MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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