Supreme Court Strikes Down Expulsion of Bihar MLC as Disproportionate, Orders Immediate Reinstatement Private Banks Not Subject to Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Allegation of Forgery is Not Enough: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute When a Case is Made Out for Bail, Courts Should Not Hesitate: Kerala High Court Allows Bail Despite Commercial Quantity of Drugs Seized Retailers Cannot Be Prosecuted for Manufacturer’s Fault" – Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Pesticide Dealers Mere Issuance of a Cheque Does Not Prove Legally Enforceable Debt": Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Cheque Dishonor Case Courts Cannot Ignore Urgent Repairs When Public Safety is at Stake: Calcutta High Court Upholds Trial Court's Order Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Bombay High Court Rejects Premature Dismissal of Partition Suit No Substantial Question of Law – High Court Cannot Re-Appreciate Evidence Under Section 100 CPC: Andhra Pradesh High Court Injunction Cannot Be Granted Without Proof of Possession: Allahabad High Court Quashes Relief in Land Dispute Section 197 CrPC | Sanction for Prosecution is a Shield, Not a Sword: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against BIS Officer Landlord is the Best Judge of His Needs: Supreme Court Orders Eviction in Favor of Landowner Vijaya Bank TT Scam | Supreme Court Acquits Jeweller in ₹6.7 Crore Vijaya Bank Fraud Case, Orders Return of 205 Gold Bars Procurement Preference for Small Enterprises is a Legal Mandate, Not a Mere Policy: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of MSMEs Revisional Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked Against Interlocutory Orders of Commercial Courts: Orissa High Court Declares Section 8 Bar Absolute Victim’s Testimony Must Be of Sterling Quality to Be Sole Basis of Conviction: Kerala High Court Reduces Sentence of Pastor Convicted for Repeated Rape of Minor Providing Set-Top Boxes to Subscribers Constitutes Sale”: Karnataka High Court Upholds VAT on Tata Play Limited Mere Registration of FIR Cannot Justify Denial of Passport Renewal: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh 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.  

Similar News