Joseph Thomas Vs State of Kerala
(High Court of Kerala)
Original Petition No. 321 Of 1957 | 30-09-1957
Law concerned
“Art. 15 protects all citizens against discrimination generally but Art.29(2) is a protection against a particular species of wrong namely denial of admission into educational institutions of the specified kind”.
Art.16 (2) of the Constitution provides:
“No citizen shall, [on grounds only of religion, race, caste sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of any employment or office underthe State”.
Facts
1. The petitioner was an applicant for admission to the M. B. B. S. course. As he didn’t achieve securing a seat. consistent with him except for Ext. P-4, a handout dated 10-7-1957, i.e (“Government have directed that seats for the Engineering and Medical Colleges are going to be distributed between Malabar area and Travancore-Cochin area within the ratio 5:8 )he would are admitted, and his attempt during this petition is to challenge the validity of the directions embodied therein handout .
2.It was also that this may apply only to the entire number of admissions for the State including seats for the Backward classes and scheduled classes. The reservation of seats for backward classes and Scheduled classes are going to be worked on a State basis”.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was confining the attack to the distribution of seats between the Malabar and Travancore-Cochin areas which he didn’t propose to challenge the reservation in favour of the Backward and Scheduled Classes. It follows that the sole question we’ve to think about is whether or not the said distribution of seats within the ratio of 5:8 is hit by any of the provisions of the Constitution.
4.The primary contention urged before us was that the distribution of seats between Malabar and Travancore-Cochin was a discrimination supported the place of birth and can’t hence be sustained. This contention is stated as follows in Para.8 of the petitioners affidavit dated 14-8-1957:
“The order mentioned in Ext. P4 allotting seats to candidates from the Travancore-Cochin area and Malabar area within the ratio of 8:5 is ultra-vires of the govt of Kerala. Both the above said areas are a part of Kerala State. The allotment of seats within the ratio of 8:5 to different parts of the State offends Art.15 Clause.1 of the Constitution of India and has got to be quashed thereon account. except for the appliance of the principles laid down within the order mentioned in Ext. P4 to the choice of candidates for M. B. B. S. degree course, i might have qualified myself for admission and would are selected”.
5. We are unable to agree. As we understand Ext. P-4 the distribution of seats directed isn’t on the idea of the place of birth of the candidates concerned but of their domicile as popularly understood, that is, their place of residence, the place where they live or have their home.
ISSUES
whether there’s any violation of Art.14 of the Constitution which provides that the State shall not deny to a person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India”.
Obiter dicta
Art.14 doesn’t forbid reasonable classification, that so as to pass the test of permissible classification two conditions alone need be fulfilled:
(1) That the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others overlooked of the group;
(2) That the differentia must have a rational reference to the thing sought to be achieved; which the classification could also be founded on different bases, namely, geographical, or consistent with objects or occupations or the likes of .
There is a broad distinction between the discretion to be exercised with reference to fundamental rights and statutory rights and therefore the discretion concerning the previous has always to be controlled by clear rules before it can come within the category of reasonable restrictions. It doesn’t substitute isolation but is one among a series of Press Releases.
Rationale
In order to draw in Art.14, Ext P-4 must amount to a “law” as defined in Art.13 and not a mere administrative direction or executive order. We don’t propose to make a decision the question during this case.
Even assuming that Ext. P-4 may be a law within the meaning of Art.13, it can’t be said that the differential treatment administered to candidates from Malabar & Travancore-Cochin is without an inexpensive basis.
The Government will have best to make a decision its policy in respect of a tutorial year well beforehand of the opening of the universities and to scale back that policy into simple rules which cannot produce a misunderstanding or provoke an application to the present Court.
Judgement
It was held that Malabar is educationally more backward than Travancore-Cochinand so therefore, the petition got dismissed and the writ accordingly.
Conclusion
Malabar is educationally more backward than Travancore-Cochin and whatever be the rationale for the backwardness – the indifference of the govt of Madras or the smaller scale of Christian Missionary enterprise there are often little question that an excellent leeway has got to be made up before parity is established and identity of treatment won’t compute an injustice.
By- Bharti verma