Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6
PETITIONER:
DR. PARAG GUPTA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/04/2000
BENCH:
R.C.Lahoti, S.R.Babu
JUDGMENT:
RAJENDRA BABU, J. :
Students who had qualified for medical degree course
got admission under the All India quota of 15 per cent and
migrated to different States to pursue the course of study
and are now seeking admission into Postgraduate courses.
Their grievance is that the States or concerned authorities
have framed admission rules in such a way that they can
neither pursue their studies in the migrated State nor in
their home State.
Before we address to the controversy we may briefly
survey a few decided cases. In Jagadish Saran (Dr.) v.
Union of India, 1980 (2) SCC 768, the admission rules
prescribed by the Delhi University provided that 70% of the
seats at the post graduate level in the medical courses
shall be reserved for students who had obtained their MBBS
degree from the same university and the remaining 30% seats
were open to all, including the graduates of Delhi. After
considering the decisions rendered till that day, this Court
took the view that "university-wise preferential treatment
may still be consistent with the rule of equality of
opportunity where it is calculated to correct an imbalance
or handicap and permit equality in the larger sense. If
University-wise classification for post graduate medical
education is shown to be relevant and reasonable and the
differentia has a nexus the larger goal of equalisation of
education opportunities the vice of discrimination may not
invalidate the rule." The admission to post graduate medical
course are determined on the basis of a common entrance test
inasmuch as the students of Delhi University are drawn from
all over India and are not confined to the Delhi region.
The rule was held to be not invidious and recognised the
desires of the students for institutional continuity in
education and recognised as one of the grounds justifying
the reservation. The argument of excessive reservation in
that case could not be considered on the ground of
inadequacy of material on record.
In Pradeep Jain (Dr.) v. Union of India, 1984 (3) SCC
654, this Court opined that wholesale reservation made by
some of the States on the basis of ‘domicile’ or requirement
of residence within the State or on the basis of
institutional preference for students who have passed the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6
qualifying examination held by the university or the State
and excluding the students not satisfying the said
requirement, regardless of merit, is unconstitutional and
being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Declaring that anyone from anywhere in the country,
irrespective of his language, religion, place of birth or
residence, is entitled to be afforded equal chance of
admission to any secular educational course anywhere in the
country, but, at the same time, recognising the factual
position as to inequalities existing in the society and the
need for affirmative action on that account, this Court
directed that certain percentage of seats in the MBBS course
and post graduate medical courses in all the government
colleges in the State should be set apart for being filled
purely on the basis of merit and students from all over the
country were entitled to compete for these seats and the
admission was directed to be based upon merit and merit
alone. On further consideration of the matter, the
percentage was fixed at 15% to students level and 25% P.G.
level in a later decision in Dinesh Kumar (Dr.) (II) v.
Motilal Nehru Medical College, 1986 (3) SCC 727. It was,
however, made clear that so far as super-specialties are
concerned there should be no reservation either on the basis
of institutional preference or otherwise and that admissions
should be granted purely on merit determined on all-India
basis. In State of Rajasthan v. Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta,
1989 (1) SCC 93, the preference provided for admission to
post graduate medical courses in the colleges affiliated to
the Rajasthan University should be based upon the merit
determined at the competitive examination, however,
providing for 5 increasing marks if the applicant passed the
final MBBS examination from the Rajasthan University and
another 5 marks if the applicant passed the final MBBS
examination from the same institution for which selections
are being made was considered. This Court noticed that all
the medical colleges in the State of Rajasthan located at
Jaipur, Bikaner, Udaipur, Jodhpur and Ajmer were not
similarly situated and the students who have passed their
examination from Jaipur Medical College in the matter of
admission to post graduate medical courses in that medical
college brought about an extremely unfair and unjust result.
It was pointed out that by virtue of rule of preference
students with far less marks would steal a march over a
student securing higher marks only because he has passed his
MBBS examination from the same college.
In Anant Madaan v. State of Haryana, 1995 (2) SCC
135, challenge was to a rule made by the Government of
Haryana providing that in the matter of admission to MBBS
and BDS courses, 80% of the seats shall be reserved for
candidates who have studied 10th, 11th and 12th standards as
regular candidates in recognised institutions in the State
of Haryana. This challenge was levelled by students who had
passed their 10th, 11th and 12th examinations from schools
and colleges outside the State of Haryana but whose parents
were either residing in or domiciled in the State of
Haryana. The challenge to the rule was repelled following
the decision of this Court in D.P. Joshi v. State of M.P.,
1955 (1) SCR 1215, and Jagadish Saran (supra), Dr. Pradeep
Jain (supra) and Dinesh Kumar (supra) treating the rule
providing for preference on the ground of domicile or
residence to be valid.
In Sanjay Ahlawat v. Maharishi Dayanand University,
1995 (2) SCC 762, the challenge before the Court was in
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6
respect of a rule providing for admission to post graduate
medical courses preference being given to local students by
adding ten extra marks. The validity of the rule was
sustained on the basis that it was not a case of college
wise or university wise reservation but it is a rule
providing for preference on the basis of domicile.
These decisions lead us to the following principles.
Though university wise preference is permissible,
college wise preference is not. 70% to 80% reservation has
been sustained even where the students from different
universities appear at a common entrance test. After the
decisions in Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra) and followed by
Dinesh Kumar (supra) the practice all over the country was
to make 15% of the seats in MBBS course and 25% of the seats
in post graduate medical courses in all the government
medical colleges in the country available on the basis of
merit alone. Students from anywhere in the country can
compete for these seats which are allotted on the basis of
an all-India test conducted by the designated authority.
The rule of preference on the basis of domicile or
requirement of residence is not bad provided it is within
reasonable limits and does not result in reserving more than
the aforesaid percentage. Where the students from different
universities appear at a common entrance test the rule of
university-wise preference loses its relevance. The
explanation of difference in evaluation, standards of
education and syllabus lose much of their significance when
admission is based upon a common entrance test. At the same
time, the right of the State Government to regulate the
process of admission and their desire to provide for their
own students should also be accorded due deference. In the
light of these principles, we examine the facts arising in
the present case.
There are 32 States and Union Territories which
provide for medical education. At the graduate level
(M.B.B.S.), except Jammu & Kashmir and Andhra Pradesh, all
the States and Union Territories pool 15% seats to be filled
from common entrance examination on all-India basis, rest of
the 85% of seats are filled by holding entrance examination
at the State level. In 15% seats filled on All-India basis
students from one State have to migrate to other State
allotted to them for pursuing MBBS course. 18 States and
Union Territories, apart from Jammu & Kashmir and Andhra
Pradesh, provide post graduate medical courses on pooling
25% seats to be filled on all-India basis by a common
entrance examination conducted by AIIMS. All MBBS qualified
students can compete for admission without any restriction
in this 25% quota and for filling the remaining 75% seats in
post graduate courses the States or Union Territories have
adopted different criteria for admission. Some states have
adopted institutional preference, while some others
residential preference. Various States having different
criteria of reservation may be tabled as follows :-
State Nature of Preference 1. UP Institutional 2.
Delhi Institutional 3. Maharashtra Institutional 4.
Gujarat Institutional 5. West Bengal Institutional 6.
Assam Residence 7. Tamil Nadu Residence 8. Goa Residence
9. Karnataka Residence 10.Madhya Pradesh Institutional OR
Residence 11. Haryana Institutional OR Residence 12.
Punjab Institutional OR Residence 13. Rajasthan
Institutional OR Residence 14. Kerala Institutional OR
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6
Residence 15. Orissa Institutional OR Residence 16.
Himachal Pradesh Institutional OR Residence 17. Bihar
Institutional OR Residence 18. Pondicherry 25% All India
quota + 37.5 % inst- itutional of available seats + 27.5% of
available seats open for all
The contention put forth before us is that the
different criteria adopted by different states encroach upon
the rights of the students who have qualified MBBS under the
15% all-India quota who invariably migrate to other States
from their home-State and do not get any opportunity for
advancement of their career in their home-State as they are
debarred for admission on account of different criteria,
either on account of reservation on the ground of
residential requirement in the migrating State or on the
ground of institutional preference adopted by the State or
Union Territories or Universities.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12 of 1999 filed by Dr.
Parag Gupta may be taken as an illustrative case. The plea
put forward by the writ petitioner in this case is that he
is born and brought up in Delhi and, therefore, he should be
permitted to participate in the entrance examination being
conducted by the Delhi University and should be considered
for admission by Delhi University against the 75% seats.
The plea put forth is that he studied the MBBS course in
Tamil Nadu having been allotted to Tamil Nadu under the 15%
quota of seats being filled up on all-India basis by the
Director General Health Service pursuant to the scheme
framed by this Court after the decision in Dr. Pradeep Jain
(supra) and neither he is permitted in Tamil Nadu to appear
in the entrance examination on the ground that he is not a
resident of that State nor is he allowed to take the
entrance examination being conducted by the Delhi University
because he did not study for the last five years in the
Delhi University. On the other hand, the stance of the
Delhi University is that the petitioner can certainly
compete for the all-India 25% of seats earmarked to be
filled up on all-India basis from the candidates selected
and sponsored by the Director General of Health Services,
the remaining 75% having been earmarked for students who
have graduated from Delhi University, he is not entitled to
claim admission at all. Like most of the Universities
across the country, even in Delhi University, reservation of
seats other than the seats being filled up on all-India
basis is on the basis of institutional preference, that is,
the seats are reserved to be filled up in the post graduate
medical courses in favour of students who have passed their
MBBS course from the Delhi University. Irrespective of the
place of birth and having been a resident of Delhi if an
applicant is an MBBS graduate of the Delhi University, he is
eligible to be considered for admission against 75% seats.
This Court had upheld the validity of the criteria in view
of the peculiar circumstances arising in Delhi University in
Jagadish Saran (supra), to which we have adverted to
earlier. This criteria was again considered by a Three
Judge Bench of this Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra) and,
it is submitted that, since the criteria has already been
upheld by this Court the challenge to the same is
mis-conceived and is not maintainable at all. Inasmuch as
the petitioner is not an MBBS graduate of Delhi University
the proper course for him would be to seek a direction from
the State of Tamil Nadu where he was a student of MBBS
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6
course that he should be permitted to seek admission in the
post graduate medical courses in the State of Tamil Nadu and
the requirement of domicile stipulated by the State of Tamil
Nadu be considered to be invalid. It is further submitted
that the petitioner would have an unfair advantage inasmuch
as he had secured admission under 15% all-India quota, he
would became ineligible in the State of Tamil Nadu even
though he is a medical graduate from that State and would be
deemed to be eligible from Delhi merely on the ground that
he was born and brought up in Delhi; that because he
obtained a low position in comparision to a large number of
other candidates with whom he is competing for the MBBS
course in the Delhi University, he would gain an unfair
advantage on this and the petitioner being fully aware of
the criteria followed by the Delhi University to the MBBS
courses by the time he chose to secure admission in Tamil
Nadu from all-India quota having been unable to secure
admission in Delhi University. It is contended that if the
claim put forward by the petitioner is accepted, then he
would become eligible in 25% all-India quota in all
institutions all over the country and would also become
eligible for 75% seats in Tamil Nadu and 75% in Delhi. Thus
he would have opportunity of competing against 175% of
seats. As regards the meritorious candidates in Delhi they
would be eligible against 100% of seats - 25% all-India
quota and 75% seats in the Delhi University and thus it
would confer unjustified favour and benefits to all such
candidates as the petitioner in the present case. If the
pattern followed by the Delhi University is adopted and
followed by all institutions and States throughout the
country which is in conformity with the norms laid down by
this Court it would ensure that no candidate secures any
unfair advantage in admission to post graduate courses. If
the institutional preference is adopted as a uniform
criteria for reservation for post graduate courses, it would
ensure that every candidate irrespective whether he secures
admission to the MBBS courses from 85% seats reserved for
local candidates or 15% seats for all-India basis or whether
he was allotted in the State of his origin or residence, or
to any other State, will have an equal opportunity to appear
in post graduate course. Further it is contended that other
institutions and States which have adopted the criteria of
domicile for State quota ought to be directed to discontinue
the same and reservation, if any, should be done as is
permitted in Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra) case on the basis of
institutional preference.
In this background, we have to evolve a principle
which is equitable to all. Taking into consideration local
and regional compulsions we have to strike a balance so that
students who have pursued studies in a particular university
or State are not invidiously stranded or marooned. The
grievance of the petitioners, if examined closely, is very
limited and that is these students who have gone out of
their home-States to pursue studies else where on All India
quota should be allowed to participate to compete in their
home-States where they have their roots, to pursue post-
graduate studies.
The objection of the University and the intervening
students is that such students will have an unfair advantage
of competing in All India quota + home-State quota +
institutional quota in that University where they studied.
We fail to see any unfair advantage in this regard inasmuch
as all students have to take common entrance test with
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6
reference to their home State and face stiff competition.
The students in home State if at all are put to disadvantage
only to a small degree of taking competition with respect to
very few students falling in that category of the
petitioners. On the other hand, inclusion of such students
will make it broad based as well thereby striking a balance.
Thus, we think, if students of the home State are also
allowed to participate in the entrance test, there will be
uniformity all over the country and small disadvantage
removed with respect to a small section of student community
does not disturb the balance and the advantage derived
achieves uniformity.
The Delhi University appears to have conducted its
entrance examination and we had allowed the petitioners to
participate in the same whose results will now have to be
declared. Counselling in the Delhi University has gone on
10.4.2000 and 11.4.2000 and when we permitted the
petitioners to participate in such counselling subject to
result of these petitions, the University thought fit to
cancel such counselling already done and postponed the same.
In these peculiar circumstances, we have riveted our
attention only to the imminent problem arising and in the
manner presented before us. We are not called upon to
decide the larger issues requiring detailed examination of
the effect of earlier decisions of this Court and extent or
manner of reservation based on residence and/or institution
with reference to conditions prevailing in each of the State
and how the same will have to be maintained or properly
balanced.
On this basis we think the States/Union
Territories/Universities should allow students who had
pursued courses outside their home State to participate in
the entrance examination held in their home State
irrespective of any kind of preference that may have been
adopted for selection to P.G.medical course.
Before parting with this case, we make it clear that
we are not deciding that vexed question of attaining
uniformity in all P.G.courses all over the country except to
the extent indicated earlier nor we are in a position to say
whether institutional preference based on any study in an
institution or requirement of residence or both fully
complies with the various directions issued by this Court
from time to time. We, therefore, think that it would be
appropriate for the concerned States or other authorities to
achieve uniformity by adopting institutional and/or
residential preference in terms of the decisions referred to
by us as otherwise, if challenged, may not stand scrutiny of
the Court.
The petitions are allowed to the extent indicated
above.