1997 (5) TMI 425 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Reservation in Recruitment for Assistant Professors
2. Reservation in Admission to Doctoral Courses and Ph.D. Programs
3. Constitutionality of Reservation in Higher Education and Specialized Posts

Summary:

1. Reservation in Recruitment for Assistant Professors:
The appeals and writ petition arise from disputes regarding the recruitment of Assistant Professors at the Post Graduate Institute, Chandigarh, and the reservation of posts for Scheduled Castes (Dalits) and Scheduled Tribes (Tribes). The High Court held that the reservation amounted to 100% reservation and was unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court referenced Union of India & Anr. vs. Madhav s/o Gajanan Chaubaal & Anr. and other cases, stating that applying the rule of rotation and roster to single post cadre is not violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. The Court upheld the reservation policy, emphasizing that clubbing posts with the same pay scale and designation for reservation purposes is constitutionally permissible.

2. Reservation in Admission to Doctoral Courses and Ph.D. Programs:
The High Court ruled that reservation in admission to Doctoral Courses and Ph.D. Programs undermines efficiency and excellence, making it unconstitutional. The Supreme Court disagreed, asserting that the reservation policy does not compromise the standard of education, as all students must meet the same academic requirements. The Court reiterated that reservations are meant to provide equal opportunities and are consistent with Articles 14, 15(1), and 15(4) of the Constitution.

3. Constitutionality of Reservation in Higher Education and Specialized Posts:
The Supreme Court addressed the contention that reservations in specialized and super-specialized courses would lower standards of excellence. The Court held that such reservations are constitutionally valid, provided that the candidates meet the same academic standards as general candidates. The Court referenced Dr. Jagdish Saran & Ors. vs. Union of India and Dr. Pradeep Jain & Ors. vs. Union of India, affirming that reservations are a form of affirmative action to ensure real equality and are not inconsistent with maintaining high standards of proficiency.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, emphasizing that reservations in recruitment and admissions at the Post Graduate Institute, Chandigarh, are constitutionally valid. The Court directed the Institute to follow the reservation policy as per Regulation 32(2) and make appointments and admissions accordingly. The writ petition filed by the Scheduled Association was disposed of, with instructions for the Institute to adhere to the reservation policy.