Judgment :- 1. Roshana's case (AIR. 1979 S. C. 765) was decided by the Supreme Court laying down certain principles for admission to the M. B. B. S. degree course in the Medical Colleges in the State of Kerala taking into account factors which were relevant in the concerned year of admission. The situation has considerably changed, one of the factors which resulted in such change being the introduction of an entrance examination. Roshana's case also did not deal with all possible problems or situations nor did it purport to solve all such problems. One of the questions which evidently was not contemplated and not dealt with in that case is before us now in this petition, but evidently the State of Kerala and the Principal of the Medical College seem to have proceeded as if the question is covered by the decision in Roshana's case 2. We are concerned here with the case of six petitioners who are all Muslims and who have passed out from the Calicut University. One of them, the second petitioner alone is a graduate. The other 5 have passed the pre-degree examination from that University. All of them were candidates seeking admission to the First year M. B. B. S. Course in the year 1982-83. Ext. P1 is the prospectus issued by the Principal, Medical College, Trivandrum. That mentions that the distribution of the seats between the Universities of Kerala and Calicut is in the manner directed by the Supreme Court and also subject to communal rotation principle. That the total seats available in the State have to be divided between the students who passed out from Kerala and Calicut Universities is a common meeting point. The seats have also to be divided between those who have passed pre-degree and those who are science graduates. 498 seats will be available for those who have passed the pre-degree examinations of Kerala/Calicut Universities. 104 seats will be available for science graduates from the above mentioned two Universities. Selection is to be made on the basis of common ranking based on merit at the entrance test. The system of entrance test commenced last year pursuant to a direction issued from this court. Out of the total 498 seats available for pre-degree candidates the quota for the Kerala University candidates is 332 while the quota for Calicut University candidates is 166. The system of entrance test commenced last year pursuant to a direction issued from this court. Out of the total 498 seats available for pre-degree candidates the quota for the Kerala University candidates is 332 while the quota for Calicut University candidates is 166. Evidently this is the formula adopted in the Roshana's case. There is no objection by any of the parties to its adoption in this case. The seats so reserved for the candidates who bad passed out from the two Universities are again to be distributed between those coming within the general merit quota and those coming within the reservation quota. 332 seats of the Kerala University are divided as 215 and 117 between general merit and reservation while 166 seats in the Calicut University pre-degree quota are divided between the general merit and reservation as 108:58.8 per cent is the reservation for Muslims. Therefore, in the pre-degree quota the total Muslim reservation is 40 seats. Similar reservation in the degree quota for Muslims is 10. Therefore, apart from representation in the general merit seats, Muslim candidates get in all 10 in the degree quota and 40 in the pre-degree quota. This again is common ground. The total number and division as between the degree and pre-degree is not attacked. The controversy in this case centres round the division of the 40 seats for pre-degree candidates and the division of 10 seats for degree candidates. We do not separately consider the case of the degree candidates, for whatever we say about the 40 pre-degree seats will apply with equal force to the 10 degree seats. We will proceed to consider how far the objection to the manner of reservation for the Muslim candidates is to be sustained in this case. 3. The division of the total seats between those passing out from the Calicut University and those passing out from Kerala University is made in the ratio of 1:2. One third of the seats are evidently reserved for those passing out from Calicut University. Applying the same logic what was done in regard to Muslim reservation seat was that one third of the 40 Muslim seats in the pre-degree quota was reserved for Muslim candidates passing from Calicut University while 2/3 was reserved for the pre-degree Muslim candidates passing out from the Kerala University. The former would get 13 while the latter would get 27. The former would get 13 while the latter would get 27. The fairness of this distribution and the reason behind such distribution is the main subject of controversy here. While one can understand division of seats between the Calicut and Kerala Universities in the proportion of 1:2 based on the student strength of these Universities the division of Muslim reservation seats in the same proportion would, according to the petitioners, be unreasonable and lead to perverse results. Rather than promote the object of reservation, it would injure the reservation principle itself. This is illustrated by certain statistics. 4. The Muslim population of Malabar as well as Trichur District for which the University of Calicut caters is as seen from the 1971 census, 30,57,273. Similar figure for the "Kerala University area" is 11,05,270, the total muslim population being thus 41,62,543. Ext. P3 produced by the petitioner shows the details of Census figures of the Muslim population in the various Districts of Kerala. That shows that the figure of 30,47,273 covers the Cannanore, Kozhikode and Malappuram Districts in the erstwhile Malabar area and the Trichur District which is also serviced by the Calicut University. The population of 11,05,270 Muslims is that of Ernakulam, Kottayam, Alleppey, Quilon and Trivandrum Districts. The figures of 1971 Census have not taken note of the new Districts formed but the area takes in the new Districts. Looking at these figures it is evident that roughly 3/4th of the Muslim population of the State has the benefit of 1/3rd of the reserved Muslim seats while 1/3rd of the Muslim population is allotted 2/3rd of the reserved seats. In other words roughly 13 seats are allotted to an area with a population of 3 million Muslims and 27 seats are allotted to an area with about one million Muslims. This is said to be discriminatory and unsustainable and it is for this reason that the petitioners claim that division of 40 seats should be on a different but reasonable basis. According to them while one could understand the total division of seats between the Calicut University candidates and Kerala University candidates in the proportion of 1:2 based on student strength division of the reserved seats in the same proportion would be irrational as the number of persons belonging to a particular reserved community need not have any bearing to the proportion of 1: 2 as between the two areas. The object of reservation being the promotion of the educational interests of the reserved class that will not be achieved if in the area where more reservation is made there is less number of reserved candidates and vice-versa. It is also said that judged by any standard the present principle of allocation of the reserved seats between the Muslims of Calicut and Kerala Universities is not logical. If population is the basis, then the allocation is highly inequitable. If student strength of the Muslim community is the basis, then again it is inequitable. Even going by the number of Muslim students who appeared for the examination from the area of the Calicut University and the Muslim students in the area of Travancore-Cochin University it is said that the present allocation would be highly unfair. In other words if any reasonable rule is applied the allocation as now done would be found to be thoroughly unsustainable. Virtually it is a denial of what is legitimately due. The petitioners it may be noted are candidates who have passed from the Calicut University. 5. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the first and second respondents there is very little material by way of answer. We have repeatedly said that in such important matters the counter-affidavit ought to be a responsible counter-affidavit by a person who is competent to swear to matters relevant in the case. It is not merely averments in relation to files that is called for in a case of this nature. We would expect that when such important issues have been raised the Principal of the Medical College, Trivandrum would swear to the counter-affidavit, if not the concerned Government Secretary. But unfortunately the counter-affidavit is that of a Junior Superintendent of the College. He has nothing to say about the steps taken except that the principles enunciated in the Supreme Court decision in Roshana's case was followed. How Roshana's case has any bearing on this question, we are unable to see. Therefore, we have necessarily to consider the propriety of allocation now made of reserved seats for Muslims on whatever other material is available to us. 6. This is the appropriate place where we should refer to a similar petition filed last year in connection with the challenge to similar admissions. Therefore, we have necessarily to consider the propriety of allocation now made of reserved seats for Muslims on whatever other material is available to us. 6. This is the appropriate place where we should refer to a similar petition filed last year in connection with the challenge to similar admissions. We are referring to the decision in O. P. 3212 of 1980 rendered by our learned brother Bhaskaran, J. The contention was that out of the 18 seats reserved for the Muslims, 14 seats and not 6 seats as then seen allotted should have been set apart to the students from the Calicut University area, if the distribution was on the basis of the population of Muslims in the respective areas of the Calicut and Kerala Universities. The judgment referred to the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the Supreme Court actually did not lay down any principle by way of permanent solution of the problem relating to the distribution of seats on a regional basis. The learned judge felt that the matter had to be studied and decided. Since by the time the case was taken up for disposal the year to which Ext. P1 related had expired and since the petitioner had joined the B. Sc. degree class the learned judge thought that end of justice would be adequately met if the first respondent the State of Kerala, was directed to consider the question in the light of any representation that might be filed by the petitioner giving all the necessary particulars in support of his case. We are referring to this judgment to indicate that this is not the first time the Government has been alerted on this question. But the authorities never bothered to go into the merits of the question and the consequence is that we have to consider the problem again this year. ' 7. -Before we consider how far the arrangement now resorted to is fair we have necessarily to refer in brief to Roshana's case, for, that seems to be the main plank of the defence of the respondents. Roshana's case, we must remember, was an appeal from a judgment of the Full Bench of this Court. The appeal was by the State. -Before we consider how far the arrangement now resorted to is fair we have necessarily to refer in brief to Roshana's case, for, that seems to be the main plank of the defence of the respondents. Roshana's case, we must remember, was an appeal from a judgment of the Full Bench of this Court. The appeal was by the State. It challenged the judgment of this Court striking down the transitory scheme of admission to the medical colleges of the State evolved by the Government but invalidated by the High Court on the ground of discrimination in the distribution of seats among the eligible students drawn from two different regions of the State. In Para.7 of the judgment the backwardness of the Malabar area and consequent requirement of geographic justice, a component of social justice was dealt with by Krishna Iyer J. on behalf of the Bench. The court also noticed that the corner-stone of classification adopted for medical admissions by the Government that year was University-wise allocation. The court further noticed that this had the sanction in the ratio in Chanchala's case (AIR. 1971 SC. 1762). The Full Bench of this Court, having found that University-wise categorization for allocation of seats was good, still struck down the new scheme as discriminatory not because University-wise categorization was bad but the seat allocations beyond such University-wise allocation and based such allocation on the number of students presented from the two Universities for examination. The court dealt with the possible long range solution of the problem which was one of achieving uniformity between the examinations of the two Universities. But that was a matter that would necessarily take time and therefore until such time as such unification was achieved some transitional strategy had to be deviced. That was what was done by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Roshana's case. The court noticed that the Calicut Medical College and the Calicut University were created "as the purpose - oriented mechanisms for progressive elimination of educational backwardness in the territory." In this background the court felt that if the entire number of seats of the Calicut Medical College were exclusively made the entitlement for eligible students from colleges affiliated to that University that would be fair. It is on this basis that the court gave certain directions with regard to allocation of seats for the year in question in Para.30 of the judgment. Now we will extract Para.30 here: "The three medical colleges affiliated to the Kerala University have a total strength of 345 students and the only college affiliated to the Calicut University has a student strength of 180. On these basic figures, the arithmetic worked out on the principles of deduction is beyond controversy. 42 students form the reserved quota and have to be apportioned between the two Universities in the ratio of their student-strength. Making available of seats for candidates from other Universities is also common ground. Both sides agree that the net number of seats available to be filled up, if we proceed solely on the principle of University-wise allocation, will be 166 for the Calicut University students and 317 for the Kerala University students. The admissions, even on these agreed figures, will be subject to the die-hard rule of communal reservation. The further division of seats in the ratio 60:40 as between the graduates and pre-degree candidates also has to be maintained. No question "of complicating the numbers by any further injection of the population ratio between Malabar and Travancore-Cochin arises because the new formula takes care of the backwardness of Malabar and there cannot be double benefits." That the backwardness of Malabar had been taken care of in this formula has been noticed by the court. The allocation of 166 seats for the Calicut University students and 317 for the Kerala University students was based on the number of seats available in the two Medical Colleges. After the seats were so divided admissions on the agreed figures were to be subject to the die-hard rule of communal reservation. Once the seats in the two Universities were determined the only other matter that had to be taken care of was reservation for the backward classes and Scheduled Tribes. The mode of working that out did not engage the attention of the court in Roshana's case. That was not in controversy in that case and so the court had no occasion to advert to it. The mode of working that out did not engage the attention of the court in Roshana's case. That was not in controversy in that case and so the court had no occasion to advert to it. It has been assumed by the State Government as well as the Principal of 'the Medical College responsible for drawing up the prospectus for the year 1982-83 that division of seats reserved for a particular community say, Muslims in this case, would be fair if the ratio 1:2 is adopted between the Muslim students passing out of the Calicut University and Kerala University. This proportion of 1:2 has no bearing whatsoever in the matter of allocation of seats as among Muslims. It may be that in one area there is no Muslim and another area is densely populated with Muslims. Division on the basis of 1:2 would be unfair. It may be that Muslims of one area are much more backward than that of the other area and proportion of 1:2 would then be not relevant. It may be that Muslim student strength in one area may be much more than in other area. Then also 1:2 has no relevance. An illustration is apt to explain the situation but fortunately no illustration is called for as the actual statistics would explain the position better than any illustration. Malabar is generally accepted to be backward and Muslims of Malabar are certainly recognised as backward, socially and educationally. The Muslims of the area where Kerala University operates cannot be said to be backward to the same extent or degree. The population of Muslims in the latter area is only about 1/3rd of the total population in the Calicut University area. Though three times in number the Muslims of Malabar plus Trichur get 1/3rd of the seats while the Muslims of Travancore Cochin area minus Trichur who are only about 1/3rd in population strength get 2/3rd of the seats. Of course these are rough and ready figures and may not be exact. 1981 Census figures may make some difference but the figures are not readily available to us. But that would not make any substantial difference. 8. We called upon the Advocate General to prepare and file a list of the Muslim candidates according to their rank irrespective of whether they are Muslims who passed out from the Kerala or Calicut Universities. 1981 Census figures may make some difference but the figures are not readily available to us. But that would not make any substantial difference. 8. We called upon the Advocate General to prepare and file a list of the Muslim candidates according to their rank irrespective of whether they are Muslims who passed out from the Kerala or Calicut Universities. Such a list has been filed. The first 67 names of Muslim candidates on the basis of ranking judged by the entrance test is now before us. 40 seats have to be filled up and they could be filled up from this 67. Number 67 is adopted because judged by the present formula adopted by the respondents last of the Muslims admitted is No. 67 and first of them is No. 1. Because admission has been made on the basis that Calicut University students would get only 13 seats out of the total 40 and 13 seats so made available to the Calicut University students are seen exhausted out of the first 19 ranks none after the 19th rank from the Calicut University is now taken. In other words based on pure merit out of the first 19 seats 16 seats are taken by the students who passed out from the Calicut University. That being their only quota the rest of the seats that is 27 are allotted to the Kerala University candidates and the last of them who got 151 marks is No. 67. The mark obtained by the 13th candidate from the Calicut University Muslim quota is 175. The 67th rank holder who got admission in the Kerala University quota has obtained 151 marks. While Muslim students who have passed out from Calicut University having marks between 151 and 175 have been denied admission, those who have passed from Kerala University who have received marks ranging from 151 to 175 have been admitted. If the first 40 on the basis of merit alone had been taken then again Calicut University students would have obtained 25 seats while only 15 seats would be taken by the Kerala University students. Thus adopting a rule of 1/3rd to 2/3rd which had no relevancy to reality Muslim students of Calicut University with much higher marks have not obtained admission while Muslim students of Kerala University with much lower marks have been admitted. Thus adopting a rule of 1/3rd to 2/3rd which had no relevancy to reality Muslim students of Calicut University with much higher marks have not obtained admission while Muslim students of Kerala University with much lower marks have been admitted. Thus even if merit had been the sole consideration for admission to the 40 seats in the pre-degree quota those of the Calicut University would have got a better deal. 25 of them would have been admitted. If population had been the basis they would have obtained 3/4th of the seats namely 30 seats. According to them if any better criterion had been adopted Calicut University students would have got more seats than the Muslim candidates from Kerala University. The facts speak eloquently to the fairness of this plea. 9. Evidently no thought has been bestowed on how the reservation seats should be allotted as between the Muslims of the two Universities. Whether there should be any area-wise allocation, if so whether it should be on the basis of population or whether any other more reasonable method is available are matters which should have engaged the attention of the Government. Perhaps the rigidity of the formula which results from adoption of Roshana's case makes the job none too easy. But that is no reason to deny justice to a large section of the people of the State. The decision in Roshana's case need not be taken as authority for all time. A proper study of the necessity for modification would certainly be justified and consequent adoption of a proper formula would necessarily be welcome. That would enable admissions from year to year to be made on a more rational and equitable basis. 10. We are therefore unable to sustain the mode by which the Muslim seats 40 in the pre-degree quota and 10 in the degree quota has been allotted. We are not in a position now to offer any solution mainly because students have been admitted and they have perhaps commenced their studies and more so because the principle is essentially a matter for the Government to decide. What policy they should adopter what approach they should make is not for this court to say. Interference by court would be necessary when the mode is seen to be irrational. 11. We do not propose to leave the matter at that. That is what was done last year. What policy they should adopter what approach they should make is not for this court to say. Interference by court would be necessary when the mode is seen to be irrational. 11. We do not propose to leave the matter at that. That is what was done last year. A pious hope that matter may be set right in the coming year does not generally bear much of a result. Apart from that the petitioners in this case having come to this court in time and having taken pains to vindicate their rights we should not deny them the benefit of success which they are entitled to. Therefore, we have to examine how far they succeed in this case. 12. There are six petitioners of whom the petitioner No. 6 got selection in the general quota leaving only 5 more to be considered. Petitioner No. 4 gets the 3rd rank in the reserved quota. Therefore, even if there are only 13 seats allotted to Calicut University Muslim students he would get one and therefore there can be no complaint on his account. Then there are the other 4 petitioners. Petitioner No.2 is a graduate. He comes within the quota of 10 graduate seats. His Number is 2006. His total marks is 156. The minimum mark for admission of a graduate in the reserved quota for Muslim from the Kerala and Calicut Universities is 160. If that is adopted the second petitioner is any way out. The 3rd petitioner's rank is 3734. The total marks obtained by him is 138. So whatever may be the minimum fixed he would be out of the contest. The first petitioner's rank is so low that whatever method is adopted she would not come anywhere near the winning point, and she too is out. We are only left with the 5th petitioner K. Mohammed. Whichever reasonable formula is adopted except the one now adopted the 5th petitioner would be a successful candidate. If the reservation is made for Muslims on the basis of population or on the strength of Muslim student population he would come in as his rank on the total merit list is 34. Whichever reasonable formula is adopted except the one now adopted the 5th petitioner would be a successful candidate. If the reservation is made for Muslims on the basis of population or on the strength of Muslim student population he would come in as his rank on the total merit list is 34. We thought that the fair test to determine whether for the current year any of the petitioners would earn admission would be to examine whether if the 40 seats are allotted on the basis of merit any one of the petitioners would have got a seat. That may be said of the 5th petitioner who would certainly come in because he obtained 170 marks and his rank is 34. We must remember that as it is there are 14 persons who got much less marks than him that have been selected for admission. The marks obtained by those 14ranged from 169 to 151 and all of them are from the Kerala University. There is no reason to deny the 5th petitioner admission in the background which we have explained. Consequently the 5th petitioner must be found to be entitled to admission. We are deciding that question in this case leaving it to the State Government to adopt the proper principle for allotting the reserved seats in the coming years. 13. Before leaving this case we have to draw the attention of the Government to two matters of importance. One of them concerns publication of marks and rank list of entrance examination. Many of the persons who on the basis of marks might have obtained admission if they had come to court in time as the 5th petitioner in this case has done are loosing that advantage perhaps because they are not aware of the rank they had obtained. Had they known the rank they would have perhaps been prompted to work out their rights. No doubt there must be secrecy in conduct of the examination. Conduct of the examination includes setting of question papers, entrusting agencies with that work, the valuation of answer papers and tabulation and all these have to be done in the highest secrecy. But when once the results have been prepared there is no reason for secrecy. In fact secrecy will lead the people to suspect that all may not be well even if really there is no basis for such suspicion. But when once the results have been prepared there is no reason for secrecy. In fact secrecy will lead the people to suspect that all may not be well even if really there is no basis for such suspicion. It would be highly desirable that the rank list of candidates be published along with the marks they have obtained. Another matter of importance about which we would alert the Government is the need for publication of prospectus early in the year. Delayed publication of prospectus causes delay in the admissions every year. As matters stand now some question or other would arise in the matter of admission every year particularly because an all-proof formula has not beer, found out yet to meet the various claims and entitlements that may have to be considered in determining the question of admission. Therefore it is only natural that every year soon after the admissions there are a number of petitions in this court. If there be publication of prospectus in advance with sufficient time for persons who are aggrieved by the principle adopted in the prospectus to come to court to challenge it the challenge could be well in advance so much so admission could be started in time. It would be worthwhile to think about this in the coming year and publish the prospectus, if possible, before the end of May, 1983. The result is that we direct the 5th petitioner be admitted to the First Year M. B. B. S. Course in one of the Medical Colleges of the State forthwith." We do not expect the Government to displace anybody admitted to the Course. Left to us, we feel that displacing is not called for, since no student who has been admitted has really contributed to the situation. But the ultimate decision on that must necessarily be that of the Government. The Original Petition is disposed of as above. No costs.