Priyanka C Gulab Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 5306 of 2000
Petitioner: Priyanka C Gulab
Respondent: State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 5306 of 2000
Judges: S. RAJENDRA BABU & DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 25, 2001
Head Note:
EDUCATION
Constitution
Article 16(4) – Reservation – Medical course – Entrance test
Held:
Reservation increased and new quota of OBC introduced, pursuant to decision of government – Before taking action in view of government’s decision, some time gap occurred – Action of increasing quota challenged – Plea that ordinance 272 was not amended prior to exams not successful in view of government decision – If the government’s decision could not be applied. Held that provisions of Article 16(4) are not merely declaratory. Appeal dismissed. Indira Sawhney’s case referred and relied upon. (Para 2)
Held –
Cases Reffered:
1. Indira Sawhney and Others v. Union of India and Others reported in (1992 (Suppl.3) SCC 638) (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Admission was sought for by petitioner to the medical course and in relation to the same, entrance test was held. Reservations were enhanced from 8% to 16% for SC candidates, 6% to 12% for ST candidates and new quota of 21% for OBC candidates by reason of the resolution made by the government. By the time the university could take action pursuant to the decision of the government, there was some time gap. The students seeking admission in the medical college challenged the said action of making the reservations on the ground that such reservation is made after the examination by the university and the same is bad in law. The High Court examined the matter and being of the view that once state government took decision on 4-5-1999 that became the law to govern the PMT/PVT examinations which were to be held in the year 1999 and the case of the petitioners that ordinance 272 was not amended prior to the holding of the examination, loses its support and on that basis dismissed the writ petitions. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
2. The contention put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant is that although the constitutional power under Articles 15(4) and 162 of the Constitution of India enables the state government to make such provision, that by itself is not sufficient and when the university has itself enacted ordinance 272 which has not been amended prior to the holding of the examinations, the principle of reservation adopted by the government could not have been applied to the present examination. This Court in the case of Indira Sawhney and Others v. Union of India and Others reported in (1992 (Suppl.3) SCC 638) considered identical objection in that case. The contention was that Article 16(4) is merely declaratory in nature, enabling provision and that it is not a source of power by itself and so a rule in terms of the proviso to Article 309, will have to be issued for reservation so made to be enforceable. In meeting this contention this Court stated that if provision under Article 16(4) can be made by the executive, it must necessarily follow that such a provision will be effective from the date it is made. In that view of the matter, we find no force in the contention put forward on behalf of the appellant. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed.
1. Admission was sought for by petitioner to the medical course and in relation to the same, entrance test was held. Reservations were enhanced from 8% to 16% for SC candidates, 6% to 12% for ST candidates and new quota of 21% for OBC candidates by reason of the resolution made by the government. By the time the university could take action pursuant to the decision of the government, there was some time gap. The students seeking admission in the medical college challenged the said action of making the reservations on the ground that such reservation is made after the examination by the university and the same is bad in law. The High Court examined the matter and being of the view that once state government took decision on 4-5-1999 that became the law to govern the PMT/PVT examinations which were to be held in the year 1999 and the case of the petitioners that ordinance 272 was not amended prior to the holding of the examination, loses its support and on that basis dismissed the writ petitions. Hence, this appeal by special leave.
2. The contention put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant is that although the constitutional power under Articles 15(4) and 162 of the Constitution of India enables the state government to make such provision, that by itself is not sufficient and when the university has itself enacted ordinance 272 which has not been amended prior to the holding of the examinations, the principle of reservation adopted by the government could not have been applied to the present examination. This Court in the case of Indira Sawhney and Others v. Union of India and Others reported in (1992 (Suppl.3) SCC 638) considered identical objection in that case. The contention was that Article 16(4) is merely declaratory in nature, enabling provision and that it is not a source of power by itself and so a rule in terms of the proviso to Article 309, will have to be issued for reservation so made to be enforceable. In meeting this contention this Court stated that if provision under Article 16(4) can be made by the executive, it must necessarily follow that such a provision will be effective from the date it is made. In that view of the matter, we find no force in the contention put forward on behalf of the appellant. The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed.
