Dr. Parag Gupta Vs. University of
Delhi & Ors [2000] INSC 260 (26 April 2000)
R.C.Lahoti, S.R.Babu
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
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 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 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 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
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.
Back
