Holding

Admission of the respondents can be effected within the existing sanctioned seats and does not constitute creation of additional seats, thereby upholding the High Court order.

Summary

The respondents, who belong to the open category, challenged their denial of admission to Government Medical Colleges, arguing that seats created under the Supreme Court's interim directions on communal reservation should be allotted to them. The High Court Single Judge, affirmed by the Division Bench, ordered their admission, which the appellant (Secretary, Selection Committee) appealed on the ground that it would create additional seats, contrary to the principle laid down in Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh. The Supreme Court examined the interim directions, the vacancy of seats, and the two seats kept vacant by the High Court, and held that admitting the respondents would not increase the sanctioned strength of the colleges. Consequently, the Court directed that the respondents be admitted within three weeks, without prejudice to the main reservation case, and clarified that no departure was made from the MCI precedent. The appeals were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether admission of the open‑category respondents would amount to creation of additional seats in violation of the Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh principle.
Whether the interim Supreme Court directions on communal reservation can be implemented without exceeding the sanctioned seat strength of Government Medical Colleges.
Whether the High Court order directing admission of the respondents is legally valid.

Subjects

AdmissionMBBSReservationOpen categoryAdditional seatsSupreme Court interim orderMedical Council of India caseTamil Nadu reservation actWrit petitionHigh Court

Judgment

- SECRETARY, SELECTION COMMITTEE (MBBS)
v.
A
N. ANIRUDHAN (MINOR) AND ORS.

MARCH 12, 2003

(SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] B

Education/Educational Institutions: Admission to MBBS degree course-
Candidates belonging to open category-Creation of additional seats for open
category pursuant to interim directions of Supreme Court in a communal
reservation matter-Admission against such seats in Government Medical
c
College category-Claims of-Allowed by Single Judge in a writ petition and
affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court-On appeal, Held: Since
several selected candidates did not take admission and two seats kept vacant
as per directions of the High Court, admission of writ petitioners allowed in
Government Medical College against the available seats without prejudice to D
their claims involved in the pending communal reservation matter-Tamil
Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation
of Seats in Educational Institutions and of appointment or posts in services
under the State) Act, 1993.

Respondents belong to open category and were admitted in the E
MBBS Course. They had filed writ petitions challenging the admission of
some students belonging to backward category in the Government Medical
College who had secured lesser marks than the respondents and also
sought for their admission in Government College against additional seats
created for open category candidates in pursuance of interim directions
F
of the apex Court in. a pending matter on the issue of communal
reservation (SLP (C) No.13526/93 Order dated 18.8.94). Allowing the writ

- petition, Single Judge of the High Court directed that respondents were
entitled to be admitted in Government Medical College; however,
admission of other students was not disturbed. The same was affirmed by
the Division Bench of the High Court. Hence the present appeal filed by G
the Secretary, Admission Committee (MBBS).

It was contended for the appellant that since seats have been allotted
to candidates belonging to various categories in accordance with interim
directions of Supreme Court in a pending communal reservation matter,
,...- 951 H
952 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 2 S.C.R.

A respondents' admission in Government Medical College would amount to
creation of additional seats for them which is against the law laid down
in Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh and Ors*.

On behalf of the respondents, it was submitted that information
furnished by the appellant regarding reservation of seats for admission
B in MBBS was misleading as indicated clearly that interim direction of the
apex Court on reservation of seats was not complied with.

Disposing of the appeals, the Court

HELD: l.1. There is no scope for any increase of seats without
C specific permission from the concerned authorities. The interim directions
given by the Supreme Court in a pending communal reservation matter
are clear and unambiguous. The only controversy is with regard to proper
implementation of the order. Single Judge and the Division Bench of the
High Court have categorically noted that persons belonging to open
D category who had secured lesser marks than the writ petitioners were
admitted to the Government Medical Colleges. From the data furnished,
it is found that there were several absentees from amongst those selected
in the open category for admission in the Government Medical Colleges.
Additionally, two seats were directed by the Single Judge of the High Court
to be kept vacant which position continued on confirmation of the order
E of Single Judge by the Division Bench. (956-D-F]

1.2. In the peculiar circumstances, without elaborate deliberations
of the controversy involved in the main case which is pending before this
Court, it would be appropriate if the writ petitioners (respondents in the
present appeals) are admitted in the Government Medical Colleges.
F Obviously, this direction would not amount to creation of additional seats
and has to be done within the sanctioned seats strength of the concerned
Government College. The authorities are directed to take necessary steps

G
to admit the writ petitioners (respondents in the present appeals) within
three weeks. Such admission shall be without prejudice to the claims
involved in the main petition pending before this Court. It is clarified that
-
no departure has been made from principles as laid down in MCI's* case,
and this order has been passed taking note of the undisputed factual
position in the instant case. 1956-G, H; 957-A, Bl

*Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh and Ors., 12002) 7 SCC 258,
H relied on.
SECRETARY, SELECTION COMMITTEE '' N. ANIRUDHAN(MINOR) IARIJITPASAYAT,J,I 953

- Voice (Consumer Care) Council v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1996] l l SCC
740, referred to.
A

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 2309-2310
of 2003.

From the Judgment and Order dated 28.8.2002 of the Chennai High B
Court in W.A. Nos. 1736 and 1737 of2002.

R. Venkataramani and P.N. Ramalingam, for the Appellant.

M. Vijayan and K.V. Mohan for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
ARIJIT PASA YAT J. Leave granted.

Challenge in these appeals is to the directions given by a learned Single .
Judge undisturbed by the Division Bench of the Madra~ High Court in Writ D
Appeal Nos. 1736 and 1737 of 2002.

Factual scenario which is almost undisputed and leading to the appeals
is as follows:

The respondents were admitted to the MBBS degree course. They E
claimed that they should have been given admission in the Government College
category in respect of the seats created pursuant to the directions given by
this Court, for creating additional seats for the open category. They filed writ
petitions before the High Court contending that some students who had secured
lesser marks than them had been admitted in the Government College category.
F
The Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Reservation of seats in educational Institutions and of appointment or
posts in services under the State) Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the
'Act') was enacted by the State of Tamil Nadu. Prior to its enactment, the
ratio of admission was as follows:
G
Open category 50% BC/MBC 31 % SC 18% ST 1%

After enactment of the Act, the communal reservation to be followed
in the admissions was 31 % to open competition candidates, while the rests
69% was allotted to BC, MBC, SC and ST candidates. Constitutional validity H
954 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 2 S.C.R.

A of the provisions of the said Act was challenged before this Court in SLP (C)
No. 13526/1993. Pending fin\jl orders, an interim order was passed on -
18.8.1994. Essence of the order is being followed for various academic years.

The wril petitioners contended that they had secured 292.54 and 292.43
cut off marks. They were selected and allotted to Perundurai Medical College
B under free seat category by following the 69% reservation rule. Certain
additional seats were created pursuant to the directions given by this Court.
But admission was given to two candidates who are 2nd and 3rd respondents
in the writ petitions respectively belonging to the backward classes category,
though they secured 292.08 cut off marks. They were allotted to Madurai and
C Coimbatqre Government Medical Colleges respectively.

Grievance of the writ petitioners was that they were entitled to be
allotted to the seats in Government Medical Colleges and not the 2nd and 3rd
respondents in the writ petitions. This prayer was resisted by the State
Government on the ground that because of the directions of this Court, there
D was a re-fixation of the cut off marks. The cut off marks for the open category
candidates stood lowered io 293.18 from 294.52. Since writ petitioners had
secured lesser marks, they were not entitled to be admitted.

Learned Single Judge of the High Court directed that on the factual
position as highlighted by the parties, the writ petitioners were entitled to be
E admitted to the allotment in Government seats in Government Medical
Colleges. However, the allotment to the 2nd and 3rd respondents in the writ
petitions was not disturbed. The order passed by learned Single Judge came ·
to be challenged before the Division Bench which by the impugned order
was dismissed. It was noticed that the learned Single Judge had passed an
F order on the basis of the directions given by this Court and had given valid
reasons for allowing the writ petitions.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the approach
of the High Court was erroneous. The order passed by this Court on 18.8.1994
clearly indicated the position as regards the number of seats to be allotted to
G various 'categories. The seats were filled up by the concerned authorities
strictly complying with the directions of this Court. It is further submitted
that.by giving admission to the writ petitioners virtually new seats have to be
created for them which will be against the law laid down by this Court in
Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh and Ors., [2002) 7 SCC 258.

H Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners
SECRETARY, SELECTIONCOMMIHEE 1·. N. ANIRUDHAN (MINOR) [ARIJITPASAYAT,J.) 955

- submitted that the data furnished by the appellant clearly indicates as to how
misleading information is being given. According to him, the data clearly
indicates that directions of this Court have not been complied with.
A

In Voice (Consumer Care) Council v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1996) 11
SCC 740 this, Court indicated the purport of the order dated 18.8.1994 which
is as follows: B
"First, make the admissions applying the rule of 69% reservation
in favour of Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes. Second, the additional seats created by virtue of the orders of
this court be filled with the general category candidates. The number
of seats so created was equal to the number of seats which the general C
candidates would have got if the rule of fifty per cent total reservation
had been applied.

This order in effect respected the rule of 69 per cent devised by
the Government of Tamil Nadu and sanctioned by the Tamil Nadu
Act 45 of 1994 while, at the same time, removing the grievance of D
the general category candidates by creating additional seats for them
for that year. In other words, the sanctioned strength of seats in every
college are being allotted exclusively in accordance with the sixty-
nine per cent reservation rule. Only. the additional seats, which are
created by and only because of the orders of this Court are being E
provided to general category candidates on the basis of merit, which
category includes Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes as well. It is significant to notice in this connection that
according to the figures supplied by the Government of Tamil Nadu ·
for the Academic Years 1993-94 and 1994-95, more than eighty per
cent of the seats in the general category are being taken away by the F
students belonging to Backward Classes on fhe basis of their own
merit. As fully explained and illustrated in the order dated 18.8.1994,

- the students belonging to Backward Classes are getting fifty per cent
of the total seats on the basis of reservation and more than 80 per
cent of the seats in the general category (open competition category) G
on the basis of their own merit. There is no reason to believe that the
situation is different this year. Thus, the bulk of the additional seats
directed to be created by this Court year after year (since 1994-95)
are again going to students belonging to Backward Classes. The order
·of this Court is thus not only upholding the rule of fifty per cent
ceiling on reservation affirmed by the Special Bench of this Court in H
956 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 2 S.C.R.

A Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, [I 992) Supp 3 SCC 217 but is in
truth operating to the advantage and benefit of a number of Backward
Class students. Many of the Backward Class students, along with
certain other candidates beionging to non-reserved. categories, who
would not have otherwise got admission into these courses, are getting
seats by virtue of these orders. And yet it is surprising to note that the
B Government of Tamil Nadu has chosen to ask for modification of the
order dated 22.7.1996. The said order is only interlocutory in nature.
Pending decision of the several constitutional and legal questions
raised in these matters, it was supposed to be an equitable order
harming no one. If at all, .it benefited some who would not have been
C able to obtain admission otherwise and surely that fact cannot be a
ground of grievance for the State of Tamil Nadu. Only as an interim
measure, Cf'rtain additional seats are being created and they are being
allotted to general category candidates which in Tamil Nadu really
means providing the bulk of them to students belonging to Backward
Classes."
D
It has been rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant
that there is no scope for any increase of seats without specific permission
..
from the concerned authorities as was held in MCI's case. The directions
given by this Court, as extracted above, are clear and unambiguous. The only
E controversy is whether there has been proper implementation of the order.
We find that learned Single Judge and the Division Bench have categorically
noted that persons belonging to open category who had secured lesser marks
than the writ petitioners, were admitted to the Government Medical Colleges.
From the data furnished, we find that there were several absentees from
amongst those selected in the open category in relation to the Government
F Medical Colleges. Additionally, two seats were directed to be kept vacant by
learned Single Judge which position continued on confirmation of the Learned
Single Judge's order by the Division Bench.

In the peculiar circumstances without elaborate deliberations of the
controversy involved in the main case which is pending before this Court, it
--
G would be appropriate ifthe writ petitioners (respondents in the present appeals)
are admitted in the Government Medical Colleges. Obviously, this direction
would not amount to creation of additional seats and has to be done within
the sanctioned seats strength of the concerned Government College. As noted
above, there were several absentees and the interim order passed by the
H learned Single Judge continued to be operative on confirmation by the Division
SECRETARY, SELECTION-COMMITTEE 1•. N.ANIRUDHAN(MINOR) [ARlffiPASAYAT,J.] 957

(932-D, F]Bench as the writ petitions were decided in favour of the writ A
petitioners. Let the necessary steps be taken to admit the writ petitioners
(respondents in the present appeals) within three weeks from today. Such
admission shall be without prejudice to the claims involved in the main
petition pending before this Court. We make it clear that we have not made
any departure from principles as laid down in MCI's case (supra) and have
passed this order taking note of the undisputed factual position of the case. B
The appeals are accordingly disposed of.

S.K.S. Appeals disposed of.

-