Judgment

B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.- Permissibility of providing reservations under clause (4) of Article 15 of the Constitution of India in postgraduate medical courses is the issue raised in these appeals. The State of Bihar issued a prospectus relating to Postgraduate Medical Admission Test, 1992 providing inter alia reservation in favour of socially and educationally backward classes, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and women. The percentages reserved are Scheduled Castes - 14 , Scheduled Tribes - 10 , extremely backward classes - 14 , backward classes - 9 and ladies - 3 . The appellants questioned the aforesaid provision for reservation by way of two writ petitions in the Patna High Court. The writ petitions were dismissed whereupon they have approached this Court by way of these appeals. The Indian Medical Council has filed an affidavit in these proceedings putting forward its point of view in the matter. It has supported the appellants stand.

2. Shri Vikas Singh, learned counsel for the appellants urged the following contentions:

(1) Article 15(4) does not speak of nor does it permit reservation of seats in educational institutions. While certain preferences and concessions can be given, reservation of seats is outside the purview of Article 15(4).

(2) Even if Article 15(4) permits reservation of seats, such reservation must contribute to the advancement of the society and should not be detrimental to the interests of society. Reserving as much as 50 seats in postgraduate medical courses is certainly detrimental to the interests of the society. The society would be saddled with less competent and less efficient doctors to the extent of half the number available.

(3) Inasmuch as substantial amount is paid by way of stipend to postgraduate students, admission to such course is in effect an appointment to a post. The postgraduate course in medicine is thus a promotional post for doctors who have completed MBBS course. It has been held by this Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India {1992 Supp(3) SCC 217} that no reservations are permissible in the matter of promotion.

(4) The Regulations made by the Indian Medical Council prohibit reservation of seats in postgraduate medical courses on any ground whatsoever. The Regulations being statutory prevail over the executive orders made by the Government of Bihar in exercise of its executive power.

3. We shall proceed to deal with the contentions in the order they are urged.

4. It is true that clause (4) of Article 15 does not expressly authorise providing of reservations in educational institution but it is too late in the day to question this power. Article 15(4) says that nothing in Article 15 or in clause (2) of Article 29 shall prevent the State from making "any special provision" for the advancement of classes mentioned therein. The words "any special provision" are of wide amplitude and do certainly take in a provision reserving certain number of seats in educational institutions. Indeed, the first major case arising under Article 15 before this Court (M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore {1963 Supp 1 SCR 439} was one relating to reservation of seats in educational institutions. At no time was it questioned that such a course was not permissible, evidently in view of the width of the words "any special provision" occurring in Article 15(4). In this connection, we may refer to the holding in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India {1992 Supp(3) SCC 217} with respect to a similar argument vis-a-vis Article 16(1). It was argued for the petitioners that Article 16(1) . which guarantees equality of opportunity to all citizens in matters relating to employment . does not warrant providing of reservations. The contention was rejected. It was held that just as Article 4 permits classification so does Article 16(1), which is but a facet of rule of equality in Article 14. For bringing about and ensuring equality, it was held, appropriate measures including reservations can be adopted. What kind of specia