P.L.Karthika v. The State of Tamil Nadu
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 15, 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. In view of the submissions made by the learned counselsappearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on aperusal of the records available, this Court is of the consideredview that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason togrant the reliefs…
- Para 99. Once it is found that there has been a conscious decision toomit the word grandchildren from the prospectus issued by the secondrespondent, for admissions to M.B.B.S/B.D.S courses, for the academicyear 2009-2010, this Court cannot be persuaded to stretch the meaningof the word "children" to…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 16-07-2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition No.12979 of 2009 andM.P.No.1 of 2009P.L.Karthika.. Petitioner. Versus1.The State of Tamil NaduRep. by its Secretary to Government, Health Department.
The Director of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010.
The Secretary, Medical Education, Selection Committee162, Periyar E.V.R.High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010... Respondents. Prayer: Petition filed seeking for a writ of Mandamus, directing therespondents 1 to 3 herein to select and admit the petitioner for thefirst year M.B.B.S course for the academic year 2009-2010 under the"Special Category of Freedom Fighters Quota".For Petitioner : Mr.S.Suresh KumarFor Respondents : Ms.Dakshayani Reddy, GAO R D E RHeard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up forfinal hearing and disposal.3. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, prayingfor a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to selectand admit the petitioner, for the first year M.B.B.S course, for theacademic year 2009-2010, under the Freedom Fighters quota. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
The father of the petitioner has filed the affidavit insupport of the writ petition, for his minor daughter, P.L.Karthika, who had passed the Higher Secondary Examinations, held in the monthof March, 2009. She had obtained 1056 marks out of 1200. She hadapplied for the M.B.B.S. Course, in the general category, as well asunder the special category, reserved for the children of freedomfighters. It has been stated that the petitioner is a granddaughterof M.Sundaram, who was a freedom fighter. Since the name of thepetitioner did not find a place in the merit list, as well as underthe special category, reserved for children of freedom fighters, forthe M.B.B.S course, for the academic year 2009-2010, and as she wasnot called for counselling, the petitioner has preferred the presentwrit petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioneris that the term "Children" is an inclusive term and it would includegrandchildren, as well. Therefore, the petitioner would be entitledto claim a seat for the M.B.B.S course, under the "children offreedom fighters" quota. The learned counsel for the petitioner hadalso stated that even though grandchildren were being considered, under the special category, during the earlier years, for admissionto the M.B.B.S course, the present prospectus for the academic year2009-2010, does not include the word "grandchildren" under thespecial category. It has also been submitted that there would not beany candidate eligible to apply under the special category, since nofreedom fighter would have young children who would be seekingadmission for the M.B.B.S course, at this stage. In order to give aproper meaning and content to the word "children", under the specialcategory, in the prospectus issued by the second respondent, forM.B.B.S/B.D.S admissions, for the academic year 2009-2010, the wordshould be taken to include grandchildren of freedom fighters, aswell. As such, the petitioner would be qualified to apply foradmission to the M.B.B.S course, for the academic year 2009-2010.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents hadsubmitted that the prospectus issued by the second respondent, foradmission to M.B.B.S/B.D.S courses, for the academic year 2009-2010,is very clear in stating that only children of freedom fighters wouldbe considered under the special category. She had also submitted that"children" would not include grandchildren of freedom fighters. Shehad relied on a decision of this Court, in Sarvanan.T.T. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2004(5) CTC 704), wherein, it has been held as follows: "17. It is difficult to accept that the exclusion ofgrandchildren must only be by inadvertance. It is true thatchildren of freedom fighters may not apply for admission inthe medical college because of their age. But the extractfrom the prospectus of this year and last year would showthat this year not only under the caption "Seat Reserved"is the word "grandchildren" removed.
It clearly says thatalong with the application there should be documentaryproof that the candidate "is the children of the freedom https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ fighter". Last year, the candidate was required to showthat he/she is "the grandchildren of the freedom fighter".Appendix I makes it clear that the special category is,"children of freedom fighters". Appendix I of last year'sprospectus read "grandchildren of freedom fighters".Therefore, the respondent intended to exclude thegrandchildren. To the question whether any thought wasapplied to the fact that no child of a freedom fighterwould now apply for admission, the answer may be in thenegative. But on that score, a mandamus cannot begranted......"18. The object of creating reservation for children offreedom fighters is in acknowledgement of the strugglefaced by the children/dependants of freedom fighters incompeting equally with others.
The freedom fighters mighthave been killed, imprisoned, been impoverished and becauseof his/her participation in the struggle, the children mayhave been denied the attention and care given to otherchildren. This is well described in M.Satyanarayana V.State of Karnataka, 1986(2) SCC 512, wherein it was held,"Reservations in favour of sons of political sufferersare considered to be belonging to a special category. Thereis rationale behind it. Those who are political sufferersundergo certain disadvantages and pass on suchdisadvantages to their children. They will be in a worseposition than the children of those who are not politicalsufferers for the purpose of taking adequate education, attention, etc. because their parents might have languishedin any prison or might have been deprived of property. Looked at from that point of view, political sufferershould be an identifiable person who could be recognised assuch on certain rational basis.
It is, therefore, manifestthat a person to be a political sufferer must have sufferedin any one of the five ways stated in sub-clauses (i) to(v) of clause(b)."These reasons cannot apply to grandchildren or greatgrandchildren. Therefore, if the State takes a decision notto extend the benefit under the special category to "grandchildren and other descendants" it cannot be said to beunreasonable. The fact that no applicant falls under thecategory of children cannot advance the petitioner's case. As a consequence, the State is under no obligation to widenthe net nor can a mandamus be issued. As regards the word"children" in the prospectus, it is plain and clear andtherefore, must be understood to mean only children. Indifferent circumstances, children may be construed to meangrandchildren. But in this case, when the word"grandchildren" in the previous prospectus has beenconsciously removed, we cannot given an inclusive meaningto the word. "
A learned Single Judge of this Court, while dealing with asimilar issue, had held, in his order, dated 11.7.2007, in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ H.U.Prashanth Vs. the Government of Tamil Nadu and two others(W.P.No.5851 of 2007), that, for the purpose of interpreting the word"children" it would be dangerous to rely upon the meanings of theword, as found in the dictionaries. As the various dictionaries wouldgive several meanings for the said word, it would depend upon thecontext in which the word is used. The quota of seats reserved forchildren of freedom fighters, in the prospectus for admissions in themedical courses, should be construed in a strict manner, as it is anexception to Article 15 of the Constitution of India. It can only bea horizontal reservation and not a vertical reservation. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the grandchildren of freedom fighterscould be considered under the special category of reservation.
In view of the submissions made by the learned counselsappearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on aperusal of the records available, this Court is of the consideredview that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason togrant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the presentwrit petition. Though the prospectus issued by the second respondent, for admissions to M.B.B.S/B.D.S courses, for the academic year 2009-2010, reserves certain seats for special categories in Governmentcolleges, including seats for children of freedom fighters, it cannotbe held that such a category would include grandchildren of freedomfighters, as well.
Once it is found that there has been a conscious decision toomit the word grandchildren from the prospectus issued by the secondrespondent, for admissions to M.B.B.S/B.D.S courses, for the academicyear 2009-2010, this Court cannot be persuaded to stretch the meaningof the word "children" to include grandchildren of freedom fighters. Since the provision of certain seats for the special categories is anexception to Article 15 of the Constitution of India, it should beconstrued in a strict sense. As held by this Court, in the casescited supra, the phrase "children of freedom fighters" cannot beconstrued to include grandchildren of freedom fighters. In such viewof the matter, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, as it isdevoid of merits. Hence, it stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarcshTo1. The Secretary State of Tamil NaduGovernment, Health Department. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
2. The Director of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010.3.The Secretary, Medical Education, Selection Committee162, Periyar E.V.R.High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010.2 ccs To Mr.S.Sureshkumar, Advocate, SR.316951 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.31104Writ Petition No.12979 of 2009KGK(CO)SRA(14/08/2009)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 15, 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Madras High Court, on 16 Jul 2009. The bench was M JAICHANDRENWRIT.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.