2016 Supreme(SC) 644

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.S.Thakur, CJI., A.M.Khanwilkar, D.Y.Chandrachud, JJ.
State of U.P. & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Dr. Dinesh Singh Chauhan – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8047 / 2016 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.13832/2016) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8048, 8049-51, 8052 and 8053/2016 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.13872/2016, 15154-15156/2016, 15529/2016, 14427/2016 and W.P. (Civil) No. 372/2016)
Decided On : 16-08-2016

IMPORTANT POINTS
No fault can be found with the High Court merely moulding the relief on the basis of the settled legal position.
It is not open to State to provide for a dispensation different than the one specified by the Central Act and Regulations made thereunder.
When the subject falls within Entry 66 of List I to the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, State would have no authority to enact any law on that subject.
Basis for weightage in Regulation 9(IV) Proviso is rational and legitimate. It does not entail in excessive or substantial departure from the rule of merit and equality.
Regulation 9 makes no distinction between Government and non-Government colleges.
Procedure evolved in Regulation 9 in general and the proviso to Clause (IV) in particular is just, proper and reasonable.

Headnote:(a) Medical Education – Admission to Post Graduate Degree courses – Government issuing orders providing for reservation to in-service candidates – Writ petitioners limiting their relief to equating them with the in-service candidates who had the experience of working in remote or difficult areas –Relying on Sudhir N. case High Court holding that providing reservation for in-service candidates in Post-Graduate “Degree” courses would not be permissible – High Court, after considering all arguments, quashing the Order in question being violative of Regulation 9 of Medical Council of India Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 – Whether exceeded its jurisdiction – High Court merely moulding the relief on the basis of the settled legal position – No infirmity, although it may require further moulding – Article 226, Constitution of India. (Para 15)

       (2015) 6 SCC 685 – Relied upon

       (b) Medical Education – Admission to Post Graduate Degree courses – On informed statement by State, Court passing interim order for strict compliance of Regulation 9 of Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 – Natural consequence was quashing of relevant State order, which the High Court did – State cannot now resile from that statement – Even otherwise it is not open to State to provide for a dispensation different than the one specified by the Central Act and Regulations made thereunder. (Para 16)

       (c) Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 – Regulation 9 – Self contained code for admission procedures to medical courses – The subject falling within Entry 66 of List I to the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution – State has no authority to enact any law much less by executive instructions that may undermine the procedure enunciated in Regulation 9. (Para 20)

       (1999) 7 SCC 120 – Relied upon

       (d) Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 – Regulation 9(IV) Proviso – Not envisaging any reservation for in-service candidates – Only providing weightage of marks for length of service upto a maximum of 30% of marks obtained at the examination – This weightage has to be reckoned while preparing merit list – State has no authority to provide otherwise – No infirmity in the High Court quashing the impugned order. (Para 22, 23)

       (e) Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 – Regulation 9 – Providing 30% reservation to in-service candidates not permissible – Giving weightage or incentive marks linked to marks obtained by in-service candidate in NEET – It also reckons the commensurate experience and services rendered by them in notified remote/difficult areas of the State – Basis for weightage is rational and legitimate – Does not entail in excessive or substantial departure from the rule of merit and equality – Permissible. (Para 24, 27, 28)

       (2002) 1 SCC 428; (2003) 7 SCC 83; (1979)1 SCC 572; (1998) 6 SCC 131 – Relied upon

       (1992) 2 SCC 267; (2000) 1 SCC 44 – Referred

       (f) Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 – Regulation 9, Proviso – Incentive marks linked to marks obtained at NEET – Limiting it to 30% – Objective method – Cannot be said to be unreasonable or irrational. (Para 30)

       (2003) 7 SCC 83; (2015) 6 SCC 685 – Distinguished

       (g) Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 – Regulation 9 – Allocation of weightage of marks to in-service candidates – Regulation 9 makes no distinction between Government and non-Government colleges. (Para 34)

       (h) Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 – Regulation 9 – Procedure evolved in Regulation 9 in general and the proviso to Clause (IV) in particular is just, proper and reasonable – It is also in public interest, hence not violating Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para 35)

       (i) Medical Education – Admission to post graduate Degree course – Impugned judgment of High Court upheld with modification – Court directing that admission process for Academic Year 2016-17 onwards to the Post Graduate Degree Course in the State should proceed as per Regulation 9 including by giving incentive marks to eligible in-service candidates in terms of proviso to Clause IV of Regulation 9. (Para 37)

       Facts of the case:

       In this case there are three sets of matters.

       The first is appeals arising from the common judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 7th April, 2016 in Writ Petition Nos: 1380, 34118 and 35051 all of 2015.

       The second is an appeal arising from the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench dated 27th May, 2016 in Writ Petition No: 12004 of 2016.

       The third is a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India praying for a declaration that the third Proviso to Regulation 9(2) of the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Regulation’), is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution; and for a direction against the Authorities to refrain from disturbing the selection of the said writ petitioners or to interfere with their Post Graduate studies which they are presently pursuing.

       The latter two proceedings are the fall out of the interim order passed by Supreme Court dated 12th May, 2016 in first set.

       Finding of the Court:

       Regulation 9(IV) Proviso does not envisage any reservation for in-service candidates. It only provides weightage of marks for length of service upto a maximum of 30% of marks obtained at the examination.

       Incentive marks linked to marks obtained at NEET, limiting it to 30%, is an objective method. Cannot be said to be unreasonable or irrational.

       Result: Entire matter disposed of.