1. Challenge to University bulletin requiring residence for PG admission eligibility for MBBS graduates from other universities under all-India quota. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2002 Supreme(SC) 1253
Supreme Court Of India
BEFORE G.B. PATTANAIK, CJI., K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.
MAGAN MEHROTRA AND OTHERS ..Petitioners;
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ..Respondents.
Writ Petitions (C) No. 417 of 2000 with No. 316 of 2000
Decided on December 17, 2002
In postgraduate medical admissions, preference should be based on institutional preference (completing undergraduate studies at the same university) rather than residential requirements to ensure national uniformity and maintain academic excellence.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 32 - Admission to postgraduate medical courses - Preference for candidates - Residence requirement vs. institutional preference - For admission to postgraduate courses, it is desirable not to provide reservation based on residence within a state; however, to maintain institutional continuity, a certain percentage of seats may be reserved based on institutional preference, meaning students who completed their undergraduate course at the same university may be given preference, but such reservation should not exceed 50 per cent of the total open seats. (Para 3)
(B) All-India entrance examination - Not less than 25% of the total number of seats, without considering other reservations, shall be made available for filling through an all-India entrance examination for postgraduate courses. (Para 4)
(C) Uniformity in admissions - To ensure uniformity across the country and maintain excellence in postgraduate education, institutional preference is the only acceptable form of preference, as residential preference is not warranted under law. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
Petitions were filed challenging a bulletin of information for postgraduate medical admissions which allowed eligibility for candidates who were permanent residents of a specific region, even if they completed their undergraduate studies at a university outside that region. The petitioners contended that differing standards across states caused hardship and lacked rationale for those selected through all-India competitive examinations.
Findings of Court:
The court found that preference based on residence is contrary to established principles for postgraduate medical admissions. While institutional preference is permissible to ensure continuity, residential requirements lack legal warrant.
Issues: Whether preference for admission to postgraduate medical courses should be based on residential requirements within a state or on institutional preference for students who completed their undergraduate studies at the same institution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for postgraduate courses, the criterion of institutional preference is superior to residential preference as it promotes academic excellence and uniformity across the country. It reaffirmed that while residence should not be a ground for reservation, a limited institutional preference is acceptable to balance equity and excellence.
Result: The impugned bulletin of information is quashed, effective from the next academic session, and certain states are directed to adopt the pattern of institutional preference.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
constitutional law
-
fundamental rights
-
right to equality
- reservation in admissions
-
right to equality
-
fundamental rights
-
education law
-
medical education
-
admissions
- postgraduate admissions
-
admissions
-
medical education
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over whether residence-based preference for PG admissions is valid or only institutional preference should apply. (Para 2 )
3. Court held Pradeep Jain correctly allowed only institutional preference for PG admissions; residence preference is impermissible. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
4. For PG medical admissions, only institutional preference is permissible; residence-based reservation is invalid. (Para 7 , 8 )
5. Quashed Delhi University bulletin; directed states to follow institutional preference pattern from next academic session. (Para 8 , 9 )
6. Is residence-based preference for postgraduate medical admissions permissible?
No, only institutional preference (preference to own graduates) is permissible; residence-based reservation is invalid under Pradeep Jain. (Para 7 , 8 )
7. Was the decision in Parag Gupta (Dr) v. University of Delhi consistent with Pradeep Jain?
No, Parag Gupta upheld residential preference in essence, which was contrary to the three-Judge Bench in Pradeep Jain. (Para 7 , 8 )
8. What is the correct admission policy for postgraduate medical courses across states?
All states must adopt only institutional preference, not residence-based preference, as per Pradeep Jain and this judgment. (Para 7 , 9 )
ORDER
1. These petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India were filed because of the Bulletin of Information issued by the University of Delhi for a the academic session 2001-02, whereby and whereunder following the judgment of this Court in Parag Gupta (Dr) v. University of Delhi! it was stipulated that the candidates who have passed MBBS examination in any university other than Delhi University having been allotted the same under 15% quota by the Director General, Health Services would also be eligible if he/she is a permanent resident of the National Capital Territory of Delhi.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that on account of different standards adopted by different States, the students are suffering great hardship and in fact there is no rationale in not allowing the students who might be the residents of one State but who have undertaken their undergraduate study in some other State on being selected through a competitive examination on all-India basis, to get preferential right in obtaining admission in the postgraduate course.
3. This Court by a three-Judge Bench considered the question of admission to the medical colleges as well as reservation of seats for residents of the State or students of the same university elaborately in the case of Pradeep Jain (Dr) v. Union of India2. So far as the admission to the postgraduate course is concerned, the Court held that for admission to the postgraduate courses it would be eminently desirable not to provide for any reservation based on requirement of residence within the State or on institutional preference. Having said so, the Court went on further to hold that having regard to broader considerations of equality of opportunity and institutional continuity in education which has its own importance and value, we would direct that though residence requirement within the State shall not be a ground for reservation in admissions to postgraduate courses, a certain percentage of seats may in the present circumstances be reserved on the basis of institutional preference in the sense that a student who has passed MBBS course from a medical college or university may be given preference for admission to the postgraduate course in the same medical college or university but such reservation on the basis of institutional preference should not in any event exceed 50 per cent of the total number of open seats available for admission to the postgraduate course. We are not concerned with the other observations made in the aforesaid case since in the case in hand we are concerned only with the admission to the postgraduate course. The aforesaid decision unequivocally indicates that even though it would be ideal not to have any reservation either on residence requirement or on institutional preference but the students passing out from their undergraduate study from a university should have some preferential treatment and it is in that context the aforesaid observation has been made. It may be stated that in the aforesaid case before disposing of the matter all States were duly noticed and those who had entered appearance, their contentions were taken into account and finally the matter stood disposed of, as stated above.
4. In the case of Dinesh Kumar (Dr) (II) v. Moti/al Nehru Medical College3 the aforesaid percentage which was indicated in Pradeep Jain Case2 was altered as it was felt that the percentage indicated there is on the higher side. In Dinesh Kumar Case3 it was held that number of seats which should be made available for admission on the basis of all-India entrance examination should be changed which necessarily relates to the admission into MBBS course and it was held that not less than 15% of the seats in each medical college or institution, without taking into account any reservation validly made, shall be filled on the basis of all-India entrance examination. It was further held that the same formula apply also in regard to admissions to postgraduate courses a
