of
the various universities as.' backward or advanced as if they
were exclusive categories. As a result of the regionwise
clessification a·· student from one region who has-. secured
E
lesser marks than another from _a different region may be
selected for -admission to · the medical college or colleges
within his region. And moreover, a student from one region
would have no opportunity - for seeurlng admission in the
medical college or colleges in another region, though he may
have done much better than the student-in that other region.
F
Therefore, it would plainly be violative of the mandate of the
equality clause to compartmentalize the State into dlfferept '
regions and provide that a student from one region should not
be allowed to migrate to another' region for medical education
_ and thus be denied equal opportunity with others in the State
for medical education. (243 G-R; 244 c~J
G

-..... The Court observed ~(a) that the number of seats required _...-.
to be made available for admission to students on All-India
basis must first be taken out and then to the remaining number
of open seats after taking into account other kinds of re-
servations validly made, the percentages o£.70 and 30 must be
H
NIDAMARTI MAHESHKUMAR v. STATE . [BHAGt-lATI, CJ. ] 235

~- applied for determini~ the extent to which regional reserva- A
tion or preference can legitimately ·be made; (b) that the
admistdons made on the basis of Rule B(2) shall not· be
disturbed, nor will any claim for admission be founded for the
acade::dc year 1985 on the basis of Rule B(2) •. If the State
Govett~t wants to make reg!onwise reservation or preference
~ after setting apart the seats required to . be made available B
J for admission ·to students on All-India basis, the State
Government may follow the guidelines laid down by the Supreme
Court so as to_·_ avoid .. clash with Article 14 of the
Constitution. '[249 C-D; E-G]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4395 of
: 1985.' c
~ ..
From the Judgment and Order dated 1st August, 1985 ·of
the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 2670 of 1985. ·

V.N. Ganpule·for the ~ppellant.
D
. V.S. Desai, . A:s. Bhasme and A.M. Khanwilkar for. the
Respondents.
.J
' .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

EHAGWATI, CJ. ·This appeal by special leave ·arises from a E
writ petition filed by the appellant in the High Court of
Bombay challenging the validity of Rule B(2). of the Rules
frat:ed by the State Government ·on 21st December 1984 for
admission to the M.B.B.S. course. The validity of this Rule
· haS been assailed on. the ground that it offends Article 14 of
1 the Constitution. Th~ challenge has been negatived by-the High F
/ Court but the appellant contends \_in this appeal that the
decision ~f the High Court is erroneous and Rule R(2) must b~
struck dm."tt as unconstitutional, and void.

The qual iff cation required for admiss:l.ol!-_ ~o the MBBS
course in the State of· Maharashtra is the passing of 12th G
)..... standard.· examination held by· the Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary and Higher Secondary Education. The teaching in the
first ten standards_ is carried on in schools while in the 11th
and 12th standards the teaching is done at some places in
schools and at others in colleges. The schools and colleges
w~ere education is imparted in the 11th and 12th standards are H
•
236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [I98f>] . 2 s.c.R.
A

not in any way connected with the Universities within whos~.,l
~/'I
jurisdiction they are situate nor have the Tlniversities"'~
ll anything to do with the 12th stanclard examinatto,n. There is
l1'!. one Board for the whole of Maharashtra called 'M'aharashtra
State Board of Secondary and Higher Secon~ary f:rlucation" and
r·' '
,. B it comprises of three THvistonal Boards - one for Vidharbha
'l region, another for Harathwada regton and the thtrd for the
fi! rest of Maharashtra - ancl though for the purpose of conve--,.
nience each of these three Divisional Boards conducts the 12th
standard examination for the area within its jurisdiction, t~e
examination which is held is one and the same throu~hout t~e
c State of Maharashtra, based on the sam~ syllabus, with the
eame set of questions and the same standar~ of evaluation. The
results of th~ 12t~ standard examination are published
divisionwise and the ~rit list is also prepared on that basis
but the questi on papers being the same and the standard of~
evaluation also being uniform throughout the three re~ons, it
D is easy to assess the comparative merits of the candidates in
the three regions by reference to the marks obtained by them
at the 12th standard examinati.on. The adm!sstons to the
medical colleges within the State of Maharashtra could, there-
fore, arguably be determined on the basts of merit and the
best candidates could be selected from all over the State on
the basis of their performance in the 12th standard examina-
tion • Rut for t he academic year 19~5, tfl~ State Government .
departed from thts principle of s~lectlon hased on merit
across the hoard and made regfonwise classificatton for admis-
sion to meclica1 coll~es hy fram1n~ new Rules for aclmtsston to
F the M.B.R.S. Coura~ on 21st December, IQR4. Rule R(2) of these
Ru]es provirled intE-r ~ as under :
1
"StutiE-nts wllo have passed H.s.c. (10+2) 12th
s~a~ard examination of the Maharashtra State floard
0
econdary and Higher St:tconc-lary r~ucstion from
I G Schools/Co11 eges s t tuated w1. thin the jurisdiction
of one untverstty ere not e1t~th1~ for adm~ssion to
;e~ica1 collP~e or coll~~es situate~ tn the juris-~
Giction of enoth~r untv~rstty. The seats at the ,
overn~nt Mtadi cal Coll ~ges in Maharashtra State
except those earmarked for nominees of the Govern-
H me~t of Tntfta an<1 nomt nees of Mi raj Medical Centre I
;n t~~se menttone~ in Rule D(4) below are reserved

__ __,_- ...
.... _... ,, _ -----.._ ....
8 ~;a.~ e students of t~e respective untverstty
· - - - - -- - ---····--· .
~

-· ---- ·-·
. NIDAMARTI MAHESHI<UMAR v. STATE fBHAGWATI, r~. J 237

. ·The admissions to medical colleges were thus made subject to A
~egionwise classification inasmuch as a student from a school
or college situated within the jurisdiction of a particular
university could seek admission only !n the medical college or
colleges situate within the jurisdiction of that University
and ·he could not be eligible for admission to medical college
or colleges situate in the jurisdiction of another university. B
This regionwise classification made by the State Government
~for the p.1rpose of admissions to medical colleges was assailed
by the appellant by filing a writ petition in the High Court
of Bombay on the ground that it was violative of Article 14 of
'I the Constitution. The wrlt petition was heard by a Division
r-
1
Bench of the High Court and by a judgment dated 1st August,
1985 the High Court dismissed the writ petition. The principal c
ground on Which the High Court rejected the writ petition was
that the implementation of the Order passed by this Court in
.... Dr. Pradeep ..Jain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. etc., [19841
3 s.c.c. 654, that 30% of the open seats should be available
for admission to students on all-India hasis and that only 70%
of the S£toats coold be reserved on the basis of residence or D
institutional preference, had been ~eferred by this Court by
its Order dated 8th July 1985 to the academic year 1986 and it
was not to be given effect to in the academic year 1985. The
High Court took the view that since the implementation of this
· Order had been deferred by this Court, the State Government
'~ad no other alternative but to fill in the seats as if there
E
were no directions from the Supreme Court to fill in the seats
on all-Inrlia basis" and Rule B(2) of the Rules for admission
to the M.B.B.S. Course framed by the State Government for the
academic year 1985 was therefore valid. This view taken by the
"'t High Court is impugned in the present appeal preferred by the
F
appellant with special leave obtained from this Court.

The question as to whst principles for selection of
I .
students for admission to the medical colleges would be
permissible und~r Article 14 of the Constitution came up for
consideration hefore this Court in the leading case of Dr.
G
~. Pradeep Jain (supra). The judgment in this case reviewed all
the previous decisions ~tven by this Court starting from D.P.
Josh! v. State of. Madhya Bharat, fl955] 1 s.c.R. 1215 and
ending with ..Jagdlsb Saran v. Union of India, ri980l 2 S.C.R.
831 and after analysins;r these decisions the Court laiif.oodo~,
the principles Which should govern selection of students for H

-. / 1 - ... . -· --- _._--·
238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [I9R6) 2 s.c.R.
•

A admission to the medical colleges consistently ~th the
requirement of Article 14. The Court pointed out that the.~
primary consideration in selection of candidates for admission :
to the medical coll e~es must be merit ancl the object of any !
rules which may be made for regulating admissions to the
medical colleges must he to secure the best anrl most meritori-
ous students. This was in fact the consideration which weighed
B with the Court · in Minor P. Rajendran v. State of Madras. ,._. i
(1968] 2 S.C.R. 786 in striking down a Rule mane by the State \
of Madras allocating seats in· medical colleges on district
wise basis and so also in A. Peerla-Kurappan v. State of Tamil
!

l
lfadn. (19711 2 s.c.R. 430 the same consideration prevailed
~tb the court in striking-dawn a unftwise scheme of selection I
c of candidates for appointment to medical colleges in the State
of Tamil Nadu, which provided for constituting the mecHcal
colleges in the city of "M'aclras as one uni.t and each of the .
other medical colleyes In the rnofusefl as a separate unit and~
selection being rMde unftwise. The court in both these cases
I
clearly and catPgodca11y proceeded on the hasis of the ·
D principle that the object of any va1 id scheme of actmi.ssions
UIJst be to usel ect the best canrltdates for bei n~ arlmitted to
.medical colleges" and that 1.f any rleparture is to be made
"from the prindple of selection on the basts of merit", i.t
m.JSt be justified on the touch-stone of Article 14. This ~
principle was affirmed by the court in Dr. Pradeep Jato's case ' I
E (supra).

This Court then proceederl to consider in Dr. Pradeep
Jain's ~ (supra) as to what are the circumstances in which
departure may justtfi.ahly be made from the principle of
selection haaed on merit. The Court enunciated in clear and
F emphatic terms the philosophy hehind the concept of equality ';I
under the Constitution anti observed :

"Now the ct>nc~pt of equalfty under the Constitution
is a dynam!c concept. lt takes within its sweep
~very process of equal·fsntton anci protective ·
G d!sc:rfDiination. ~qualtty rust not rl£lmain mere idle ~
incantation but it must become a livfn~ reality for
the lar~e !Msses of people. !n a hi('rarchical
society wfth an indelible feudal stamp and
! ' .
1.ncurah1e actual ine<tualtty • . it ts ahsurd to
Bu~~~t that progressive measures to eliminate
H

..
r.
L,......-------,.-----. . .----· .-.-. .____. __
~
'
------·--------........ ~: .· . .·. ,'{.
NIDAMARTI MAHESHKUMAR v. STATE {BHAGWATI, CJ. 1 239

A
group disabilities and promote collective equality
are antagonistic to equality on the ground that
every individual is entitled to equality of
opportunity based purely on merit judged by the
marks obtained by him. We cannot countenance such a
suggestion, for to do so would make the equality B
clause sterile and perpetuate existing
inequalities. Equality of opportunity is not simply
a matter of legal equality. Its existence depends
not merely on the absence of disabilities but on
the presence of abilities. Where, therefore, there
is inequality, in fact, legal equality always tends
to accentuate it. What the famous poet William c
Blake said graphically is very true, namely, "One
law for the Lion and the Ox is oppression". Those
who are unequal, in fact, cannot be treated by
identical standards; that may be equality in law
but it would certainly not be real equality. It is,
therefore, necessary to take into account de facto D
inequalities which exit in the society and to take
affirmative action by way of giving preference to
the socially and economically disadvantaged persons
or inflicting handicaps on those more
advantageously placed, in order to bring about real
equality. Such affirmative action though apparently E
discriminatory is calculated to produce equality on
a broader basis by eliminating de facto
inequalities and placing the weaker sections of the
community on a footing of equality with the
stronger and more powerful sections so that each
member of the comJIJ..mi ty, whatever is his birth, F
occupation or social position may enjoy equal
opportunity of using to the full his natural
endowments of physique, of character and of
intelligence •••••••• We cannot, therefore, have
arid equality which does not take into account the
social and economic disabilities and inequalities G
from which large masses of people suffer in the
country. Equality in law mst produce real
equality, de jure equality must ultimately find its
raison d'etre in de facto equality. The State must,
therefore, resort to compensatory State action for
the purpose of making people who are factually
H
240 StTPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] ~ S.C.R. II
i
unequa 1 . in their wealth, education or social .~~ '1 J

A envf ronment, equal in specified areas. The State'--~~
llUSt • to use again the words of 'Krishna Iyer, J. in I
Jagdish Saran case 'veave those special facilities
into the web of equality which, in an equitable }
setting, provide for the weak and promote their
levelling up so that, tn the long run, the
l
col1111llnity at large may enjoy a general measure of +-· t
B real equal opportunity •••• equal i.ty is not negated .
or neglected where special provisions are geared to I
the larger goal of the disabled getting over their '
disablement consistently with the ~eneral good and •
indivi~ual merit". The scheme of admission to r
medical colleges may, therefore, depart from the \
c principle of selection based on merit, where it is .
necessary to do so for the purpose of bringing )1.. , t ·:
about real equal !ty of opportunity between those
~o are unequale".

n· It was pointed out by the Court that there are two
considerations which may l~timately weigh with the Court in
justifying departure from the principle of selection based on l
merit. One is what may be called State interest and the other l
is what rMY be described as a region's claim of backwardness • ...,...
The legitimacy of claim of State interest was recognised
E explicitly in D.P. Joshi's case (supra) and Minor P.
lajendran'• casP (supra). These two cases show that the claim
of State interest tn providing adequate medical services to
the people of the State by impartinll: rnedtcal education to
students Who by reason of their residence in the State would
be likely to settle down anrl serve the people of the ~tate as )f
F Doctors, was regard~ by the court as a Je~itimate ground for
departing froa the strict principle of selection based on
~rtt. The decision of this Court in D.N. Chanchala •· State
of Mytloft, (1971} Suppl. s.c.R. F>n8 also upheld university
vise dtttribution of seat a, though f t was not in conformity
vtth the pr1nctp1e of aelectton based on merit and marked a
G d~parture from lt, and the justification for ta~!ng this view ~
wa• that institutional preference was not constitutionally
impenniatibll' "flrstly, because it would he quite legitimate
for •tud~ts who are attached to a university to entertain a
desire to have training in specialised subjects, like
medicine, eatlefied through colleges afftllated to t~eir own
H
---- ~ "'· ··- - ··
NIDAMARTI MAHESHKUMAR v. STATE [BHA~fATI, CJ .] 241

A
..4-- ~niversity since that would prolnote institutional continuity
Which has its own value and secondly, because any student from
any part of the country can pass the qualifying examination of
that university, irrespective of the place of his birth of
residence."
B
The secon~ consideration which can legitimately weigh
..,
. with the court in dtlutin~ the principle of selection based on
~

merit Is the claim of backwardness made on behalf of any
particular region. We may, in this connection, usefully quote
the following p8ssage from the jurlgment of this Court in Dr.
Pradeep Jain's case (supra) :

"There have been cases where students residing a c
backward region have been given preferential
treatement in admissions to merlical colleges and
such preferential treatment has heen upheld on the
grounrl that though apparently discriminatory
a~ainst other it is intended to correct the
D
imbalance or handicap from wnich the students from
the backward region are suffering and thus bring
about real equality in the larger sense. Such
preferential treatment for those residing in the
backward region is designed to produce equal
opportunity on a broader basis by providing to
E
neglect geographical or human areas an opportunity
to rise which they would not have if not
preferential treatment is given to them and they
are treated on the same basis as others for
admissions to medical colleges, because then they
would never be able to compete with others more
- advantageously placed. If creatively and
imaginatively applied, preferential treatment based
F

on resi~ence in a backwar~ region can play a
significant role in reducing uneven levels of
development and such preferential treatment would
presumably satisfy the test of Artlcle 14, because G
it would be calculated to redress the existing
imbalance between different regfons in the State.
There may be a case where a region is educationally
backward or woefully deficient in medical services
an~ in such a case there w~tld be serious
educational and health service disparity for that H
242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ri986J 2 S.C.R.

backward region which must be redressed by an
A
equality and service minded welfare State. The
}Xlrpose of such a pol icy would be to remove the
existing inequality and to promote welfare based
equality for t~e residents of the backward region.
If the State in such a case seelcs to remove the
absence of opportunity for medical erlucation and to
provide competent and adequate medical services in
B
such backward region by starting a medical college
in the heart of such backward region and reserves a '
high percentage of seats there to students from
that region, it may not be possible to castigate
such reservation or preferential treatment as
discriminatory. What is directly intended to"'
c abolish existing dispatlty Cannot be aCCUSed Of I

discrimination." ~
Krishna Iyer, J. said to the same effect when he observed in
Jaedfsh Sarao's case (supra) at page R56 of the Re~ort :
We have no doubt that where the human region from
D
which the alumni of an institution are largely
drawn is baclcward, either from the angle of oppor-
tunities for technical education or availability of
medical services for the people, the provision of a
high ratio of •reservation hardly militates against )
the equality mandate viewed in the perspective of
social justice.
E
This was precisely the ground on which, in the State of Uttar
Pradesh v. Praclip Taadon, [ 1975] 2 S.C. R. 761 this Court
allowed reservation in medical admissions for people of the
hill and Uttarakhand areas of the State of U.P. on the ground ~
that those areas were socially and educationally backward.
F
Similarly, and for the same reason, the Andhra Pradesh High /
Court in A. PeeTia JOrappan's case (supra) held that
preferential treatment of Telengana students in medical
admissions was justified. It is, therefore, clear that where
the region from which the students of a university are largely
drawn is backward either from the point of vi.ew of
opportunities for medical education or avallabi11ty of
G
competent and adequate medical servlces, it would be
constitutionally permdssible, without violating the mandate of j
the equality clause, to provide a high percentage of
reservation or preference for students coming from that
region, because without reservation or preference students
H
from such backward region will hardly be able to compete with
those from advanced regions since they would have no adequate
NIDAMARTI MAHESHKUMAR v • STATE rBHAGW~.. 'TI ' CJ. ] 243 ' .

A
opportunity for development so as to be · in a position to
compete with others. By· reason of their socially or
. economics11y d isaclvant aged posit ion they would not have been
able to secure educdtion . · in · good schools . and tlley ~ould ·
consequently be at a disadvantage compared to students
belonging to the affluent or well-to-do families who have had
B
best of school education.·There can, therefore, legitimately
be reservation or preference - in their favour so far as
adm!ssions ·are concerned in case of. a medical college which is
set up or i?tended to cater to the needs of a regi~n which is
backward or whose alumni are largely drawn from such backward
region. · It may, however, be noted that the reservation or
1
preference in such a case may even be of a hi.gh percentage of c
) seats but it cannot be total • .
~j . ' .
Here, in the present case, regionwise classification for
admission to medical colleges was sought to he depended on the
groond that Vidharbha and Marathwada regions are backward as
compared to Pune and Bomhay regions which are far more D
advanced and - it was contended on behalf of the State
Government that, in the circumstance~. the provision in Rule
B(2) that a stu<1ent from a school or college situate within
the jurisdiction of a particular university would not be
eligible for admission to medical college or colleges situate
in the juris~iction of another university but would be confin- E
ed only to medical college or colleges within the jurisdiction
of the same university, was intended to give protection to
students in Vidharbha • Marathwada and other predominently
rural areas .the population of which is socially, economically
and ecfucationally backward for otherwise they would have no
) opportunity for medical education since they would not be able F
to compete with stuc1ents from Pune and Rombay reg-Ions and
· ~Mequently the classification made by th:fs provision was
constitutionally permissihle. We are afraid this contention is
not well-founded and must be rejected. In t _he first place
there is no material to show that the entire reg{on wtthtn the
jurisdiction of the university in Vidharhha i.s backward or G
that the entire region within the jurisdiction of Pun~ Univer-
~ sity is advanced. There are quite possibly even in the region
within the jurisdiction of Pune University predominently rural
areas which are hackward and equally there may he in the
region w1 thin the jurisdiction of the university in
Vidharbha. areas which are not backward. We do not think it isf H
· PDss t ble to categorise the regions w~'tht n the jurisdiction o
244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986) 2 S.C.R.

A
the various universities. as backward or advanced as if they ~
were exclusive categories and in any event there is no
material placed before us which woulil persuade us to reach
that conclusion. ~ut even if the regions within the jurisdic-
tion of the universities in Vidharbha ancl Marathwaila can be
said to be backward ann regions within the jurisrliction of the
B
universities in Rombay and Pune can ·be said to be advanced, we
do not think that regionwise classification for admission to
medical colleges can he sustained. There is no reason why a
brilliant student from a region which is w{thin the jurisdic-
tion of a university in Vidharbha or Marathwarla area should be
denied the opportunity of medical education in Bombay or Pune.
c Why should he remain confined to the so-ca]1ed backward region
from _which he comes? Should an equal opportunity for medical
education not he made available to him as is available to
students from regions within the jurisdiction of Bombay and
Pune Universities? Why should mobility for educational
advancement be impeded by geographical limitations within the
D State? Would this clearly not be a denial of equal opportunity
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution? The answer must
clearly be in t~e affirmative. It would plainly be violative
of the mandate of the equality clause to ~ompartmentalize the
State into different regions and provide that a student from
one region should not he allowed to migrate to another region
E for medical education and thus be denied equa] opportunity
with others in the State for medical educat1on. This is
precisely the reason why this Court struc~-down unitwise
scheme for admission to medical colle~es in the State of Tamil
Nadu in A. Peerla Karuppan's case (supra). The unit-wise
scheme which was heJd to be constitutionally invalid in that
F case was a scheme under which the medical colle~es in the city
of Madras were constituterl as one unit and each of the other
medical colleges in the mofussil was constituted as a unit and
a separate Selection Committee was set up for each of these
units. The intending applicants were asked to apply to any one
of the committees but were advised to apply to the Committee
G nearest to thei.r place of residence and if they applied to
more than one committee, their applications were to be
forwarded by the Government to only one of the committees. The )-
petitioners challenged the validity of this unit wise scheme
and contended that the unit-wise scheme was violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution inter alia hecause the
H applicants of some of the units were in a hetter position than
NIDAMARTI MAHESHKITMAR v. STATE rBHAGWATI, CJ.] 245

those who applied in other units, since the ratio between the A
'r
...,... applicants and the number of seats in each unit varied and I
' '
several applicants who secured lesser marks than the petition- ~- I
er were selected merely because their applications came to be
considered in other units. This contention was upheld by the
Court holding that the scheme in question was invalid as it
B
was discriminatory against some of the applicants. The ratio
of this decision applies fully and completely to the present
case. Here also as a result of the regionwise classification a
student from one region who has secured lesser marks than
another from a different region may be selected for admission
to the medical college or colleges within his region while the
student who has securerl higher maru may not succeed in c
getting selected for admission to the medical college or
colleges within hts region. And moreover, a student from one
region would have no opportunity for securing admission in the
medical coll~ge or colleges in another region, though he may
have done much better than the student in that other region.
The regionwise scheme adopted by the State Government in Rule D
B(2) ~learly results in denial of equal opportunity violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution. We may at this stage refer
to the decision of this Court in D. N. Chaneh.ala 's case
(supra) on which considerable reliance was placed on behalf of
the State Government. The reservation impugne~ in this case
was university-,ise reservation under which preference for E
admission to a medical college run by a university was given
to students who had passed the PUC examination of . that
university and only 20 per cent of the seats were available to
those passing the PUC examination of other universities. The
petitioner who ~ad passed PUC examination held by the
Bangalore University applied for admission to any one of the F
medical colleges affiliated to the tcarnata'ka University. She
did not come within the merit list on the basis of.20_per cent
open seats which were filled up and since she had not passed
the PUC examinatton held by the 'Karnatalut University, her
application for admission -was rejected. She therefore filed
..... ~t petition under Article 32 of the Constitution eontending G
inter alia that the university-wise distribution of seats was
discrtminatory and hence violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution. This contention was rejected by the Court.
Shelat, J. speaking on be~alf of the r.ourt ~av~ the following
reasons in support of its conclusion :
H
246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986 J 2 S.C.R. ·

A "In our view, there is not hi. ng undes 1 rable in I.
ensuring that those attached to such universities-
have tltetr ambitions to havE' trainin~ in
specialised subjects, 1 ike medtd nE', sat lsfied
through colJeges affiliated to their own
universities. Such a basis for selection has not
II B the disadvantage of districtwise or unitwise
selection as any student from any part of the State - ~ .· _
I

Ii can pass the qualifying ~xamination in any of the
I three universities irrespective of the place of his
birth or rest.clence. Further, thE' rules confer a
discretion on the selection committee to admit
outsiders upto 20 per cent of the total available
c seats in any one of these colle~es, i.~., those who
have passed t~e equivalent examination held by any
other unfvE'rs1ty not only in the State but also ,.
elsewhere in lnd!a. It is, therefore, impossible to
say tltat the basis of seJ ect ion adopted in these
rules would defeat the object of the rules as was
D sai{f in Rajendran case or mal<e possible less
meritorious students obtaining a~mission at the
cost of the better cancl!dates. ThE~ fact that a
candidate having lesser marks might obtain
acimission at the cost of another having higher ~
marks from another university does not necessarily
E
mean that a less meritorious candidate gets
advanta~e over a more meritorious one. As is well
known, different univers1t1es have different
standards in the examinations held by them."

lt will be obvious on a little scrutiny of these reasons that
F
they cannot possibly have any appl!catlon to the rey.tonwise
classif'icatfon adopted in the present .case. There are two
baste differ~nces between the regionwise elassiftcatton tn the
present case and the universtty-wise res~rvation in D.N.
Chsnchala'a case (supra). Firstly, there was no c~n
examination or uniform standard of evaluation tn the different
G
universities in D.M. Chanchala'a cese (supra) 80 that it could
not be said that a cendtdote obtalntn~ lesser marks in the PUC
examtnation held hy one univE'rsity was necessari1y less
meritorious than another student getting more marks tn the PUC
~xamination hel~ by another untverstty. But here in the
n present case there is only one common examinatton for the 12th

__. : .~ :....·- · ~'' , .. ~ .. --~ ·-· _____ __
_
... ___
..._ ------···~·-·~·- ·· ··· ·
NIDAMARTI MAHESHKUMAR v. STATE [BHAGWATI, CJ.] 247

A
Standard held in the entire state with the same syllabus and
the same set of questions and uniform standard of evaluation
with the result that it can be safely predicated that a
student who gets less marks in the 12th Standard examination
may ordinarily be regarded as less meritorious than another
student getting higher marks. If there were different B
examinations held by the three Division Boards with different
sets of questions and different standards of evaluation the ·
_...... ratio of the decision in D.N. O:l.anchala's case would have
inevitably and irresistibly applied. But the standard of
comparison between students throughout the State being clear
and well-defined on account of a common 12th Standard
examination with same set of questions and uniform standard of c
evaluation the decision in D.N. ~·s case can have no
application. Moreover in D.N. Otanchala 's ease (supra) the
reservation in favour of students passing PUC examdnation of a
_.. particular university was not total but 20 per cent of the
seats were made available to those passing the PUC examination
of other univversities. Here in the present case, however, the D
reservation in favour of students who have studied in schools
or colleges situate in the region within the jurisdiction of a
particular university is 100 per cent and no student who has
studied in a school or college within the region of another
"\. university can possibly get admission in the medical college
or colleges situate within the region of that the first E
mentioned university. We must therefore hold that the ratio of
the decision in D.N. 0\anchala•a case does not compel us to
take a view different from the one we are inclined to take on
first principle.

But we would like to make it clear that it would not be F
unconstitutional for the State Government to provide for
reservation or preference in respect of a certain percentage
o! seats in the medical college or colleges in each region in
favour of those who have studied inschools or colle,g es within
that region and even if the percentage stipulated by the State
i
Covernrr.!nt is on the higher side, it would not fall foul of G
the constitutional mandate of equality. There are two reasons
why such reservation or preference would be constitutionally
permissible. In the first place it would cause a considerable
amount of hardship and inconvenience if students residing in
the region of a particular university are compelled to move to
the region of another university for medical education which H

•·
.., .... ., . ..

248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 19861 2 s.c.a.

A
they might have t o . do~ if selecti on for admission to the
medical colleges in the entire State were to be based on merit~
without any reservation or preference regionwise. It mst be
remembered that there would be a large number of students who,
if they do not ge t admission in the medical college near their
r esidence and are assigned admission in a college in another
region on the basis of relative merit, may not be able to go
B
to such other medical -college on account of lack of resources
and facilities and in the result, they would be effectively 1 ·
deprived of a real opportunity for pursuing the medical course
l
even though on paper they would have got admission in the
I
I medical college. The opportunity for medical education
I c provided to them would be illusory and not real because they
would not be able to avail of it. Moreover some difficulty
I
l
would also arise in case of girls because if they are not able
t o get admission in the medical college near the place where
1- they reside they might find tt difficult to pursue medical :.
~
education in a tlledical college situated in another region
0 where hostel facilities may not be available and even if
hostel facilities are available, the parents may hesitate to
send them to the hostels. We are therefore of the · view tha~
reservation or preference in respect of a certain percentage
of seats may legitimately be made in favour of those who have
studied in schools or colleges within the region of a ~~
E parti cular university. in order to equalise opportunities for
medical admission on a broader basis and to bring about real 1
and not formal, actual and not merely legal, equalitY• The l
only question is as to what should be the extent of such
reservation or preference. But on this question we derive
considerable light from the decision in Dr. Pradeep Jain'&
F case (supra) where we held that reservation based on residence --4
requirement or institutional preference ahould not exceed the
outer limit of 70 per cent of the total number of open seats
after taking into account other kinds of reservations vali~Y
made and that the remaining 30 per cent of the open seats at
the least should be made available for admission to students
G on All-India basis irrespective of the state or the universitY
from which they come. We would adopt the same principle in ..-
case of reg1onw1se reservation or preference and hold that not
more than 70 per cent of the total number of open seats in the
medical college or colleges situate within the area : of
jurisdiction of a particular university • after taking into
H account other kinds of reservations validly made, shall be -

.. _,..... _..... .·"·-·-..-·.._..............---.-·---··-····
-~ · ·- - - ---
·-·--···
·-·-·- .-----
- -· - - ---·_--·--
.... .....~~------
.. .... - ---.. .--. --:-~. . . . . .-.~~
' . ' ' . -. .. ·; ·1
NIDAMARTI MAHESHKUMAR v. STATE [BHAGWATI, CJ.] 249

~ reserved for students who have studied in schools orcolleges
situate within that region and at least 30 per cent of the
open seats shall be available for admission to students who
have studied in schools or colleges in other regions within
the State.
B·
There is however one matter in respect of which it is
---, necessary to make some clarification. ~e first is that when
we talk of total number of open seats after taking into
acco~nt other kinds of reservations validly made to which the
percentages of 70 and 30 are to be applied as aforesaid, we
mean the total number of open seats after deducting such
number of open seats as are required to be made available for C
admission of students on All-India basis in accordance with
. the principles laid down in the decision in Dr. Pradeep Jain's
case (supra) as modified from time to time by various
subsequent judgments delivered by this Court. The number of
seats required to be made available for admission to students
on All-India basis mst first be taken out and then to the D
remaining number of open seats after taking into account other
kinds of reservations validly made, the percentages of 70 and
30 must be applied for determining the extent to which
regional reservation or preference can legitimately be made.

We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the judgment E
of the High Court and declare Rule B(2) unconstitutional and
void. We may however make it clear that admissions made on the
basis of Rule B(2) shall not be disturbed, nor will an1 claim
...._ for admission be founded for the academic year 1985 on the
basis of Rule B(2). If the State Government wants to make
) regionwise reservation or preference after setting apart the F
seats required to be made available for admission to students
on All-India basis, we have laid down the guidelines Which the
State Governaent may follow so as to avoid clash with Article
14 of the Constitution.

There will be no order as to costs of the appeal. G

M.L.A. Appeal allCMed.