Back
1993 Supreme(Pat) 47
PATNA HIGH COURT
G.C.Bharuka, J.
Asgar Ali Khan
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5641 of 1992 ;
Decided On : FEBRUARY 12, 1993
The State has the power to reserve seats for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, and backward classes in the matter of admission to post-graduate medical courses under Article 15 (4) of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - RESERVATION POLICY - POST-GRADUATE MEDICAL ADMISSION - VALIDITY - ARTICLE 15 (4) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - INTERPRETATION - POWER OF THE STATE TO RESERVE SEATS FOR BACKWARD CLASSES - LIMITATIONS - MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA GUIDELINES - RELEVANCE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the provision for reservation contained in paragraph 5 of the prospectus of the post-Graduate Medical Admission Test 1992, issued by the State of Bihar, on the ground that it violated Articles 14 and 15 (1) of the Constitution of India. The petitioners contended that admission to post-graduate medical courses should be based solely on merit and that the reservation policy was discriminatory.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the reservation policy of the State of Bihar was not unconstitutional and that the State had the power to reserve seats for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, and backward classes in the matter of admission to post-graduate medical courses under Article 15 (4) of the Constitution of India. The court recognized that the reservation policy was necessary to address the historical discrimination faced by these groups and to promote equality of opportunity.
Issues: 1. Whether the reservation policy of the State of Bihar for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, and backward classes in the matter of admission to post-graduate medical courses was unconstitutional. 2. Whether the State had the power to reserve seats for these groups under Article 15 (4) of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Article 15 (4) of the Constitution of India authorizes the State to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes of citizens. 2. The reservation policy of the State of Bihar was a special provision made under Article 15 (4) to address the historical discrimination faced by scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, and backward classes and to promote equality of opportunity. 3. The reservation policy did not violate the constitutional guarantee of equality before law and equal protection before law as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and upheld the reservation policy of the State of Bihar.
S. B. Sinha, J.
1. In this application the petitioners have prayed for a declaration that the provision for reservation contained in paragraph 5 of the prospectus of the post Graduate Medical Admission Test 1992 is violative of Articles 14 and 15 (1) of the Constitution of India.
2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass.
3. The State of Bihar through the Controller of Examination of health Services Bihar Patna issued a prospectus for post Graduate Medical admission Test, 1992 for the students intending to be admitted in the post graduate degree and diploma course in various colleges mentioned therein, which is contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application.
4. Clause (V) of the said prospectus provides for reservation of seats for various categories of candidates as per the decision of the Government. The reservation of seats for the reserved categories of candidates is in the following terms :
4_793_BLJ1_1994.htm
5. The petitioner has questioned the constitutionality of the aforementioned reservation policy of the State of Bihar inter alia on the ground that the same is violative of the directives of the Medical Council of India as well as Article 15 (1) of the Constitution of India. It has further been contended that so far as post-Graduate Medical Education is concerned, as the same is imparted for holding higher posts in Neuro-Surgery, and other Super Speciality posts, the criteria for admission in the said course should only be on the basis of msrks obtained at the entrance examination.
6. Mr. Banwari Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has drawn our attention to Article 15 as also Articles 45, 46, 338, 340, 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India and submitted that the said provisions had been made in the constitution for granting facilities to the members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled tribe in various fields and thus in the field of higher education in medicine/surgery, no reservation of seats for the members of scbeduled caste, scheduled tribe and backward classes can be made by the State of Bihar.
7. The learned counsel submitted that the Scheduled castes and scheduled Tribes had been identified under the orders made under the constitution but determination of backward class was not contemplated by the Constitution makers as would be evident from paragraph 3 of Article 338 of the Constitution of India.
8. It has also been submitted that all backward classes had to be assimilated with the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and no third category could be carved out.
9. The learned counsel in support of his contention placed strong reliance upon Gujarat University v Shri Krishna reported in 1963 SC 703, dr. Jagdish V/s. Union of India reported in 1980 SC 820, Pradeep Jain V/s. Union of India reported in 1984 SC 1420, K. C, Vasanth Kumar V/s. State of karnataka reported in 1985 SC 1495, P. Rajendran V/s. State of Madras reported in 1962 SC 1012 and Surendra Kumar V/s. State of Bihar and others reported in 1985 SC 87.
10. Mr. P. K. Sahi, the learned Government Pleader No.7 on the other hand submitted that the Supreme Court in no case has held that no reservation can be provided for admission in post-graduate degrees and diploma courses.
11. According to the learned counsel as the petitioner also concedes that a reservation policy can be adopted by the State in respect of under graduate medical courses and thus there cannot be any reason why the policy of reservation which has been introduced would be held to be invalid.
12. The learned counsel further submitted that similar reservation policies of the Central Government as also the State Government has been tested by the Supreme Court on many occasions and their constitutionality have been upheld on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel submitted that in this view of the matter, the medical Council of India cannot be said to have any authority whatsoerer to lay dow
