LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Friday, August 19, 2011

important question relating to the implementation of the 27% reservation for other backward classes (for short `OBCs') in Central Educational Institutions under the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 (Act No.5 of 2007) (for short `CEI Act'). The question relates to the meaning of the words "cut-off marks" used in the clarificatory order dated 14.10.2008 in P.V. Indiresan & Ors. v. Union of India - (2009) 7 SCC 300, in regard to the decision of the 2 Constitution Bench in Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India - (2008) 6 SCC 1.


                                                                              Reportable

                     IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


                      CIVIL APPELALTE JURISDICTION


                       CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7084 OF 2011

                     [Arising out of SLP [C] No.27965/2010]




P.V. Indiresan                                                      ... Appellant


Vs.


Union of India & Ors.                                               ... Respondents





                                  J U D G M E N T




R.V.RAVEENDRAN, J.




       Leave granted.


2.     This   appeal   raises   a   short   but   important   question   relating   to   the


implementation of the 27% reservation for other backward classes (for short


`OBCs')   in   Central   Educational   Institutions   under   the   Central   Educational


Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 (Act No.5 of 2007) (for


short `CEI Act'). The question relates to the meaning of the words "cut-off


marks" used in the clarificatory order dated 14.10.2008 in P.V. Indiresan &


Ors. v. Union of India  - (2009) 7 SCC 300, in regard to the decision of the


                                                     2



Constitution Bench in  Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India  - (2008) 6


SCC 1.




Background




3.     The   constitutional   validity   of   the   Constitution   (Ninety-third


Amendment) Act, 2005 as also the constitutional validity of CEI Act were


considered and upheld by a Constitution Bench of this Court on 10.4.2008


reported   in  Ashoka   Kumar   Thakur   vs.   Union   of   India  (for   short   `A.K.


Thakur'). Four separate opinions were rendered in the said decision by the


learned   Chief   Justice   of   India,   Pasayat   J.   (for   himself   and   Thakker   J),


Raveendran J. (one of us) and Bhandari J. On the basis of the four opinions,


the   Constitution   Bench   formulated   the   following   common   order   on   which


there was unanimity :-




       "668. The Constitution (Ninety-third Amendment) Act, 2005, is valid and

       does not violate the "basic structure" of the Constitution so far as it relates

       to   the   State-maintained   institutions   and   aided   educational   institutions.

       Question   whether  the   Constitution   (Ninety-third  Amendment)  Act,   2005

       would   be   constitutionally   valid   or   not   so   far   as   "private   unaided"

       educational institutions are concerned, is not considered and left open to

       be   decided   in   an   appropriate   case.   Bhandari,   J.   in   his   opinion,   has,

       however, considered the issue and has held that the Constitution (Ninety-

       third Amendment) Act, 2005, is not constitutionally valid so far as private

       unaided educational institutions are concerned.


       669.   Act   5   of   2007   is   constitutionally   valid   subject   to   the   definition   of

       "Other Backward Classes" in Section 2(g) of Act 5 of 2007 being clarified

       as   follows:   If   the   determination   of   "Other   Backward   Classes"   by   the


                                                   3



       Central   Government   is   with   reference   to   a   caste,   it   shall   exclude   the

       "creamy layer" among such caste.


       670. Quantum of reservation of 27% of seats to Other Backward Classes

       in the educational institutions provided in the Act is not illegal.


       671. Act 5 of 2007 is not invalid for the reason that there is no time-limit

       prescribed for its operation but majority of the Judges are of the view that

       the review should be made as to the need for continuance of reservation at

       the end of 5 years.




4.     The  petitioner  herein  made  an application  in  A.  K. Thakur   alleging


that   some   central   educational   institutions   were   interpreting   the   decision


contrary   to   the   law   laid   down   therein   and   sought   the   following


directions/clarifications :




(a)    that the limit of cut-off marks for admission of students in the

       OBC quota in Central  Educational  Institutions  be a maximum

       10 marks below the cut-off for the general category;


(b)    that all vacant  seats in the reserved quota after  the seats have

       been   filled   in   accordance   with   (a)   above   shall   automatically

       revert to the general category;




5.     The   said   application   was  heard   and   disposed   of  by   the   Constitution


Bench   by   the   following   Order   dated   14.10.2008   (record   of   proceedings


reported in P V Indiresan Vs. Union of India - 2009 (7) SCC 300) :




       "1.      The applicants have prayed for two reliefs in this application. This

       application   is   an   offshoot   of   the   judgment   passed   by   the   Constitution

       Bench of this Court on 10.4.2008.


                                                           4



            2.    A question had been raised in this application as to  what should be

                  the  extent of cut-off marks for admission of students of OBCs in

                  the   Central   Educational   Institutions.   Having   heard   the   learned

                  Solicitor   General   of   India   and   learned   Senior   Counsel   on   both   the

                  sides and also having regard to the observations made in the judgments

                  pronounced by this Court, we make it clear that the maximum cut-off

                  marks   for   OBCs   be   10%   below   the   cut-off   marks   of   general

                  category candidates.


      3.    We are told that in many of the Central Educational Institutions the seats

            which  are to be  filled  up by OBC  candidates  are still  remaining  vacant.

            These   institutions   may   endeavour   to   fill   up   these   vacant   seats   by   other

            eligible   students   at   the   earliest   i.e   at   least   by   the   end   of   October   2008

            observing inter se merit of the candidates. All other rules and regulations

            regarding   admissions   shall   be   strictly   followed.   The   application   is

            disposed of accordingly."

                                                                                    (emphasis supplied)





The   Government   of   India   by   official   memorandum   dated   17.10.2008


directed that the said order dated 14.10.2008 be implemented by the Central


Educational   Institutions   by   ensuring   that   the   maximum   cut-off   marks   of


OBCs   are   not   kept   lower   than   10%   from   the   cut-off   marks   for   general


category candidates as directed by this Court.





6.          The   Jawaharlal   Nehru   University   (for   short   `JNU'),   second


respondent herein, interpreted the said order of this Court dated 14.10.2008


to mean  that the minimum  marks  for admission  to be secured  by an OBC


candidate   should   not   be   less   than   the   marks   secured   by   the   last   student


admitted under general category less 10%. The admissions for 2008-09 and


2009-10 were done on that basis. As a result, it would appear considerable


                                              5



number of OBC seats got reverted to general category for non-availability of


eligible   OBC   students   with   the   required   marks.   Therefore,   the   standing


committee   on   admissions   of   JNU,   at   its   meeting   held   on   10.6.2010,


considered the ways  and means  to fulfill  27% quota for OBC students  for


2010-11. The Committee noted the difference between eligibility, qualifying


marks and cut-off marks as under:


       "Eligibility  for   applying   for   admission   refers   to   the   pre-

       requisite   of   the   last   qualifying   examination   such   as   school

       leaving, graduation, etc. [Eg. : for admission to MA course, the

       applicant should have secured a minimum of 50% marks in the

       BA Course].


       Qualifying marks refer to the minimum marks in the entrance

       examination   decided   by   the   University   in   advance   which   it

       deems   fit   to   preserve   the   academic   standards.   [Eg.:   For

       admission, the candidate possessing eligibility, should secure a

       minimum of 30% in the entrance examination].


       Cut-off  marks   for   the   merit   list   are   decided   on   the   basis   of

       number   of   seats   available   in   each   programme/division,   in   the

       merit list prepared of all candidates having obtained equal to or

       above   qualifying   marks.   [Eg.:   The   marks   secured   by   the

       candidate  allotted/admitted  to the  last  of  the General   category

       seats, becomes the cut-off marks for general category]."





As   there   was   some   divergence   in   views   as   to   whether   the   procedure


followed   in   2008-09   and   2009-10   should   be   continued,   the   following   two


proposals were placed before the Deans Committee:


                                                     6



         (i)      The current policy and procedure to consider the cut-off as per

                  the   definition   given   above   and   to   provide   for   OBC   category

                  (creamy   layer   excluded)   a   maximum   relaxation   of   10%   below

                  the   cut-off   marks   arrived   for   unreserved   category   candidates.

                  However, in accordance with the Ashok Kumar Thakur judgment

                  after   giving   maximum   possible   relaxation,   wherever   the   non-

                  creamy   layer   OBC   candidates   fail   to   fill   the   reservation,   the

                  remaining seats would revert to general category students.

                                               Or


         (ii)     To   consider   the   minimum   qualifying   marks   in   the   entrance

                  examination   approval   by  it   as   the   cut-off  to   provide   maximum

                  relaxation   of   10%   to   OBC   candidates   (creamy   layer   excluded)

                  below the cut-off of general candidates as per the interpretation

                  of the Supreme Court judgment by fixing cut-off in advance for

                  admission   in   various   programmes   of   study   to   OBC   candidates

                  (creamy   layer   excluded)   to   be   implemented   in   this   year,   i.e.

                  2010-11   admissions.   The   merit   list   will   be   drawn   as   per   the

                  admission   policy   of   the   University   and   approval   intake   and

                  offers.   However,   in   accordance   with   the  Ashok   Kumar   Thakur

                  judgment   after   giving   maximum   possible   relaxation,   wherever

                  the non-creamy layer OBC candidates fail to fill the reservation,

                  the remaining seats would revert to general category students."





7.     The Deans Committee of JNU discussed the issue at its meeting dated


17.6.2010,   considered   the   proposals   of   the   Standing   Committee   on


Admissions   and   resolved   as   follows   in   regard   to   the   admissions   of   OBC


candidates for the academic year 2010-2011:


       "The   Deans   Committee   after   detailed   discussion   decided   to   accept   the

       second proposal of the Standing Committee on Admissions viz. to treat the

       minimum qualifying marks in the entrance examinations as the cut-off to

       provide   maximum   relaxation   of   10%   to   OBC   candidates   (creamy   layer

       excluded) below the cut-off of general candidates as per the interpretation

       of the Supreme Court Judgment by fixing cut-off in advance for admission

       to   various   programmes   of   study   to   OBC   candidates   (creamy   layer

       excluded)   for   inviting   them   for   viva-voce   as   well   as   for   admission   to

       various programmes of study to be implemented in this year i.e. 2010-11

       admissions. The merit list will be drawn as per the admission policy of the

       University and approved intake and offers. Further, in accordance with the

       Ashok Kumar Thakur judgment after giving maximum possible relaxation,


                                                7



       wherever the non-creamy layer OBC candidates fail to fill the reservation,

       the remaining seats would revert to general category students.


       Hence to be eligible to be invited for viva voce examination a candidate

       must secure following marks out of 70 in the written examination.




                Programme           General Category     OBC             SC/ST/PH

                                                                         categories

         M.Phil/Ph.D.M.Tech         35%   i.e   24.50  31.5%   i.e.  25%               i.e.

         /Ph.d.Pre-Ph.D/Ph.D        marks                22.05 marks     17.50 marks

         MPH/PH.D

           MA,   BA   and   Part  25%   i.e.   17.50  22.5%   i.e.  15%                i.e.

         time       programmes  marks                    15.75 marks     10.50 marks

         where   viva-vice   is

         prescribed


       To be eligible for admission a candidate must secure a minimum overall score

       out of 100 as given in the table below:




        Programme                   General             OBC             SC/ST/PH

                                    Category                            categories

        M.Phil/Ph.D.M.Tech/         40%   i.e   40  36%   i.e.   36  30%   i.e.   30

        Ph.d.Pre-Ph.D/Ph.D          marks               marks           marks

        MPH/PH.D

        MA/M.Sc/MCA,   BA  30%   i.e.   30  27%   i.e.   27  25%   i.e.   25

        (Hons.) 1st & 2nd Year  marks                   marks           marks

        Part   Time   (COP   &

        Advanced Diploma in

        Mass Media in Urdu)


       The Committee further resolved that the above recommendations will be

       implemented only for this year, i.e. 2010-2011 and admission policy will

       be reviewed after the current admission process is over and statistics are

       available for implementation from the next year i.e. 2011-2012."





8.     A legal notice dated 27.6.2010 was issued to the JNU on behalf of a


students   association   contending   that   the   change   in   the   procedure   for


admissions   to   the   seats   reserved   for   OBCs   proposed   by   the   JNU   was


contrary   to   the   clarificatory   order   of   this   Court   dated   14.10.2008,   and


                                              8



threatening   initiation   of   contempt   proceedings,   if   the   said   decision   dated


17.6.2010   of   the   Deans   Committee   was   implemented.   As   a   consequence,


JNU sought legal opinion. JNU was advised that while the procedure sought


to   be   adopted   by   JNU   for   2010-2011,   vide   its   resolution   dated   17.6.2010


may not be contempt of court, it may not stand judicial scrutiny and could be


viewed  as  an  attempt  to  circumvent  the  law declared  in  A.  K.  Thakur  and


therefore,   it   should   continue   the   policy   and   procedure   adopted   during   the


previous two years. As a consequence on 12.7.2010 the Deans Committee


reviewed   the   earlier   decision   dated   17.6.2010   and   decided   to


restore/continue   the   procedure   that   was   followed   during   the   previous   year


(2009-2010), that is  to admit only OBC candidates who secure marks within


10%   band   below   the   marks   secured   by   the   last   candidate   admitted   in   the


general category and transfer all the unfilled OBC seats to general category.





9.     The   revised   decision   dated   12.7.2010   of   the   Deans   Committee   was


challenged   by   two   OBC   students   (respondents   3   and   4)   in   a   writ   petition


[W.P.(C)   No.4857/2010]   filed   in   the   Delhi   High   Court.   A   learned   Single


Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition by impugned order dated


7.9.2010 holding as under:


       "Procedure followed by the second respondent (JNU) and the stand of the

       first respondent (UOI) regarding reservation for OBCs is thus declared to


                                                      9



        be   bad.   It   is   declared   that   the     first   respondent   UOI/Universities   are

        entitled   to   only   fix   minimum   eligibility   criteria   for   admission   in   the

        reserved category at maximum 10% below the minimum eligibility criteria

        fixed for the General (Unreserved) category. The OBC candidates to avail

        of   reservation   provided   for   them   in   the   CEI   Act   are   not   required   to,   in

        admission   test   or   in   the   eligibility   exam,   secure   marks   within   the

        bandwidth of 10% below the cut-off marks of the last candidate admitted

        in the General (Unreserved) category."




10.     The   said   order   was   challenged   by   the   appellant   herein,   a   non   party


before   the   High   Court   with   an   application   seeking   leave   to   challenge   the


order of the learned Single Judge directly before this Court, without filing a


letter patent appeal. As the matter involved interpretation of the words "cut-


off marks" employed by this Court in the order dated 14.10.2008, this Court


granted such permission on 27.9.2010 to the appellant.




Contentions of Parties




11.     The   appellant   contends   that   `cut-off   marks'   refers   to   the   marks


secured   by   the   last   candidate   admitted   to   a   particular   course   of   study   or


under a particular category. `Cut-off marks' are decided with reference to a


merit   list   of   candidates   prepared   (with   reference   to   the   eligibility   marks


and/or   where   there   is   an   entrance   examination,   with   reference   to   the


qualifying marks) on the basis of number of seats available in a programme.


The marks secured by the last candidate admitted from such merit list to the


programme   denotes   the   `cut-off   marks'   for   admission   to   that   programme.


                                              10



The   appellant   submitted   that   the   words   "10%   below   the   cut-off   marks   of


general category candidates" would mean 10% below the marks secured by


the   last   candidate   admitted   under   general   category.   That   is   if   the   last


candidate admitted under general category had secured 80% marks, and the


lowering of minimum marks was 10% for OBCs, then OBC candidates who


have secured marks in the band width of 79 to 72 marks (that is 80 less 10%)


would alone be entitled to claim admission. This would also mean that until


admissions to general category seats are determined and the `cut off' marks


that   is   the   marks   secured   by   the   last   general   category   candidate   is


ascertained, admissions to OBC reservation seats cannot be commenced, as


the bandwidth of marks to be possessed by OBC candidates for admission


would depend upon the marks secured by the last candidate admitted under


general category.





12.    On   the   other   hand,   the   learned   counsel   for   the   third   and   fourth


respondents   (the   OBC   category   candidates   who   were   the   writ   petitioner


before   the   High   Court)   contended   that   the   CEI   Act   does   not   stipulate   or


provide any minimum "cut off marks" for OBC category candidates who are


entitled to the benefit of 27% reservation. It is also submitted that there is no


mandatory   direction   either   in  A   K   Thakur  or  Indiresan  to   fix   the   cut   off


                                               11



marks   for   the   general   category   or   cut   off   marks   for   OBC   category


candidates.  It is submitted  that the words "the maximum cut-off marks for


OBCs be 10% below the cut-off  marks of general category candidates" in


the order dated 14.10.2008 would mean that the minimum eligibility marks


(or   minimum   qualifying   marks   if   there   is   an   entrance   examination)   for


general   category,   can   be   lowered   or   reduced   by   not   more   than   10%   to


prescribe the minimum eligibility marks for OBC candidates. That is, if 50%


was the minimum eligibility marks for admission to general category seats,


the maximum cut off marks for OBC being 10% below the general category


candidates, the minimum eligibility marks for OBC cannot be less than 45%


(that is 50% minus 10% of 50%).





13.     The respondents further submitted that neither the Constitution Bench


which   decided  A.   K.   Thakur  which   made   the   clarificatory   order   dated


14.10.2008, nor the appellant at whose instance the order of clarification was


issued,   had   proceeded   on   the   basis   that   cut   off   marks   would   refer   to   the


marks   secured  by  the  last  candidate  admitted  to the  general  category.  The


object   of   appellant   in   making   the   application   seeking   clarification   of   the


order   in  A.   K.   Thakur  was   to   ensure   that   the   lowering   of   the   minimum


eligibility/qualifying marks for admission of OBCs candidates did not lead


                                              12



to a large  disparity with the general  candidates affecting the excellence of


higher education. Therefore, the appellant wanted a ceiling for the lowering


of the minimum marks for admission of OBC candidates to be prescribed. It


was in that context the Constitution Bench ordered that the minimum marks


for   admission   of   OBC   candidate   should   not   be   less   than   10%   below   the


minimum eligibility/qualifying marks for general category candidates.





14.    The   grievance   of   OBC   candidates   was   not   in   regard   to   the


determination   of   minimum   eligibility/qualifying   marks.   For   example,   as


noticed above, if the minimum eligibility marks for general category is fixed


as   60   for   English   or   70   for   journalism,   they   have   no   grievance   if   the


minimum eligibility marks being fixed at 54 marks for English and 63 for


journalism in regard to OBC candidates. The OBC candidates have also no


grievance   if   they   are   required   to   pass   an   entrance   examination   and   are


required   to   secure   the   minimum   qualifying   marks   in   the   entrance


examination. Their grievance is with reference to determining the minimum


eligibility/qualifying marks for admission of OBC students with reference to


the marks secured by the last candidate admitted under the general category.


Their   grievance   is   to   linking   of   their   admissions   to   an   uncertain   and


fluctuating   benchmark   which   would   depend   upon   the   quality   of   the   last


                                                      13



student admitted under the general category. According to the respondents


by adopting the method of determining the `cut off' marks for OBCs with


reference   to   `cut   off'   marks   of  last   general   category   candidate   defeats   the


purpose of reservation of 27% seats for OBC candidates and denies the just


and legitimate entitlement of OBCs for admission. It is pointed out that the


adoption of such a procedure in 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 had resulted in


large number of seats meant for OBCs being transferred to general category


candidates.




Question for consideration




15.     The   problem   or   question   for   consideration   arising   out   of   the   rival


contentions may be appreciated with reference to the following illustration:




        "A central educational institution has 100 seats in its B.Com. programme.


        Eligibility   for   admission   is   with   reference   to   the   marks   secured   in   the


        qualifying   examination   [that   is   10+2   or   its   equivalent].   The   minimum


        eligibility   prescribed   for  admissions   is  50%   marks   for  general   category,


        45%   for   OBCs   and   40%   for   SC/ST.   Having   regard   to   the   reservation


        policy applicable to the institution, out of 100 seats, 50 seats have to be


        filled   by   general   category   candidates,   27   seats   are   to   be   filled   by   OBC


        candidates  and 23 seats (15 + 7.5 rounded off to 23) are to be filled  by


        SC/ST candidates. 300 candidates seek admission, of whom 160 belong to


        general category, 90 belong to OBCs and 50 belong to SC/ST. The college


        prepares   a   common   merit   list   and   the   first   50   candidates   in   the   said


        common merit list are granted admission under the general category. The


                                                      14



        first candidate in the merit list has secured 98 marks and the 50th candidate


        in   the   merit   list   who   is   the   last   candidate   in   the   general   category   has


        secured   80   marks.   The   college   also   prepares   a   separate   list   of   90   OBC


        candidates merit list, 30 SC candidates and 20 ST candidates. Out of the


        OBC candidates list of 90 candidates, the first 15 have found a place in the


        first 50 in the common merit list on their own merit and are admitted and


        treated them as general category candidates, leaving 75 candidates in the


        OBC list. Out of the said 75 OBC candidates, 20 candidates have secured


        marks ranging from 79 to 72, and the remaining 55 have secured marks


        ranging 71 to 46."





According to the respondents (OBC candidates), the first 27 candidates from


the OBC candidates list, that is 20 candidates who have secured between 79


to   72   marks   and   the   next   7   candidates   in   the   order   of   merit   (who   have


secured less than 72) are entitled to be selected to the 27 seats reserved for


OBCs.   According   to   the   appellant   as   the   last   candidate   in   the   general


category   has   secured   80   marks,   and   as   the   "maximum   cut   off   marks   for


OBCs   should   be   10%   below   the   cut   off   marks   of   general   category


candidates", the general category cut off marks should be 80 and the OBC


cut off marks should be 72% (80 minus 8); and only those OBC candidates


who have secured marks in the band of 79 to 72 are entitled to be selected


under the OBC category. Out of the list of 90 OBC candidates the first ten


having been admitted as general category candidates on their own merit, the


next   20   OBC   candidates   who   have   secured   marks   between   79   to   72   are


                                              15



entitled to be granted admission under the OBC category. The remaining 55


candidates   having   obtained   less   than   the   cut   off   marks   72   marks   are   not


entitled   to   admission.   As   a   consequence,   even   though   there   were   still   55


candidates in the OBC candidates merit list, who had secured more than the


required   minimum   of   45%   in   the   qualifying   examination,   they   are   not


entitled to get admission; and the seven OBC seats which remain unfilled,


would have to be transferred as general category seats and will be filled by


the general category candidates from the common merit list in the order of


merit.





16.       The appellant (and other intervenors who claim to be concerned about


excellence   in   education)   contend   that  `cut   off'   marks'  are   different   from


`eligibility marks'  or `qualifying marks'. There is no dispute that  eligibility


marks  refers to the minimum marks  a candidate is required to have in the


last qualifying examination (for example, 10+2 examination for admissions


to   a   Bachelor's   degree   programme   or   the   graduation   examination   for


admissions   to   a   post   graduate   programme)   as   a   condition   precedent   for


seeking  admission to the higher course  of study  which the appellant  seeks


admission. Similarly, there is no dispute that qualifying marks  refers to the


minimum marks required to be secured in the special entrance examination,


                                                 16



that may be held to determine the inter-se merit of candidates from different


universities/sources and to ensure that candidates to be admitted possess the


minimum   academic   standards  required   or  expected   for  a  special  course   of


study;   and   it   is   only   those   securing   the   qualifying   marks   in   the   entrance


examination,   where   it   is   a   part   of   the   admission   process,   who   will   be


included   in   the   merit   list   for   admission,   or   will   become   eligible   for   being


called   for   viva   voce.   [For   example,   it   is   stated   that   in   Delhi   University,


admissions   to   degree   courses,   except   for   English   and   Journalism   Courses,


are on the basis of `eligibility marks' that is the prescribed minimum marks


in   10+2   examination.   Those   who   seek   admission   in   degree   courses   in


English   and   Journalism   will   have   to   participate   in   special   entrance


examinations.   A   candidate   seeking   admission   to   Bachelor's   degree   in


Journalism is required to have eligibility marks of 70% in 10+2 examination


and also pass the entrance examination; and a candidate seeking admission


to Bachelor's degree in English is required to have eligibility marks of 60%


in 10+2 examination and also pass the entrance examination]. In Dr. Preeti


Srivastava vs. State of M.P. - (1999) 7 SCC 120, this Court referred to the


difference between eligibility and qualification, thus :




        "At   times,   in   some   of   the   judgments,   the   words   "eligibility"   and

        "qualification"   have   been   used   interchangeably,   and   in   some   cases   a

        distinction has been made between the two words - "eligibility" connoting


                                            17



        the minimum criteria for selection that may be laid down by the University

        Act or any Central statute, while "qualifications" connoting the additional

        norms laid down by the colleges or by the State."





Eligibility Marks  and  Qualifying Marks  are pre-determined, and notified in


the   Admission   Prospectus,   so   that   a   candidate   intending   to   apply   for


admission knows what eligibility marks he should possess in the qualifying


examination   or   what   qualifying   marks   he   should   secure   in   the   entrance


examination (if there is an entrance examination).





17.     The question for our consideration  in this appeal by special leave is


the meaning to be assigned to the direction "the maximum cut-off marks for


OBCs be 10% below the cut-off marks of general category candidates"  in


the order dated 14.10.2008 of this Court.




The Interpretation




18.     In English language, many words have different meanings and a word


can be used in more than one sense. Every dictionary gives several meanings


for   each   word.   The   proper   use   of   a   dictionary   lies   in   choosing   the


appropriate meaning to the word, with reference to the context in which the


word is used. We cannot mechanically apply all and every meanings given


in a dictionary. Nor can we choose an inappropriate meaning that the word


                                              18



may carry and then try to change the context in which it is used. The context


in which the word is used determines the meaning of the word. A randomly


chosen   meaning   for   the   word   should   not   change   the   context   in   which   the


word is used. This is the fundamental principle relating to use of words to


convey   a   thought   or   explain   a   position   or   describe   an   event.   We   may


demonstrate this with reference to the dictionary meanings of the word `cut-


off'.





19.       The  Reader's   Digest   Word   Power   Dictionary  gives   the   following


meanings and illustrative uses with reference to such meanings, for the word


`cut-off' [1996 Edition, Page 195] :


          "Cut Off


          *to remove

                 Cut off the thorns on the stem otherwise you will pick yourself

          *to prevent from leaving or reaching a place; to be isolated

                 The village was cut off by floods

                 I feel so cut off when I stay on my parents' farm

          *to disconnect or stop supplying something

                 He was cut off before he could finish his telephone conversation

          *to disinherit

                 He was cut off without a cent

          *to block

                 We must cut off all escape routes

          *expiry, final deadline

                 Post your entry now, because the cut-off date is today"

                                                                 (emphasis supplied)


                                                   19



The Collins Dictionary of the English Language gives the thirteen meanings


to the word cut-off [1979 Edition, Page 369] :


      "1.     to remove by cutting.

      2.      to intercept or interrupt something, esp. a telephone conversation.

      3.      to discontinue the supply of : to cut off the water.

      4.      to bring to an end.

      5.      to deprive of rights; disinherit : she was cut off without a penny.

      6.      to sever or separate : she was cut off from her family.

      7.      to   occupy   a   position   so   as   to   prevent   or   obstruct   (a   retreat   or

              escape).

      8.      (a) the act of cutting off; limit or termination. (b) (as modifier)

              : the cut off point.

      9.      Chiefly U.S. a route or way that is shorter than the usual one; short

              cut.

      10.     a device to terminate the flow of a fluid in a pipe or duct.

      11.     the   remnant   of   metal,   plastic,   etc.,   left   after   parts   have   been

              machined or trimmed.

      12.     Electronics.   (a)   the   value   of   voltage,   frequency,   etc.,   below   or

              above   which  an  electronic  device  cannot  function  efficiently.  (b)

              (as modifier) : cut off voltage.

      13.     a   channel   cutting   across   the   neck   of   a   meander,   which   leave   an

              oxbow lake.

      14.     another name for oxbow  (the lake)."

                                                                           (emphasis supplied)





The Illustrated Oxford Dictionary gives the following meanings to the word


cut-off [2003 Edition, Page 205] :




      "1.              The point at which something is cut off.

      2.               A device for stopping a flow.

      3.               (US) a short cut.

      4.               (in plural) shorts, esp. made by cutting the legs off jeans.


                                                                          (emphasis supplied)


                                              20



What   is   appropriate   for   our   purpose   are   the   meanings   `the   point   at   which


something is cut off' in  Oxford, `limit' or `the cut off point' in  Collins  and


the meaning `final deadline' in Reader's Digest.





20.     The   term   `cut-off   marks'   in   academic   and   judicial   vocabulary   has


several   meanings.   When   rejecting     a   person's   request   for   selection   on   the


ground that his marks are less than the marks secured by the last candidate


who was selected, by describing the marks secured by the last candidate as


`cut-off marks'. The words `cut-off marks' are also used while notifying a


body of applicants who form part of a merit  list or the general public, the


marks   secured   by   the   last   selected   candidate   so   that   they   can   know   that


persons with lesser merit/marks had not been selected or have no chance of


being selected. `Cut-off marks' are also used to refer to the minimum marks


(either   eligibility   marks   or   qualifying   marks)   required   for   admission   to   a


course.





21.     Both   sides   relied   upon   certain   observations   of   Pasayat,   J.   and


Bhandari J, in A K Thakur in support of the interpretation put forth by them.


While   appellant   argued   that   the   said   observations   clearly   indicated   that


minimum   marks   for   admission   of   OBC   candidates   should   be   a   prescribed


                                                     21



percentage   below   the   marks   secured   by   the   last   candidate   under   general


category   (cut   off   marks  for   general   category),   the   respondents   argued   that


the   observations   clearly   meant   that   the   minimum   marks   for   admission   of


OBC   candidates   should   be   a   prescribed   percentage   below   the   minimum


eligibility/qualifying   marks   prescribed   for   general   candidates.   We   may


therefore refer to the said observations. Pasayat J stated in his summing up :




       "358.  To sum up, the conclusions are as follows:


       (1)   For   implementation   of   the   impugned   Statute   creamy   layer   must   be

       excluded.


       (2)   There   must   be   periodic   review   as   to   the   desirability   of   continuing

       operation of the Statute. This shall be done once in every five years.


       (3)   The   Central   Government   shall   examine   as   to   the   desirability   of

       fixing   a   cut   off   marks   in   respect   of   the   candidates   belonging   to   the

       Other   Backward   Classes   (OBCs).   By   way   of   illustration   it   can   be

       indicated   that   five   marks   grace   can   be   extended   to   such   candidates

       below   the   minimum  eligibility   marks   fixed   for   general   categories   of

       students. This would ensure quality and merit would not suffer. If any

       seats remain vacant after adopting such norms they shall be filled up

       by candidates from general categories."



                                                                              (emphasis supplied)



In the course of his judgment, Bhandari, J. referred to cut-off marks at two


places (vide paras 371 and 535). They are extracted below :


       "If   we   want   to   really   help   the   socially,   educationally   and   economically

       backward   classes,   we   need   to   earnestly   focus   on   implementing   Article

       21A. We must provide educational opportunity from day one. Only then

       will the casteless/classless society be within our grasp. Once children are

       of   college-going   age,   it   is   too   late   for   reservation   to   have   much   of   an

       effect.   The   problem   with   the   Reservation   Act   is   that   most   of   the

       beneficiaries   will   belong   to   the   creamy   layer,   a   group   for   which   no


                                                      22



       benefits   are   necessary.   Only   non-creamy   layer   OBCs   can   avail   of

       reservations   in college  admissions,  and  once  they  graduate  from  college

       they should no longer be eligible for post-graduate reservation. 27% is the

       upper   limit   for   OBC   reservation.   The   Government   need   not   always

       provide the maximum limit.  Reasonable cut off marks should be set so

       that  standards   of   excellence   greatly   effect.  The  unfilled   seats  should

       revert to the general category.

                                                                                   


                 x  x x x x


       The   best   universities   are   the   best,   in   part,   because   they   attract   the   best

       students. The same can be said for almost any organization. In the case of

       higher education, the universities that admit the best will likely churn out

       the best. The precise extent to which the university made the best so good

       cannot   be   qualified.   The   point   is   that   universities   alone   cannot   produce

       qualified job candidates. Forced to admit students with lower marks, the

       university's   final   product   will   not   be   as   strong.   Once   the   creamy   is

       excluded, cut-off marks would likely drop considerably in order to fill the

       27%   quota   for   non   creamy   layer   OBCs.   When   the   creamy   layer   is   not

       removed, as in the case of Tamil Nadu, the difference in cut off marks for

       the general and backward categories may be insignificant. (See para 408

       of Indira Sawhney). Of course, the extent to which standards of excellence

       would suffer would vary by institution.  As I mention below, I urge the

       Government to set OBC cut off marks no lower than 10 marks below

       that of the general category. This is only a recommendation.


                                                                              (emphasis supplied)





In his judgment, Bhandari, J. observed thus in regard to the question `would


it   be   reasonable   to   balance   OBC   reservation   with   societal   interests   by


instituting OBC cut off marks that are slightly lower than that of the general


category?' :


       "627.  Balaji  (supra)   concluded  that   reservation  must  be  reasonable.  The

       Oversight   Committee   has   made   a   recommendation   that   will   ensure   the

       same.   At   page   34   of   Volume   I   of   its   Report,   the   Oversight   Committee

       recommended  that  institutions  of excellence  set  their  own  cut  off marks

       such   that  quality  is not  completely  compromised.  Cut  offs  or  admission

       thresholds as suggested by the Oversight Committee are reproduced:


                                             23





4.4.2. The Committee recognizes that those institutions of higher learning

which have established a global reputation (e.g. IITs, IIMs, IISc, AIIMS

and other such exceptional quality institutions), can only maintain that if

the highest quality in both faculty and students is ensured. Therefore, the

committee   recommends   that   the  threshold   for   admission   should   be

determined  by the respective  institutions  alone, as  is done today,  so that

the level of its excellence is not compromised at all.


4.4.3.  As   regards   'cut-offs'   in   institutions   other   than   those   mentioned   in

para 7, these may be placed somewhere midway between those for SC/ST

and the unreserved category, carefully, calibrated so that the principles of

both equity and excellence can be maintained.


4.4.4. The Committee strongly feels that the students who currently tend to

get   excluded   must   be   given   every   single   opportunity   to   raise   their   own

levels   of   attainment,   so   that   they   can   reach   their   true   potential.   The

Government should invest heavily in creating powerful, well designed and

executed remedial preparatory measures to achieve this objective fully.


628.   Standards  of excellence  however  should not be limited  to  the best

aided   institutions.   The   Nation   requires   that   its   citizens   have   access   to

quality   education.   Society   as   a   whole   stands   to   benefit   from   a   rational

reservation scheme.


629. Finding 68% reservation in educational institutions excessive, Balaji

admonished   States   that   reservation   must   be   reasonable   and   balanced

against other societal interests. States have "to take reasonable and even

generous steps to help the advancement of weaker elements; the extent of

the problem must be weighted, the requirements of the community at large

must be borne in mind and a formula must be evolved which would strike

a   reasonable   balance   between   the   several   relevant   considerations."   To

strike such a balance, Balaji slashed the impugned reservation from 68 to

less than 50%. Balaji thus serves as an example in which this Court sought

to ensure that reservation would remain reasonable. We heed this example.

There should  be  no case in which the  gap of cut off marks between

OBC and general category students is too large. To preclude such a

situation,   cut   off   marks   for   OBCs   should   be   set   no   lower   than   10

marks below the general category.  To this end, the Government shall

set up a committee to look into the question of setting the OBC cut off

at not more than 10 marks below that of the general category.  Under

such a scheme, whenever the non-creamy layer OBCs fail to fill the 27%

reservation,   the   remaining   seats   would   revert   to   general   category

students."



                                                                     (emphasis supplied)


                                                    24





In his summary of findings also, Bhandari, J., again referred to cut-off marks


as under :


       "11.   Would   it   be   reasonable   to   balance   OBC   reservation   with   societal

       interests by instituting OBC cut-off marks that are slightly lower than that

       of the general category ?


       It   is   reasonable   to   balance   reservation   with   other   societal   interests.   To

       maintain standards of excellence, cut off marks for OBCs should be set not

       more than 10 marks out of 100 below that of the general category."

       

                                                                           (emphasis supplied)



22.    The clarificatory order dated 14.10.2008 in  P.V. Indiresan vs. Union


of India [2009 (7) SCC 300] which stated that the "maximum cut off marks


for OBCs be 10% below the cut off marks of general category candidates" is


sought to be interpreted  differently  by the appellant and respondents, with


reference   to   the  said   observation.   The   appellant   contends   that   the  "cut   off


marks of general category candidates" refers to the marks secured by the last


candidate who secures a seat under general category and therefore only such


OBC students who have secured marks in the bandwidth of 10% below the


marks   secured   by   the   last   general   category   candidate,   will   be   entitled   to


admission.  On the other  hand the respondents  contend that the words "cut


off marks of general category candidates were used to refer to the minimum


eligibility/qualifying   marks   prescribed   for   admission   to   the   course   under


general category.


                                              25



23.     We   find   that   this   court   has   been   regularly   and   routinely   using   the


words `cut off marks' to describe the minimum marks required to be secured


in the qualifying examination for being eligible for admission or to describe


the minimum qualifying marks  to be obtained in an entrance  examination.


As   this   court   has   routinely   used   the   words   `cut   off   marks'   to   refer   to


`eligibility marks' or `qualifying marks', whenever this Court uses the words


`cut off marks', their meaning  would depend upon the context. The words


may   refer   to   either   the   minimum   marks   to   be   secured   in   the   qualifying


examination or the entrance examination to be eligible for admission, or to


the marks secured by the last candidate admitted in a particular category.





24.     We may refer to some of the cases where this court has used the term


`cut off marks' to refer to the eligibility marks or qualifying marks.




24.1) In Dr. Jeevak Almast vs. Union of India [1988 (4) SCC 27] this Court


observed   :   "The   scheme   contained   the   provision   that   the   cut-off   base   for


selection for admission shall be 50 per cent marks", while referring to the


All   India   Entrance   Examination.   This   clearly   demonstrates   that   the   words


`cut-off'   base   was   used   to   refer   to   the   qualifying   marks   the   minimum


eligibility marks in the qualifying examination.                  


                                                   26



24.2) In Ajay Kumar Agrawal and Ors. v. State of U.P. [1991 (1) SCC 636]


this court while referring to the minimum marks required for being eligible


for   admission   to   post   graduate   course   described   the   minimum   qualifying


marks   in   the   qualifying   examination,   as   `cut   off   base'   marks.   We   extract


below the relevant portion as follows :-




       "11.     It is not disputed that in Uttar Pradesh the prevailing practice was a

       50 per cent base for allowing Post Graduate Study to doctors with MBBS

       qualifications but taking their University examination as the base without

       any separate selection test, it is not the case of any of the parties before us

       that the selection is bad for any other reason. We are of the view that it is

       in general  interest that  the 50 per cent cut-off base  as  has been adopted

       should be sustained."





24.3) In  State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dr. Anupam Gupta  [1993 Supp (1) SCC


594], this court extracted the following provision from a Government order


relating to eligibility marks for admission which was minimum of 50% for


general category candidates and 40% for reserved category candidates :-




       "(2)   This   examination   shall   have   100   per   cent   objective   type   questions.

       The eligibility criteria for admission to post-graduate courses shall be 50

       per cent minimum qualifying marks for candidates of general category and

       40   per   cent   minimum   qualifying   marks   for   candidates   of   reserved

       categories (SC/ST)."





Thereafter it used the words cut off marks to refer to the minimum eligibility


marks for general category candidates and reservation category candidates:


                                                     27



       "... Thus it could be seen that this Court consistently laid down the criteria

       for   conducting   entrance   examination   to   the   post   graduate   degree   and

       diploma courses in Medicine and the best among the talented candidates

       would be eligible for admission.  50% cut off marks was also held to be

       valid   to   achieve   excellence   in   post   graduate   speciality.   Accordingly   we

       uphold the prescription of 50% cut off marks to general candidates and

       40% to SCs and STs together with 1.65% weightage of total marks i.e. 50

       marks in total in entrance examination as constitutional and valid."


                                                                            (emphasis supplied)




24.4) In Ombir Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P.  [1993 Supp. (2) SCC 64] this


court while upholding the prescription of 50% and 40% respectively as the


minimum   eligibility   marks   in   the   qualifying   examination   followed   the


decisions   in  Ajay  Kumar  Agarwal  and  Dr.Anupam  Gupta  by  relying  upon


and reiterating the passages in those decisions which use the words cut-off


marks to refer to qualifying marks. We extract below the relevant portions of


the said decision:


       "So   far   as   the   validity   of   the   admission   rules   fixing   50%  marks   for  the

       general   category   candidates   and   40%   marks   for   the   SC/ST   category

       candidates   to   be   obtained   at   the   entrance   examination   as   minimum

       qualifying   marks   for   being   eligible   for   admission   to   the   Post-Graduate

       medical courses, the same are not subject to any challenge ........




        ".... It may be further mentioned that this Court in Ajay Kumar Agrawal

       and Ors. v. State of U.P. [1991 (1) SCC 636] observed as under:-


       "It is not disputed that in Uttar Pradesh the prevailing practice was a 50

       per   cent   base   for   allowing   Post   Graduate   Study   to   doctors   with   MBBS

       qualifications but taking their University examination as the base without

       any separate selection test, it is not the case of any of the parties before us

       that the selection is bad for any other reason. We are of the view that it is

       in general  interest that  the 50 per cent cut-off base  as  has been adopted

       should be sustained."


                                                        28



           3.   The   matter   again   came   up   for   consideration   before   this   Court   and   in

           State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Dr. Anupam Gupta [1993 Supp. 1 SCC

           594], it was held as under:-


           "Thus it could be seen that this Court consistently laid down the criteria

           for   conducting   entrance   examination   to   the   post   graduate   degree   and

           diploma courses in Medicine and the best among the talented candidates

           would be eligible for admission.  50% cut off marks was also held to be

           valid   to   achieve   excellence   in   post   graduate   speciality.   Accordingly   we

           uphold   the  prescription  of  50%  cut   off  marks  to   general   candidates   and

           40% to SCs and STs together with 1.65% weightage of total marks i.e. 50

           marks in total in entrance examination as constitutional and valid."


           4. Thus, we further hold that any challenge to the above rule laying down

           minimum   percentage   of   marks   for   eligibility   for   admission   to   Post-

           Graduate courses is no longer reintegra."





24.5) In Hemani Malhotra vs. High Court of Delhi - (2008) 7 SCC 11, we


find that this Court has used the words `cut-off marks' to refer to describe


`minimum   qualifying   marks'   following   Justice   Shetty   Commission   Report


which   also   used   the   term   `cut-off   marks'   while   referring   to   `minimum


qualifying marks'. In that case, the advertisement inviting applications stated


that "minimum qualifying marks in the written examination shall be 55% for


general   candidates   and   50%   for   SC   and   ST   candidates".   The   subsequent


resolution of the full court provided that the "minimum qualifying marks in


viva voce will be 55% for general candidates and 50% for SC/ST candidates.


This Court while considering the correctness of the said resolution observed


thus :


                                                   29



       "This   Court   further   notices   that   Hon'ble   Justice   Shetty   Commission   has

       recommended   in   its   Report   that   'The   vive-   voce   test   should   be   in   a

       thorough and scientific manner and it should be taken anything between

       25   to   30   minutes   for   each   candidate.   What   is   recommended   by   the

       Commission is that the vive-voce test shall carry 50 marks and there shall

       be no cut off marks in vive-voce test.- This Court notices that in All-India

       Judges   Association   and   Ors.   v.   Union   of   India  -   (2002)   4   SCC   247,

       subject   to   the   various   modifications   indicated   in   the   said   decision,   the

       other recommendations of the Shetty Commission  (supra) were accepted

       by this Court. It means that prescription of cut off marks at vive-voce test

       by the respondent was not in accordance with the decision of this Court."





24.6) In K. Manjusree vs. State of A.P. - (2008) 3 SCC 512, this Court used


the words  `cut-off percentage'  to refer to minimum  qualifying  marks.  The


relevant portion is extracted below :




       "The sub- committee was also of the view that apart from applying the

       minimum   marks   for   the   written   examination   for   determining   the

       eligibility of the candidates to appear in the interview the same cut off

       percentage should be applied for interview marks, and those who fail

       to secure such minimum marks in the interview should be considered

       as having failed."





25.    This   Court   also   used   the   word   `threshold   marks'   to   describe   the


minimum   qualifying   marks.   In  Parveen   Jindal   v.   State   of   Haryana  [1993


Supp. (4) SCC 70] this court referred to Rule 7 of the Haryana Service of


Engineers   Class   I,   PWD  (Irrigation   Branch)   Rules,   1964  which   prescribes


the qualifying marks, relevant portion of which is extracted below:




       "Provided   that   a   candidate   shall   not   be   considered   qualified   for

       appointment, unless he obtains not less than forty per cent marks in each

       subject and also not less than fifty per cent marks in the aggregate, and no

       candidate   who   does   not   obtain   the   qualifying   marks   shall   be   called   for

       interview by the commission.


                                                     30



This Court, while referring to the contentions of the appellant therein, used


the   word   `threshold'   marks   to   refer   to   the   qualifying   marks,   as   is   evident


from the following passage:




        "Whereas   the   Rules   say   that   a   candidate   obtaining   50%   marks   in   the

        written   test   is   entitled   to   be   called   for   viva-voce,   the   Commission   has

        arbitrarily  prescribed a threshold  of 65% which it had no jurisdiction to

        do.  As   a  result  of  the  said  arbitrary  stipulation  several   of  the  appellants

        have been denied the opportunity of selection. The Commission must not

        be directed to make  selections  afresh for all  the three wings/branches  in

        the Public Works Department."


                                                                            (emphasis supplied)





26.     In  A   K   Thakur,  while   referring   to  the   observations   of   the   Report


(Vol.II) of the Oversight Committee (Planning Commission, Govt. of India)


on   Reservation   in   Higher   Educational   Institutions,   Bhandari,   J.   used   the


words   `cut   offs'   or   `admission   thresholds'   as   interchangeable   words   by


observing. "Cut-offs or admission thresholds as suggested by the Oversight


Committee are reproduced" (vide : Para 627)





27.     In A K Thakur, Pasayat, J. has also used the words "cut-off marks" to


refer to minimum eligibility marks. While summing up his conclusions (in


para 358 extracted above) he observed that the "Central Government shall


examine   as   to   the   desirability   of  fixing   cut   off   marks  in   respect   of   the


                                                   31



candidates   belonging   to   the   Other   Backward   Classes  (OBCs.)",   and


proceeded   to   observe   "By   way   of   illustration   it   can   be   indicated   that   five


grace marks can be extended to such candidates below the  minimum marks


fixed for general categories of students." The suggestion made is that if the


minimum eligibility marks for general category students is 50, the minimum


eligibility marks for OBC candidates   should be 45. This clearly shows the


words   "cut   off   marks"   have   been   used   to   refer   to   minimum   eligibility   or


qualifying marks.





28.     Even the Oversight Committee on Reservation in Higher Educational


Institutions,   Government   of   India   (Planning   commission)   in   its   Interim


Report   and   Final   Report   uses   the   words   `cut   off   marks'   and   `threshold


marks' to refer to minimum eligibility marks. We extract below the relevant


portions:


        "Interim Report

        The Oversight Committee  considers expansion, inclusion  and excellence

        as the moving spirit, behind the new reservation policy. The institutions of

        higher   leaning   should   keep   these   three   principles   in   view   while

        determining   threshold   marks   for   admission   to   OBC   students............

        (vide para 6 of the Preamble).

        As regards  `cut offs' in institutions  other than those mentioned in para 7,

        these may be placed somewhere mid way between those for SC/ST and the

        unreserved   category,   carefully   calibrated   so   that   the   principles   of   both

        equity and excellence can be maintained (vide para 8 of Preamble).

        Final Report (Vol.II)

        4.4      Cut offs or admission thresholds:

        4.4.1    The issue  of threshold levels  or cut offs for OBC candidates  has

        already been addressed in the Interim Report (paras 7 and 8) as under :


                                                  32



        x x x            x x x           x x x

        4.4.3     As regards  `cut offs' in institutions  other than those mentioned in

        para 7, these may be placed somewhere mid way between those for SC/ST

        and the unreserved category, carefully calibrated so that the principles of

        both equity and excellence can be maintained.





Para 4.4.3 of the Report of the Oversight Committee  obviously refers to a


situation   where   if   the   minimum   eligibility   marks   for   general   category


candidates is 50% and the minimum eligibility marks for SC/ST candidates


are   40%,   the   minimum   eligibility   for   OBC   should   be   somewhere   midway


that   is   45%.   It   should   be   noted   that   the   observations   of   Bhandari   J   in


para 729 of the decision in  A K Thakur,  which is the fulcrum of the entire


argument of appellant are made in the context of the aforesaid observations


of Oversight Committee and therefore, when Bhandari J uses the words `cut


off marks', he is also clearly referring to the eligibility marks.





29.     The words "cut-off marks" are freely used to describe the prescribed


minimum   marks   even   in   academic   circles   and   central   educational


institutions. For example, the prospectus of MBBS admissions in All India


Institute   of   Medical   Sciences   (AIIMS)   provides   in   Para   2   (dealing   with


eligibility) that a  candidate should  have obtained a minimum  aggregate  of


60% marks in the case of general and OBC candidates and 50% in the case


of SC/ST  candidates  in aggregate.  It also provides that all candidates who


                                                      33



are so found eligible, have to appear for a competitive entrance examination


and Clause 4.1 refers to the minimum marks required to be secured in the


MBBS Entrance Examination who could be admitted.


        "4.1 Minimum cut-off marks in the MBBS Entrance Examination : As

        per   the   decision   of   the   governing   body   and   institute   body   at   it   meeting

        held   on  26.11.2009  with  regard   to  cut-off  marks  in  the   MBBS  entrance

        examination, the candidate belonging to general category will be required

        to have 50% minimum cut-off marks. Those belonging to OBC category

        will   be   required   to   have  45%   minimum   cut-off  marks   and   those

        belonging to  SC/ST will have to ensure at least 40% minimum marks

        in the MBBS entrance examination."





It will be seen from the above  that the words `cut-off marks' are used as the


minimum marks required in the entrance examination.





30.     Pasayat   J   and   Bhandari   J.   were     concerned   about   the   standards   of


excellence in higher education. Having regard to the fact that OBCs were far


better placed economically and socially than SCs/STs, they wanted to ensure


that   the   minimum   percentage   for   OBCs   was   somewhere   between   the


minimum   marks   for   SC/ST   and   minimum   marks   for   general   category


candidates.   They   did   not   want   the   minimum   eligibility   marks   for   OBCs


should be the same as the minimum eligibility marks for Scheduled Castes


and   Scheduled   Tribes.   They   were   of   the   view   that   if   very   low   eligibility


marks were provided for OBC, the disparity would affect higher education


standards. It is in that context, that Bhandari, J. observed that cut off marks


                                                     34



for OBCs, should not be lower than 10 marks below that of general category


thereby meaning that minimum eligibility marks for OBC should be set no


lower than 10% below the eligibility marks for the general category. Pasayat


J in fact specifically stated that the minimum marks for OBCs should be 5


marks less than the minimum eligibility marks for general category.





31.    The Constitution Bench of this Court in Dr. Preeti Srivastava  (supra)


observed as follows :


       "29.   The   submission,   therefore,   that   there   need   not   be   any   qualifying

       marks prescribed for the common entrance examination has to be rejected.

       We have, however, to consider whether different qualifying marks can be

       prescribed   for   the   open   merit   category   of   candidates   and   the   reserved

       category of candidates. Normally passing marks for any examination have

       to be uniform for all categories of candidates. We are, however, informed

       that at the stage of admission  to the M.B.B.S. course, that is to say,  the

       initial course in medicine, the Medical Council of India has permitted the

       reserved   category   candidates   to   be   admitted   if   they   have   obtained   the

       qualifying marks of 35% as against the qualifying marks of 45% for the

       general category candidates. It is, therefore, basically for an expert body

       like   the   Medical   Council   of   India   to   determine   whether   in   the   common

       entrance   examination   viz.   PGMEE,  lower   qualifying   marks   can   be

       prescribed for the reserved category of candidates as against the general

       category   of   candidates;   and   if   so,   how   much   lower.   There   cannot,

       however,   be   a   big   disparity   in   the   qualifying   marks   for   the   reserved

       category of candidates and the general category of candidates at the post-

       graduate level. This level is only one step below the apex level of medical

       training   and   education   where   no   reservations   are   permissible   and

       selections   are   entirely   on   merit.   At   only   one   step   below   this   level   the

       disparity   in   qualifying   marks,   if   the   expert   body   permits   it,   must   be

       minimal.  It  must be kept  at a  level  where  it  is possible  for the reserved

       category candidates to come up to a certain level of excellence when they

       qualify in the speciality of their choice. It is public interest that they have

       this level of excellence."


                                                                          (emphasis supplied)


                                              35



In  Dr. Preeti Srivastava,  the Constitution Bench held that if the qualifying


marks for reserved category was 20% and the qualifying marks for general


category was 45%, the disparity was too great to sustain the public interest at


the level of postgraduate medical training and education. This Court noticed


that for MBBS the difference in qualifying marks was only 10% that is 45%


for general category and 35% for reserved category and that difference was


not unreasonable. The Constitution Bench was of the view that prescribing


different   minimum   qualifying   marks   for   general   category   and   reservation


category  was  permissible   so  long  as   the  difference  was  not  too  great;  and


that   at   post   graduate   level,   the   disparity   in   the   qualifying   marks   between


general   category   and   reservation   categories   should   be   narrower   than   the


disparity   between   the   two   categories   at   graduate   level.   It   should   be   noted


that neither Dr. Preeti Srivastava, nor A.K. Thakur nor any other decision of


this Court required that the reservation category candidates should possess


marks which are within a narrow bandwidth below the cut off marks for the


last   student   admitted   in   the   general   category.   All   the   decisions   spoke   of


difference/disparity in regard to eligibility marks and qualifying marks.





32.     Therefore,   the   context   in   which   Bhandari   J.   concluded   that   "cut-off


marks   for   OBCs   should   be   set   no   lower   than   10%   marks   below   general


                                              36



category"   (vide   Paras   535   and   629)   of  A   K   Thakur,  he   meant  that


eligibility/qualifying   marks   for   OBCs   should   be   set   not   lower   than   10%


below   the   eligibility/qualifying   marks   of   general   category.   Similar   is   the


position regarding the observation of Pasayat J. in Para 358 of A K Thakur.


Pasayat   J.   observed   that   the   cut   off   marks   for   OBCs   should   be   fixed   by


extending   5   grace   marks,   that   is   5   marks   below   the  minimum   eligibility


marks  fixed  for general  categories  of students.  We  fail to understand how


the   words  "minimum   eligibility   marks   fixed   for   general   categories   of


students'  used   by   Pasayat   J   can   be   read   as   `cut   off   marks'   of   general


category, that is marks secured by the last candidate admitted under general


category.   We,   therefore,   hold   that  the   words   "maximum   cut-off  marks   for


OBCs be 10% below the cut off marks of general category candidates" in the


order dated 14.10.2008 of the Constitution Bench meant that if the minimum


eligibility/qualifying   marks   prescribed   for   general   category   candidates


was   50%,   the   minimum   eligibility/qualifying   marks   for   OBCs   should


be 45%.            





33.     The appellant canvasses the continuance of the procedure adopted by


JNU   during   2008-09   and   2009-10.   What   in   effect   was   that   procedure?


During   those   years,   JNU   would   fix   the   minimum   eligibility   marks   as   say


                                                37



40% when the admission programme is announced. JNU would apply it only


to   general   category   candidates.   It   would   not   say   what   was   the   minimum


eligibility marks for OBC candidates, but would decide the same, only after


all   the   general   category   seats   were   filled,   by   fixing   a   band   of   marks   upto


10%   below   the   marks   secured   by   the   last   candidate   admitted   under   the


general category. If a OBC candidate secured the marks within that band, he


would be given admission. Otherwise even if he had secured 70%, as against


the   minimum   of   40%   he   would   not   get   a   seat,   if   the   band   of   marks   was


higher. Such a procedure, was arbitrary and discriminatory, apart from being


unknown in regard to admissions to educational institutions,. The minimum


eligibility marks for admission to a course of study is always declared before


the   admission   programme   for   an   academic   year   is   commenced.   An


institution may say that for admissions to its course, say Bachelor's degree


course   in   science,   the   candidate   should   have   successfully   completed   a


particular course of study, say 10+2, with certain special subjects. Or it can


say   that   the   candidate   should   have   secured   certain   prescribed   minimum


marks   in   the   said   qualifying   examination,   which   may   be   more   than   the


percentage   required   for   passing   such   examination.   For   example   if   a


candidate   may   pass   a   10+2   examination   by   securing   35%   marks,   an


institution can say at its discretion that to be eligible for being admitted to its


                                              38



course of study, the candidate should have passed with at least a minimum


of 40% or 50% or 60%. Whatever be the marks so prescribed, it should be


uniform to all applicants and a prospective applicant should know, before he


makes   an application,   whether  he  is  eligible  for  admission  or  not.  But  the


`cut-off'   procedure   followed   by   JNU   during   those   days   had   the   effect   of


rewriting   the   eligibility   criteria,   after   the   applications   were   received   from


eligible candidates. If the minimum eligibility prescribed for an admission in


an institution was 50% and a candidate had secured 50%, he could not be


denied   admission,  if   a  seat   was  available,  based   on  a  criterion  ascertained


after the last date for submission of applications. No candidate who fulfils


the prescribed  eligibility  criteria and whose rank in the merit list is within


the number of seats available for admission, can be turned down, by saying


that he should have secured some higher marks based on the marks secured


by   some   other   category   of   students.   A   factor   which   is   neither   known   nor


ascertained at the time of declaring the admission programme cannot be used


to   disentitle   a   candidate   to   admission,   who   is   otherwise   entitled   for


admission. If the total number of seats in a course is 154 and the number of


seats reserved for OBCs is 42, all the seats should be filled by OBC students


in the order of merit from the merit list of OBC candidates possessing the


minimum   eligibility   marks   prescribed   for   admission.   (subject   to   any


                                               39



requirement for entrance examination.) When an eligible OBC candidate is


available,   converting   an   OBC   reservation   seat   to   general   category   is   not


permissible.




Alternative contention




34.     The   appellant   also   urged   that   there   is   a   marked   distinction   between


scheduled   castes   and   scheduled   tribes   who   have   faced   historical


discrimination   and   social   handicap   apart   from   being   socially   and


educationally   backward   and   the   Other   Backward   Classes   who   were   only


socially   and   educationally   not   forward,   but   did   not   suffer   from   such


historical discrimination and social handicap [vide ground `G' of the special


leave   petition].   The   appellant   contended   all   benefits   associated   with


reservations   for   SCs/STs   need   not,   and   in   fact,   cannot,   be   extended   to


reservations   for   OBCs.   Expanding   the   said   submission,   the   appellant


contended   that   the   principle   that   when   candidates   belonging   to   a   reserved


category get selected in the open competition field on the basis of their own


merit,   they   will   not   be   counted   against   the   reservation   quota,   but   will   be


treated as open competition candidates, will apply only to SCs/STs and not


to   the   OBCs.   In   other   words,   his   submission   is   that   all   OBC   candidates


selected   and  admitted   to  a   course   of  study   should   be   counted  towards   the


                                                     40



27% reservation for OBCs including those OBC candidates who get selected


on their own merit without the benefit of reservation.





35.     The appellants relied upon the decision of three Judge Bench of this


court in Chattar Singh vs. State of Rajasthan [1996 (11) SCC 742] wherein


this court held that by a process of interpretation, OBCs cannot be treated or


declared to be similar to SCs/STs. This court also held that Scheduled Castes


and   Scheduled   Tribes   on   one   hand   and   the   OBCs   on   the   other   are   to   be


treated   as   distinct   classes   for   the   purpose   of   reservation.   This   Court


observed:




        "Though   OBCs   are   socially   and   economically   not   forward,   they   do   not

        suffer   the   same   social   handicaps   inflicted   upon   Scheduled   Castes   and

        Scheduled Tribes. ..... The object of reservation for the Scheduled Castes

        and Scheduled Tribes is to bring them into the mainstream of national life,

        while   the   object   in   respect   of   the   backward   classes   is   to   remove   their

        social   and   educational   handicaps......The   Founding   Fathers   of   the

        Constitution, having been alive to the dissimilarities of the socio-economic

        and educational conditions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

        and other segments of the society have given them separate treatment in

        the   Constitution.   The   Constitution   has   not   expressly   provided   such

        benefits to the OBCs..."





The   appellant   also   relied   upon   the   following   observations   of   one   of   us


(Raveendran, J.) at para 653 of Ashoka Kumar Thakur (supra) :




        "I agree with the decision of the learned Chief Justice that reservation of

        27% for other backward classes is not illegal. I would however leave open

        the question whether members  belonging to other backward classes who


                                                      41



          get selected in the open competition field on the basis of their own merit

          should   be   counted   against   the   27%   quota   reserved   for   other   backward

          classes   under   an   enactment   enabled   by   Article 15(5) of   the   Constitution

          for consideration in an appropriate case."





The   appellant   therefore   contended   that   unlike   in   the   case   of   Scheduled


Castes  and Scheduled Tribes,  the OBC candidates  who get selected  in the


open competition field  on the basis of their own merit,  should be counted


against the 27% OBC quota under an enactment enabled by section 15(5) of


the Constitution.





36.       The   respondents   on   the   other   hand   contended   that   the   following


observations in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India [1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217]


were intended to apply not only to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes,


but also to OBCs : -




          "811.    In   this   connection   it   is   well   to   remember   that   the   reservations

          under   Article   16(4)  do   not   operate   like   a  communal   reservation.   It   may

          well happen that some members belonging to, say, Scheduled Castes get

          selected in the open competition field on the basis of their own merit; they

          will not be counted against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes; they

          will be treated as open competition candidates."



The   respondents   also   relied   upon   the   following   observations   of   a


Constitution   Bench   in  R.K.   Sabharwal   vs.   State   of   Punjab  [1995   (2)   SCC


745] :


                                                   42



        "When the State Government after doing the necessary exercise makes the

        reservation and provides the extent of percentage of posts to be reserved

        for the said backward class then the percentage has to be followed strictly.

        The  prescribed  percentage  cannot  be varied  or  charged  simply  because

        some   of   the   members   of   the   backward   class   have   already   been

        appointed/promoted   against   the   general   seats.  As   mentioned   above   the

        roster point which is reserved for a backward class has to be filled by way

        of   appointment/promotion   of   the   member   of   the   said   class.   No   general

        category candidate can be appointed against a slot in the roster which is

        reserved   for   the   backward   class.  The   fact   that   considerable   number   of

        members   of   a   backward   class   have   been   appointed/promoted   against

        general seats in the State Services may be a relevant factor for the State

        Government to review the question of continuing Reservation for the said

        class but so long as the instructions/Rules providing certain percentage of

        reservations for the backward classes are operative the same have to be

        followed.   Despite   any   number   of   appointees/promotes   belonging   to   the

        backward classes against the general category posts the given percentage

        has to be provided in addition."

                                                                         (emphasis supplied)





37.     The appellants' counsel replied by contending that the observations in


Indra Sawhney and R.K.Sabharwal will not help the contention of the OBC


candidates.   According   to   him,   para   811   of  Indra   Sawhney  refers   only   to


Scheduled   Castes  and  therefore   extendable  to  Scheduled  Tribes   but  not  to


OBCs. He submitted that the observations in Sabharwal did not apply to an


enactment enabled  by  Article   15(5).   He also  pointed  out that  the CEI  Act


merely   provides   a   reservation   of   27%   seats   for   OBCs.   but   is   silent   as   to


whether those OBCs. who get selected in the open competition field on the


basis of their own merit, should be counted against the quota reserved for


OBCs. or not. It was submitted that the principles evolved with reference to


SCs   and   STs   or   reservations   in   employment,   cannot   be   applied   to


                                             43



reservations under section 3 of the CEI Act enabled by Article 15(5). A plain


reading   of   this   provision,   it   is   submitted,   would   mean   that   all   persons


belonging to OBCs admitted to the institution shall be counted against 27%.





38.    The issue before the High Court was with reference to the meaning of


the words cut-off marks. The submissions in regard to the question whether


OBC candidates who are selected on the basis of their own merit without the


benefit of reservation, should be counted towards 27% reservation, was not


the subject matter of the writ petition from which this appeal arises. Further,


this issue was not directly raised, but was referred only in an indirect manner


in the pleadings before this Court and Union of India had no occasion to deal


with this larger issue. We therefore do not propose to decide the alternative


contention which has wide ramifications except to note that the appellant has


raised   an   important   issue   which   merits   serious   consideration   in   an


appropriate case.




Conclusions




39.    The words `cut off marks' has been used thrice in the second para of


the order dated 14.10.2008 containing the operative direction. It is used in


the first sentence of the para while posing the question for decision, that is


                                                 44



`what   should   be   the  extent   of  cut   off   marks  for   admission   of   students   of


OBCs in CEIs'. It is used in the second sentence of the para while giving the


answer to the question posed, that is "we make it clear that the maximum cut


off   marks   for   OBCs  be   10%   below  the   cut   off   marks   of   general   category


candidates.   The   words   `cut   off   marks'   occurring   in   three   places   in   the


second   para   of   the   order   dated   14.10.2008   has   three   distinct   and   different


meanings :      




(i)      the   use   of   the   words,  `extent   of   cut   off   marks'  in   the   first   sentence


refers   to   the   `minimum   eligibility   marks'   (or   to   the   `minimum   qualifying


marks' if there is entrance examination), for admission of OBC candidates.



(ii)     The use of the words, "maximum cut-off marks for OBCs" in the first


part of the second sentence refers to the percentage of marks by which the


eligibility/qualifying   marks   could   be   lowered   from   the   minimum


eligibility/qualifying marks prescribed for general category students. In other


words, it refers to the difference between the minimum eligibility/qualifying


marks   for   general   category   and   minimum   eligibility/qualifying   marks   for


OBCs and directs that such difference should not be more than 10% of the


minimum   eligibility/qualifying   marks   prescribed   for   general   category


candidates.



(iii)    The use of the words, "cut off marks of general category candidates"


in   the  latter   part   of  the  second   sentence,   refers   to   the  minimum   eligibility


marks   (or   to   the   minimum   qualifying   marks   if   there   is   an   entrance


examination) prescribed for general category candidates.


                                               45



The use of the words `cut-off-marks' in none of the three places in para 2 of


the order dated 14.10.2008, refers to the marks secured by the last candidate


to   be  admitted   in  general   category   or  in   any   particular   category,   or   to  the


minimum   marks   to   be   possessed   by   OBC   candidates,   determined   with


reference   to   the  marks   secured   by   the  last   candidate   to   be  admitted   under


general category.




40.     The   order   dated   14.10.2008   means   that   where   minimum   eligibility


marks   in   the   qualifying   examinations   are   prescribed   for   admission,   say   as


50%   for   general   category   candidates,   the   minimum   eligibility   marks   for


OBCs should not be less than 45% (that is 50 less 10% of 50). The minimum


eligibility marks for OBCs can be fixed at any number between 45 and 50, at


the discretion of the Institution. Or, where the candidates are required to take


an   entrance   examination   and   if   the   qualifying   marks   in   the   entrance


examination is fixed as 40% for general category candidates, the qualifying


marks  for OBC candidates should not be less than 36% (that 40 less 10%


of 40).





41.     We   therefore,   dispose   of   this   appeal,   affirming   the   decision   dated


7.9.2010   of   the   learned   Single   Judge   of   the   High   Court,   subject   to   the


clarifications/observations above, and subject to the following conditions :


                                              46





(i)      In regard to the admissions for 2011-2012, if any Central Educational


Institution   has   already   determined   the   `cut-off   marks'   for   OBCs   with


reference to the marks secured by the last candidate in the general category,


and   has   converted   the   unfilled   OBC   seats   to   general   category   seats   and


allotted the seats to general category candidates, such admissions shall not


be   disturbed.   But   where   the   process   of   conversion   and   allotment   is   not


completed, the OBC seats shall be filled by OBC candidates.



(ii)     If   in   any   Central   Educational   Institution,   the   OBC   reservation   seats


remain vacant, such institutions shall fill the said seats with OBC students.


Only   if   OBC   candidates   possessing   the   minimum   eligibility/qualifying


marks   are   not   available   in   the   OBC   merit   list,   the   OBC   seats   shall   be


converted into general category seats.



(iii)    If the last date for admissions has expired, the last date for admissions


shall be extended till 31.8.2011 as a special case, to enable admissions to the


vacant OBC seats.








                                                                  ___________________J.

                                                                            (R. V. Raveendran)





New Delhi;                                                     ___________________J.

August  18, 2011.                                                            (A. K. Patnaik)