Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 910
High Court of Delhi
V.K. JAIN, J.
Smit Rajput & Another
Versus
Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University & Others
W.P.(C) 3952 of 2013
Decided on : 29-07-2013.
For the Petitioners:Manoj Goel, Shuvodeeep Roy, Gopal Verma, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mukul Talwar with Sradhananda Mohapatra for GGSIPU, R7 to R16, S.D. Salwan, Mohinder J.S. Rupal for University of Delhi, R4, Rajeeve Mehra, ASG with Roshan Lal Goel for UOI, R6, Dr. Rakesh Gosain, R2, Ms. Sana Ansari for Ms. Zubeda Begum, Ashish Kumar for MCI, Advocates.
The exclusion of the petitioners, who passed out MBBS from Delhi University, from the list of candidates eligible for admission in the respondent I.P. University under the State quota is unconstitutional, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Headnote:
INSTITUTIONAL PREFERENCE - POST GRADUATE MEDICAL COURSES - CONSTITUTIONALITY - ARTICLE 14 - REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION - RATIONAL BASIS - MERITOCRACY - EQUALITY - DISCRIMINATION - GEOGRAPHICAL HETEROGENEITY - REGIONAL DISPARITY - INSTITUTIONAL CONTINUITY - ALL INDIA ENTRANCE TEST - NEET-PG REGULATIONS, 2010 - POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 2010 (PART-II) AND 2012 (PART-I) - MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA - UNIVERSITY OF DELHI - GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY - NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATIONS - DELHI UNIVERSITY ACT, 1922 - INDRAPRASTHA VISHWAVIDYALAYA ACT, 1998 - MINOR P. RAJENDRAN V. STATE OF MADRAS AND OTHERS - MINOR A. PEERIAKARUPPAN V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS - D.N. CHANCHALA V. THE STATE OF MYSORE AND OTHERS - DR. PRADEEP JAIN AND OTHERS V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS - DR. SAURABH CHAUDHRI AND OTHERS V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS - NIDAMARTI MAHESH KUMAR V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. - P.K. GOEL AND OTHERS V. U.P. MEDICAL COUNCIL AND OTHERS - A.I.I.M.S. STUDENTS UNION V. A.I.I.M.S. AND ORS. - DR. SAHIL DEEPAK V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - ISLAMIC EDUCATION AND ANOTHER V. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS - D.N. CHANCHALA V. THE STATE OF MYSORE AND OTHERS -
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who passed out MBBS from Delhi University, are aggrieved by their exclusion from the admission to be made by the respondent I.P. University in the State Quota. Based upon the lists of candidates, who qualified in NEET-PG, 2013, Delhi University as well as I.P. University has drawn their own respective lists of the candidates, who are eligible to take admission in their respective Post Graduate Medical courses. The contention of the petitioners before this Court is that their exclusion by the respondent-I.P. University from the list of candidates eligible for admission in the said University under the State quota is unconstitutional, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution since it defeats the principle of meritocracy and excludes persons who are similarly situated and have passed MBBS from the same State, i.e., Delhi.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the reservation/preference only for the students of IP University, for the purpose of admission to post graduate seats in the said university, in the State Quota, is arbitrary, unreasonable and irrational thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution. There is no intelligible differentia between the medical graduate of IP University and the medical graduate of Delhi University, both universities being situated in the same territory without any regional disparity and geographical division or jurisdiction. In the context of Delhi, where both the universities are situated at the same place having no geographical division of jurisdiction, the classification based upon university from which the candidates passed their qualifying examination, has no rational nexus with the object to be achieved.
Issues: 1. Whether the exclusion of the petitioners, who passed out MBBS from Delhi University, from the list of candidates eligible for admission in the respondent I.P. University under the State quota is unconstitutional? 2. Whether the reservation/preference only for the students of IP University, for the purpose of admission to post graduate seats in the said university, in the State Quota, is arbitrary, unreasonable and irrational? 3. Whether there is any intelligible differentia between the medical graduate of IP University and the medical graduate of Delhi University?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the exclusion of the petitioners, who passed out MBBS from Delhi University, from the list of candidates eligible for admission in the respondent I.P. University under the State quota is unconstitutional, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 2. The court held that the reservation/preference only for the students of IP University, for the purpose of admission to post graduate seats in the said university, in the State Quota, is arbitrary, unreasonable and irrational thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution. 3. The court held that there is no intelligible differentia between the medical graduate of IP University and the medical graduate of Delhi University, both universities being situated in the same territory without any regional disparity and geographical division or jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The court directed IP University to immediately issue public notice, in the leading newspapers of Delhi, inviting applications from the eligible medical graduates of Delhi University for being considered for admission to 50% PG seats in State Quota in terms of this judgment, giving them minimum required time for the purpose. The university is directed to prepare and issue two separate lists, one containing the names of the eligible medical graduates of both the universities, who are to be considered for admission to half of the State Quota seats and the second list containing the names of only eligible IP University medical graduates, who are to be considered for admission against the remaining 50% seats in the State Quota.
V.K. Jain, J.
1. Prior to the current academic year, the admissions to various Post Graduate courses were being made by, drawing students from two different sources, on the basis of two different entrance examinations, one being the All India Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination in which all the medical graduates from the country were eligible to appear and the other being the medical examination conducted by the respective State where only the students who passed out from the medical colleges within that State were eligible to appear. In terms of Post Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) Regulations, 2010 (Part-II) and the Post Graduate Medical Education (Amendment) Regulations, 2012 (Part-I), framed by respondent No. 5-Medical Council of India, a common all India examination called National Eligible-cum-Entrance Test for Post Graduate Courses (NEET-PG), 2012, was conducted by respondent No. 6-National Board of Examinations. The seats in PG Courses are equally divided into two quotas, one known as All India Quota and the other as State Quota. Declaring results for the said examination, respondent No. 6 notified two lists, one for admission under the All India Quota and the other for admission under the State Quota. Admissions against All India Quota can be made only from amongst the candidates whose names appear in the all India merit list, whereas admission against the seats under the State Quota can be made only from amongst candidates whose names appear in the State list of the concerned State. Thus, the admission against State Quota in Delhi can be made only from amongst the candidates whose names appear in the list notified by respondent No. 6 for Delhi. This list contains names of those candidates who passed their MBBS examination from a University/Institute in Delhi.
2. The medical colleges in Delhi, except All India Institute of Medical Sciences, are affiliated to two Universities, i.e., respondent No. 3- University of Delhi and respondent No. 1 Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (hereinafter referred to as “I.P. University”)
3. Clause 4.1.1 of the Bulletin of Information, issued by University of Delhi for admission to the Post Graduate (Degree/Diploma and MDS courses), stipulates that a candidate must have passed final MBBS examination (for MD/MS/Diploma Courses) and BDS examination for MDS courses from University of Delhi. Thus, the students, who passed final MBBS or BDS examination, as the case may be from I.P. University, are not eligible for admission to the Post Graduate Medical Courses in Delhi University. Similarly, the Admission Brochure, issued by respondent I.P. University, stipulates that only medical graduates of I.P. University are eligible for admission to the Post Graduate Medical Courses.
4. The petitioners before this Court, who passed out MBBS from Delhi University, are aggrieved by their exclusion from the admission to be made by the respondent I.P. University in the State Quota. Based upon the lists of candidates, who qualified in NEET-PG, 2013, Delhi University as well as I.P. University has drawn their own respective lists of the candidates, who are eligible to take admission in their respective Post Graduate Medical courses. The contention of the petitioners before this Court is that their exclusion by the respondent-I.P. University from the list of candidates eligible for admission in the said University under the State quota is unconstitutional, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution since it defeats the principle of meritocracy and excludes persons who are similarly situated and have passed MBBS from the same State, i.e., Delhi. In fact, the petitioners claim to be more meritorious than many candidates whose names appear in the list of eligible candidates, issued for admission in the PG medical courses of I.P. University. This claim is made on the basis of their comparative rank in the merit list, issued by respondent No. 6-National Board of Examinations.
