Judgment

BHAGWATI, J. :- This writ petition is an offshoot of the decision rendered by us in Dr. Pradip Jain v. Union of India, (AIR 1984 SC 1420). The main judgment in that case was delivered by us on 22nd June, 1984 and we held in that judgment that "wholesale reservation made by some of the State Governments on the basis of domicile or residence requirement 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, excluding all students not satisfying this requirement, regardless of merit" was unconstitutional and void as offending the equality clause of the Constitution. But after condemning such wholesale reservation, we proceeded to observe that the very mandate of the equality clause viewed in the perspective of social justice, would justify some extent of reservation based on residence requirement within the State or on institutional preference for students passing the qualifying examination held by the University or the State and addressing ourselves to the question as to what extent such reservation might be regarded as constitutionally permissible, we said (Para 21) :

"It is not possible to provide a categorical answer to this question, for, as pointed out by the policy statement of the Government of India, the extent of such reservation would depend on several factors including opportunities for professional education in that particular area, the extent of competition, level of educational development of the area and other relevant factors. It may be tha in a State where the level of educational development is woefully low, there are comparatively inadequate opportunities for training in the medical speciality and there is large scale social and economic backwardness there maybe justification for reservation of a higher percentage of seats in the medical colleges in the State and such higher percentage may not militate against "the equality mandate viewed in the perspective of social justice." So many variables depending on social and economic facts in the context of educational opportunities would enter into .the determination of the question as to what in the case of any particular State should be the limit of reservation based on residence requirement within the State or on institutional preference. But, in our opinion, such reservation should in no event exceed the outer limit of 70 per cent of the total number of open seats after taking into account other kinds of reservations validly made. The Medical Education Review Committee had suggested that the outer limit should not exceed 75 per cent but we are of the view that it would be fair and just to fix the outer limit at 70 per cent. We are laying down this outer limit of reservation in an attempt to reconcile the apparently conflicting claims of equality and excellence."

2. We pointed out that in the result "at least 30 per cent of the open seats shall be available for admission of students on All India basis irrespective of the State or University from which they come and directed that "such admissions shall be granted purely on merit on the basis of either All India Entrance Examination or entrance examination to be held by the State." This was the decision given by us in regard to admissions to the MBBS and BDS courses. We then proceeded to discuss the question of admissions to post graduate. courses such as MD, MS and the like. We leaned heavily on the observations made by Krishna Iyer J. in Jagdish Saran v. Union of India (1980) 2 SCR 831: as also on the recommendation by the Indian Medical Council and the opinion expressed by the Medical Education Review Committee where an opinion was clearly expressed that admissions to post graduate courses in any institution should be guided strictly by merit and should be open to candidates on All India basis. We also referred to the Policy Statement of the Government of India filed by the learned Attorney General where the