JUDGMENT

BHAGWATI, C.J.I. : — The main judgment in this case was delivered by us on 22nd June 1984 (reported in AIR 1984 SC 1420) 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 clauses 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 to what extent such reservation might be regarded as constitutionally permissible, we said :

"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 education development of the area and other relevant factors. It may be that 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 may be justification for reservation of a higher percentage of seats in the medical colleges in the State and such higher percentage of seats in the medical colleges in the State 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."

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 M.D. M.S. and the like and taking into account broader considerations of equality of opportunity and institutional continuity in education which has its own value and relevance. we took the view that though residence requirement within the State should not be a ground for reservation in admissions to Post-graduate Courses a certain percentage of seats may be reserved on the basis of institutional preference in the sense that a student who has passed MBBS Course from a Medical College may be given preference for admission to Post-graduate Course in the same Medical College or University, but such reservation on the bas