Dr.Manu
Bamal & Anr Vs. Shri J.V.R. Prasada Rao & Ors [2004] Insc 392 (7 May 2004)
R.C.Lahoti,
B.N. Agrawal, Ashok Bhan & Dr. Ar.Lakshmanan.
O R D
E R IN WRIT PETITION (C) NO.29 OF 2003 In view of the order passed today in
I.A. No.8 of 2004 in CWP No.29 of 2003 the prayer for initiation of contempt
proceedings cannot be entertained. The petition is dismissed.
R.C.
LAHOTI B.N. AGRAWAL ASHOK BHAN DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN New Delhi;
May 7,
2004 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION
(C) NO.189 OF 2004 Dr.Prashant Yadav & Ors. Petitioners Versus Union of India & Ors. Respondents O R D E R In view of
the order passed today in I.A. No.8 of 2004 in CWP No.29 of 2003, the present
petition is rendered infructuous.
Dismissed.
R.C.
LAHOTI B.N. AGRAWAL ASHOK BHAN DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN New Delhi;
May 7,
2004 IN THE SUPREME
COURT OF INDIA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION I.A.Nos.6-7
& 8 in W.P.(C) NO.29/2003 Saurabh Chaudri & Ors. Petitioners Versus Union of India & Ors. Respondents (With I.A. Nos. 9,10,
11, 12, 13 and 14 of 2004) O R D E R Several applications have been filed
seeking clarifications in, and/or directions for implementing, the judgment of
this Court dated November 4, 2003 in W.P.(C) No.29 of 2003 connected cases
(since reported as (2003) 11 SCC 146).
The
issue arising for decision was: whether any reservation, be it based on
residence or on institutional preference, is constitutionally permissible in PG
courses of study.
The
conclusions arrived at by the Court may briefly be summed up as under:-
(1)
All-India quota of PG seats should be 50% (instead of 25% as prevailing
hitherto) which should be filled up by common entrance test.
(2)
The original scheme as framed by this Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain's case (1984) 3
SCC 654 should be continued unless replaced by a Central Legislation in
preference to the scheme laid down by this Court in Dr. Dinesh Kumar's case
(1986) 3 SCC 727.
(3)
Institutional preference to be given to medical students for the purpose of
admission against PG seats in All-India Institute of Medical Sciences should
remain confined to 50% of the total seats in MBBS and the decision of this 428
should continue to hold the field.
The
examination for admission against All-India quota seats is conducted by All
India Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter, 'AIIMS'). The prospectus for
holding All-India Entrance Examination for MD/MS/PG Diploma and MDS Courses
2004 was issued by the AIIMS and was available for sale on and from Sept.22,
2003. Therein it was declared that the competitive entrance examination on
All-India basis was being held for admission to 25% open merit seats in various
post- graduate courses. Public advertisement in this regard was issued on September 16, 2003. The last date for receipt of
applications was October
27, 2003. The
examinations were held on January 11, 2004.
The result was declared on March 4, 2004.
The
AIIMS commenced counselling for the purpose of allotting 25% PG seats. At this
point of time, several applications have come to be filed. IA No.8 of 2004 has
been filed by the Union of India submitting that it would be proper to confine
the percentage of seats for the All-India quota to 25%, i.e., the percentage
based whereon the process for selection and admission had already commenced before
the date of judgment of this Court. There are several other similar
applications filed by a few students who have applied for admission against
quotas other than All-India quota. IA No.7 of 2004 has been filed by a batch of
students seeking admission against All-India quota for directing the Union of
India to make available 50% seats under the All-India quota consistently with
the judgment of this Court.
There
are other similar applications.
We
have heard the learned Solicitor General and all other learned counsel
appearing for the several applicants. It is not disputed at the Bar that the
process of admission commenced with the release of prospectus and public
advertisement in September, 2003 and at that point of time the seats available
under the All-India quota were only 25% and this is how the examination was
planned and obviously the medical graduates also must have made applications
seeking admissions against 25% seats. The law has been settled by the
Constitution Bench of this Court through its judgment dated November 4, 2003.
However,
this Court has nowhere in its judgment made the declaration of law applicable
to the process of admission which had already commenced. Indeed, there is no
direction made to the contrary either, i.e, as to the prospective applicability
of the judgment and prospective overruling of the decision of this Court in Dr.
Dinesh Kumar's case (supra). This has prompted the several applications being
filed and the position, therefore, needs to be clarified so as to clear the doubts.
In our
opinion, it would be appropriate to hold and direct the decision in Dr. Saurabh
Chaudri's case being made applicable only prospectively and thus exclude from
the operation thereof the process of admission which had already commenced and
was nearing finalisation when the judgment came to be pronounced.
Accordingly,
it is directed that the allotment of seats under All-India quota, the process
as to which had commenced pursuant to the advertisement dated September 16, 2003 shall remain confined to 25% only.
As a consequence, IA No.8 of 2004 filed by the Union of India and IA Nos.9, 12,
13 and 14 seeking similar relief, and taking the same stand as has been taken
by the Union of India, are allowed.
IA
Nos. 6, 7 and 10 seeking implementation of 50% All- India quota for the current year and
taking stand contrary to the one taken by the Union of India are dismissed.
IA
No.11 seeking substitution of words 'post-graduate course' in place of 'MBBS
course' in para 74 of the judgment (as reported in SCC) is totally uncalled
for. It is also rejected.
The
interim order of stay on counselling is vacated. The same shall now be resumed.
Back