1999 Supreme(SC) 822

1999(7) Supreme 81
Supreme Court of India
(Under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India)
Dr. A.S. Anand, CJI., S.B. Majmudar, Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, K. Venka­taswami, V.N. Khare, JJ.
Dr. Preeti Srivastava & Anr. etc. etc. —Petitioners
versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. etc. —Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 290 of 1997
With
Interlocutory Application No. 2
In
Writ Petition (C) No. 679 of 1995
With
Writ Petition (C) No. 300 of 1997
With
Civil Appeal No. 4368 of 1999
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 12231 of 1997)
With
Review Petition (C) Nos. 2371-2372 of 1997
In
Civil Appeal Nos. 3176-3177 of 1997
With
Writ Petition (C) No. 350 of 1998
Decided on 10-8-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Altaf Ahmad, Additional Solicitor General, A.B. Rohtagi, H.N. Salve, Subodh Mar­kandeya, P.P. Rao, Rajendra Sa­char, Bhaskar P. Gupta, M.N. Krishnamani, Anoop G. Chaudhary, D.S. Nehra, Sr. Advocates (K.R. Nambiar (NP), Ashok K. Srivastava, Irshad Ahmad, Suranya Aiyar, L.R. Singh, Amitesh Kumar, Mrs. Vimla Sinha, Yunus Mallik, Ms. Chitra Markandeya, Adesh Kumar, Satish K. Agnihotri, Ashok K. Singh, Jamshed Bey, Ajay Talesara, Ambar Qamaruddin, S.K. Agnihotri, Ms. Yogmaya, Sakesh Kumar, K.L. Hathi, Bhagwan Das, A. Mariarputham, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Ms. K. Sarada Devi, (Ms. Indra Sawh­ney), Advocate (NP), Sanjay Parikh, A.K. Mishra, Sanjay Hegde, Vikrant Yadav, Pramod Swarup, (Goodwill Indeevar) Advocate (NP), L.K. Pandey, V.N. Raghupathy, S.K. Mehta, Dhruv Mehta, Fazlin Anam, Ms. Shobha, (D.K. Garg), Advocate (NP), Advocates.

Very Important Points
1. Programmes and policies of compensatory discrimination under Arti­cle 15(4) of the Constitution have to be designed and pursued to achieve ultimate national interest; Article 15(4) also must be used, and policies under it framed, in a reasonable manner consistently with the ultimate public interests.
2. At the level of admission to the super speciality courses, no special provisions are permissible, they being contrary to national interest. Merit alone can be the basis of selection.
3. The Special provision for SC/ST candidates—whether reservations or lower qualifying marks—at the speciality level of medical education admissions have to be minimal; the percentage of 20 for the reserved category and 45 for the general category is not permissible under Article 15(4), the same being unreasonable at the post-graduate level and contrary to public interest.
4. Whether lower minimum qualifying marks for the reserved category candidates can be prescribed at the post-graduate level of medical education is a question which must be decided by the Medical Council of India since it affects standards of post-graduate medical education. Even if minimum qualifying marks can be lowered for the reserved category candidates, there cannot be a wide disparity between the minimum qualifying marks for the reserved category candidates and the minimum qualifying marks for the general category candidates at this level.
5. Power of Medical Council of India under Section 20 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 to prescribe minimum standard of medical education at post-graduate level is not merely advisory; standard prescribed by the Medical Council of India is binding on the State Governments.
6. When a common entrance examina­tion is held for admission to post-graduate medical courses, it is important that passing marks or mini­mum qualifying marks are prescribed for the examination.
7. Since no relaxation is permissible at the highest levels in the medical institutions, the petitioners are right when they contend that the reservations made for the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candi­dates for admission to D.M. and M.C.H. courses which are super-speciality courses, is not consistent with the constitutional mandate under Articles 15(4) and 16(4). Regulation 27 framed under Section 32 of the Post-graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh would not apply at the level of admissions to D.M. and M.C.H. courses.

Headnote:(i) Constitution of India—Article 15(4)—Scope and ambit of—Protec­tive/compensatory discrimination—Programmes and policies have to be designed and pursued to achieve ultimate national interest.

       Held : Article 15(4), which was added by the Constitution First Amendment of 1951, enables the State to make special provisions for the ad­vancement, inter alia, of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, notwithstanding Articles 15(1) and 29(2). The wording of Article 15(4) is similar to that or Article 15(3). Article 15(3) was there from inception. It enables special provisions being made for women and children notwithstanding Article 15(1) which imposes the mandate of non-discrimi­nation on the ground (among others) of sex. This was envisaged as a method of protective discrimination. This same protec­tive discrimination was extended by Article 15(4) to (among others) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. As a result of the combined operation of these Articles, an array of programmes of compensatory or protective discrimination have been pursued by the various States and the Union Government. Since every such policy makes a departure from the equality norm, though in a permissible manner, which for the benefit of the backward, it has to be designed and worked in a manner conducive to the ultimate building up of an egalitarian non-discriminating society. That is its final constitutional justification. Therefore, programmes and policies of compensatory discrimination under Article 15(4) have to be designed and pursued to achieve this ultimate national interest. At the same time, the programmes and policies cannot be unreasonable or arbitrary, nor can they be executed in a manner which undermines other vital public interests or the general good of all. All public polices, therefore, in this area have to be tested on the anvil of reasonableness and ultimate public good. In the case of Article 16(4) the Constitution makers explicitly spelt out in Article 335 one such public good which cannot be sacrificed, namely, the necessity of maintaining efficiency in administration. Article 15(4) also must be used, and policies under it framed, in a reasonable manner consistently with the ultimate public interests. (Paras 12 & 13)

       Any special provision under Article 15(4) has to balance the importance of having, at the higher levels of education, students who are meritorious and who have secured admission on their merit, as against the social equity of giving compensatory benefit of admission to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candi­dates who are in a disadvantaged position. The same reasoning which propelled this Court to underline reasonableness of a special provision, and the national interest in giving at the highest level of education, the few seats at the top of the educational pyramid only on the basis of merit and excellence, applies equally to a special provision in the form of lower qualifying marks for the backward at the highest levels of education. (Para 20)

       (ii) Education — Post-graduate Medical Admission—Special provision for reserved category candidates—Special provision for SC/ST candidates, whether reservation or lower qualifying marks at speciality level admissions have to be minimal—There cannot be a wide disparity be­tween minimum qualifying marks for reserved category and general category candidates—At the level of admission to super speciality courses no special provisions are permissible, they being contrary to national interest.

       Held : The spread of primary education has to be wide enough to cover all sections of the society whether forward or backward. A large percent­age of reservations for the backward would be justified at this level. These are required in individual as well as national interest. A university level education upto graduation, also enables the individu­al concerned to secure better employment. It is permissible and neces­sary at this level to have reasonable reservations for the backward so that they may also be able to avail of these opportunities for betterment through education, to which they may not have access if the college admissions are entirely by merit as judged by the marks obtained in the qualifying examination. At the level of higher post-graduate university education, however, apart from the individual self interest of the candidate, or the national interest in promoting equality, a more important national interest comes into play. The facilities for training or education at this level, by their very nature, are not available in abundance. It is essential in the national interest that these special facilities are made available to persons of high calibre possessing the highest degree of merit so that the nation can shape their exceptional talent that is capable of contributing to the progress of human knowledge, creation and utilisation of new medical, technical or other techniques, extending the frontiers of knowledge through research work - in fact everything that gives to a nation excellence and ability to compete inter­nationally in professional, technical and research fields. (Para 22)

       This Court has repeatedly said that at the level of super-specialisation there cannot be any reservation because any dilution of merit at this level would adversely affect the national goal of having the best possible people at the highest levels of professional and educational training. At the level of a super speciality, something more than a mere professional competence as a doctor is required. A super-specialist acquires expert knowledge in his speciality and is expected to possess exceptional competence and skill in his chosen field, where he may even make an original contribution in the form of new innovative techniques or new knowledge to fight diseases. It is in public interest that we promote these skills. Such high degrees of skill and expert knowledge in highly specialised areas, however, cannot be acquired by anyone or everyone. For example, specialised sophisticated know­ledge and skill and ability to make right choices of treatment in critical medical conditions and even ability to innovate and device new lines of treatment in critical situations, requires high levels of intelligent understanding of medical knowledge or skill and a high ability to learn from technical literature and from experience. These high abilities are also required for absorbing highly specialised knowledge which is being imparted at this level. It is for this reason that it would be detrimental to the national interest to have reservations at this stage. Opportunities for such training are few and it is in the national interest that these are made available to those who can profit from them the most viz. the best brains in the country, irrespective of the class to which they belong. (Para 23)

       At the next below stage of post-graduate education in medical specialities, similar considerations also prevail though perhaps to a slightly lesser extent than in the super specialities. But the element of public interest in having the most meritorious students at this level of education is present even at the stage of post-graduate teaching. Those who have specialised medical knowledge in their chosen branch are able to treat better and more effectively, patients who are sent to them for expert diagnosis and treatment in their specialised field. For a student who enrols for such speciality courses, an abili­ty to assimilate and acquire special knowledge is required. Not every­one has this ability. Of course intelligence and abilities do not know any frontiers of caste or class or race or sex. They can be found anywhere, but not in everyone. Therefore, selection of the right calibre of students is essential in pub­lic interest at the level of specialised post-graduate education. In view of this supervening public interest which has to be balanced against the social equity of providing some opportunities to the back­ward who are not able to qualify on the basis of marks obtained by them for post-graduate learning, it is for an expert body such as the Medical Council of India, to lay down the extent of reservations, if any, and the lower­ing of qualifying marks, if any, consistent with the broader public interest in having the most competent people for specialised training, and the competing public interest in securing social justice and equality. The decision may perhaps, depend upon the expert body’s assessment of the potential of the reserved category candidates at a certain level of minimum qualifying marks and whether those who secure admission on the basis of such marks to post-graduate courses, can be expected to be trained in two or three years to come up to the stand­ards expected of those with post-graduate qualifications. (Para 24)

       The speciality and super speciality courses in medicine also entail on-hand experience of treating or operating on patients in the attached teaching hospitals. Those undergoing these program­mes are expected to occupy posts in the teaching hospitals or discharge duties attached to such posts. The elements of Article 335, therefore, colour the selection of candidates for these courses and the Rules framed for this purpose. In the premises the special provisions for SC/ST candidates - whether reservations or lower qualifying marks - at the speciality level have to be minimal. There cannot, however, by any such special provisions at the level of super specialities. (Paras 25 & 26)

       (iii) Education — Post-graduate Medical Entrance Examination—Special provi­sion for reserved category candidates — PGMEE is not mere screening test — Minimum qualifying marks must be prescribed—It is within domain of Medical Council of India to decide what should be minimum qualify­ing marks for reserved category candidates—Even if minimum qualifying marks can be lowered, there cannot be wide disparity between minimum qualifying marks for reserved category and general category candidates—State Governments while controlling education, cannot impinge on standards in institutions for higher education which is exclusively within purview of Union Government—Regulations framed by Medical Council of India are binding on State Governments.

       Held : When a common entrance examina­tion is held for admission to post-graduate medical courses, it is important that passing marks or mini­mum qualifying marks are prescribed for the examination. There may be several universities in a State which conduct M.B.B.S. courses. The courses of study may not be uniform. The quality of teaching may not be uniform. The standard of assessment at the M.B.B.S. examination also may not be uniform in the different univer­sities. With the result that in some of the better universities which apply more strict tests for evaluating the performance of students, a higher standard of performance is required for getting the passing marks in the M.B.B.S. examination. Similarly, a higher standard of performance may be required for getting higher marks than in other universities. Some universities may assess the students liberally with the result that the candidates with lesser knowledge may be able to secure passing marks in the M.B.B.S. examination; while it may also be easier for candidates to secure marks at the higher level. A common entrance examination, therefore, provides a uniform criterion for judging the merit of all candidates who come from different universi­ties. Obviously, as soon as one concedes that there can be differing stand­ards of teaching and evaluation in different universities, one cannot rule out the possibility that the candidates who have passed the M.B.B.S. examination from a university which is liberal in evaluating its students, would not, necessarily, have passed, had they appeared in an examination where a more strict evaluation is made. Similarly, candidates who have obtained very high marks in the M.B.B.S. examina­tion where evaluation is liberal, would have got lesser marks had they appeared for the examination of a university where stricter standards were applied. Therefore, the purpose of such a common entrance exami­nation is not merely to grade candidates for selection. The purpose is also to evaluate all candidates by a common yardstick. One must, therefore, also take into account the possibility that some of the candidates who may have passed the M.B.B.S. examination from more “generous” universities, may not qualify at the entrance examination where a better and uniform standard for judging all the candidates from different universities is applied. In the interest of selecting suitable candidates for specialised education, it is necessary that the common entrance examination is of a certain standard and qualify­ing marks are prescribed for passing that examination. This alone will balance the competing equities of having competent students for specialised education and the need to provide for some room for the back­ward even at the stage of specialised post-graduate education which is one step below the super specialities. The submission, therefore, that there need not be any qualifying marks prescribed for the common entrance examination has to be reject­ed. (Paras 27, 28 & 29)

       At the stage of admission to the M.B.B.S. course, that is to say, the initial course in medicine, the Medical Council of India has permitted the reserved category candidates to be admitted if they have obtained the qualifying marks of 35 as against the qualifying marks of 45 for the general category candidates. It is, therefore, basically for an expert body like the Medical Council of India to determine whether in the common entrance examination viz. PGMEE, lower qualifying marks can be prescribed for the reserved category of candidates as against the general category of candidates; and if so, how much lower. There cannot, however, be a big disparity in the qualifying marks for the reserved category of candidates and the general category of candidates at the post-graduate level. This level is only one step below the apex level of medical training and education where no reservations are permissible and selections are entirely on merit. At only one step below this level the disparity in qualifying marks, if the expert body permits it, must be minimal. It must be kept at a level where it is possible for the reserved category candidates to come up to a certain level of excellence when they qualify in the speciality of their choice. It is in public interest that they have this level of excellence. (Para 29)

       It is for the Medical Council of India to prescribe any special qualifying marks for the admission of the reserved catego­ry candidates to the post-graduate medical courses. However, the difference in the qualifying marks should be at least the same as for admission to the under-graduate medical courses, if not less. (Para 32)

       Both the Union as well as the States have the power to legislate on education including medical education, subject, inter alia, to Entry 66 of List-I which deals with laying down standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institu­tions as also co-ordination of such standards. A State has, therefore, the right to control education including medical education so long as the field is not occupied by any Union Legislation. Secondly, the State cannot, while controlling education in the State, impinge on standards in institutions for higher education. Because this is exclu­sively within the purview of the Union Government. Therefore, while prescribing the criteria for admission to the institutions for higher education including higher medical education, the State cannot adversely affect the standards laid down by the Union of India under Entry 66 of List-I. Secondly, while considering the cases on the subject it is also necessary to remember that from 1977 education including, inter alia, medical and university education, is now in the Concurrent List so that the Union can legis­late on admission criteria also. If it does so, the State will not be able to legislate in this field, except as provided in Article 254. It would not be correct to say that the norms for admission have no connection with the standard of education, or that the rules for admission area covered only by Entry 25 of List III. Norms of admis­sion can have a direct impact on the standards of education. Of course, there can be rules for admission which are consistent with or do not affect adversely the standards of education prescribed by the Union in exercise of powers under Entry 66 of List-I. For example, a State may, for admission to the post-graduate medical courses, lay down qualifications in addition to those prescribed under Entry 66 of List-I. This would be consistent with promoting higher standards for admission to the higher educational courses. But any lowering of the norms laid down can, and do have an adverse effect on the standards of education in the institutes of higher education. (Paras 35 & 36)

       Under the Indian Medical Council Act of 1956 the Indian Medical Council is empowered to pre­scribe, inter alia, standards of post-graduate medical education. In the exercise of its powers under Section 20 read with Section 33 the Indian Medical Council has framed Regulations which govern post-graduate medical education. These Regulations, therefore, are binding and the States cannot, in the exercise of power under Entry 25 of List-III, make rules and regulations which are in conflict with or adversely impinge upon the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India for post-graduate medical education. Since the standards laid down are in the exercise of the power conferred under Entry 66 of List-I, the exercise of that power is exclusively within the domain of the Union Government. The power of the States under Entry 25 of List-III is subject to Entry 66 of List-I. (Para 52)

       The Regulations governing post-graduate medical education provide for admission on the basis of merit. The Regulations, however, have not clearly spelt out whether there can or cannot be, any reservations for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and/or backward class candidates at the stage of post-graduate medical admissions. Whether such a reservation would impinge on the standards or not would depend upon the manner in which such reservation is made, and whether the minimum qualifying marks for the reserved categories are properly fixed or not. It is for the Medical Council of India to lay down proper norms in this area and to prescribe whether the minimum qualifying marks for the admission of students in the re­served category can be less than the minimum qualifying marks for the general category students at the post-graduate level; and if so, to what extent. Even if we accept the contention of the respondents that for the reserved category candidates also, their inter se merit is the criterion for selection, although for the reserved category of candi­dates lower minimum qualifying marks are prescribed, the merit which is envisaged under the Indian Medical Council Act or its Regulations is comparative merit for all categories of candidates. For admission to a post-graduate course in medicine, the merit criterion cannot be so diluted by the State as to affect the standards of post-graduate medical education as prescribed under the Regulations framed by the Indian Medical Council. It is for the Indian Medical Council to con­sider whether lower minimum qualifying marks can be prescribed at the post-graduate level for the reserved category candidates. (Para 58)

       The purpose of reservation, if permissible at this level, is to ensure that the reserved category candidates having the requi­site training and calibre to benefit from post-graduate medical educa­tion and rise to the standards which are expected of persons possess­ing post-graduate medical qualification, are not denied this opportu­nity by competing with general category candidates. The general cate­gory candidates do not have any social disabilities which prevent them from giving of their best. The special opportunity which is provided by reservation cannot, however, be made available to those who are substantially below the levels prescribed for the general category candidates. It will not be possible for such candidates to fully benefit from the very limited and specialised post-graduate training opportunities which are designed to produce high calibre well trained professionals for the benefit of the public. Article 15(4) and the spirit of reason which permeates it, do not permit lowering of minimum qualifying marks at the post-graduate level to 20 for the reserved category as against 45 for the general category candidates. It will be for the Medical Council of India to decide whether such lowering is permissible and if so to what extent. But in the meanwhile at least the norms which are prescribed for admission to the M.B.B.S. courses ought not to be lowered at the post-graduate level. The lowering of minimum qualifying marks for admission to the M.B.B.S. courses has been permitted by the Indian Medical Council upto 35 for the reserved category as against 45 for the general category. The marks cannot be lowered further for admission to the post-graduate medical courses, especially when at the super speciality level it is the unanimous view of all the judgments of this Court that there should be no reserva­tions. This would also imply that there can be no lowering of minimum qualifying marks for any category of candidates at the level of admis­sion to the super-specialities courses. (Para 59)

       Held further, to conclude, a common entrance examination envisaged under the Regula­tions framed by the Medical Council of lndia for post-gradu­ate medical education requires fixing of minimum qualifying marks for passing the examination since it is not a mere screening test. Whether lower minimum qualifying marks for the reserved category candidates can be prescribed at the post-graduate level of medical education is a question which must be decided by the Medical Council of India since it affects standards of post-graduate medical education. Even if minimum qualifying marks can be lowered for the reserved category candidates, there cannot be a wide disparity between the minimum qualifying marks for the reserved category candidates and the minimum qualifying marks for the general category candidates at this level. The percentage of 20 for the reserved category and 45 for the general category is not permissible under Article 15(4), the same being unreasonable at the post-graduate level and contrary to public interest. At the level of admission to the super speciality courses, no special provisions are permissible, they being contrary to national interest. Merit alone can be the basis of selection. (Para 62)

       (iv) Indian Medical Council Act, 1956—Section 20—Power of Medical Council to prescribe minimum standards of medical education at post-graduate level is not merely advisory — Standard prescribed by Medical Council is binding on State Governments. (Paras 52 to 58)

       (v) The Post-graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandi­garh Act, 1966—Section 32—Regulation 27—Reservation of seats for SC/ST — No relaxation permissible at highest level in Medical Institu­tion — Reservation made for SC/ST to admission to D.M. and M.C.H. courses which are super-speciality courses is not consistent with constitutional mandate under Articles 15(4) and 16(4)—Regulation 27 not applicable at level of admission to D.M. and M.C.H.

       Held : Regulation 27 provides for 20 of the seats in every course of study in the Institute to be reserved for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or other categories of persons in accordance with the general orders issued by the Central Government from time to time. Regulation 27, however, cannot have any application at the highest level of super-specialities as this would defeat the very object of imparting the best possible training to select merito­rious candidates who can contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the fields of medical research and its applications. Since no relaxation is permissible at the highest levels in the medical institutions, the petitioners are right when they contend that the reservations made for the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candi­dates for admission to D.M. and M.C.H. courses which are super-speciality courses, is not consistent with the constitutional mandate under Articles 15(4) and 16(4). Regulation 27 framed under Section 32 of the Post-graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh would not apply at the level of admissions to D.M. and M.C.H. courses. (Para 71)

       Held consequently, that the judgment of this Court in Post Gradu­ate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh & Ors. v. K.L. Narasimhan & Anr., (1997) 6 SCC 283 cannot be read as holding that any type of re­laxation is permissible at the super-specialities level. (Para 72)

       Per Majmudar, J. (Partly dissenting)

       (1) It is permissible to the State authorities which are running and/or controlling the medical institutions in the States concerned to short-list the eligible and qualified MBBS doctors for being consid­ered for admission to postgraduate medical courses in these institu­tions. For the purpose of such short-listing full play is available to the State authorities to exercise legislative or executive power as the field is not occupied till date by any legislation of the Parlia­ment on this aspect in exercise of its legislative powers under Entry 25 of List III of the Constitution of India and this topic is also not covered by any legislation under Entry 66 of List I of the Constitu­tion. (2) The Indian Medical Council Act and the regulations framed thereunder do not cover the question of short-listing of admission of eligible and duly qualified MBBS doctors who seek admission to differ­ent medical institutions imparting postgraduate education run or controlled by the States concerned. (3) The regulations and guide­lines given by the Medical Council of India in this connection, though persuasive and not having any binding force, cannot be totally ignored by the State authorities but must be broadly kept in view while undertaking the exercise of short-listing of eligible candidates for being admitted to postgraduate medical courses. (4) While short-listing candidates having basic quali­fications of MBBS for being considered for admission to limited number of vacan­cies in post-graduate courses available at the medical institutions in the Sates, it is permissible for the State authorities to have common entrance tests and to prescribe minimum qualifying marks for passing such tests to enable the examinees who pass such test to be called for counselling. That would be in addition to the basic qualification by way of MBBS degree. The performance of the candidate concerned during the time he or she undertook the study at MBBS level for ultimately getting the MBBS degree also would be a relevant consideration for the State authorities to be kept in view. (5) It is equally permissible for the State authorities while undertaking the aforesaid exercise of short-listing to fix 50 mini­mum qualifying marks at the entrance test for general category of candidates and to dilute and prescribe lesser percentage of passing marks for reserved category of candidates as exigencies of situation may require in a given year but in no case the minimum qualifying marks as reduced for reserved category of candidates can go below 25 of passing marks for such reserved category of candidates. In other words, a play is available to the State authorities to prescribe different minimum passing marks for SC/ST and OBC eligible candidates between 50 and 25 as the prevailing situation at a given point of time may require. In such categories for SC, ST & OBC candidates different diluted passing marks can be prescribed, but this exercise has to be within the permissible limits of less than 50 & up to minimum 25 passing marks for each of such reserved categories. No eligible candidate belonging to reserved category who does not obtain minimum percent of passing marks as diluted for such category of candidates by the State authorities can be considered to be eligible for undertaking postgraduate medical courses in a given year for which he has offered his candidature and if any seat reserved for such categories of candidates remain unfilled due to non-availability of such eligible reserved category candidate to fill up such seat, then the said seat would go to general category candidates and will be available in the order of merit in the light of marks obtained by such wait-listed general category candidates having obtained requisite passing marks who other­wise could not get admitted due to non-availability of general category seats earlier. The ratio of various decisions of this court considered herein above will have to be imple­mented in the light of the aforesaid conclusions to which I have reach­ed. The aforesaid practice has to be followed and should hold the field from year to year so long as the Parliament does not pass any legislation for regulating admission to postgraduate medical courses either by separate legislation or by appropriately amending Indian Medical Council Act by empowering the Medical Council of India to prescribe such regulations. (Para 102)