Ramnaresh @ Rinku Kushwah vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

2024 INSC 611 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 2111 of 2024)

RAMNARESH @ RINKU KUSHWAH AND OTHERS ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 2311-2312 of 2024)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 2285 of 2024)

JUDGMENT

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeals challenge the judgments and orders

dated 22nd December 2023 and 12th January 2024 passed by

the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in Writ Petition Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Narendra Prasad Date: 2024.08.20 Nos. 23998 and 23437 of 2023, and 23060 of 2023 13:01:09 IST Reason:

respectively. By the said writ petitions, the writ petitioners

1 (appellants herein) had challenged the decision of the

Respondent-Department of Medical Education of not allotting

MBBS Unreserved (UR) Category Government School (GS)

quota seats to the meritorious reserved candidates, who had

passed from the Government Schools. The appellants had also

prayed for a direction to the Respondent-Department to allot

the MBBS seats of Unreserved Category Government School

quota to the appellants.

3. Writ petitioners in Writ Petition No. 23060 of 2023 before

the High Court have approached this Court by way of appeals

arising out of Special Leave Petition (SLP) (Civil) Nos. 2111 and

2285 of 2024, and writ petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 23437

and 23998 of 2023 have approached this Court by way of

appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 2311-2312 of 2024.

4. Since the facts giving rise to the present appeals as given

below are identical and same, the said appeals are decided by

the common judgment and order.

4.1 On 19th June 2019, the amendment by the State

Government to the Madhya Pradesh Education Admission

Rules, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the “Admission Rules,

2018”) were notified. In place of sub-rules (l) and (u) of rule 2

2 and sub-rule (2) of rule 4, new sub-rules were established that

defined “category” and the method to fill vacancies for category

wise reservation was established.

4.2 On 7th May 2023, the NEET (UG) Examination was

conducted in which the appellants had participated in.

4.3 On 10th May 2023, the State of Madhya Pradesh notified

another amendment in the Admission Rules, 2018. Sub-rule

(f) and (b) were added to Rule 2 that defined “Government

School” and the students who could fall under the category of

“Government School Students”. A new table in existing clause

(b) of Schedule-2 detailing the quantum of reservations was

added in which 5% of the total seats were reserved for

government school students.

4.4 Subsequently, the results of NEET (UG) were declared on

13th June 2023. Then, on 25th July 2023, an advisory was

issued notifying that the Admission Rules, 2018 and the

amendment thereto dated 10th May 2023 would apply to the

counselling process.

4.5 A chart showing the names of the appellants, marks

obtained by them in NEET UG – 2023, their categories and

their details in the appeals, are as under:

3

S. No. Name of Appellant Marks Category Party obtained in Details NEET UG – 2023

1. Ramnaresh Kushwaha 412 OBC P1 in SLP(C) No. 2111/2024

2. Sachin Baghel 390 OBC P2 in SLP(C) No. 2111/2024

3. Tapsya Kutwariya 244 SC P3 in SLP(C) No. 2111/2024

4. Tasmiya Khan 409 OBC P in SLP(C) No. 2311/2024

5. Muskan Hidau 395 OBC P in SLP(C) No. 2312/2024

6. Deepak Jatav 305 SC P1 in SLP(C) No. 2285/2024

7. Vikash Singh 297 EWS P2 in SLP(C) No. 2285/2024

4.6 Thereafter, on 22nd August 2023, the State/Respondents

issued the seat wise distribution of medical colleges at the end

of the 2nd round of counselling. Since several seats remained

vacant according to Rule 2 (g) of the Admission Rules, 2018,

the vacancies were transferred from one category to other

categories. In the instant case, out of 89 unreserved seats for

Government School students, 77 were sent to the open

category.

4 4.7 Being aggrieved by the fact that the vacant seats were

going to be released to the unreserved category, the aforesaid

writ petitions were filed by the appellants before the High

Court, where it was prayed that the meritorious students of

reserved category who have studied in Government Schools

must be allotted MBBS seats of unreserved category

government school quota before they are released to the open

category.

4.8 The High Court, vide order dated 31st October 2023

dismissed a Writ Petition filed by another candidate seeking

similar relief as aforementioned. The High Court in the Writ

Petition being WP No. 23060 of 2023 filed by the appellants in

an interim order dated 8th November 2023 took note of the

earlier order dated 31st October 2023 and recorded that no

prima facie case was made out and adjourned the matter to

permit the appellants to make additional arguments. The said

order dated 8th November 2023 was challenged before this

Court vide SLP (C) No. 25963 of 2023, wherein this Court vide

order dated 28th November 2023 directed the High Court to

decide the petition on merits or the question of interim relief

at the earliest, preferably within 2 weeks.

5 4.9 Ultimately, on 22nd December 2023, the Indore Bench

and on 12th January 2024 the Gwalior Bench of the High Court

vide the impugned judgments and orders dismissed the writ

petitions finding the same sans merits.

4.10 The impugned judgments and orders came to be

challenged before this Court and after hearing all the parties,

this Court vide order dated 12th August 2024 reserved the

judgment and by way of an ad-interim order directed the

respondent/State to keep seven seats vacant in MBBS course,

so that in the event the appellants succeed, they can be

accommodated against the said seats.

5. We have heard Shri K. Parameshwar, learned Senior

Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Shri

Nachiketa Joshi, learned Additional Advocate General (AAG)

appearing on behalf of the respondents.

6. Shri Parameshwar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on

behalf of the appellants submitted that the GS quota was

introduced by the State of Madhya Pradesh on 10th May 2023.

However, the procedure followed by the respondents in sub-

classifying the candidates further into categories as UR-GS,

SC-GS, ST-GS, OBC-GS and EWS-GS was totally illegal. It is

6 submitted that, in view of the settled position of law as laid

down by this Court in the case of Saurav Yadav and Others

v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others1, even in case of

horizontal reservation, the candidates from the reserved

categories like SC/ST/OBC, if they are entitled on their own

merit in the GS quota, will have to be admitted against the GS

quota (UR seats). He submitted that, on account of erroneous

application of policy, an anomalous situation has arisen

wherein, in the UR-GS seats, the persons who are much less

meritorious than the appellants, who have secured as low as

214, 150 marks, have secured admission, whereas the

appellants, who are much more meritorious than the UR-GS

candidates have been deprived the admission. It is submitted

that the cut-off for UR-GS was 291, OBC-GS was 465, SC-GS

was 314 and EWS-GS was 428. He therefore submitted that,

on account of erroneous application of the policy, as many as

77 seats classified as UR-GS, were not filled from the GS quota

and had to be released to the open pool of candidates.

7. Shri Parameshwar further submitted that the State,

realizing its mistake, has now carried out an amendment on

1 (2021) 4 SCC 542 : 2020 INSC 714

7 2nd July 2024 thereby intending to apply horizontal

reservation correctly for this academic year in accordance with

the judgment and decision of this Court in the case of Saurav

Yadav (supra).

8. To meet the situation of the admission for the Academic

Session 2023-24 which being already complete, the learned

Senior Counsel, relying on the judgment of this Court in the

case of S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh and

Others2, submitted that the Court should mould the relief and

direct the admission to be granted to the appellants in the next

academic session by issuing appropriate directions.

9. Shri Joshi, learned AAG appearing on behalf of the

respondents submitted that, since the reservation in the GS

category was horizontal, the State was justified in making a

further sub-classification into OBC-GS, ST-GS, SC-GS, UR-

GS and EWS-GS. He submitted that, since it was a case of

horizontal reservation, it was not possible to shift the category

of vertical reservation like the SC/ST/OBC/EWS to the

horizontal category of UR-GS.

2 (2020) 17 SCC 465 : 2019 INSC 1362

8

10. By now, it is a well-settled principle of law that a

candidate belonging to any of the vertical reservation

categories who on the basis of his own merit is entitled to be

selected in the open or general category, will be selected

against the general category and his selection would not be

counted against the quota reserved for such vertical

reservation categories. Reliance in this respect could be placed

on the 9-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in the case of

Indra Sawhney and Others v. Union of India and Others3,

and in the cases of R.K. Sabharwal and Others v. State of

Punjab and Others4 and Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul

and Others5.

11. However, this Court, in the case of Saurav Yadav

(supra), had an occasion to consider for the first time as to

whether the said principle laid down in the case of Indra

Sawhney (supra) and followed subsequently would also apply

to the cases of horizontal reservation. Prior to the said

judgment, there were conflicting views of different High

Courts. This Court, after surveying various earlier

3 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 4 (1995) 2 SCC 745 : 1995 INSC 108 5 (1996) 3 SCC 253 : 1996 INSC 258

9 pronouncements and considering the views as expressed by

the High Courts, observed thus:

“43. Finally, we must say that the steps indicated by the High Court of Gujarat in para 69 of its judgment in Tamannaben Ashokbhai Desai [Tamannaben Ashokbhai Desai v. Shital Amrutlal Nishar, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2592] contemplate the correct and appropriate procedure for considering and giving effect to both vertical and horizontal reservations. The illustration given by us deals with only one possible dimension. There could be multiple such possibilities. Even going by the present illustration, the first female candidate allocated in the vertical column for Scheduled Tribes may have secured higher position than the candidate at Serial No. 64. In that event said candidate must be shifted from the category of Scheduled Tribes to Open/General category causing a resultant vacancy in the vertical column of Scheduled Tribes. Such vacancy must then enure to the benefit of the candidate in the waiting list for Scheduled Tribes-Female. The steps indicated by the Gujarat High Court will take care of every such possibility. It is true that the exercise of laying down a procedure must necessarily be left to the authorities concerned but we may observe that one set out in said judgment will certainly satisfy all claims and will not lead to any incongruity as highlighted by us in the preceding paragraphs.”

12. It could thus be seen that, this Court approved the steps

indicated by the High Court of Gujarat in paragraph 69 of its

judgment in the case of Tamannaben Ashokbhai Desai v.

Shital Amrutlal Nishar6 for considering and giving effect to

6 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2592

10 both vertical and horizontal reservations. In the said case, this

Court was considering horizontal reservation for the female

candidates. It was observed that a meritorious reserved

category candidate who is entitled to the General category of

the said horizontal reservation on his own merit, will have to

be allotted a seat from the said General category of the

horizontal reservation. Meaning thereby such a candidate

cannot be counted in a horizontal seat reserved for the

category of vertical reservation like SC/ST.

13. It will also be apposite to refer to the following

observations made by S. Ravindra Bhat, J. in his concurring

judgment:

“66. I would conclude by saying that reservations, both vertical and horizontal, are method of ensuring representation in public services. These are not to be seen as rigid “slots”, where a candidate's merit, which otherwise entitles her to be shown in the open general category, is foreclosed, as the consequence would be, if the State's argument is accepted. Doing so, would result in a communal reservation, where each social category is confined within the extent of their reservation, thus negating merit. The open category is open to all, and the only condition for a candidate to be shown in it is merit, regardless of whether reservation benefit of either type is available to her or him.” [emphasis supplied]

11

14. It could thus be seen that the learned Judge clearly

observed that the horizontal as well as the vertical reservation

would not be seen as rigid “slots”, where a candidate's merit,

which otherwise entitles her or him to be shown in the open

general category, is foreclosed. It was observed that by doing

so, it would result in communal reservation, where each social

category is confined within the extent of their reservation, thus

negating merit. It was observed that the open category is open

to all, and the only condition for a candidate to be shown in it

is merit, regardless of whether reservation benefit of either

type is available to her or him.

15. The said view was reiterated by this Court in the case of

Sadhana Singh Dangi and Others v. Pinki Asati and

Others7.

16. In view of the settled position of law as laid down by this

Court in the case of Saurav Yadav (supra) and reiterated in

the case of Sadhana Singh Dangi (supra), the methodology

adopted by the respondents in compartmentalizing the

different categories in the horizontal reservation and

restricting the migration of the meritorious reserved category

7 (2022) 12 SCC 401 : 2021 INSC 907

12 candidates to the unreserved seats is totally unsustainable. In

view of the law laid down by this Court, the meritorious

candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC, who on their own merit,

were entitled to be selected against the UR-GS quota, have

been denied the seats against the open seats in the GS quota.

17. It is to be noted that, in the present case, the cut-off for

UR candidates was much less as compared to the cut-off for

SC/ST/OBC/EWS candidates. As such, the respondents

ought to have admitted the present appellants against the UR-

GS categories. It is further to be noted that many seats from

UR-GS category were required to be transferred to the General

category.

18. Having held that the appellants were deprived of their

legitimate claim of admission against the UR-GS category in

the Academic Session 2023-24, and since the admission

process for the said academic session is complete, we will have

to consider as to what relief should be granted in favour of the

appellants.

19. It will be apposite to refer to the observations made by

this Court in the judgment of S. Krishna Sradha (supra),

which read thus:

13

“13. In light of the discussion/observations made hereinabove, a meritorious candidate/student who has been denied an admission in MBBS course illegally or irrationally by the authorities for no fault of his/her and who has approached the Court in time and so as to see that such a meritorious candidate may not have to suffer for no fault of his/her, we answer the reference as under:

13.1. That in a case where candidate/student has approached the court at the earliest and without any delay and that the question is with respect to the admission in medical course all the efforts shall be made by the court concerned to dispose of the proceedings by giving priority and at the earliest. 13.2. Under exceptional circumstances, if the court finds that there is no fault attributable to the candidate and the candidate has pursued his/her legal right expeditiously without any delay and there is fault only on the part of the authorities and/or there is apparent breach of rules and regulations as well as related principles in the process of grant of admission which would violate the right of equality and equal treatment to the competing candidates and if the time schedule prescribed — 30th September, is over, to do the complete justice, the Court under exceptional circumstances and in rarest of rare cases direct the admission in the same year by directing to increase the seats, however, it should not be more than one or two seats and such admissions can be ordered within reasonable time i.e. within one month from 30th September i.e. cut-off date and under no circumstances, the Court shall order any admission in the same year beyond 30th October. However, it is observed that such relief can be granted only in exceptional circumstances and in the rarest of rare cases. In case of such an eventuality, the Court may also pass an order cancelling the admission given to a candidate who is at the bottom of the merit list of the category who, if the admission would have been given to a more meritorious candidate who has been denied admission illegally, would not have got the

14 admission, if the Court deems it fit and proper, however, after giving an opportunity of hearing to a student whose admission is sought to be cancelled. 13.3. In case the Court is of the opinion that no relief of admission can be granted to such a candidate in the very academic year and wherever it finds that the action of the authorities has been arbitrary and in breach of the rules and regulations or the prospectus affecting the rights of the students and that a candidate is found to be meritorious and such candidate/student has approached the court at the earliest and without any delay, the court can mould the relief and direct the admission to be granted to such a candidate in the next academic year by issuing appropriate directions by directing to increase in the number of seats as may be considered appropriate in the case and in case of such an eventuality and if it is found that the management was at fault and wrongly denied the admission to the meritorious candidate, in that case, the Court may direct to reduce the number of seats in the management quota of that year, meaning thereby the student/students who was/were denied admission illegally to be accommodated in the next academic year out of the seats allotted in the management quota.

13.4. Grant of the compensation could be an additional remedy but not a substitute for restitutional remedies. Therefore, in an appropriate case the Court may award the compensation to such a meritorious candidate who for no fault of his/her has to lose one full academic year and who could not be granted any relief of admission in the same academic year.”

20. Undisputedly, the appellants who were meritorious and

who could have been admitted against the UR-GS category

were denied admission on account of an erroneous application

15 of the methodology in applying the horizontal and vertical

reservation. It is also not in dispute that many of the students,

who secured much less marks than the appellants, have been

admitted against the UR-GS seats. This is totally in

contravention of the law laid down by this Court in the cases

of Saurav Yadav (supra) and Sadhana Singh Dangi (supra). We therefore find that as held by this Court in the case of S.

Krishna Sradha (supra), it will be appropriate to issue

directions to the respondents to admit the appellants in the

next Academic Session 2024-25 against the UR-GS seats.

Vide order dated 12th August 2024, we have already directed 7

seats to be kept vacant in the event the appellants succeed.

The appellants can be very well accommodated against the

said seats.

21. In the rest, we pass the following order:

(i) The appeals are allowed;

(ii) The impugned judgments and orders dated 22nd

December 2023 and 12th January 2024 passed by the

High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in Writ

Petition Nos. 23998 and 23437 of 2023, and 23060 of

2023 respectively are quashed and set aside; and

16

(iii) The respondents are directed to admit the appellants

herein in the next Academic Session i.e. 2024-25 for

MBBS Course against the seats reserved for UR-GS

category.

22. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. No

costs.

…….........................J. [B.R. GAVAI]

…….........................J. [K.V. VISWANATHAN] NEW DELHI;

AUGUST 20, 2024.

17