Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4500 of 2002

FACULTY ASSOCIATION OF AIIMS … APPELLANT

             VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …  

RESPONDENTS

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5119 OF 2002

J U D G M E N T

ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI. 1.  When Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2106 of  

2002, filed by the Faculty Association of AIIMS, was  

taken up for consideration, notice thereupon was issued  

by a Bench of Two-Judges and it was stipulated that any  

appointment to be made, after the order was passed in  

accordance with the reservation policy, would only be  

tentative in nature until further orders.  When the  

Appeal was taken up for hearing on 20th February, 2003,  

1

Page 2

along with Civil Appeal No. 5119 of 2002, considering  

the  important  nature  of  the  issues  involved  for  

determination in the said cases, as also the recurring  

nature of the problem, it was thought appropriate that  

the matters be heard by a larger Bench.  Thereafter, on  

12th February, 2004, a Bench of Three-Judges headed by  

the  Chief  Justice  was  of  the  view  that  the  matters  

involved  substantial  questions  of  law  as  to  the  

interpretation of the Constitution and were required to  

be heard by a Bench of Five-Judges.  It is pursuant to  

such  direction  that  the  matter  appeared  before  the  

Bench  of  Five-Judges  on  several  occasions  and  

ultimately they were listed before a Bench of Five-

Judges on 2nd July, 2013.

2. Although the matter is now before a Bench of five  

Judges,  the  terms  of  reference  are  not  very  clear.  

From  what  we  have  been  able  to  gather  from  the  

pleadings and the judgment of the Division Bench of the  

High Court, the question to be considered is whether  

reservation  was  inapplicable  to  specialty  and  super-

specialty faculty posts in the All India Institute of  

2

Page 3

Medical Sciences, hereinafter referred to as “AIIMS”.  

Faced with the decisions of this Court in the case of  

Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India & Ors. [(1992) Supp.  

(3) SCC 215]; Jagdish Saran & Ors. Vs. Union of India &  

Ors. [(1980) 2 SCR 831]; and Dr. Pradeep Jain etc. Vs.  

Union of India & Ors. etc. [(1984) 3 SCR 942], wherein  

reservation  in  admission  to  specialty  and  super-

specialty courses was disallowed, the Division Bench of  

the High Court confined itself to the limited issue,  

namely, whether reservation policy was inapplicable for  

making appointments to the entry level faculty post of  

Assistant Professor and to super specialty posts and  

also  whether  the  resolutions  adopted  by  AIIMS  on  

11.1.1983 and 27.5.1994 were liable to be struck down.

3. Appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. P.P. Rao, learned  

Senior Advocate, firstly referred to the statement of  

objects  and  reasons  of  the  All  India  Institute  of  

Medical Sciences Act, 1956, which provides as follows :

“For  improving  professional  competence  among  medical practitioners, it is necessary to place a  high  standard  of  medical  education,  both  post- graduate  and  under-graduate,  before  all  medical  colleges  and  other  allied  institutions  in  the  

3

Page 4

country.  Similarly, for the promotion of medical  research it is necessary that the country should  attain  self-sufficiency  in  post-graduate  medical  education.  These objectives are hardly capable of  realisation unless facilities of a very high order  for  both  undergraduate  and  post-graduate  medical  education and research are provided by a central  authority in one place.  The Bill seeks to achieve  these ends by the establishment in New Delhi of an  institution  under  the  name  of  the  All-India  Institute of Medical Sciences.  The Institute will  develop patterns of teaching in under-graduate and  post-graduate medical education in all its branches  so as  to demonstrate  a high  standard of  medical  education to all medical colleges and other allied  institutions,  will  provide  facilities  of  a  high  order for training of personnel in all important  branches of health activities and also for medical  research  in  its  various  aspects.   The  Institute  will  have  the  power  to  grant  medical  degrees,  diplomas  and  other  academic  distinctions  which  would be recognised medical degrees for the purpose  of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1933.”   

4. Mr. Rao also referred to Section 5 of the Act which  

declared the institute to be an institution of national  

importance.  As pointed out by Mr. Rao, Section 13 of  

the  Act  is  in  line  with  the  objects  for  which  the  

institute was created and Section 14 deals with the  

functions  of  the  institute  relating  to  the  academic  

aspects  of  the  institutes's  functions  as  a  teaching  

institute.   

5. Mr. Rao submitted that the question had earlier been  

4

Page 5

gone  into  and  considered  in  Indra  Sawhney's   case  

(supra),  wherein  while  considering  the  question  of  

reservation the Bench also took into consideration the  

provisions of Article 335 of the Constitution regarding  

the claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to  

services  and  posts.   Referring  to  the  concurring  

Judgment of Jeevan Reddy, J., learned counsel referred  

to  Paragraphs  838  and  839   in  particular  and  the  

observations made therein.  Since Paragraph 838 places  

in focus the view of the Nine-Judge Bench, the same is  

extracted hereinbelow:

“838. While on Article 335, we are of the opinion  that there are certain services and positions where  either on account of the nature of duties attached  to them or the level (in the hierarchy) at which  they obtain, merit as explained hereinabove, alone  counts.   In  such  situations,  it  may  not  be  advisable  to  provide  for  reservations.   For  example,  technical  posts  in  research  and  development  organisations/departments/  institutions,  in  specialities  and  super- specialities  in  medicine,  engineering  and  other  such courses in physical sciences and mathematics,  in  defence  services  and  in  the  establishments  connected  therewith.   Similarly,  in  the  case  of  posts at the higher echelons e.g., Professors (in  Education),  Pilots  in  Indian  Airlines  and  Air  India, Scientists and Technicians in nuclear and  space application, provision for reservation would  not be advisable.”     

5

Page 6

6. In  fact,  both  in  Paragraphs  838  and  839,  while  

specifying areas, where it may not be advisable to put  

reservation, the learned Judge has included posts in  

research  and  development  organisations/  departments  

/institutions, in specialties and super-specialties in  

medicine.   The  same  observation  is  repeated  in  

Paragraph 839, wherein, categorically it was held that  

the Bench was of the opinion that in certain services  

and in respect of certain posts, application of the  

rule of reservation may not be advisable and once again  

included  as  the  fourth  item  –  posts  in  super-

specialties  in  medicine,  engineering  and  other  

scientific and technical subjects.  Mr. Rao submitted  

that as far as medicine is concerned “super-specialty”  

means “post doctoral courses”.    

7. Mr.  Rao  submitted  that  in  the  instant  case,  

reservation was being provided for up to the doctoral  

stage,  but  at  the  stage  of  recruitment  for  a  post  

doctoral courses and research at the initial stage of  

candidates  were  required  to  sit  for  a  written  

examination  and  those  who  are  successful,  were,  

6

Page 7

thereafter, recruited in the different disciplines of  

teaching.  Mr. Rao submitted that the problem begins at  

that  stage  when  posts  are  thereafter,  reserved  in  

respect of different courses.  Mr. Rao submitted that  

once  a  candidate  qualified  for  recruitment  in  the  

different posts of faculty beginning from the post of  

Assistant Professor onward, there was no further logic  

in thereafter reserving posts for candidates from the  

Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes  and  OBC  

communities.  Mr. Rao submitted that at that level of  

super-specialty, the question of reservation ought not  

to arise as was observed by the Nine-Judge Bench in  

Indra Sawhney's case (supra).

8. Mr. Rao submitted that while Article 16(4) empowers  

the  State  in  making  provisions  for  reservation  of  

appointments or posts in favour of any backward class  

of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, was not  

adequately represented in the services under the State,  

the same would have to be read and understood in the  

manner indicated in Indra Sawhney's case (supra).  The  

learned Senior counsel submitted that although definite  

7

Page 8

directions have not been given in Paragraphs 838 and  

839 of the judgment in  Indra Sawhney's case (supra),  

the observations made therein were guidelines for the  

Government and institutions, such as AIIMS, to follow,  

in order to provide the best candidates available with  

the opportunity of going in for super-specialties which  

entail higher degree of skill and where no compromise  

in quality and expertise could be entertained.      

9. In  support  of  his  aforesaid  submissions,  Mr.  Rao  

also referred to the decision of a Three-Judge Bench in  

Dr. Jagadish Saran & Ors. Vs. Union of India [(1980) 2  

SCC 768], wherein in Paragraphs 21, 22 and 23, Krishna  

Iyer, J., writing the judgment, spoke about reservation  

and what he referred as wholesale banishment of proven  

ability to open up, hopefully, some dalit talent, total  

sacrifice of excellence at the altar of equalisation –  

when the Constitution mandates for every one equality  

before and equal protection of the law – may be fatal  

folly, self-defeating educational technology and anti-

national if made a routine rule of State Policy.  His  

Lordship  further  observed  that  a  fair  preference,  a  

8

Page 9

reasonable reservation, a just adjustment of the prior  

needs and real potential of the weak with the partial  

recognition of the presence of competitive merit – such  

is the dynamics of social justice with animates the  

three egalitarian articles of the Constitution.  The  

learned Judge goes on to observe in Paragraph 23 that  

flowing from the same stream of equalism is another  

limitation.  The basic medical needs of a region or the  

preferential  push  justified  for  a  handicapped  group  

cannot  prevail  in  the  same  measure  at  the  highest  

scales of specialty where the best skill or talent,  

must  be  handpicked  by  selecting  according  to  

capability.  The learned Judge went on to restrict the  

Indian  Medical  Council's  recommendations  which  

indicated  that  students  of  post-graduate  courses  

therein should be selected strictly on merit, judged on  

the  basis  of  academic  record  in  the  undergraduate  

course.   

10. The next decision referred to by Mr. Rao is a short  

judgment in the case of Dr. Fazal Ghafoor Vs. Union of  

India  &  Ors. [(1988)  Supp.  SCC  794],  which  was  a  

9

Page 10

decision by two Judges, wherein, reliance was placed on  

the decision of this Court in the case of Dr. Pradeep  

Jain & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. [(1984) 3 SCC  

654], wherein, a Three-Judge Bench of this Court, while  

considering the question of reservation in the light of  

the aspirations of the citizens of India, as contained  

in  the  Preamble  to  the  Constitution,  observed  that  

while  reservation  was  acceptable  with  regard  to  the  

undergraduate  course,  different  considerations  will  

have  to  prevail  when  it  came  to  the  question  of  

reservation based on residents’ requirement within the  

State or on institutional preference for admission to  

the post-graduate courses, such as MD, MS and the like.  

Following  the  decision  in  Dr.  Jagadish  Saran's  case  

(supra), Their Lordship observed that “there we cannot  

allow  excellence  to  be  compromised  by  any  other  

consideration because that would be detrimental to the  

interest of the nation.  Their Lordships also observed  

that if equality of opportunity for every other person  

in the country is the constitutional guarantee, merit  

must be the test when choosing the best.     

10

Page 11

11. Mr. Rao lastly referred to the Constitution Bench  

decision of this Court in  Dr. Preeti Srivastava Vs.  

State of M.P. [(1999) 7 SCC 120], which was a writ  

petition heard along with several other writ petitions  

on various aspects of reservation.  Mr. Rao pointed out  

that  the  Constitution  Bench  also  referred  to  the  

decision in  Dr. Pradeep Jain’s case (supra) and also  

Dr.  Jagadish  Saran’s  case  (supra),  referred  to  

hereinbefore,  in  expressing  its  concurrence  with  the  

views  expressed  therein.   In  Paragraph  25  of  the  

judgment,  Sujata  V.  Manohar,  J.,  speaking  for  the  

Constitution  Bench,  observed  that  the  specialty  and  

super-specialty courses in medicine also entailed on-

hand experience of treating or operating on patients in  

the  attached  teaching  hospitals.   Those  undergoing  

these programmes are expected to occupy posts in the  

teaching hospitals or discharge duties attached to such  

posts.  The elements of Article 335, therefore, colour  

the selection of candidates for these course and the  

rules  framed  for  this  purpose.   Consequently,  in  

Paragraph  26,  it  was  further  observed  that  in  the  

premises the special provisions for SC/ST candidates –  

11

Page 12

whether reservations or lower qualifying marks – at the  

specialty  level  have  to  be  minimal.   There  cannot,  

however, be any such special provisions at the level of  

super-specialties.  In keeping with its findings the  

Constitution  Bench  ultimately  held  that  since  no  

relaxation is permissible at the highest levels in the  

medical  institutions,  the  Petitioners  therein  were  

right when they contended that the reservations made  

for  the  Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes  

candidates for admission to DM and MCH courses, which  

are super-specialty courses, in not consistent with the  

constitutional mandate under Articles 15(4) and 16(4),  

and that Regulation 27 of the Post Graduate Institute  

of  Medical  Education  and  Research,  Chandigarh  

Regulations, 1967, would not apply at the levels of  

admissions to DM and MCH courses.  

12. Mr.  Rao  submitted  that  the  Health  Survey  and  

Development  Committee,  popularly  known  as  the  Bhore  

Committee, in its report published in 1946 recommended  

the  establishment  of  a  national  medical  centre  at  

Delhi,  which  would  concentrate  on  training,  well-

12

Page 13

qualified teachers and research workers in order that a  

steady stream of those could be maintained to meet the  

needs  of  the  rapidly  expanding  health  activities  

throughout the country.  It seems that pursuant to the  

said report and after attainment of Independence, the  

Union  Ministry  of  Health  proceeded  to  implement  the  

aforesaid idea resulting in the enactment of the All  

India Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956, with the  

All  India  Institute  of  Medical  Sciences  as  an  

autonomous  institution  of  national  importance  and  

defined its objectives and functions.  Various other  

decisions, including the decisions in  Saurabh Chaudri  

and Others Vs. Union of India and Others [(2003) 11 SCC  

146] and  T.M.A. Pai Foundation Vs.  State of Karnataka  

[(2002) 8 SCC 481] were referred to by Mr. Rao to urge  

that the observations made in Indra Sawhney's  case as  

well  as  in  Preeti  Srivastava’s  case  were  binding,  

though  in  the  nature  of  observations  made  in  the  

judgments.  Mr. Rao referred to the decision of this  

Court in  Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad-Deccan  

Vs.  Vazir  Sultan  and  Sons [1959  Supp  (2)  SCR  375],  

wherein a Bench of Three-Judges examined the doctrine  

13

Page 14

of “obiter dicta” and arrived at a finding that even  

obiter at times has the force of law declared by the  

Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution.  

Mr. Rao ended on the note that the introduction of the  

concept of reservation in specialty and super-specialty  

subjects or for the appointment of faculty in AIIMS,  

would defeat the very purpose for which the institute  

was  established.   Mr.  Rao  also  submitted  that  if  

excellence was to be achieved at the level of super-

specialty disciplines, no compromise could be made in  

either imparting such education or recruiting persons  

who would impart such education at such level.   

13. Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, learned Senior Advocate, who  

appeared in Civil Appeal No. 5119 of 2002, submitted  

that the AIIMS Act did not empower the Governing Body  

to impose reservation at any stage, much less at the  

stage of super-specialty.  Referring to the affidavit  

filed by the Director of AIIMS, Dr. Dhawan submitted  

that the decision of the High Court was contrary to the  

decision of this Court in Indra Sawhney's case and also  

in M. Nagaraj and Others Vs. Union of India and Others  

14

Page 15

[(2006) 8 SCC 212] where it was held that there should  

be no reservation at the super-specialty stage, and, in  

any  event,  the  same  would  have  to  be  based  on  

quantifiable data.  Mr. Rao submitted that proportional  

representation and not adequacy, as understood in Indra  

Sawhney’s case or even in  M. Nagaraj’s case, has been  

resorted to in the instant case in the teeth of the  

said two cases.  While making reference to the concept  

of creamy layer, Dr. Dhawan urged that “equality” does  

not mean that reservation had to be applied in each and  

every case to maintain such equality, for example, the  

creamy layer concept as was considered by this Court in  

E.V. Chinnaiah Vs.  State of A.P. and Others [(2005) 1  

SCC 394].

14. Appearing  for  the  Institute,  Mr.  Mehmood  Pracha,  

learned  Advocate  contended  that  people  from  Backward  

classes  and  the  Scheduled  Castes  and  the  Scheduled  

Tribes  were  often  discriminated  against  and  even  in  

spite  of  having  excellent  qualities,  they  were  not  

provided with sufficient opportunities to come up to  

the standards, as contemplated by the various medical  

15

Page 16

colleges and, in particular, the All India Institute of  

Medical Sciences, which is an institution of national  

importance.  Mr. Pracha urged that although reservation  

at  all  different  levels  of  the  Institute  had  been  

introduced, for quite some time, there is no available  

data to indicate that there has been any deterioration  

in the quality of medical services being provided in  

AIIMS.  On the other hand, AIIMS was one of the most  

sought after medical institute, not only for promotion  

and research work, but also for the purpose of medical  

education.  Taking a leaf out of Hindu mythology, Mr.  

Pracha drew an analogy from the story of Eklavya and  

Arjun in the Mahabharta.  While Arjun belonged to the  

princely class, Eklavya was a tribal boy, who without  

actual training or guidance from any teacher, by his  

own  efforts,  excelled  in  the  art  of  archery.   The  

famous Dronacharya was Arjun’s teacher in archery and  

Eklavya had acquired the skills that he had by merely  

watching Dronacharya guiding Arjun.  However, when it  

came to an archery competition, Dronacharya, who was  

more or less certain that, if allowed an opportunity,  

Eklavya  would  possibly  beat  Arjun,  requested  Eklavya  

16

Page 17

that if he really loved and respected him, he should  

give his right thumb as  gurudakshina to his master.  

Eklavya dutifully obeyed the person he had chosen as  

his master and was thus prevented from competing in the  

competition which Arjun won.  Mr. Pracha submitted that  

simply because Eklavya was a tribal boy he was denied  

the opportunity of competing with Arjun, despite his  

brilliance and excellence.  Mr. Pracha submitted that  

there are many more Eklavyas in today’s society, who,  

if not suppressed and given a chance, would possibly  

even outshine those belonging to the higher echelons of  

Society.

15. Mr. Pracha strongly supported the concept of  

reservation  at  all  stages,  including  at  the  super-

specialty stage.  He urged that at the entry level for  

recruitment  to  the  faculty  posts,  which  were  all  

treated as super-specialty disciplines after the Post  

Graduate course, a member of the Backward Classes had  

to  sit  for  an  examination  with  others  without  any  

separate weightage given for reservation.  It is only  

after having passed the written examination along with  

17

Page 18

other candidates, was a member of the Backward Classes  

appointed  in  a  teaching  post  on  the  basis  of  

reservation.  Mr. Pracha submitted that this was done  

only with the intention of giving such a candidate an  

opportunity of reaching the level of his other fellow  

faculty members.  Mr. Pracha submitted that a little  

support was intended to help people from the Backward  

communities to make their presence felt in academia, so  

as to encourage others similarly situated.  Mr. Pracha  

also  relied  on  the  decision  of  this  Court  in  Indra  

Sawhney’s  case,  in  support  of  his  contention  that  

members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes  

and  Other  Backward  Classes  were  not  adequately  

represented and for the said purpose a certain amount  

of reservation was necessary so that they could compete  

with  others  and  excel  in  academics.   Strongly  

supporting  the  policy  adopted  by  the  Institute,  Mr.  

Pracha submitted that the Civil Appeal filed by the  

Faculty  of  Association  of  AIIMS  was  liable  to  be  

dismissed.

16. Appearing for the Union of India, the learned  

18

Page 19

Solicitor General repeated the submissions made by Mr.  

Pracha and added that the State had a constitutional  

duty to empower certain sections of society who needed  

help  to  uplift  themselves  from  their  particular  

situations.   The  learned  Solicitor  General  submitted  

that Article 46 of the Constitution, though a Directive  

Principle, was in the nature of a guideline for good  

governance  to  the  Government  of  the  day.   The  said  

Article was intended to help the depressed classes, who  

otherwise  had  little  opportunity  of  raising  their  

standards.   Faced  with  the  question  as  to  when  

initially  the  Central  Government  had  opposed  the  

doctrine of reservation on the ground of excellence in  

education,  why  was  it  necessary  in  1972  to  take  a  

different stand and come out in support of reservation,  

even in super-specialty courses, the learned Solicitor  

General  urged  that  the  policy  was  based  not  on  the  

question of adequacy, but as a measure of empowerment  

for  the  Backward  Classes.   While  referring  to  the  

decision in M. Nagaraj’s case, which has been referred  

to by the other learned counsel, the learned Solicitor  

General contended that with the introduction of Article  

19

Page 20

16(4A) in the Constitution, the decision arrived at in  

M. Nagaraj’s case, would have to be read differently.  

He,  however,  also  urged  that  there  was  no  

constitutional prohibition to impose reservation, if it  

was felt necessary to benefit the Backward Classes, who  

had little or no support to help them improve their  

lot.  Referring to the decisions of this Court in Dr.  

Jagadish  Saran's  case  and  Dr.  Pradeep  Jain’s  case,  

which have been referred to hereinabove, the learned  

Solicitor General urged that the direction given in Dr.  

Pradeep Jain’s case that reservation should not exceed  

70%, did not take into consideration Article 16(4A) of  

the Constitution, while giving such directions.        

17. Although, the matter has been argued at some length,  

the  main  issue  raised  regarding  reservation  at  the  

super-specialty  level  has  already  been  considered  in  

Indra Sawhney’s case (supra) by a Nine-Judge Bench of  

this Court. Having regard to such decision, we are not  

inclined to take any view other than the view expressed  

by the Nine-Judge Bench on the issue.  Apart from the  

decisions  rendered  by  this  Court  in  Dr.  Jagadish  

20

Page 21

Saran's  case  (supra)  and  Dr.  Pradeep  Jain’s  case  

(supra), the issue also fell for considerate in Preeti  

Srivastava’s case (supra) which was also decided by a  

Bench of Five Judges.  While in  Dr. Jagadish Saran's  

case (supra) and in Dr. Pradeep Jain’s case (supra) it  

was  categorically  held  that  there  could  be  no  

compromise with merit at the super specialty stage, the  

same  sentiments  were  also  expressed  in  Preeti  

Srivastava’s  case  (supra)  as  well.  In  Preeti  

Srivastava’s case (supra), the Constitution Bench had  

an  occasion  to  consider  Regulation  27  of  the  Post  

Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research,  

Chandigarh Regulations, 1967, whereby 20% of seats in  

every  course  of  study  in  the  Institute  was  to  be  

reserved  for  candidates  belonging  to  the  Scheduled  

Castes,  Scheduled  Tribes  or  other  categories  of  

persons, in accordance with the general rules of the  

Central Government promulgated from time to time.  The  

Constitution  Bench  came  to  the  conclusion  that  

Regulation 27 could not have any application at the  

highest level of super specialty as this would defeat  

the very object of imparting the best possible training  

21

Page 22

to  selected  meritorious  candidates,  who  could  

contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the field  

of  medical  research  and  its  applications.    Their  

Lordships ultimately went on to hold that there could  

not be any type of relaxation at the super specialty  

level.   

18. In paragraph 836 of the judgment in Indra Sawhney’s  

case (supra), it was observed that while the relevance  

and  significance  of  merit  at  the  stage  of  initial  

recruitment  cannot  be  ignored,  it  cannot  also  be  

ignored  that  the  same  idea  of  reservation  implies  

selection of a less meritorious person. It was also  

observed that at the same time such a price would have  

to  be  paid  if  the  constitutional  promise  of  social  

justice was to be redeemed.  However, after making such  

suggestions, a note of caution was introduced in the  

very next paragraph in the light of Article 15 of the  

Constitution.  A distinction was, however, made with  

regard to the provisions of Article 16 and it was held  

that Article 335 would be relevant and it would not be  

permissible not to prescribe any minimum standard at  

22

Page 23

all.  Of course, the said observation was made in the  

context of admission to medical colleges and reference  

was also made to the decision in  State of M.P. Vs.  

Nivedita Jain [(1981) 4 SCC 296], where admission to  

medical courses was regulated by an entrance test.  It  

was held that in the matter of appointment of medical  

officers,  the  Government  or  the  Public  Service  

Commission  would  not  be  entitled  to  say  that  there  

would  not  be  minimum  qualifying  marks  for  Scheduled  

Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates while prescribing a  

minimum for others. In the very next paragraph, the  

Nine-Judge  Bench  while  discussing  the  provisions  of  

Article  335  also  observed  that  there  were  certain  

services  and  posts  where  either  on  account  of  the  

nature of duties attached to them or the level in the  

hierarchy at which they stood, merit alone counts.  In  

such situations, it cannot be advised to provide for  

reservations.  In the paragraph following, the position  

was made even more clear when Their Lordships observed  

that they were of the opinion that in certain services  

in respect of certain posts, application of rule of  

reservation may not be advisable in regard to various  

23

Page 24

technical posts including posts in super specialty in  

medicine,  engineering  and  other  scientific  and  

technical posts.   

19. We cannot take a different view, even though it has  

been  suggested  that  such  an  observation  was  not  

binding, being obiter in nature.   We cannot ascribe to  

such  a  view  since  the  very  concept  of  reservation  

implies mediocrity and we will have to take note of the  

caution  indicated  in  Indra  Sawhney's  case.   While  

reiterating the views expressed by the Nine-Judge Bench  

in  Indra  Sawhney’s case, we dispose of the two Civil  

Appeals in the light of the said views, which were also  

expressed  in  Dr.  Jagadish  Saran's  case,  Dr.  Pradeep  

Jain's case, Dr. Preeti Srivastava's case.  We impress  

upon  the  Central  and  State  Governments  to  take  

appropriate  steps  in  accordance  with  the  views  

expressed in Indra Sawhney's case and in this case, as  

also the other decisions referred to above, keeping in  

mind the provisions of Article 335 of the Constitution.  

20. There will be no order as to costs.  

24

Page 25

…………………………………………………CJI.           (ALTAMAS KABIR)

………………………………………………………J.    (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR)

………………………………………………………J.        (RANJAN GOGOI)

………………………………………………………J.                          (M.Y. EQBAL)

………………………………………………………J.        (VIKRAMAJIT SEN)

New Delhi Dated: July 18, 2013.   

25