Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Use of ‘Absconding’ in Employment Context Not Defamatory Per Se, But A Privileged Communication Under Exception 7 of Section 499 IPC: Allahabad High Court Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

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