SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(SC) 606

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANGANATH MISRA AND M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, JJ.
Dr. Fazal Ghafoor, Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Writ Petn. No. 136 of 1988
Decided on 20-9-1988.
Advocates appeared
Mr S. K. Mehta, Mr. Aman Vachar and Mr. S. N. Sarin, Advocates, for Petitioner; Mr. Kuldip Singh, Addl. Solicitor General, Ms. A. Subhashini and R. N. Mishra, Advocates with him for Respondents.

Advocates:
A.Subhashini, AMAN VACHHER, Kuldip Singh, R.N.MISRA, S.K.MEHTA, S.N.Sarin

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 – Article 14,15,32 and 371-D - Reliefs - Reservations - Petitioner in this application under Article 32 of Constitution has asked for five reliefs, declaration that all Post Doctoral seats (Super Specialities) in all universities and States of India including All India Medical Institutes should not have any regional or domicile reservations and should be open for All India Competition on merit, declaration that Rules 2(a), 2(c), Rule 3, Rule 9 and Rule 10 of prospectus for admission to Post Graduate courses under Super Speciality Course medical colleges of Kerala are ultra vires of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution; declaration that the A. P. Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission) Order, 1974, issued by President of India is in violation of the basic structure of the Constitution; declaration that the total reservation in Super Speciality Courses in State of Andhra Pradesh is beyond the scope and object of Article 371-D; declaring Note 2 of Rule 7 of prospectus for Post Graduate Higher Super Speciality Courses issued by Government of Tamil Nadu is bad and is not enforceable – Held, by court judgment delivered today in Dr. C. Surekha v. Union of India (AIR 1989 SC 44) court have already held that there is no merit in the allegation of Presidential Order or constitutional provision authorising issuance of such order is hit by violation of basic structure of Constitution - So far as State of Andhra Pradesh is concerned position is as envisaged in Presidential Order - In Dr. Pradeep Jains case (1984) 3 SCC 654 this Court has observed that in Super Specialities there should really be no reservation - This is so in the general interest of country and for improving the standard of higher education and thereby improving quality of available medical services to people of India - Court hope and trust that Government of India and State Governments shall seriously consider this aspect of the matter without delay and appropriate guidelines shall be evolved by Indian Medical Council so as to keep the Super Specialities in medical education unreserved, open and free - With these observations, writ petition is disposed of - Order accordingly.

JUDGMENT

RANGANATH MISRA, J. :— Petitioner in this application under Article 32 of the Constitution has asked for five reliefs :-

(1) A declaration that all the Post Doctoral seats (Super Specialities) in all the universities and States of India including the All India Medical Institutes should not have any regional or domicile reservations and should be open for All India Competition on merit;

(2) A declaration that Rules 2(a), 2(c), Rule 3, Rule 9 and Rule 10 of the prospectus for admission to Post Graduate courses under Super Speciality Course 1987-88 in the medical colleges of Kerala are ultra vires of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution;

(3) A declaration that the A. P. Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission) Order, 1974, issued by the President of India is in violation of the basic structure of the Constitution;

(4) A declaration that the total reservation in Super Speciality Courses in the State of Andhra Pradesh is beyond the scope and object of Article 371-D;

(5) Declaring Note 2 of Rule 7 of the prospectus for Post Graduate Higher Super Speciality Courses 1987-88 issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu is bad and is not enforceable.

2. By our judgment delivered today in Dr. C. Surekha v. Union of India (AIR 1989 SC 44) we have already held that there is no merit in the allegation of the Presidential Order or the constitutional provision authorising the issuance of such order is hit by violation of the basic structure of the Constitution. So far as the State of Andhra Pradesh is concerned the position is as envisaged in the Presidential Order. In Dr. Pradeep Jains case (1984) 3 SCC 654 this Court has observed that in Super Specialities there should really be no reservation. This is so in the general interest of the country and for improving the standard of higher education and thereby improving the quality of available medical services to the people of India. We hope and trust that the Government of India and the State Governments shall seriously consider this aspect of the matter without delay and appropriate guidelines shall be evolved by the Indian Medical Council so as to keep the Super Specialities in medical education unreserved, open and free.

3. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There would be no order for costs.

Order accordingly.

For Citation : AIR 1989 SC 48 = (1989) 3 JT 698

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top