1. Challenge to eligibility criteria for post-graduate medical and dental courses requiring state origin for government quota seats. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 280
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Arun Mishra, Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ.
Dr. Kriti Lakhina and Others – Petitioners
Versus
State of Karnataka and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No.204 of 2018
Decided On : 04-4-2018
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners:- A. Sharan, Sr. Adv., Amit Kumar, Arijit Mani Tripathi, Shaurya Sahay, Ms. Vidisha Kumar, Atul Kumar, Ms. Rekha Bakshi, Gaurav Sharma, V. N. Raghupathy, Chinmay Deshpande, Parikshit Angadi, H. Chandra Sekhar, Mrs. Rekha Chander Sekhar, Advocates.
For the Impleading Applicant :- Ranjay Kumar Dubay, Ms. Priya Puri, Ms. S. Rai, Vijaya laxmi Gautam, Advocates.
For the Petitioners:- A. Sharan, Sr. Adv., Amit Kumar, Arijit Mani Tripathi, Shaurya Sahay, Ms. Vidisha Kumar, Atul Kumar, Ms. Rekha Bakshi, Gaurav Sharma, V. N. Raghupathy, Chinmay Deshpande, Parikshit Angadi, H. Chandra Sekhar, Mrs. Rekha Chander Sekhar, Advocates.
For the Impleading Applicant :- Ranjay Kumar Dubay, Ms. Priya Puri, Ms. S. Rai, Vijaya laxmi Gautam, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
Clause 4.1 of the Information Bulletin (PGET-2018) is invalid.
Headnote:Medical education – Admission to PG course – Clause 4.1 of the Information Bulletin (PGET-2018) – Disqualifying candidates completing their MBBS/BDS Degree Courses from colleges situated in Karnataka, but not of Karnataka origin, from competing for admission to Post-Graduate Medical/Dental Courses in Government Medical Colleges and against government quota seats in non-governmental institutions – Held invalid being ultra vires Article 14, Constitution of India. (Para 14)
(2014) 11 SCC 456; (1984) 3 SCC 654 – Relied upon
(2003) 11 SCC 146; (2003)11 SCC 186; (2013) 10 SCC 237; AIR 1955 SC 334 : 1955 (1) SCR 1215; (1971) Suppl. SCR 381 : (1971) 2 SCC 22; 1968 (2) SCR 786; (2) SCR 430 : (1971) 1 SCC 38 : AIR 1971 SC 2303; (1971) Suppl SCR 608 : (1971) 2 SCC 293; (1980) 2 SCC 768 : 1980 (2) SCR 831 – Referred
Facts of the case:
This petition has been filed by 44 Doctors who did their MBBS/BDS Courses from State of Karnataka and have cleared the NEET-PG, 2018 examination with high merit position and are aspiring for admission to Post-Graduate Courses in Karnataka. The principal prayer in the writ petition seeks issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Clause 4 of the Information Bulletin jointly issued by Directorate of Medical Education, Government of Karnataka and Karnataka Examinations Authority, Government of Karnataka, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively requiring a candidate to be domicile of Karnataka.
Finding of the Court:
Vishal Goyal fully applies to case.
Result: Petition allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners claim domicile requirements violate Article 14; State contends such conditions are necessary to ensure availability of skilled medical professionals within the state. (Para 3 , 4 , 9 , 10 )
3. Domicile-based reservation in post-graduate medical courses violates the principle of equality and compromises excellence, which is detrimental to national interests. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
4. Reservation based on residential requirements for post-graduate medical courses is impermissible under Article 14, though limited institutional preference may be allowed. (Para 12 )
5. Petition allowed; eligibility clause requiring state origin declared invalid for candidates who completed undergraduate medical/dental degrees within the state. (Para 15 )
6. Is domicile-based reservation permissible for post-graduate medical courses?
No. The court held that reservation based on residence requirements for post-graduate courses like MD/MS is impermissible as it violates the right to equality under Article 14 and compromises excellence, which is detrimental to the interests of the nation. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
7. What is the distinction between domicile reservation and institutional preference in post-graduate admissions?
Domicile reservation based on state residence is prohibited. However, institutional preference—where a student who passed MBBS from a specific college is given preference for PG admission in the same college—is permissible, provided it does not exceed 50% of open seats. (Para 12 )
8. Can a state exclude candidates who studied MBBS in that state from PG admissions based on origin criteria?
No. Excluding candidates who completed their undergraduate medical degrees in a state because they do not meet additional origin or domicile criteria is ultra vires Article 14 and violates the principle of equality. (Para 13 )
JUDGMENT
Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has been filed by 44 Doctors who did their MBBS/BDS Courses from State of Karnataka and have cleared the NEET-PG, 2018 examination with high merit position and are aspiring for admission to Post-Graduate Courses in Karnataka. The principal prayer in the writ petition seeks issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Clause 4 of the Information Bulletin jointly issued by Directorate of Medical Education, Government of Karnataka and Karnataka Examinations Authority, Government of Karnataka, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively.
2. The Information Bulletin in question lays down, inter alia, conditions for admission to Post-Graduate Medical and Dental Courses in respect of government quota seats in Medical/Dental Colleges in State of Karnataka and was published on the website on 10.03.2018. Relevant portion of Clause 4 of this Information Bulletin deals with eligibility conditions in following terms:
"4. ELIGIBILITY
4.1 ELIGIBILITY for Government seats (G) &GMP seats:A candidate who fulfills the following criteria is eligible to appear for the online seat allotment process, namely:-
• He/she is a citizen of India, who is of Karnataka Origin and has studied MBBS or BDS degree in a Medical or Dental College situated in Karnataka or outside Karnataka and affiliated to any University established by law in India recognized by Medical Council of India or Dental Council of India and Government of India and has qualified in the NEET (National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test) for admission to post graduate medical or dental degree/diploma courses.
Note: Children for the purpose of the rule means natural born son/daughter and not adopted son/daughter and not grandson/grand daughter.
Explanation: A candidate of Karnataka Origin: means, a candidate found eligible under clause A or B below.
(Clause A)
i) A candidate who has studied and passed in one or more Government or Government recognized, educational institutions located in the State of Karnataka for a minimum period of TEN academic years as on the 31st March, 2018, commencing for 1st standard to MBBS/BDS and must have appeared and passed either SSLC/10th standard or 2nd PUC/12th standard examination from Karnataka State. In case of the candidate who has taken more than one year to pass a class or standard, the year of academic study is counted as one year only (Document to be produced)
(Clause B)
ii) The candidate should have studied and passed 1st and 2nd year Pre-University Examination or 11th or 12th standard examination within the State of Karnataka from an Educational Institution run or recognized by the State Government or MBBS/BDS from a professional educational institution located in Karnataka and that either of the parents must have studied/resided in Karnataka for a minimum period of 10 years. (Documents to be produced)"
3. It is submitted by the petitioners that this Information Bulletin issued by Respondent Nos.2 and 3, to the extent Clause 4.1 thereof imposes a condition of domicile for admission to MD, MS and Post-Graduate Diploma seats in State of Karnataka is invalid and unconstitutional. According to the petitioners said Clause 4.1 arbitrarily and illegally deprives the petitioners who had obtained MBBS/BDS Degrees from the Colleges situated in Karnataka from competing for admission to Post-Graduate Medical/Dental Curses in Government Medical Colleges and against Government quota seats in non-Governmental institutions. Reliance has been placed on the Judgment of this Court in Vishal Goyal and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others, (2014) 11 SCC 456 to submit that the controversy is no longer res-integra and the view taken in Vishal Goyal (supra) ought to have been adhered to by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 while issuing the Bulletin.
4. Since the matter involves urgency and the career prospects of the petitioners and similarly situated candidates are in question, the matter was taken up
