SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. KHANWILKAR, DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.
Dr. Tanvi Behl – Appellant
Versus
Shrey Goel & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9289 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 12918 of 2019) WITH (Civil Appeal No.9290 of 2019 @ SLP(C) No. 11441 of 2019, Civil Appeal No.9291 of 2019 @ SLP(C) No. 11477 of 2019 and Civil Appeal Nos.9292-9293 of 2019 @ SLP(C) Nos. 12919-20 of 2019
Decided on : 09-12-2019
(a) Medical Education - PG admission - Reservation on basis of domicile - Article 15(1), Constitution of India prohibiting reservation on basis of place of birth - Reservation on basis of domicile not impermissible. (Para 17, 23)
(b) Medical Education - PG admission - Reservation on basis of domicile - Whether permissible - More particularly in relation to the State/UT having only one Medical College - Matter referred to larger Bench. (Para 25)
Facts of the case:
Legality and validity of domicile/residence-based reservation for admission to the Post Graduate Medical Courses (MD/MS Courses 2019), in Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh has been challenged in these appeals.
Finding of the Court:
The question as to whether providing for domicile/residence-based reservation, particularly in admission to PG Medical Courses, is constitutionally permissible as also its corollaries, including the mode and modalities of its implementation (if permissible), more particularly in relation to the State/UT having only one Medical College, need to be examined by a Larger Bench for authoritative pronouncement.
Result: Matter referred to a larger Bench.
ORDER :
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.
Preliminary
1. Leave granted.
2. These four appeals by special leave, directed against the common judgment and order dated 23.04.2019, as passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 8234 of 2019 (O&M) and CWP No. 9565 of 2019 (O&M) and involving essentially the same questions relating to the legality and validity of domicile/residence-based reservation for admission to the Post Graduate Medical Courses (MD/MS Courses 2019), [Hereinafter also referred to as “the PG Medical Courses”] in Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh [Hereinafter also referred to as “the Medical College”/“the said Medical College”], have been considered together and shall be governed by this common order. [It may be noticed at the outset that the questioned reservation has been provided for the ‘candidates with background of Chandigarh’. The candidates eligible under this category are those
(i) who have studied for 5 years in Chandigarh; or (ii) whose parents have resided in Chandigarh for a period of 5 years; or (iii) who are children of the persons who have held or are holding immovable property in Chandigarh or who themselves have held or are holding such immovable property for a period of 5 years. Having regard to the submissions made and the questions involved, notwithstanding the subtle distinction in the two concepts of domicile and residence [as noted by this Court in the case of Yogesh Bhardwaj v. State of U.P. and Ors.: (1990) 3 SCC 355], the reservation/preference in question is referred herein as ‘domicile/residence-based reservation’.]
3. By the impugned judgment and order dated 23.04.2019, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh has held invalid the provisions made by the said Medical College in its prospectus, so far relating to the domicile/residence-based reservation as provided in UT [‘Union Territory’ is abbreviated as ‘UT’] Chandigarh Pool; and has struck down the same while directing that all the admissions made on the basis of such invalid reservation in the said Medical College be cancelled and fresh admission process for admission to the PG Medical Courses for the academic year 2019-20 be carried out on the basis of merit obtained by the candidates in National Eligibility-Cum-Entrance Test.[ Hereinafter also referred to as ”NEET”/”NEET-PG 2019”] Aggrieved, the candidates whose admission to the PG Medical Courses were to be cancelled as also the UT of Chandigarh and the said Medical College have preferred these appeals.
The basic facts concerning the parties
4. Before dilating on the rival contentions and the issue involved, appropriate it would be to make a brief reference to the factual aspects concerning the parties before us.
4.1. The appellant in the appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 12918 of 2019, completed her graduation in the year 2014; got herself registered as a doctor with the Punjab Medical Council on 04.08.2016; appeared for the NEET-PG 2019 for securing admission to a PG Medical Course; scored 410 marks and was placed at 51533 in All India Rank. The appellant thereafter applied for admission under UT Pool Quota as she was domiciled in Chandigarh since 2006. Pending adjudication of CWP No. 8234 of 2019 (O&M) before the High Court, the appellant was selected for admission to MD in Microbiology in the first round of counselling held on 05.04.2019; paid the course fees amounting to Rs. 33,420/-; and was waiting for her classes to begin from 01.05.2019. With the impugned order dated 23.04.2019 her admission being in jeopardy, she has preferred this appeal though she was not a party to the said writ petition/s.
4.2. The appellants of SLP(C) No. 11441 of 2019, upon completing their graduation, had appeared in the same NEET-PG 2019 conducted on 06.01.2019 and had secured 639 and 454 marks, thereby standing at 10910 and 40780 ranks respectively. The a
Yogesh Bhardwaj v. State of U.P.
Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India
Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India
Jagdish Saran v. Union of India
Nikhil Himthani v. State of Uttarakhand
Vishal Goyal v. State of Karnataka
Dr. Kriti Lakhina v. State of Karnataka
Satyabrata Sahoo v. State of Orissa
Yatinkumar Jasubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.