IMPORTANT POINT
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.

Headnote:Education-Post-graduate Medical Education-Admission criteria-Some States prescribing institutional preference wherein candidate who secured MBBS degree from other State is not permitted to compete for State quota-Other States prescribing residential preference-Delhi University prescribing institutional preference criteria-Held : States/Union Territories/Universities should allow students who had pursued courses outside their home States to participate in 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-States/authorities directed to achieve uniformity by adopting institutional and/or residential preference.
       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 v. Union of India, 1984(3) SCC 654 and followed by Dinesh Kumar (Dr.) (II) v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, 1986(3) SCC 727 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. (Para 7)
       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 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. 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. (Paras 11, 12, 14, 15)

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.

2. Before we address to the controversy we may briefly survey a few decided cases. In Jagadish Saran (Dr.) v. Union of India1, 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 gound of inadequacy of material on record.

3. In Pradeep Jain (Dr.) v. Union of India2, 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 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 College3. 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.

4. In State of Rajasthan v. Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta4, 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 Univers

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2000 Supreme(SC) 873

IMPORTANT POINTThe 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.

Cases Referred (7)