Quota For Govt Shool Students In Medical Admissions Justified As They Are A "Socially & Educationally Backward Class" : Madras High Court

The main contentions in the writ petitions were that:

• With the prescription of an additional 7.5% of reservation, already, the excess reservation of 69% is further increased and now only 18% is available for Open Category students and therefore, the same is unconstitutional.
• When a common entrance test is provided for all the students, giving preference to the students of Government Schools, amounts to discrimination and therefore violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India
• Government School students cannot be classified as either socially and educationally Backward Class under Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India or economically weaker section under Article 15(6) of the Constitution of India and therefore, giving preference to the Government Schools' students is violative of Article 15 of the Constitution of India.
• Taking into consideration the already existing scheme of reservation, the petitioners were preparing hard for getting into medical courses, but, that legitimate expectation is undone suddenly by the impugned legislation and therefore, the new policy violates the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation.

Background

The reason for enactment of the act was based upon a report by a commission headed by Hon'ble Justice P. Kalaiyarasan, Retired Judge of High Court of Madras who identified a cognitive gap created by socio economic factors.

The act was issued in exercise of the executive powers of the state government under Article 162 of the Constitution and was pending assent of the Governor. However, considering the urgent need to make admission for the Academic Year 2020-2021, the Government Order was issued. The act received assent of the Governor and upon coming into force, the Government order stood superseded/nullified.

Submission of Petitioner

At present, under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, 15% of the seats are filled up under All India Quota by the Central Government through the Common Merit List and the balance of 85% of the seats fall to the State Government quota, by preparing a merit list by following reservation policies of the States. Already, the reservation in the State of Tamil Nadu stands at 69% i.e., Schedule Tribes-1%, Scheduled Castes -18%, Most Backward Class-20% and Backward Class-30%. In this, there also is horizontal reservation for Arunthathiyar community within the S.C quota and for Backward Class(Muslims) within the Backward Class quota.

Mr.Sriram Panchu, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contented that the State had passed the enactment manifestly violating Article 14, 15, 21 of the Constitution. He contented that reservation is given for those who suffer discrimination by birth, by being woman and for socially disadvantaged groups such as Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe etc., or physical handicap by birth or by an accident. In the present situation, reservation is given for the inability of the government to provide quality education. Thus, the reservation does not satisfy the requirement of Doctrine of Proportionality nor has any rational nexus.

He further submitted that reservation for government school students would be beyond the 50% benchmark which is illegal and would amount to fraud on Constitution. For this he also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in M.R Balaji and Ors v. State of Mysore and Ors and Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister and Ors.

He also relied on the judgment in Suneel Jatley and Ors v. State of Haryana and Ors, where it was held that the classification between rural and urban areas was struck down as unconstitutional.

Submission of respondents

Mr.Kapil Sibal, Senior Counsel, leading the arguments on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu, submitted that 7.5% reservation is for the fact that the government school students are a socially and educationally backward class and therefore reservation is justified under Article 15(4) and 15(5) of the Constitution.

He also submitted that reservation is no longer an exception to Article 14 or under Article 15(1), but is a facet thereof and therefore, the present enactment has to be decided on that premise. He also submitted that a narrow definition of merit based only on the results of the examination without consideration of giving weightage backward factors is opposed to the concept of equality.

He further submitted that there is an obligation on the State to adopt a standard of proportional equality, taking into account differing conditions and circumstances of a class of citizens whenever such conditions stand in the way of equal access to enjoyment of basic rights and claims. This was upheld by the Apex Court in State of Kerala and Anr v. N.M Thomas and Ors.

He thus submitted that recognizing these structural barriers were in tune with Article 14 and Article 15(1) of the Constitution. The present classification is based on intelligible differentia and has a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved.

He highlighted the following points from the reports of Justice P Kalaiyarasan to highlight the structural barrier faced by the students–

1. There is a significant gap in the cognitive development of students from affluent and less affluent backgrounds.
2. Students in government schools are disadvantaged in terms of caste, wealth, parental occupation, parental education, and gender.
3. Almost 98% students who got admission in M.B.B.S avail coaching facilities. Lack of access to these coaching centres and such other resources creates another sociql and psychological barrier for students of government schools.
4. Only 6 students from government schools were able to get admission in the M.B.B.S courses in the year 2019-2020.
5. The course of the students vary according to school type, background, parental income, medium of instruction and gender.
6. Parents of government school students have 900% less income than parents of students from ICSE and CBSE
7. 85% of schools in Tamil Nadu are located in rural areas of which 73% are Government Schools

Mr R Shanmughasundaram, Advocate General also appearing for the State clarified that the reservation is horizontal and therefore the contention that reservation has already been provided for socially and educationally backward class is without substance. Further, with regard to the question of providing 69% reservation, the same is placed as Entry No.257A of Schedule-IX to the Constitution of India and therefore is protected.

Mr P Wilson, Senior Counsel appearing for the School Education Department, further submitted that this is an exceptional case where reservation is permissible under Article 15(1). He submitted that institutional reservation is permissible at the undergraduate level also. He also submitted that validity of the present legislation was already upheld by the court in S. Ramakrishnan and Ors v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.

Mr.Amit Anand Tiwari, Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the Director of Medical Education, also highlighted the extraordinary and alarming exclusion of the Government School students in the matter of admission to the medical.

Court's Observation

The court did not agree with the submission of Mr Wilson that the present litigation is a second challenge, and that the validity of the impugned legislation was already upheld by the court in its decision earlier. The court observed that earlier, the validity of the act was not directly under challenge and other challenges made herein have not been considered or answered expressly earlier.

The court did not find merit in the argument of the petitioner that their legitimate expectation was hampered. The court referred to a series of judgements and observed that a student cannot have legitimate expectation for the continuation of the same scheme of things in matter of admission to professional course. Such principle of just expectation cannot be invoked when public interest demands a change of policy as public interest overrides the principle of legitimate expectation. The doctrine of legitimate expectation also does not preclude legislation.

The court also did not agree with the contention of the petitioners that the legislation was made without legislative competency under Section 14 of the National Medical Commission Act. The court said that the act does not dilute the mandatory nature of the NEET or minimum qualifying marks required to be scored by the students. It merely makes a horizontal reservation by following the NEET merit.

"We are afraid that we can accept the said contention. The impugned legislation does not dispense with or in any manner dilute the mandatory of nature of the NEET or the minimum qualifying marks which are required to be scored by the students. The impugned enactment only makes horizontal reservation across the various categories in respect of the State Government School students, that too by following the inter se NEET merit among them. Therefore, it is incorrect to contend that it goes against the mandate of Section 14 of the NMC Act."

The court also opined that the horizontal reservation was not against Article 14 and that the act does satisfy the doctrine of proportionality, the court examined that findings of the committee and observed the stark difference in the social background of students coming from government schools and those coming from CBSE and ICSE schools.

"Provision for horizontal reservation in the instant case, in furtherance to ensure access to the rights to get into medical courses, after undertaking a detailed study, which has concrete findings based on data about the significant cognitive gap and the various factors, which contribute to that, which is not necessarily, non-provision of standard of education etc, the classification cannot be held to be unreasonable."

The court further opined that even if the standard of education was improved, there would still exist some cognitive gap which requires a positive discrimination by the State provided through this horizontal reservation.

"Thus, provision of an opportunity to a government school student of a socially and economically weaker background is to make him overcome the disadvantages so as use to the full of his natural endowments of physique, character and intelligence, has a sound rational and is in tune with the objects sought to be achieved and therefore, we hold that the impugned enactment is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India."

The court also held that the students of the State Government Schools are a 'socially and educationally backward class', therefore, the reservation in their favour is will be within the power of the State as contained in Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India. The court stated that -

"The instant provision is a step towards determining the social and economical backwardness on a wholesome basis by taking into account multiple factors including caste, wealth, parental education, parental income, parental occupation, gender, living standard, psychological factor, medium of instruction, location of the school, non-availability of private coaching, affordability for repeat appearance in the exam etc."

The court rejected the contention of the petitioner that the Backward Class Commission was not consulted before making the reservation. The court held that in the present matter no new person was being included into the quota but a new criteria altogether was being created.

The court also directed the State Government to review the reservation in a period of five years and to take steps to improve the standard of education imparted in the Government Schools so that the reservation may not be further extended beyond a period of five years.

The court also recorded empathy for the petitioners and acknowledged their hard work towards realising their dreams.

"At the same time, the petitioners have to take this in the right spirit like when we stand at the start line of a running race and if a person has a difficutlty, we allow this person to start at some distance ahead (vertical reservation) or take him along with us (horizontal reservation) and will not say 'get out if you can't run like me'. After all, the Supreme Court says, 'human sympathies' are also part of 'merit'." the court observed.

On the aspect of leaving out students from Aided Schools in the reservation, the court sided with the contentions of the respondent state that comparatively students from aided schools are on a better footing than students from government schools. The court decided not to step in and render factual findings as to the equality as if it is an Appellate authority and considered that the distinction was made based on scientific report.

Case Name: Ms Preethika C (Minor) v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors

Case No: W.P 20083 of 2020

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 142

Click here to read/download judgment