Judgment :- SATHIADEV, J. 1. Petitioner in W.P. No. 8142 of 1987 is the appellant herein and the respondents therein are the two respondents, herein. 2. The relief claimed in the writ petition is for issue of Writ of mandamus directing the respondents to admit the petitioner in the First Year Integrated M.B.B.S. Course in any one of the Government Medical Colleges in Tamil Nadu. She belongs to Kattunayakan community, which is a notified Scheduled Tribe in the State of Tamil Nadu. She applied in July, 1987 for a seat in M.B.B.S. Course for the academic year 1987-88 and she secured 170.8 marks out of 250 marks which works out to 68.32%; but yet, she was not selected even though a reservation of 18% of medical seats was made for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (hereinafter referred to as SC/ST). Though second respondent is obliged in law to reserve a separate quota of seats for ST; by fixing 18% of seats together for SC/ST, the Scheduled Tribes do not get seats in Medical Colleges in proportion to their population. As per 1981 Census, they form 1% of the total population in Tamil Nadu, and thus they will be entitled to allotment of 11 seats in Government Medical Colleges. Even though the Government of India and other State Governments do not club together Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for employment and education, it is only in Tamil Nadu, this procedure which is contrary to the directives in Art. 46 of the Constitution of India, is being followed. This failure on its part, deprives her from securing admission, in spite of her securing 68 % in the selection process. 3. Learned Judge dismissed the Writ Petition in limine by holding that there cannot be any compulsion to reserve separate eats for SC/ST because Art. 15 (4) is an enabling provision and not a mandate, and that petitioner had addressed to wrong quarters for relief. It is on being aggrieved with this approach made, without even entertaining her writ petit 4. In the writ appeal, respondents have filed a counter claiming that petitioner has secured 170.8 marks out of 250 in the total marks inclusive of Entrance Examination marks, and that the cut-off marks for SC/ST Community is 199.10 during the year 1987.88 session. As her aggregate mark was below the cut-off marks, she was not selected. In the writ appeal, respondents have filed a counter claiming that petitioner has secured 170.8 marks out of 250 in the total marks inclusive of Entrance Examination marks, and that the cut-off marks for SC/ST Community is 199.10 during the year 1987.88 session. As her aggregate mark was below the cut-off marks, she was not selected. As per the policy of the Government, 18% seats have been reserved for SC/ST Community combined together. Having applied under the prescriptions for admission, and accepting them having partaken in the entrance process, she cannot now question the system of reservation of seats. In the 198 1 Census, out of the total population in Tamil Nadu, Scheduled Tribes constituted 1.07%. Hence, separate reservation of seats for the members of the Scheduled Tribes Community is not called for. As Constitution of India does not prescribe any separate reservation of seats for Scheduled Tribes in educational institutions, and when Art. 15 (4) is an enabling provision, the relief claimed is liable to be rejected. 5. Mr. Abdul Kareem, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner, submits that, when the constitutional intention is to treat SC and ST as distinct and separate class of persons and in the eye of Jaw they being unequals, they could not be put together in extending a constitutional protection to them. No doubt as held by the Supreme Court, Art. J.5(4) of the Constitution is not a mandate, but once the State decides to extend the benefit under the Constitution, it is prohibited from treating unequals as equals. Scheduled Tribes having been socially backward because of detestable discard practised against them by toe vested majority communities, in the evolution of achieving betterness, the Scheduled Castes having comparably better placed than Scheduled Tribes; but by locational habitation; the Schedule Tribes who are still being deprived of achieving equal status with Scheduled Castes, are entitled to get a separate reservation in proportion to the population of the State. Even though Central Government and more than one State Government had realised a duty to obey the Constitutional intention and earmarked separate seats for Scheduled Tribes in educational institutions, it is only in Tamil Nadu, the Scheduled Tribes are allowed to take undue advantage of getting more seats than what they are entitled to, by clubbing SC/ST together for reservation purposes. 6. The relevant Articles he had relied upon are Arts. 6. The relevant Articles he had relied upon are Arts. 15(4), 16(4), 46, 330(1) (a) and (b), 330 (2), 332, 335, 338, 341, 342 and 366 (24) and (25) of the Constitution of India. By referring to those Articles, he submits that, When the Constitution itself had chosen to treat Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as distinct and different classes of persons by resorting to define them under Art. 366 (24) and 25, they can never be grouped together as belonging to one class of persons. When the State chooses to extend any Constitutional benefits by invoking any provision of the Constitution, its distinctive nature which is Constitutionally recognised cannot be undermined by claiming that in extending the benefits, the State would do as it likes, thus effacing the distinction which exists between Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In making provision for reservation of seats in Parliament and Legislative Assemblies, based on population reservation having been made treating them as different class, and when Notifications are to be issued to identify and specify Scheduled Tribes as distinct from Scheduled Castes, there could be no justification in grouping them together, to confer educational benefits under Art, 15(4). 7. Learned Advocate, General, by referring to tbe decision reported in M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore , 1 submits that Art. 15(4) is an enabling provision, and therefore, a Mandamus cannot be issued to direct the State to make a reservation for SC/ST and whatever be the specific provision with regard to reservation of seats in Parliament and Legislature, cannot be read into Art. 15(4) of the Constitution. Following this decision, a Division Bench in Abdul Latiff v. State 2 held that, what is sought to be achieved under Art. 15(4) is like reservation of posts and appointments as contemplated under Art. 16(4), and it should be done only within a reasonable limit. Art. 15(4) only enables the State to make special provisions in the nature of promoting the advancement of the weaker sections of the Society, and therefore has to be read as a Proviso or an exception to Art. 15(1). Art. 15(4) only enables the State to make special provisions in the nature of promoting the advancement of the weaker sections of the Society, and therefore has to be read as a Proviso or an exception to Art. 15(1). In this context, he also refers to the decision in Desk Rayudu v. A. P. Public Service Commission 1 wherein it was held as follows:— “ It was not incumbent upon the State Government to prepare any list of backward classes, nor is it incumbent on it now to prepare any list. Both the Articles enable the State Government to make provision for extending help to secially and educationally backward classes. The State Government therefore cannot be compelled by the issue of Mandamus to continue either what it was doing or do something in accordance with the mandate issued” He therefore submits that, as held by the learned Judge, when Art. 15(4) is not a mandate, while extending certain benefits or reservation, it is open to the State to prescribe the manner in which it could be achieved, and failure to differentiate between Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes cannot be assailed in the manner done by the appellant. 8. Supreme Court held in AIR 1963 SC 649 (cited supra) that Art. 15(4) of the Constitution is only an enabling provision and does not impose an obligation, and it is in the discretion of the appropriate Government to suitable action if necessary and provide for reservation for SC/ST, so that they acquire educational Advancement. The purport of this decision is that, it is left to the discretion of the State Government, if circumstances warrant to take appropriate steps under this Article whenever it is considered necessary. It is open to State to provide the benefits under this Art. Only for Scheduled Castes or for Scheduled Tribes. It is equally open to the State Government either to confer or deny reservation in educational institutions for certain Backward Classes, if they are comparably better placed than certain other sections of the Society. If it chooses to invoke Art. 15(4), then it is bound to treat Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as distinct from one another for reservation purposes. It is not open to the State of Tamil Nadu to claim that Scheduled Tribes belong to the same category as Scheduled Castes and will have to be treated alike. If it chooses to invoke Art. 15(4), then it is bound to treat Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes as distinct from one another for reservation purposes. It is not open to the State of Tamil Nadu to claim that Scheduled Tribes belong to the same category as Scheduled Castes and will have to be treated alike. It is only in implementing the Constitutional provision, it had chosen to extend benefits by reserving 18 % seats in educational institutions, for those who would Come under Art. 15(4) of the Constitution. In doing so, it has to treat those two class of persons only in the manner in which they have been understood by the Constitution. In exercising their discretionary powers under Art. 15(4) they have no right to act against the Constitutional intention of treating them as distinct and separate class of persons. Under Art. 366 (24), the Constitution lad chosen to define “Scheduled Caste” as follows:— “Scheduled Castess means such castes, raise or tribes or parts of or groups within such castes, races or tribes as are deemed under article 341 to be Scheduled Castes for the purposes of this Constitution.” As far as “Scheduled Tribes” are concerned, it is defined in Art. 366(25) as follows:— ‘“Scheduled Tribes’ means such tribes or triba1 communities or parts of or groups within such tribes or tribal communities as are deemed under article 342 to be Scheduled Tribes for the purposes of this Constitution.” The attempt to distinguish “Scheduled) Tribes” from “Scheduled Castes” has been maintained right through in other provisions of the Constitution whenever necessity had arisen to deal with their rights, as distinct from the other members of the Society. In part XVI of the Constitution, which deals with “Special provisions relating to certain to Glasses”; in the House of the people seats have been reserved for SC/ST by treating them as distinct and separate classes of Citizens. In doing so, under Art. 330 (2), the seats so reserved, shall bear a proportion to the total population of the State. Regarding Legislative Assembly of a State, a similar provision is made under Art. 332. In doing so, under Art. 330 (2), the seats so reserved, shall bear a proportion to the total population of the State. Regarding Legislative Assembly of a State, a similar provision is made under Art. 332. In relation to services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of a State, under Art. 335, their claims shall be taken into consideration consistent with the maintenance of the efficiency of administration, and in doing so, the distinction brought out in the Constitution by treating them as separate and distinct classes had been maintained. Articles 341 and 342 deal with separate notifications being made to identify them as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, which would further strengthen the proposition, that they can never be treated as one group of persons. Art. 46 enjoins upon the State to promote With special care “the educational and economic interests” of SC/ST. This distinction having been purposefully and pointedly brought about in more than one Article in the Constitution; in extending the cover age or a protection or reservation relating to them under Art. 15(4)P they could not be treated alike by the State. As earlier stated, it is certainly open to the State either to give protection only to the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes as it may deem fit; but if it chooses to extend the benefit to both of them, it has to treat each class separately, and adopt such standards as are permissible in law to reserve seats in educational institutions separately for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 9. A Division Bench in Raveendra Raju v. State of Kerala 1 had observed as follows:— “Even under the constitution, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes have been treated as separate classes and not as a composite group. They are defined separately in clauses (24 and 25) of Article 366 and the separate provisions made in respect of Scheduled Castes and in respect of Scheduled Tribes in Articles 330, 332, 341 and 342, etc., all go to show that the two groups have been dealt with in the Constitution as separate and distinct from one another. They are defined separately in clauses (24 and 25) of Article 366 and the separate provisions made in respect of Scheduled Castes and in respect of Scheduled Tribes in Articles 330, 332, 341 and 342, etc., all go to show that the two groups have been dealt with in the Constitution as separate and distinct from one another. It cannot be gainsaid that members of the Scheduled Tribes are by and large very much more backward socially, educationally and economically than members of the Scheduled Castes Any scheme of reservation of posts in favour of such backward classes of citizens cannot but take due note of this grim reality. What the State Government has done under the impugned orders Exts. P-4 and P-5 is to effect a classification between candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and those belonging to Scheduled Tribes after taking into account the greater degree of backwardness from which the latter group suffers and to make provision for a reservation of a small percentage of the posts earmarked for special recruitment in favour of candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribes by stipulating that the second and thereafter every following fifth turn shall be reserved for candidate belonging to the Scheduled Tribes. We do not see any illegality whatever in the provision for such reservation made by Exts. P-4 and P-5. As already pointed out the members of the Scheduled Tribes being more backward socially, educationally and economically compared to members of the Scheduled Castes there is ample justification for the two groups being classified separately and such a classification has undoubtedly a rational nexus with the object and purpose underlying Rule 17A, namely that on securing adequate representation in the services to the backward classes of citizens and more especially members of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in State of Kerala and another v. N.M. Thomas and others 2, the basic concept of the equality guaranteed by Article 16(1) of the Constitution is equality of opportunity for appointment to any offence under the State and it is only by giving preferential treatment for members of backward classes that such equality of opportunity can be really brought about. “Equality of opportunity for unequals can only mean aggravation of inequality.” As observed by Ray, C.J., at page 497:— “Discrimination is the essence of classifications Equality is violated if it rests on unreasonable basis. The concept of equality has an inherent limitation arising from the very nature of the constitutional guarantee. Those who are similarly circumstanced are entitled to an equal treatment. Equality is amongst equals”. If unequals are treated alike that would amount to a violation of the guarantee of equality of opportunity” In State of Kerala v. N. M. Thomas 2, it was observed as follows:— “Equality means parity of treatment under parity of conditions The Constitution makes a classification of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in numerous provisions and gives a mandate to the State to accord special or favoured treatment to them Article 46 contains a Directive Principle of State Policy fundamental in the governance of the country enjoining the State to promote with special care educational and economic interests of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and to protect them from any social injustice and a exploitation. “ 9-A. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon the following materials to show that this distinction has been taken note of by the Union Government and several State Governments, and the ordain of the Constitution had been correctly understood and acted upon, which the Government of Tamil Nadu had failed to implement. Department of Personnel and Training of the Government of India in its Circular dated 24-5-1985 had revised the roster Statewise by fixing separate quotas for SC/ST, taking into account the population of each State. There are many States wherein, the quota for Scheduled Tribes is much more than the reservation made for Scheduled Castes. In Nagaland, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshwadeep and Mizoram, there is no reservation for Scheduled Castes at all. In the prospectus issued by JIPMER at Pondicherry, for Scheduled Castes, and Scheduled Tribes, separate seats have been reserved. For Regional Engineering College, Warangal a similar provision is made. In all Regional Engineering Colleges numbering eleventh in the Country, including for Tamil Nadu; separate reservation has been made for SC/ST. The Brochure of Reservation for SC/ST in Service, in more than one place provides for separate quotas being fixed for SC/ST. For Regional Engineering College, Warangal a similar provision is made. In all Regional Engineering Colleges numbering eleventh in the Country, including for Tamil Nadu; separate reservation has been made for SC/ST. The Brochure of Reservation for SC/ST in Service, in more than one place provides for separate quotas being fixed for SC/ST. He therefore respectfully submits that, when this distinction spelt out in the Constitution had been scrupulously followed also for educational purposes, the prescription of the respondents herein in the allocation of 18% for admission to Medical Colleges by grouping SC/ST together is, therefore, illegal. 10. Further, in exercise of the powers conferred under Art. 341(I) of the Constitution, separate Acts had been enacted. For Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Castes (Amendment) Act, 1976 had been passed and in Part XVI, the Scheduled Castes in Tamil Nadu had been identified. Likewise, the Scheduled Tribe (Amendment) Act, 1976 was passed and in Part XIV, 36 Tribes had been identified in Tamil Nadu. This is yet another factor which clearly shows that in the eye of law, they have been differently treated and, therefore, they could not be treated alike. 11. While passing G.O.Ms. No. 1565 Social Welfare Department dated 30-7-1985, which is produced before Court to show that in respect of educational institutions, 18% seats are to be earmarked for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. This G.O. came to be passed consequent to the decision in Vasanth Kumar and Another v. State of Karnataka 1 recognising therein existing 18 % reservation for SC/ST, as found in G.O. Ms. No. 73 S. W. dated 1-2-1980. It is claimed that based on these G.Os., the prospectus for Government Medical Colleges in Tamil Nadu for MBBS/BDS/D. Pharm Courses, 1987-88 came to be issued. 12. As pointed out above, once Art. 15 (4) is invoked to extend educational benefit to SC/ST. it is not then open to the State of Tamil Nadu to group them in one category without realising that the Scheduled Tribes are by and large very much backward socially educationally and economically than members of the Scheduled Castes. Hence, this prescription of grouping them as one category as found in the prospectus, which in turn came to be issued, based on G.O.Ms. No. 1565, Social Welfare Department dated 30-7-1985 and G.O. Ms. No. 73, Social, Welfare Department dated 1-2-4980, is declared as invalid and illegal. 13. Hence, this prescription of grouping them as one category as found in the prospectus, which in turn came to be issued, based on G.O.Ms. No. 1565, Social Welfare Department dated 30-7-1985 and G.O. Ms. No. 73, Social, Welfare Department dated 1-2-4980, is declared as invalid and illegal. 13. The appellant cannot be granted relief for the Course for which she had applied in the absence of appropriate reservation of quota and of particulars as to how many Scheduled Tribes have secured marks over and above her. Therefore, in the prospectus to be issued for 1990-91, on separate quota fixed for Scheduled Tribes, it will then be open to her to apply for admission to the Course. Hence, the only relief that could be granted is to declare that the earmarking of 18% for SC/ST for admission to M.B.B.S., course as found in prospectus is invalid and illegal and it cannot be followed henceforth, when admissions are made in future. To this effect, this writ appeal allowed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 1,000.