TMI Blog1989 (2) TMI 409X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r LL.B. Degree Course is extracted as follows: Admission to evening classes is open only to regular employees of Government/Semi-Government institutions/ affiliated colleges/Statutory Corporations and Government Companies. A candidate applying for admission to the evening classes should attach No Objection/Permission letter from his present employer with his application for admission. It is not disputed that there are 150 seats in the morning classes and another 150 seats in the evening classes. In both the morning and evening classes reservation has been made for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, backward classes, physically handicapped persons, outstanding and defence personnel. In the morning classes out of 150 seats, 64 seats are reserved for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, backward classes etc. and the remaining 86 seats are allotted to general students selected on merit basis. Similarly in the evening classes, the remaining 86 seats are also reserved for regular employees of Government/SemiGovernment institutions etc., as mentioned in the impugned rule for admission. The appellant, Deepak Sibal, passed the Bachelor of Commerce Examination from the University ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is now well settled that Article 14 forbids class legislation, but does not forbid reasonable classification. Whether a classification is a permissible classification under Article 14 or not, two conditions must be satisfied, namely, (1) that the classification must be rounded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and (2) that the differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. By the impugned rule, a classification has been made for the purpose of admission to the evening classes. The question is whether the classification is a reasonable classification within the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution. In order to consider the question as to the reasonableness of the classification, it is necessary to take into account the objective for such classification. It has been averred in the written statement of Dr. Balram Kumar Gupta, Chairman, Department of Laws, Punjab University, the respondent No. 2, filed in the High Court, that the object of starting evening classes was to provide education to bona fide employees who could not att ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by private employers in the past that the Department of Law was compelled to restrict the admission of students of evening classes as has been done. Thus, the respondents have sought to justify the exclusion of private employees restricting admission to evening classes only to the Government/Semi-Government and similar other institutions principally on two grounds, namely, (1) production of bogus certificates of employment from private employers, and (2) imparting of legal education to the employees of the Government/Semi-Government and other institutions, as mentioned in the impugned rule, in public interest. Besides the above two grounds, Mr. P.P. Rao, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, has added two more grounds, namely, (1) a candidate should have an assured tenure of employment likely to continue for three years, and (2) as far as possible, there should be no possibility of wastage of a seat. It is submitted that employees of only Government/Semi-Government institutions etc. have an assured tenure of employment and if the admission in the evening classes is restricted to such employees, there would be no possibility of any wastage of a seat and the Unive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... group, in that case, the classification cannot be said to be a reasonable one. It is, however, submitted on behalf of the respondents that the employees of private establishments have been left out as it is difficult for the University to verify whether or not a particular candidate is really a regular employee and whether he will have a tenure for at least three years during which he will be prosecuting his studies in the Three-Year LL.B. Degree Course. It is submitted that in making the classification, the surrounding circumstances may be taken into account. In support' of that contention, much reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar, [1959] SCR 279. In that case, it has been observed by Das, C.J. that while good faith and knowledge of the existing conditions on the part of a legislature are to be presumed, if there is nothing on the face of the law or the surrounding circumstances brought to the notice of the court on which the classification may reasonably be regarded as based, the presumption of constitutionality cannot be carried to the extent of always holding that there must be some undisclosed and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had come across such bogus certificates produced by private employees during the time the admission to evening classes was open also to private employees. It may be that there were one or two cases of production of bogus certificates, but that cannot be a ground for the exclusion of all private employees from the benefit of getting legal education in the evening classes. In the circumstances, we are not at all impressed with the contention that in order to avoid production of bogus certificates of employment from the private employers and having regard to the fact that employees of Government/Semi-Government institutions etc. have an assured tenure of employment likely to continue for three years, the private employees were excluded for the purpose of admission to the evening classes. By the impugned rule, admission to evening classes is restricted to regular employees of Government/Semi-Government institutions etc. There is no material to indicate that by the expression regular employees it is intended to include only those employees who will have an assured tenure of service for three years, that is to say, co-extensive with the period of the Three-Year LL.B. Degree Course. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efficiently with a legal background provided to them, but this cannot be said of all employees whether of the State Government or Central Government or of the public corporations or Government owned companies. In our opinion, there is much force in the observation of the Kerala High Court. It cannot be laid down that only Government employees require legal education and not private employees. Certain private sector employees may require legal education in the interest of the establishments of which they are employees. It is difficult to understand the logic of the rule restricting admission in the evening classes to employees of Government/Semi-Government institutions etc. on the plea that such employees require legal education in public interest. In considering the reasonableness of classification from the point of view of Article 14 of the Constitution, the Court has also to consider the objective for such classification. If the objective be illogical, unfair and unjust, necessarily the classification will have to be held as unreasonable. In the instant case, the foregoing discussion reveals that the classification of the employees of Government/Semi-Government institutions et ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de. This observation in Chitra Ghosh's case has also been relied on by the High Court. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the question of reasonable classification has nothing to do with the identification of sources for admission by an educational institution. We are unable to accept the contention. It is true that an educational institution is entitled to identify sources from which admission will be made to such institution, but we do not find any difference between identification of a source and a classification. If any source is specified, such source must also satisfy the test of reasonable classification and also that it has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. Indeed in Chitra Ghosh's case, it has also been observed that if the sources are properly classified whether on territorial, geographical or other reasonable basis, it is not for the courts to interfere with the manner and method of making the classification. It is very clear from this observation that the sources must be classified on reasonable basis, that is to say, it cannot be classified arbitrarily and unreasonably. The principle laid down in Chitra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions are so inextricably mixed up that they cannot be separated from one another then the invalidity of the portion must result in the invalidity in its entirety. In the instant case, the invalid portion is inextricably mixed up with the valid portion of the rule and, accordingly, the entire rule requires to be struck down. Our attention has, however, been drawn to a later decision of this Court in B. Prabhakar Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [1985] Supp. SCC 432. In this case, a Bench of Three-Judges of this Court struck out the word 'not' from the provisions of clause 3(1) of Ordinance 24 of 1984 and section 4(1) of the Act 3 of 1984 so as to bring those provisions to conform to the requirements of Article 14 of the Constitution. We do not think we should try to bring the impugned rule in conformity with the provision of Article 14 of the constitution by putting a full stop after the words regular employees and striking down the remaining part of the impugned rule on the basis of the same principle as in Prabhakar Rao's case (supra). For, it has been stated by Mr. P.P. Rao, learned Counsel for the respondents; that the respondents will frame a fresh rule for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cheduled Tribes was concerned, the fundamental rights of the citizens constituting the rest of the society were to be completely and absolutely ignored. Speaking generally and in a broad way, it was observed by this Court that a special provision should be less than 50 per cent and the actual percentage must depend upon the relevant prevailing circumstances in each case. Thus, the provision of Article 15(4) does not contemplate to reserve all the seats or the majority of the seats in an educational institution at the cost of the rest of the society. The same principle should also apply with equal force in the case of cent percent reservation of seats in educational institutions for a certain class of persons to the exclusion of meritorious candidates. In Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, [1984] 3 SCR 942, the question of reservation of seats in medical colleges for MBBS and 'postgraduate medical courses on the basis of domicile or residential qualification and institutional preference, came to be considered by this Court. Bhagwati, J. (as he then was) speaking for the Court observed that the effort must always be to select the best and most meritorious students for admission t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ately be made in favour of those who have studied in schools or colleges within the region of a 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. The 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 Pradeep Jain case [1984] 3 SCC 654 where we held that reservation based on residence requirement or institutional preference should not exceed the other limit of 70% of the total number of open seats after taking into account other kinds of reservations validly made and that the remaining 30% of the open seats at the least should be made available for admission to students on all-India basis irrespective of the State or the university from which they come. We would adopt the same principle in case of regionwise reservation or preference and hold that not more than 70% 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 account other kinds of reservations v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the appellant was admitted in the first semester of the LL.B. Course of the Himachal Pradesh University on July 12, 1983. It is common knowledge that a candidate very often seeks admission in more than one college or university. The appellant also made an application for admission to the LL.B. Course in Himachal Pradesh University and he was admitted. It may be that after the respondents refused to admit the appellant in the evening classes, the appellant had to join LL.B. Course of the Himachal Pradesh University after giving up his service in Agro Chem Punjab Ltd. But, when the appellant made the application for admission in the evening classes of the Law Department of the Punjab University, he was in employment of Agro Chem Punjab Ltd. We do not find any reason to doubt the genuineness of the certificate of employment in Agro Chem Punjab Ltd. It is the case of the appellant that to prosecute his studies in LL.B. Course in Himachal Pradesh University will put him to great hardship and inconvenience and it will be convenient for him to prosecute his studies in the University of Punjab. Similarly the other appellant, Miss Ritu Khanna, was refused admission by the respondents on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
