Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6
CASE NO.:
Writ Petition (civil) 5 of 2001
Writ Petition (civil) 13 of 2001
Writ Petition (civil) 38 of 2001
Writ Petition (civil) 50 of 2001
Special Leave Petition (civil) 104 of 2001
PETITIONER:
ABHINAV AGGARWAL & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/02/2001
BENCH:
S. Rajendra Babu, & K.G. Balakrishnan.
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
RAJENDRA BABU, J. :
L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J
The petitioners in these cases claim to hail from Delhi
and have completed MBBS course from colleges situate in
different parts of the country. They state that they passed
entrance examination held by the concerned Governments of
the States in which the colleges situate or the entrance
test conducted by such colleges; that the classmates of the
petitioners who studied in Delhi and continued their study
in the medical courses also in one or the other medical
college have an advantage over the petitioners as they are
being considered for admission to PG medical courses in
Delhi University by providing for institutional preference.
The Delhi University has prescribed the conditions for
admission as follows :-
Requirement for admission to Post-Graduate Degree
Courses : (A) 1. Candidate must have completed
satisfactorily one year of compulsory rotating internship
after passing the final M.B.B.S. examination from the
University of Delhi on or before 31.3.2001 and must have
full registration with the State Medical Council/Medical
Council of India.
2. The candidate who has passed the MBBS examination
from a University other than Delhi University, having been
allotted to the same under the 15% All India Quota by the
Director General of Health Services would also be eligible
if he/she is permanent resident of the National Capital
Territory of Delhi, (The proviso has been incorporated as
per the direction of the Honble Supreme Court in Dr. Parag
Guptas case and is subject to further order of the Honble
Supreme Court) and if he/she also fulfills all the following
three conditions :-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6
(i) He/She has passed 10+2 examination from National
Capital Territory of Delhi.
(ii) He/She is a permanent resident of the National
Capital Territory of Delhi.
(iii) He/She has passed the MBBS examination from a
University other than Delhi University, having been allotted
to the same under the 15% All India Quota by the Director
General of Health Services if he/she is permanent resident
of the National Capital Territory of Delhi.
Note : (i) A candidate must produce any one of the
following documents to prove his/her permanent residence in
the National Capital territory of Delhi :
(a) Ration Card (b) Voters Identity Card
(c ) Passport (d) Driving license
(ii) The Candidate must submit documentary proof for
serial no. (i) & (iii).
There are similar rules in the State of Uttar Pradesh
and the contentions raised by some of the petitioners who
hail from Uttar Pradesh are identical.
After decision in Dr. Parag Gupta vs. University of
Delhi & Ors., 2000 (5) SCC 684, various States have adopted
different criteria of reservation which may be tabulated as
follows :-
1 Delhi Institutional Residence (15%)
2 Gujarat Institutional
3. Maharashtra Institutional
4. U.P. Institutional Residence (15%)
5. West Bengal Institutional
6. Assam
Residence
7. Goa
Residence
8. Karnataka
Residence
9. Tamil Nadu
Residence
10. Haryana Institutional or
Residence
11. H.P. Institutional or Residence
12. Kerala Institutional or
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6
Residence
13. M.P. Institutional or
Residence
14. Orissa Institutional or
Residence
15. Punjab Institutional or
Residence
16. Rajasthan Institutional or
Residence
17. Bihar Institutional or
Residence
18. Pondicherry 25% all-India quota + 37.5%
institutional of available seats + 37.5% of available seats
open.
The contention put forth before us is that different
criteria adopted by different States encroach upon the right
of the students who have qualified MBBS by passing necessary
entrance examinations and who migrated to other States from
their home State do not get an opportunity for advancement
of their career in their home State as they are debarred
from 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. Though in a small area the
States of Uttar Pradesh and Delhi relax the condition of
institutional preference by making provision for residence
in respect of 15% all-India quota in which none of the
petitioners fall. The tabulation would disclose that some
States allow admission to postgraduate medical courses only
to the residents, whereas some States allow admission to
postgraduate medical courses to such students who have
qualified from any medical college even from outside the
home States and some other States allow admission to
postgraduate medical courses only to those students who have
qualified from the medical colleges situate within the State
or University. Delhi University provides admission to
postgraduate medical courses to students who have qualified
MBBS from Delhi University and also to such students who
have qualified MBBS from outside Delhi under the 15%
all-India scheme as formulated in Dr. Dinesh Kumars case.
The petitioners who have qualified from different colleges
are denied the opportunity to compete in the entrance
examination held by the Delhi University for admission to
postgraduate courses, while the State of Rajasthan, Haryana
and Punjab allow admissions also to residents who have
qualified MBBS from any medical college for which admission
is conducted on the basis of all-India entrance examination
or otherwise. Thus the students who are classmates of the
petitioners are eligible to pursue postgraduate courses in
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6
their respective home States but the petitioners in their
own home State are being denied the opportunity to compete
in the entrance examination to seek admission in
postgraduate courses in universities in Delhi and Uttar
Pradesh. Their claim is that they got admission in MBBS
after passing the entrance examination on the basis of
all-India entrance examination conducted by the respective
institutions and, therefore, negation of opportunity to the
petitioners to compete in the entrance examination is in
gross violation of the fundamental rights as guaranteed
under Article 14 of the Constitution. The contention put
forth is that the criteria set out by different States to
fill in the 75% State quota to admission to postgraduate
medical courses does not achieve any uniformity. Strong
reliance is placed on Dr. Parag Guptas case in this regard
and it is contended that to strike a balance between the
students who continued studies in their home States and
those students who had pursued studies in other universities
or States who are invidiously discriminated should be
allowed to compete in their home States where they have
rules to pursue their postgraduate studies.
In reply, the contention put forth is that in respect of
Delhi University the scheme of admission is what was
considered in Dr. Jagdish Saran s case and reservation is
made in respect of 25% of the seats which are kept to be
filled by on all-India basis against which any student from
anywhere in the country is entitled to compete and get
selected and only the remaining 75% are reserved as
permitted by this Court in Dr. Pradeep Jains case read
with Dr. Dinesh Kumars case. When the directions given by
this Court in Dr. Parag Guptas case were sought to be
applied in a general manner to all students who had studied
outside the State in medical colleges and sought for
admission in their home State, it was noticed by this Court
that such a course was not permissible and this position was
clarified in Vineet Singhs case. The petitioners having
studied outside their home States under the 15% all-India
quota are not entitled to seek admission in Delhi University
against the 75% per cent Delhi University seats by invoking
the decision in Dr. Parag Guptas case. The institutions
in which the petitioners did their MBBS course are not
covered by the judgment or scheme formulated in Dr. Pradeep
Jains case and admission in the said institutions is not
made on all-India entrance examination being conducted by
the Central Board of Secondary Education on behalf of the
Director General of Health Services pursuant to the judgment
and directions of this Court in Dr. Pardeep Jains case.
Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioners are not
entitled to seek admission in postgraduate medical courses
in Delhi University under the 75% Delhi University quota
seats.
After considering the cases in Dr. Jagadish Saran v.
Union of India, 1980 (2) SCC 768; State of Rajasthan v.
Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta, 1989 (1) SCC 93, Anant Madaan v.
State of Haryana, 1995 (2) SCC 135; Dr. Dinesh Kumar v.
Motilal Nehru Medical College, 1986 (3) SCC 727; Sanjay
Ahlawat v. Maharishi Dayanand University, 1995 (2) SCC 762,
we stated in Dr. Parag Guptas case, as follows :-
These decisions lead us to the following principles:
though universitywise preference is permissible, colelgewise
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6
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 and followed by Dinesh Kumar
the practice all over the country was to make 15% of the
seats in MBBS course and 25% of the seats in postgraduate
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 universitywise
preference loses its relevance. The explanations 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.
In a way the decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v.
Vineet Singh, 2000 (7) SCC 262, covers the matter in
dispute. In that case extending the principle in Dr. Parag
Guptas case, the High Court of Allahabad had directed to
allow taking entrance examination in respect of all students
who had migrated to other States and sought for admission in
their home States. This Court explained that the decision
in Dr. Parag Guptas case was applicable only to those
selected pursuant to 15% All India quota provided under a
scheme framed in Dinesh Kumars case. It is submitted that
in these cases independent of Dr. Parag Guptas case, the
Petitioners case has to be examined as to whether the
Petitioners are discriminated against other students in
their home States. The question of attaining uniformity in
the matter of admission in PG medical courses in all medical
colleges is wrought with many complexities. Students who
have studied outside Delhi are also eligible to the 25% All
India quota provided under the scheme for admission to PG
medical courses. In view of the law declared by this Court
and directions issued pursuant thereto, schemes have been
framed by respondents institutions. We reiterate that it
would be ideal for the States/authorities concerned to
achieve uniformity by adopting appropriate criteria in the
matter of admission to PG courses in medical colleges.
When the admission rules have been framed pursuant to
the decisions of this Court to which we have adverted to and
those decisions have been rendered bearing in mind the scope
of Article 14 of the Constitution vis-Ã -vis the local needs,
we do not think, it is permissible or appropriate for us to
disturb that scheme. Hence, we decline to interfere with
the process of selection being made to consider the cases of
the petitioners.
The petitions, therefore, stand dismissed.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6