Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi 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