Reservation Granted In One State Can't Be Extended To Another, Backward Classes May Not Share Same Social Realities: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that benefit of reservation granted in one state cannot be extended to reserved category candidates belonging to another state, noting that one cannot assume that backward classes across different States "share identical or even comparable social realities". The bench of Justice Sanjeet Purohit who was hearing a petition filed by the Federation of Private Medical and Dental Colleges of Rajasthan regarding reservation in allocation of seats in NEET PG said:"On a conjoint reading of the constitutional scheme discussed above, the statutory scheme of the Act of 2008 as well as the provisions of PGMER-2023, it becomes evident that castes, races and tribes are classified as SCs, STs, BCs, SBCs or OBCs in relation to each individual states. Such classification and notification are based on the unique socio-economic and cultural realities of that specific region, and the corresponding policy decisions governing reservation are necessarily informed by these State-specific considerations. It cannot be assumed, nor is it capable of empirical determination, that backward classes across different States share identical or even comparable social realities. A necessary corollary of this position is that the benefits of reservation are confined to categories notified in relation to a particular State and cannot be extended to members who are recognised as belonging to a reserved category in another State".The court referred to Supreme Court's decision in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Seth G.S. Medical College (1990)–followed in various other judgments, wherein it was held that the benefit of reservation was restricted to the State of origin and could not be extended to the State to which one had migrated.The court further held that while postgraduate medical seats were of "national importance" and should not be left vacant, this consideration could not override the necessity of complying with prescribed minimum standards of merit, especially in postgraduate courses.The Court further observed that allowing reserved category candidates of other states to participate against unreserved seats while claiming benefits of relaxed qualifying standards for reserved category candidates, was neither permissible nor tenable under law.The petitioner College had challenged the denial of reservation benefits in allocation of NEET PG seats to candidates belonging to reserved category from other States, as arbitrary and violative of constitutional mandates. It contended that such decision resulted in 100% domicile based reservation. After hearing the contentions, the Court referred to all the relevant provisions of Constitution, and held that under the constitution, SCs, STs and OBCs were determined and categorised in relation to each individual state based on unique socio economic and cultural realities of the specific region. While rejecting the contention of 100% domicile based reservation, the Court held that candidates belonging to reserved category of other states were not rendered ineligible to participate in the selection process. They were entitled to compete for unreserved seats, subject to them fulfilling the criteria for general category.The Court further rejected the argument that upon exhaustion of the list of reserved category candidates, the seats were to be treated as unreserved and candidates from other State's should be considered on those seats with the benefit of relaxed percentile. Terming the argument as “wholly untenable and impermissible in law”, the Court held, “…a candidate aspiring to compete for or secure admission against a seat earmarked for a particular category must satisfy the qualifying criteria prescribed for that very category. Permitting a candidate to rely upon the minimum qualifying marks applicable to a different category would not only dilute the integrity of the selection process but also defeat the underlying rationale of maintaining differential standards across categories.”The court agreed with the argument of not letting post-graduate medical seats to remain vacant. It however opined that it could not override constitutional framework and minimum standards of merit. It was held that balance between optimal seat utilization and maintenance of academic standards had to be preserved. The Court also dismissed the argument of reservation being impermissible in speciality and super-speciality courses, and observed that reservation in educational institutions was expressly contemplated in Article 15(5) of the constitution. Further, it was stated that such reservation policy was also mentioned in the Instruction Booklet and was consistently applied throughout the counselling process. Hence, the petitioners were barred from raising this argument both on the substantive grounds as well as due to the principle of estoppel. In this background, the petition was dismissed. Title: Federation Of Private Medical And Dental College Of Rajasthan v Chairman,...

Reservation Granted In One State Can't Be Extended To Another, Backward Classes May Not Share Same Social Realities: Rajasthan High Court

Nupur Agrawal

Tags