NIDAKARTI MAHESHKUMAR v. STATE OF MAHARASm'RA & ORS.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

EHAGWATI, CJ. ·This appeal by special leave ·arises from a E writ petition filed by the appellant in the High Court of Bombay challenging the validity of Rule B(2). of the Rules frat:ed by the State Government ·on 21st December 1984 for admission to the M.B.B.S. course. The validity of this Rule · haS been assailed on. the ground that it offends Article 14 of 1 the Constitution. Th~ challenge has been negatived by-the High F / Court but the appellant contends \_in this appeal that the decision ~f the High Court is erroneous and Rule R(2) must b~ struck dm."tt as unconstitutional, and void.

The qual iff cation required for admiss:l.ol!-_ ~o the MBBS course in the State of· Maharashtra is the passing of 12th G )..... standard.· examination held by· the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education. The teaching in the first ten standards_ is carried on in schools while in the 11th and 12th standards the teaching is done at some places in schools and at others in colleges. The schools and colleges w~ere education is imparted in the 11th and 12th standards are H

• 236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [I98f>] . 2 s.c.R. A

not in any way connected with the Universities within whos~.,l ~/'I jurisdiction they are situate nor have the Tlniversities"'~ ll anything to do with the 12th stanclard examinatto,n. There is l1'!. one Board for the whole of Maharashtra called 'M'aharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secon~ary f:rlucation" and r·' ' ,. B it comprises of three THvistonal Boards - one for Vidharbha 'l region, another for Harathwada regton and the thtrd for the fi! rest of Maharashtra - ancl though for the purpose of conve--,. nience each of these three Divisional Boards conducts the 12th standard examination for the area within its jurisdiction, t~e examination which is held is one and the same throu~hout t~e c State of Maharashtra, based on the sam~ syllabus, with the eame set of questions and the same standar~ of evaluation. The results of th~ 12t~ standard examination are published divisionwise and the ~rit list is also prepared on that basis but the questi on papers being the same and the standard of~ evaluation also being uniform throughout the three re~ons, it D is easy to assess the comparative merits of the candidates in the three regions by reference to the marks obtained by them at the 12th standard examinati.on. The adm!sstons to the medical colleges within the State of Maharashtra could, there- fore, arguably be determined on the basts of merit and the best candidates could be selected from all over the State on the basis of their performance in the 12th standard examina- tion • Rut for t he academic year 19~5, tfl~ State Government . departed from thts principle of s~lectlon hased on merit across the hoard and made regfonwise classificatton for admis- sion to meclica1 coll~es hy fram1n~ new Rules for aclmtsston to F the M.B.R.S. Coura~ on 21st December, IQR4. Rule R(2) of these Ru]es provirled intE-r ~ as under : 1 "StutiE-nts wllo have passed H.s.c. (10+2) 12th s~a~ard examination of the Maharashtra State floard 0 econdary and Higher St:tconc-lary r~ucstion from I G Schools/Co11 eges s t tuated w1. thin the jurisdiction of one untverstty ere not e1t~th1~ for adm~ssion to ;e~ica1 collP~e or coll~~es situate~ tn the juris-~ Giction of enoth~r untv~rstty. The seats at the , overn~nt Mtadi cal Coll ~ges in Maharashtra State except those earmarked for nominees of the Govern- H me~t of Tntfta an<1 nomt nees of Mi raj Medical Centre I ;n t~~se menttone~ in Rule D(4) below are reserved

__ __,_- ... .... _... ,, _ -----.._ .... 8 ~;a.~ e students of t~e respective untverstty · - - - - -- - ---····--· . ~

. NIDAMARTI MAHESHI<UMAR v. STATE fBHAGWATI, r~. J 237

. ·The admissions to medical colleges were thus made subject to A ~egionwise classification inasmuch as a student from a school or college situated within the jurisdiction of a particular university could seek admission only !n the medical college or colleges situate within the jurisdiction of that University and ·he could not be eligible for admission to medical college or colleges situate in the jurisdiction of another university. B This regionwise classification made by the State Government ~for the p.1rpose of admissions to medical colleges was assailed by the appellant by filing a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay on the ground that it was violative of Article 14 of 'I the Constitution. The wrlt petition was heard by a Division r- 1 Bench of the High Court and by a judgment dated 1st August, 1985 the High Court dismissed the writ petition. The principal c ground on Which the High Court rejected the writ petition was that the implementation of the Order passed by this Court in .... Dr. Pradeep ..Jain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. etc., [19841 3 s.c.c. 654, that 30% of the open seats should be available for admission to students on all-India hasis and that only 70% of the S£toats coold be reserved on the basis of residence or institutional preference, had been ~eferred by this Court by its Order dated 8th July 1985 to the academic year 1986 and it was not to be given effect to in the academic year 1985. The High Court took the view that since the implementation of this · Order had been deferred by this Court, the State Government '~ad no other alternative but to fill in the seats as if there were no directions from the Supreme Court to fill in the seats on all-Inrlia basis" and Rule B(2) of the Rules for admission to the M.B.B.S. Course framed by the State Government for the academic year 1985 was therefore valid. This view taken by the "'t High Court is impugned in the present appeal preferred by the appellant with special leave obtained from this Court.

The question as to whst principles for selection of I . students for admission to the medical colleges would be permissible und~r Article 14 of the Constitution came up for consideration hefore this Court in the leading case of Dr. G ~. Pradeep Jain (supra). The judgment in this case reviewed all the previous decisions ~tven by this Court starting from D.P. Josh! v. State of. Madhya Bharat, fl955] 1 s.c.R. 1215 and ending with ..Jagdlsb Saran v. Union of India, ri980l 2 S.C.R. 831 and after analysins;r these decisions the Court laiif.oodo~, the principles Which should govern selection of students for H

238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [I9R6) 2 • s.c.R.

A admission to the medical colleges consistently ~th the requirement of Article 14. The Court pointed out that the.~ primary consideration in selection of candidates for admission : to the medical coll e~es must be merit ancl the object of any ! rules which may be made for regulating admissions to the medical colleges must he to secure the best anrl most meritori- ous students. This was in fact the consideration which weighed B with the Court · in Minor P. Rajendran v. State of Madras. ,._. i (1968] 2 S.C.R. 786 in striking down a Rule mane by the State \ of Madras allocating seats in· medical colleges on district wise basis and so also in A. Peerla-Kurappan v. State of Tamil !

l lfadn. (19711 2 s.c.R. 430 the same consideration prevailed ~tb the court in striking-dawn a unftwise scheme of selection I c of candidates for appointment to medical colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu, which provided for constituting the mecHcal colleges in the city of "M'aclras as one uni.t and each of the . other medical colleyes In the rnofusefl as a separate unit and~ selection being rMde unftwise. The court in both these cases I clearly and catPgodca11y proceeded on the hasis of the · D principle that the object of any va1 id scheme of actmi.ssions UIJst be to usel ect the best canrltdates for bei n~ arlmitted to .medical colleges" and that 1.f any rleparture is to be made "from the prindple of selection on the basts of merit", i.t m.JSt be justified on the touch-stone of Article 14. This ~ principle was affirmed by the court in Dr. Pradeep Jato's case ' I E (supra).

This Court then proceederl to consider in Dr. Pradeep Jain's ~ (supra) as to what are the circumstances in which departure may justtfi.ahly be made from the principle of selection haaed on merit. The Court enunciated in clear and F emphatic terms the philosophy hehind the concept of equality ';I under the Constitution anti observed :

"Now the ct>nc~pt of equalfty under the Constitution is a dynam!c concept. lt takes within its sweep ~very process of equal·fsntton anci protective · G d!sc:rfDiination. ~qualtty rust not rl£lmain mere idle ~ incantation but it must become a livfn~ reality for the lar~e !Msses of people. !n a hi('rarchical society wfth an indelible feudal stamp and ! ' . 1.ncurah1e actual ine<tualtty • . it ts ahsurd to Bu~~~t that progressive measures to eliminate H

NIDAMARTI MAHESHKUMAR v. STATE {BHAGWATI, CJ. 1 239

A group disabilities and promote collective equality are antagonistic to equality on the ground that every individual is entitled to equality of opportunity based purely on merit judged by the marks obtained by him. We cannot countenance such a suggestion, for to do so would make the equality B clause sterile and perpetuate existing inequalities. Equality of opportunity is not simply a matter of legal equality. Its existence depends not merely on the absence of disabilities but on the presence of abilities. Where, therefore, there is inequality, in fact, legal equality always tends to accentuate it. What the famous poet William c Blake said graphically is very true, namely, "One law for the Lion and the Ox is oppression". Those who are unequal, in fact, cannot be treated by identical standards; that may be equality in law but it would certainly not be real equality. It is, therefore, necessary to take into account de facto inequalities which exit in the society and to take affirmative action by way of giving preference to the socially and economically disadvantaged persons or inflicting handicaps on those more advantageously placed, in order to bring about real equality. Such affirmative action though apparently discriminatory is calculated to produce equality on a broader basis by eliminating de facto inequalities and placing the weaker sections of the community on a footing of equality with the stronger and more powerful sections so that each member of the comJIJ..mi ty, whatever is his birth, occupation or social position may enjoy equal opportunity of using to the full his natural endowments of physique, of character and of intelligence •••••••• We cannot, therefore, have arid equality which does not take into account the social and economic disabilities and inequalities from which large masses of people suffer in the country. Equality in law mst produce real equality, de jure equality must ultimately find its raison d'etre in de facto equality. The State must, therefore, resort to compensatory State action for the purpose of making people who are factually H

240 StTPREME COURT REPORTS [1986] ~ S.C.R. II i unequa 1 . in their wealth, education or social .~~ '1 J

A envf ronment, equal in specified areas. The State'--~~ llUSt • to use again the words of 'Krishna Iyer, J. in I Jagdish Saran case 'veave those special facilities into the web of equality which, in an equitable } setting, provide for the weak and promote their levelling up so that, tn the long run, the l col1111llnity at large may enjoy a general measure of +-· t B real equal opportunity •••• equal i.ty is not negated . or neglected where special provisions are geared to I the larger goal of the disabled getting over their ' disablement consistently with the ~eneral good and • indivi~ual merit". The scheme of admission to r medical colleges may, therefore, depart from the \ c principle of selection based on merit, where it is . necessary to do so for the purpose of bringing )1.. , t ·: about real equal !ty of opportunity between those ~o are unequale".

n· It was pointed out by the Court that there are two considerations which may l~timately weigh with the Court in justifying departure from the principle of selection based on l merit. One is what may be called State interest and the other l is what rMY be described as a region's claim of backwardness • ...,... The legitimacy of claim of State interest was recognised E explicitly in D.P. Joshi's case (supra) and Minor P. lajendran'• casP (supra). These two cases show that the claim of State interest tn providing adequate medical services to the people of the State by impartinll: rnedtcal education to students Who by reason of their residence in the State would be likely to settle down anrl serve the people of the ~tate as )f F Doctors, was regard~ by the court as a Je~itimate ground for departing froa the strict principle of selection based on ~rtt. The decision of this Court in D.N. Chanchala •· State of Mytloft, (1971} Suppl. s.c.R. F>n8 also upheld university vise dtttribution of seat a, though f t was not in conformity vtth the pr1nctp1e of aelectton based on merit and marked a G d~parture from lt, and the justification for ta~!ng this view ~ wa• that institutional preference was not constitutionally impenniatibll' "flrstly, because it would he quite legitimate for •tud~ts who are attached to a university to entertain a desire to have training in specialised subjects, like medicine, eatlefied through colleges afftllated to t~eir own H ---- ~ "'· ··- - ··

NIDAMARTI MAHESHKUMAR v. STATE [BHA~fATI, CJ .] 241

A ..4-- ~niversity since that would prolnote institutional continuity Which has its own value and secondly, because any student from any part of the country can pass the qualifying examination of that university, irrespective of the place of his birth of residence." B The secon~ consideration which can legitimately weigh .., . with the court in dtlutin~ the principle of selection based on ~

merit Is the claim of backwardness made on behalf of any particular region. We may, in this connection, usefully quote the following p8ssage from the jurlgment of this Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain's case (supra) :

"There have been cases where students residing a c backward region have been given preferential treatement in admissions to merlical colleges and such preferential treatment has heen upheld on the grounrl that though apparently discriminatory a~ainst other it is intended to correct the imbalance or handicap from wnich the students from the backward region are suffering and thus bring about real equality in the larger sense. Such preferential treatment for those residing in the backward region is designed to produce equal opportunity on a broader basis by providing to neglect geographical or human areas an opportunity to rise which they would not have if not preferential treatment is given to them and they are treated on the same basis as others for admissions to medical colleges, because then they would never be able to compete with others more - advantageously placed. If creatively and imaginatively applied, preferential treatment based F

on resi~ence in a backwar~ region can play a significant role in reducing uneven levels of development and such preferential treatment would presumably satisfy the test of Artlcle 14, because G it would be calculated to redress the existing imbalance between different regfons in the State. There may be a case where a region is educationally backward or woefully deficient in medical services an~ in such a case there w~tld be serious educational and health service disparity for that H

242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ri986J 2 S.C.R.

backward region which must be redressed by an equality and service minded welfare State. The }Xlrpose of such a pol icy would be to remove the existing inequality and to promote welfare based equality for t~e residents of the backward region. If the State in such a case seelcs to remove the absence of opportunity for medical erlucation and to provide competent and adequate medical services in such backward region by starting a medical college in the heart of such backward region and reserves a ' high percentage of seats there to students from that region, it may not be possible to castigate such reservation or preferential treatment as discriminatory. What is directly intended to"' c abolish existing dispatlty Cannot be aCCUSed Of I

discrimination." ~ Krishna Iyer, J. said to the same effect when he observed in Jaedfsh Sarao's case (supra) at page R56 of the Re~ort : We have no doubt that where the human region from D which the alumni of an institution are largely drawn is baclcward, either from the angle of oppor- tunities for technical education or availability of medical services for the people, the provision of a high ratio of •reservation hardly militates against ) the equality mandate viewed in the perspective of social justice. E This was precisely the ground on which, in the State of Uttar Pradesh v. Praclip Taadon, [ 1975] 2 S.C. R. 761 this Court allowed reservation in medical admissions for people of the hill and Uttarakhand areas of the State of U.P. on the ground ~ that those areas were socially and educationally backward. F Similarly, and for the same reason, the Andhra Pradesh High / Court in A. PeeTia JOrappan's case (supra) held that preferential treatment of Telengana students in medical admissions was justified. It is, therefore, clear that where the region from which the students of a university are largely drawn is backward either from the point of vi.ew of opportunities for medical education or avallabi11ty of competent and adequate medical servlces, it would be constitutionally permdssible, without violating the mandate of j the equality clause, to provide a high percentage of reservation or preference for students coming from that region, because without reservation or preference students from such backward region will hardly be able to compete with those from advanced regions since they would have no adequate

NIDAMARTI MAHESHKUMAR v • STATE rBHAGW~.. 'TI ' CJ. ] 243 ' .

A opportunity for development so as to be · in a position to compete with others. By· reason of their socially or . economics11y d isaclvant aged posit ion they would not have been able to secure educdtion . · in · good schools . and tlley ~ould · consequently be at a disadvantage compared to students belonging to the affluent or well-to-do families who have had B best of school education.·There can, therefore, legitimately be reservation or preference - in their favour so far as adm!ssions ·are concerned in case of. a medical college which is set up or i?tended to cater to the needs of a regi~n which is backward or whose alumni are largely drawn from such backward region. · It may, however, be noted that the reservation or 1 preference in such a case may even be of a hi.gh percentage of c ) seats but it cannot be total • . ~j . ' . Here, in the present case, regionwise classification for admission to medical colleges was sought to he depended on the groond that Vidharbha and Marathwada regions are backward as compared to Pune and Bomhay regions which are far more D advanced and - it was contended on behalf of the State Government that, in the circumstance~. the provision in Rule B(2) that a stu<1ent from a school or college situate within the jurisdiction of a particular university would not be eligible for admission to medical college or colleges situate in the juris~iction of another university but would be confin- E ed only to medical college or colleges within the jurisdiction of the same university, was intended to give protection to students in Vidharbha • Marathwada and other predominently rural areas .the population of which is socially, economically and ecfucationally backward for otherwise they would have no ) opportunity for medical education since they would not be able to compete with stuc1ents from Pune and Rombay reg-Ions and · ~Mequently the classification made by th:fs provision was constitutionally permissihle. We are afraid this contention is not well-founded and must be rejected. In t _he first place there is no material to show that the entire reg{on wtthtn the jurisdiction of the university in Vidharhha i.s backward or that the entire region within the jurisdiction of Pun~ Univer- ~ sity is advanced. There are quite possibly even in the region within the jurisdiction of Pune University predominently rural areas which are hackward and equally there may he in the region w1 thin the jurisdiction of the university in Vidharbha. areas which are not backward. We do not think it isf H · PDss t ble to categorise the regions w~'tht n the jurisdiction o

244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986) 2 S.C.R.

A the various universities. as backward or advanced as if they ~ were exclusive categories and in any event there is no material placed before us which woulil persuade us to reach that conclusion. ~ut even if the regions within the jurisdic- tion of the universities in Vidharbha ancl Marathwaila can be said to be backward ann regions within the jurisrliction of the B universities in Rombay and Pune can ·be said to be advanced, we do not think that regionwise classification for admission to medical colleges can he sustained. There is no reason why a brilliant student from a region which is w{thin the jurisdic- tion of a university in Vidharbha or Marathwarla area should be denied the opportunity of medical education in Bombay or Pune. c Why should he remain confined to the so-ca]1ed backward region from _which he comes? Should an equal opportunity for medical education not he made available to him as is available to students from regions within the jurisdiction of Bombay and Pune Universities? Why should mobility for educational advancement be impeded by geographical limitations within the D State? Would this clearly not be a denial of equal opportunity violative of Article 14 of the Constitution? The answer must clearly be in t~e affirmative. It would plainly be violative of the mandate of the equality clause to ~ompartmentalize the State into different regions and provide that a student from one region should not he allowed to migrate to another region for medical education and thus be denied equa] opportunity with others in the State for medical educat1on. This is precisely the reason why this Court struc~-down unitwise scheme for admission to medical colle~es in the State of Tamil Nadu in A. Peerla Karuppan's case (supra). The unit-wise scheme which was heJd to be constitutionally invalid in that case was a scheme under which the medical colle~es in the city of Madras were constituterl as one unit and each of the other medical colleges in the mofussil was constituted as a unit and a separate Selection Committee was set up for each of these units. The intending applicants were asked to apply to any one of the committees but were advised to apply to the Committee G nearest to thei.r place of residence and if they applied to more than one committee, their applications were to be forwarded by the Government to only one of the committees. The )- petitioners challenged the validity of this unit wise scheme and contended that the unit-wise scheme was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution inter alia hecause the H applicants of some of the units were in a hetter position than

NIDAMARTI MAHESHKITMAR v. STATE rBHAGWATI, CJ.] 245

those who applied in other units, since the ratio between the A 'r ...,... applicants and the number of seats in each unit varied and I ' ' several applicants who secured lesser marks than the petition- ~- I er were selected merely because their applications came to be considered in other units. This contention was upheld by the Court holding that the scheme in question was invalid as it B was discriminatory against some of the applicants. The ratio of this decision applies fully and completely to the present case. Here also as a result of the regionwise classification a student from one region who has secured lesser marks than another from a different region may be selected for admission to the medical college or colleges within his region while the student who has securerl higher maru may not succeed in c getting selected for admission to the medical college or colleges within hts region. And moreover, a student from one region would have no opportunity for securing admission in the medical coll~ge or colleges in another region, though he may have done much better than the student in that other region. The regionwise scheme adopted by the State Government in Rule D B(2) ~learly results in denial of equal opportunity violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. We may at this stage refer to the decision of this Court in D. N. Chaneh.ala 's case (supra) on which considerable reliance was placed on behalf of the State Government. The reservation impugne~ in this case was university-,ise reservation under which preference for admission to a medical college run by a university was given to students who had passed the PUC examination of . that university and only 20 per cent of the seats were available to those passing the PUC examination of other universities. The petitioner who ~ad passed PUC examination held by the Bangalore University applied for admission to any one of the medical colleges affiliated to the tcarnata'ka University. She did not come within the merit list on the basis of.20_per cent open seats which were filled up and since she had not passed the PUC examinatton held by the 'Karnatalut University, her application for admission -was rejected. She therefore filed ..... ~t petition under Article 32 of the Constitution eontending inter alia that the university-wise distribution of seats was discrtminatory and hence violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. This contention was rejected by the Court. Shelat, J. speaking on be~alf of the r.ourt ~av~ the following reasons in support of its conclusion : H

246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1986 J 2 S.C.R. ·

A "In our view, there is not hi. ng undes 1 rable in I. ensuring that those attached to such universities- have tltetr ambitions to havE' trainin~ in specialised subjects, 1 ike medtd nE', sat lsfied through colJeges affiliated to their own universities. Such a basis for selection has not II B the disadvantage of districtwise or unitwise selection as any student from any part of the State - ~ .· _ I

Ii can pass the qualifying ~xamination in any of the I three universities irrespective of the place of his birth or rest.clence. Further, thE' rules confer a discretion on the selection committee to admit outsiders upto 20 per cent of the total available c seats in any one of these colle~es, i.~., those who have passed t~e equivalent examination held by any other unfvE'rs1ty not only in the State but also ,. elsewhere in lnd!a. It is, therefore, impossible to say tltat the basis of seJ ect ion adopted in these rules would defeat the object of the rules as was sai{f in Rajendran case or mal<e possible less meritorious students obtaining a~mission at the cost of the better cancl!dates. ThE~ fact that a candidate having lesser marks might obtain acimission at the cost of another having higher ~ marks from another university does not necessarily mean that a less meritorious candidate gets advanta~e over a more meritorious one. As is well known, different univers1t1es have different standards in the examinations held by them."

lt will be obvious on a little scrutiny of these reasons that they cannot possibly have any appl!catlon to the rey.tonwise classif'icatfon adopted in the present .case. There are two baste differ~nces between the regionwise elassiftcatton tn the present case and the universtty-wise res~rvation in D.N. Chsnchala'a case (supra). Firstly, there was no c~n examination or uniform standard of evaluation tn the different universities in D.M. Chanchala'a cese (supra) 80 that it could not be said that a cendtdote obtalntn~ lesser marks in the PUC examtnation held hy one univE'rsity was necessari1y less meritorious than another student getting more marks tn the PUC ~xamination hel~ by another untverstty. But here in the n present case there is only one common examinatton for the 12th

NIDAMARTI MAHESHKUMAR v. STATE [BHAGWATI, CJ.] 247

A Standard held in the entire state with the same syllabus and the same set of questions and uniform standard of evaluation with the result that it can be safely predicated that a student who gets less marks in the 12th Standard examination may ordinarily be regarded as less meritorious than another student getting higher marks. If there were different B examinations held by the three Division Boards with different sets of questions and different standards of evaluation the · _...... ratio of the decision in D.N. O:l.anchala's case would have inevitably and irresistibly applied. But the standard of comparison between students throughout the State being clear and well-defined on account of a common 12th Standard examination with same set of questions and uniform standard of c evaluation the decision in D.N. ~·s case can have no application. Moreover in D.N. Otanchala 's ease (supra) the reservation in favour of students passing PUC examdnation of a _.. particular university was not total but 20 per cent of the seats were made available to those passing the PUC examination of other univversities. Here in the present case, however, the reservation in favour of students who have studied in schools or colleges situate in the region within the jurisdiction of a particular university is 100 per cent and no student who has studied in a school or college within the region of another "\. university can possibly get admission in the medical college or colleges situate within the region of that the first mentioned university. We must therefore hold that the ratio of the decision in D.N. 0\anchala•a case does not compel us to take a view different from the one we are inclined to take on first principle.

But we would like to make it clear that it would not be unconstitutional for the State Government to provide for reservation or preference in respect of a certain percentage o! seats in the medical college or colleges in each region in favour of those who have studied inschools or colle,g es within that region and even if the percentage stipulated by the State i Covernrr.!nt is on the higher side, it would not fall foul of the constitutional mandate of equality. There are two reasons why such reservation or preference would be constitutionally permissible. In the first place it would cause a considerable amount of hardship and inconvenience if students residing in the region of a particular university are compelled to move to the region of another university for medical education which H

248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 19861 2 s.c.a.

A they might have t o . do~ if selecti on for admission to the medical colleges in the entire State were to be based on merit~ without any reservation or preference regionwise. It mst be remembered that there would be a large number of students who, if they do not ge t admission in the medical college near their r esidence and are assigned admission in a college in another region on the basis of relative merit, may not be able to go B to such other medical -college on account of lack of resources and facilities and in the result, they would be effectively 1 · deprived of a real opportunity for pursuing the medical course l even though on paper they would have got admission in the I I medical college. The opportunity for medical education I c provided to them would be illusory and not real because they would not be able to avail of it. Moreover some difficulty I l would also arise in case of girls because if they are not able t o get admission in the medical college near the place where 1- they reside they might find tt difficult to pursue medical :. ~ education in a tlledical college situated in another region 0 where hostel facilities may not be available and even if hostel facilities are available, the parents may hesitate to send them to the hostels. We are therefore of the · view tha~ reservation or preference in respect of a certain percentage of seats may legitimately be made in favour of those who have studied in schools or colleges within the region of a ~~ E parti cular university. in order to equalise opportunities for medical admission on a broader basis and to bring about real 1 and not formal, actual and not merely legal, equalitY• The l only question is as to what should be the extent of such reservation or preference. But on this question we derive considerable light from the decision in Dr. Pradeep Jain'& F case (supra) where we held that reservation based on residence --4 requirement or institutional preference ahould not exceed the outer limit of 70 per cent of the total number of open seats after taking into account other kinds of reservations vali~Y made and that the remaining 30 per cent of the open seats at the least should be made available for admission to students on All-India basis irrespective of the state or the universitY from which they come. We would adopt the same principle in ..- case of reg1onw1se reservation or preference and hold that not more than 70 per cent of the total number of open seats in the medical college or colleges situate within the area : of jurisdiction of a particular university • after taking into account other kinds of reservations validly made, shall be -

NIDAMARTI MAHESHKUMAR v. STATE [BHAGWATI, CJ.] 249

~ reserved for students who have studied in schools orcolleges situate within that region and at least 30 per cent of the open seats shall be available for admission to students who have studied in schools or colleges in other regions within the State. B· There is however one matter in respect of which it is ---, necessary to make some clarification. ~e first is that when we talk of total number of open seats after taking into acco~nt other kinds of reservations validly made to which the percentages of 70 and 30 are to be applied as aforesaid, we mean the total number of open seats after deducting such number of open seats as are required to be made available for admission of students on All-India basis in accordance with . the principles laid down in the decision in Dr. Pradeep Jain's case (supra) as modified from time to time by various subsequent judgments delivered by this Court. The number of seats required to be made available for admission to students on All-India basis mst first be taken out and then to the remaining number of open seats after taking into account other kinds of reservations validly made, the percentages of 70 and 30 must be applied for determining the extent to which regional reservation or preference can legitimately be made.

We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and declare Rule B(2) unconstitutional and void. We may however make it clear that admissions made on the basis of Rule B(2) shall not be disturbed, nor will an1 claim ...._ for admission be founded for the academic year 1985 on the basis of Rule B(2). If the State Government wants to make ) regionwise reservation or preference after setting apart the seats required to be made available for admission to students on All-India basis, we have laid down the guidelines Which the State Governaent may follow so as to avoid clash with Article 14 of the Constitution.

There will be no order as to costs of the appeal. G

M.L.A. Appeal allCMed.