'Wholesale Domicile Reservation Unconstitutional' : Supreme Court Asks MP Govt To Review 75% Domicile Quota In B.Ed Seats
Stating that domicile reservation should not become a "wholesale reservation", the Supreme Court has asked the State of Madhya Pradesh to review its decision to have 75% domicile reservation in B.Ed seats."We make it clear that though reservation in favour of residents is permissible, yet reservation to the extent of 75% of the total seats makes it a wholesale reservation, which has been held...
Stating that domicile reservation should not become a "wholesale reservation", the Supreme Court has asked the State of Madhya Pradesh to review its decision to have 75% domicile reservation in B.Ed seats.
"We make it clear that though reservation in favour of residents is permissible, yet reservation to the extent of 75% of the total seats makes it a wholesale reservation, which has been held in Pradeep Jain to be unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India", the bench stated.
The Court made this observation while considering an appeal filed by a teachers training institute which challenged the 75% domicile reservation in B.Ed seats. The appellant pointed out that most of the domicile quota seats were lying vacant and this created hardship in running the institute. For example, in 2021-22 academic year, only 4 seats out of the 75 state quota seats got filled, while the 25% "outsider" seats were totally filled. In 2022-2023 academic year, 73 out of the 75 domicile seats were vacant.
In this backdrop, the Court observed :
"Though the State is within its right to reserve seats for its own residents, but while doing so, it must keep the ground realities in mind. Keeping 75% of the seats reserved for the residents of Madhya Pradesh is too high a percentage, and as the figures for the last two years indicate, it is also not serving any purpose".
The bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia noted that the concept of domicile reservation in educational seats was approved by the Supreme Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain and Others v. Union of India and Others (1984) 3 SCC 654 and the cases which followed it. However, those were cases related to medical education. The domicile quota in medical seats was upheld on the basis of two main factors - since State was spending money for medical education, there was legitimate state interest in ensuring that some benefits flow to its domiciles; claim of backwardness in the State, which justified a separate quota for its residents.
However, as regards B.Ed seats, these factors were not strictly applicable, the bench noted.
"We should not lose sight of this vital fact when we are dealing with the reservations based on residence in other fields of education, as we are doing presently. Whether the justifiable factors of ‘State interest’ and the claim for backwardness of the State or any other factors which were relevant factors for residence reservations in medical education, would be equally relevant in other fields of education or other professional courses is still to be determined."
Even while upholding domicile reservation, the Pradeep Jain decision had held that such reservation should not amount to a "wholesale reservation".
"..it is apparent that the large percentage of seats reserved for the residents of Madhya Pradesh which remains unfilled is not serving any purpose. Moreover, a wholesale reservation for residents of Madhya Pradesh would also be violative of the law laid down in the case of Pradeep Jain".
Since the academic year of 2022-23 has begun, the Court refrained from interfering with the quota, but directed the State to "re-appreciate this entire aspect".
"The State Government may examine the data of last few years, in order to come to a realistic finding as to what should be the extent of these reservations. A wholesale reservation as we have seen is not serving any purpose rather it frustrates the very purpose of the reservation. This shall be kept in mind by the authorities while taking a decision in this matter, which shall be done within two months from today", the bench observed while disposing of the petition.
Case : Veena Vadini Teachers Training Institute v. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors
Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 364
Domicile Reservation- domicile reservation can't be wholesale reservation- Supreme Court asks MP Govt to review its 75% domicile quota in B.Ed seats-hough reservation in favour of residents is permissible, yet reservation to the extent of 75% of the total seats makes it a wholesale reservation, which has been held in Pradeep Jain to be unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India