IMPORTANT POINT
Finding of the High Court that notification dated 8.1.2000 issued by appellant State is invalid to the extent of making reservation in terms of Article 15(4) of the Constitution is set aside but finding of High Court that lowering the qualifying marks is contrary to Regulation 9 and that part of the notification has to be ignored.

Headnote:Constitution of India-Articles 15(4) r/w Article 46 Notification dated 5.1.2000 issued by State of Punjab for selection for admission to post graduate medical courses-Reservation 60 quota for Govt. Medical/Dental Colleges and 40 for others-Qualifying marks at least 40 marks in-Post Graduate Medical Regulations, 2000 framed by Medical Council of India under Medical Council Act, 1956 prescribing 50 as qualifying marks in Regulation 9-High Court holding both the things against law and quashed notification and directed fresh counselling and admit as per merit in accordance with Regulation of Medical Council of India-Whether correct? It is not correct on scope of reservation but is correct on qualification marks-Appeals allowed in the terms stated-Case law discussed.
       Held (As to reservation) : Insofar as the provision for reservation made by the State of Punjab in respect of socially and educationally backward classes, no exception can be taken of because, as we have explained earlier, it is a prerogative and duty of the State to indulge in such an exercise in carrying out and implementing the constitutional policy declared in Article 46 of the Constitution armed with the enabling power under Article 15(4) of the Constitution and there has been no decision on the point including the decision in Dr. Preeti Srivastava s case [1999(7) SCC 120] to the effect that the Medical Council of India can alone or shall do so. If in a given case, the prescription of reservation for weaker sections by the State is to such an enormous extent as to reduce the candidates to be selected on the basis of merit performance in an examination from the general category to a very small number, then perhaps the Medical Council of India may have to take appropriate steps by stipulating specific standards for such reserved category candidates also and not otherwise. The observation of enabling Medical Council of India in setting the standards in medical education includes the extent of reservation for socially and educationally backward classes in Dr. Preeti Srivastava s case (supra) should be understood in this background. Thus, proper balance will have to be struck both by the Medical Council of India and by the Government, Central and State, in exercise of their respective powers. The Medical Council of India, a creature of a statute, cannot be ascribed with such powers to reduce the State Governments nothing on and in respect of areas over which the States have constitutional mandate and goal assigned to them to be performed. The Medical Council of India cannot also purport to arm itself with powers to prescribe a standard, which is impossible of attainment by a candidate belonging to a reserved category or for that matter even general candidates and whatever is fixed, must be realistic and within attainable limits. In conclusion, the finding of the High Court that the notification issued by the Appellant State is invalid to the extent of making reservation in terms of Article 15(4) of the Constitution is set aside. (Para 12)
       But held (as to lowering the qualifying marks) : The State Government could not unilaterally frame a scheme reducing the standard in violation of the terms of the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India, which is repeatedly stated by this Court to be repository of the power to prescribe standards in Post Graduate studies subject, of course, to the control of the Central Government as envisaged in the Act constituting the Council. What we have now to see is whether the action taken by the appellants is consistent with the prescription made by the Medical Council of India to the extent of obtaining 50 marks in the entrance examination and on that basis operate their rosters. If they do so and if the candidates, who have secured 50 marks, would be admitted, no interference is called for in the matter. If, however, any of the students has secured less than 50 marks that admission alone will have to be cancelled and appropriate directions issued to select as against it another candidate belonging to the reserved category if there is a reserved category candidate who has secured such marks, and if no reserved category candidate is available, must then be selected from the general category. We, therefore, find that the prescription made by the respondents reducing the minimum marks to 40 in the entrance examination for considering the eligibility of the candidates for admission to postgraduate medical courses and in respect of the basic subjects fixing no minimum standard is plainly in contravention of the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India and that part of the notification will have to be ignored. If that is done and if the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India are applied in toto, appropriate working will have to be made by the appellants as indicated, supra and the same will have to be given effect to. (Paras 17, 18 & 19)
       Held finally : The appeals stand allowed in the terms stated above. No costs. (Para 21)

JUDGMENT

Rajendra Babu, J.-Leave granted in all the SLPs.

2. The appellant-State issued a notification on 5.1.2001 regarding admission to post graduate medical courses in the State of Punjab. 60 of the seats in such courses were reserved for eligible candidates in Service, while 40 of the seats were kept open to all eligible candidates who were residents of the State of Punjab. Clause 5 thereto, which provides for determination of merit and eligibility for admission, reads as under:

"1. IN CASE OF MEDICAL/DENTAL COLLEGES:

(a) The merit of the candidates will be determined by the University by holding the Postgraduate Entrance Test of eligible candidates, for admission to three years degree courses for the session 2001.

(b) There will be separate merit lit for in service 60 quota candidates for Government Medical/Dental Colleges and a separate merit list for remaining who are not covered under in service category candidates. The merit list for open and reserve candidates will be combined and reserve candidates will be eligible for open seats also, as per their merit.

(c) Interview is compulsory for all candidates applying for the postgraduate admission. No separate interview letters will be issued.

(d) Candidates securing at least 40 marks in the competitive examination will be eligible for admission except for admission to the basic subjects viz. Anatomy, Physiology, Biochemistry, Pharmacology, Pathology, Microbiology, Forensic Medicine and Social and Preventive Medicine where there will be no condition of minimum marks. Interview for M.S./M.S./M.D.S. courses will be held in the office of Vice Chancellor, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences Faridkot.

(e) One mark each to PCMs candidates for admission to postgraduate course under 60 quota for one completed year of rural service over and above the three years minimum rural service required for eligibility for admission under this quota shall be given in the following manner:

(i) The incentive of additional marks would be available only to those PCMs candidates who have obtained the minimum 40 qualifying marks.

(ii) The number of marks, which may be given as an incentive for additional rural service, will be limited to 3(five).

(iii) The completed year of rural service on the basis of which incentive will be given, must have been rendered at places which are at least 15 kms. or more beyond municipal/notified area committee limits."

3. The validity of the notification dated 5.1.2001 issued by the appellant-State was challenged in the High Court with respect to prescription of lower marks than were prescribed by Regulation 9 framed by the Medical Council of India.

4. On the basis of the contentions raised before the High Court, two questions were formulated for consideration, firstly, the notification issued by the appellant State on 5.1.2001 providing for appointment to the students for the postgraduate medical courses with less than 50 marks in the entrance examination is contrary to Regulation 9 of the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 [hereinafter referred to as the Regulations ] framed by the Medical Council of India under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, on 22.8.2000, and secondly, as to the scope of reservations that would be made by the State Government.

5. On both these questions, the High Court held against the appellants and quashed the notification issued by the appellant. State to the extent that it lowers the qualifying marks from less than 50 in the entrance examination and provides for reservations for admissions to the postgraduate medical courses and thereby, the High Court directed the University to hold fresh counselling and to admit students as per their merit in accordance with the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India after excluding the students who had applied on the basis of rese

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 1415

Cases Referred (3)