Heggade Janardhan Subbarye versus the State of Mysore and Another

475

1 s.c.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

In the result, we allow the writ petitions and direct that an appropriate writ or order or direction should be issued restraining the three respondents from giving effect to the impugned order in terms of the prayer made in clauses (i) and (ii) of paragrap? 38 of the petitions. The petitioners would be entitled to their costs, one set of hearing fees.

¶4

19i2

¶5

M. R. B•l•ji v. St.I< •f Mysor• G«jeninlt«ik•r, J,

¶6

Petitions aUowed.

¶7

19i2

¶8

HEGGADE JANARDHAN SUBBARYE

¶9

v.

¶10

THE STATE OF MYSORE AND ANOTHER (And connected petition)

¶11

(B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHCO, K. C. DAS GUPTA and J.C. SHAH, JJ.)

¶12

Oolkg• Admiiision-Reservation of seats for socially and educationally backward cl<l8su struck down-Reservation for Schtdultd Castes and Tri/Ju uphel4-0onstitution of India, Ari. 15( 4).

¶13

The petitioners challenged the validity of the orders issued by the State of Mysore under Art. 15(4) of the Constitution on July 10, 1961, and July 31, 1962. The petitioners contended that they had applied for admission to the PreProfessional Class in Medicine in the Karnatak Medical College, Hubli and they would have secured admiision to the said medical college but for the reservation directed to be made by the orders mentioned above. They contended that the al/ove-mentioned orders were ultra viru. They prayed for an appropriate writ or order restraining the respondents from giving effect to those orders and requiring them to deal with their applications for admission on merits.

¶14

H•ld, that the petitioners were entitled to an appropriate writ or order as claimed by tbem and the respondents were restrained from giving effect .to the above-mentioned orders. JI. R. Balaji v. Statt of Jlysor• [1963] Supp. l S.C.R. 439, followed.

¶15

The impugned orders we.e quashed only with reference to the additional reservation made in favour of the socially ana

¶16

•76 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.

¶17

1962

¶18

Hett4ie JNWrtiilo Suhbar.'Ve_ v. Stat1 of Mysm

¶19

educationally backward classes and so the respondents were at liberty to give effect to the reservation made in favour of the Scheduled Castes and Sch"."uled Tribes, which was not challei;ged at all. The said reservation continues to be operative.

¶20

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petitions Nos. 130 & 133 of 1962.

¶21

Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.

¶22

. 8. K. Venkatarangaiengar and R. Gopalakrishnan, for the Petitioners (In both the Petitions).

¶23

P. D. Menon, for the Respondents (In both the Petitions). ' 1962. November 5. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶24

GAJENDRAGADKAR, ].-These two writ petitions Nos. 130 of 1962 and 133 of 1962 have been filed by Heggade Janardhan Subbarye and Ravindra Prabhu respectively (hereinafter called the petitioners) under Art. 32 of the Constitution, challenging the validity of the orders issued by respondent No. I, the State of Mysore, under Art. 15(4) of the Constitution on July 10, 1961 and July 31, 1962, respectively. Both the petitioners had applied for admission to the pre· Professional Class m Medicine in the Kamatak Medical College, Hubli, and the applications had been submitted to respondent No. 2, the Selection Committee appointed in that behalf by respondent No. 1. According to the petitioners, they would have secured admission to the said Medical College but for the rese1vation directed to be made by the two impugned orders. They alleged that the orders were ultra V'ires, and so, they prayed for an appropriate writ or order restraining the respondent~ from giving effect to the said orders and ~equiring them to deal with the petitioners' applications on the merits.

¶25

I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶26

477

¶27

JJ62

¶28

The points raised by the present petitions are covered by the decision of this Court in the case of M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore(¹ ) and so, it is common ground that the petitioners are entitled to an appropriate writ or order as claimed by them.

¶29

H•Ulie ;,,.,,,;hai Subb"J' v.

¶30

Stalf of M.JJ9Tt

¶31

GcjmCr.,Mkcr, J.

¶32

Learned counsel for the respondents however, drew our attention to the fact that as a result of the decision of this Court in the case of M. R. Balaji (1) respondent No. I was feeling some doubras to whether the reservation made by the impugned orders in respect of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes was also struck down by this Court. As the judgment shows, respondent No. l has consistently fixed the percentage of reservation in respect of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes at 15% and 3% respectively. Five orders have been passed by respondent No. l one after the other under Art. 15(4). but the reservation fixed for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes has always remained the same. It is true that the judgment of this Court does not expressly say that the validity of the said reservation wa1 not assailed before this Court and cannot, therefore, be deemed to have been affected by the decision. However, as the judgment shows, the only attack against the validity of the impugned orders was directed against the additional reservation made in favour of the socially and educationally Backward Classes of citizens in the State. The petitions filed in the said cases were confined to the said reservation and during the course of the arguments before this Court, it was not suggested by the petitioners' learned counsel that the reservation made in favour of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes was in any manner irregular or not justified by Art. 15(4). This position is not disputed by the petitioners' learned counsel before us. Therefore, we think that in order to avoid any doubt in the matter it is necessary to make it clear that our judgment in that case does not affei::t the (I) [1963] Supp. IS. 0. R. 489.

¶33

478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP.

¶34

1962

¶35

f/111.U J1n1rih.,l Sub6"1'y1 v.

¶36

Stal• tJj Mysor1

¶37

•G•je11ir~gadk1r, J.

¶38

validity of the said reservation which is distinct and separate from, and independent of, the other reservation which was challenged. The said reservation continues to be operative and the fact that the impugned orders have been quashed does not alter that position. The said orders have been quashed solely by reference to the additional reservation made by the impugned orders in regard to the socially and educationally Backward Classes, and so, respondent No. 1 would be justified in giving effect to the reservation made in respect of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

¶39

In the result, we allowed the petitions and direct that an appropriate writ or order should be issued restraining the respondents from giving effect to the two impugned orders. In the circumstances of these cases, we direct that the petitioners should get from the respondents costs incurred by them, except the hearing fee.

¶40

Petitions allowed.

Heggade Janardhan Subbarye v. the State of Mysore and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Heggade Janardhan Subbarye v. the State of Mysore and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anant Prasad Lakshminivas Generiwal versus Stte of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Official Assignee, High Court, Bombay versus Haradagiri Basavanna Gowd and Others

Gandhara Transport Co. Ltd. versus the State of Punjab and Others

Prem Chand Garg versus Excise Commissioner, U.P. Allahabad

Mahendra Lal Jaini versus the State of Uttar Pradesh and Others

Ananga Bijoy Mittra versus Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.