Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Supreme Court: 75% Reservation of Seats for Residents of Madhya Pradesh in B.Ed Course Not Serving Any Purpose

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On 28 April 2023 , In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India ruled that the reservation of 75% of seats for residents of Madhya Pradesh in the B.Ed (Part-time) course is not serving any purpose and violates constitutional principles. The case involved Veena Vadini Teachers Training Institute, run by Veena Vadini Samaj Kalyan Vikash Samiti, as the appellant, and the State of Madhya Pradesh and others as respondents.

The appellant had challenged the admission policy of the State of Madhya Pradesh, specifically targeting the clause that allocated 75% of the seats to residents of the state. The appellant argued that due to a lack of eligible residential candidates, a significant number of the reserved seats remained unfilled. They contended that they should be allowed to fill these seats with candidates from outside Madhya Pradesh.

The Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court had earlier dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant, upholding the government's policy and its reservation of seats for residents of Madhya Pradesh. However, the Supreme Court granted leave to the appellant to appeal the decision.

Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, delivering the judgment, noted that the reservation of seats based on residence has been upheld in previous cases, particularly in the field of medical education. However, the Court emphasized the need to consider the ground realities and changed circumstances since the previous decisions. It highlighted that the reservation policy should be based on realistic findings and serve a purpose.

Referring to the data provided by the appellant, the Court observed that a large percentage of seats reserved for residents of Madhya Pradesh had remained vacant in the last two years. It deemed such a reservation policy to be a "wholesale reservation" and held that reserving 75% of the seats for residents of the state was too high a percentage.

While recognizing the state's right to reserve seats for its residents, the Court directed the State of Madhya Pradesh to reevaluate the reservation policy. It advised the authorities to examine the data from the previous years and determine an appropriate extent of reservations within two months.

VEENA VADINI TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTE vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.  

Latest Legal News