Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

MS. SWATI GUPTA versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Decided
2 February 1995
Judges listed
R.M. SAHAI, S.C. SEN (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[1995] 1 S.C.R. 827 · 1995 INSC 94
Also cited as
  • (1995) 2 SCC 560 (8 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

The petitioner who appeared for the Combined Pre-Medical Test of 1994 held in the State of U.P. Challenged a circular issued by the Lucknow University based on a letter dated 17th May 1994 issued by the Secretary, Government of U.P. It was claimed that reservation of 65% general seats in the medical colleges was violative of the constitutional guarantee under Articles 16,14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the ratio laid down by this • Court in Indira Sawhney & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1992] Supp. 3 SCC 217. After the petition was filed the Government issued another notification on 17.12.1994 clarifying its stand in respect of reservations. The relevant portions of it are extracted below :

p. 828, margin D

"In continuation of G.O. No. 2697/Sek-14/v- 94/111/93, dated 17.5.94, on the above subject, I am directed to say, clarifying the Govt, policy that horizontal reservation be granted in all medical colleges on total seats of all the courses to be filled through combined Pre medical test (C.P.M.T.) 1994 as given below: 1. Real dependents of freedom fighters 05 percent 2. Sons/daughtt;rs of deceased/disabled soldiers 02 percent 3. Physically handicapped candidates 02 percent 4. Candidates belonging to hill areas 03 percent 5. Candidates belonging to Uttaranchal areas 03 percent 2. The above reservation would be 'horizontal' and the candidates of the above categories, selected on the basis of merit, would be kept under the categories of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Other Backward Classes/General to which they belong. For example, if a candidate dependent on a Freedom Fighter selected on the basis of reser.vation, belongs to the Scheduled Caste, he will be adjusted against the seats reserved for scheduled caste. Similarly, if a physically handicapped candidate selected on the basis of reservation belongs to other backward class or general category, he would be adjusted against the seats reserved for other backward classes or general category. 3. I am also directed to say that "vertical" reservation shall be granted in all medical colleges on total seats of all courses to be filled through C.P.M._T. 1994 as given below: "Out of the total seats being filled up through the C.P.M.T. 1994, 35 % seats are reserved for the candidates belonging to the general category and remaining 65% seats shall be for the reserved categories which are limited to the percentage mentioned against

pp. 828–829, margin F

the following categories of the candidate : Reserved Categories Percentage of the reserved seats 1. Backward Classes 27% (of them 30% reserved for ladies)

p. 829, margin G

2. _Hilly area (of them 30 per cent reserved for 3%

p. 830, margin A

ladies.) 3. Utrakhand Area 3% (30% reserved for ladies) 4. Scheduled Caste 21% (30% reserved for ladies) 5. Schedule Tribes 2% (30% reserved for ladies ) 6. Actual dependents (30% reserved for ladies) of the freedom 5% fighters 7. Daughter/sons of (30% reserved for ladies) soldiers who became

p. 830, margin A

2% handicapped or killed in action/war.

p. 830, margin C

8. For handicapped (30% reserved for ladies.)

p. 830, margin C

2% candidates

p. 830, margin C

65% The remaining seats will be of the General category in which 30%

p. 830, margin D

reservation will be for the ladies."

p. 830, margin D

Reservation of 65% resulting in reducing the general category to 35% was undoubtedly violative of Article 16. Further by reserving 30% of the general seats for ladies the general category shrinked to 5% But these glaring infirmities have been rectified by the amended circular. Reservation of 30% for ladies has now been confined to paragraph (3) of the amended circular. Dr. Dhawan, the learned senior counsel appearing fqr the State clarified that he has instructions to make a statement on the amended circular that now there is no reservation for ladies in the general category.

p. 830, margin D

Similarly, the other defect in the circular reserving 35% seats for general category has been removed. The vertical reservation is now 50% for general category and 50% for scheduled caste, scheduled tribes and backward classes: Reservation of 15% for various categories mentioned in the earlier circular which reduced the general categGry to 35% due to vertical reservation has now been made horizontal in the amended circular extending it to all seats. The reservation is no more in general category. The amended circular divides all the seats in C.P.M.T. into two categoriesone, general and other reserved. Both have been allocated 50%. Paragraph 2 of the circular explains that candidlltes who are selected on merit and happen to be of the category mentioned in Paragraph 1 would be liable to be adjusted in general or reserved category depending on to which category they belong, such reservation is not contrary to what was said by this Court in Indira Sawhney (supra). Whether the reservation for such persons should have been made or not was not challenged, therefore, this Court is not required to examine it.

pp. 830–831, margin F

In the result this petition is disposed of by directing that in view of the circular issued by the Government on 17.12.1994 clarified by paragraph (2) the grievance of the petitioner cannot be said to survive. The interim order passed by this Court staying the declaration of results .is discharged. A.G. Petition disposed of.

p. 831, margin B