THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J
Dr Akash Doley S/o Kujendra Doley - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam - Respondent
WP(C)/6812 OF 2024
Decided On : 07-02-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 15(6) and 16(6) - 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in Post-Graduate medical courses - Petitioners challenge the inadequate increase of seats for EWS - Court finds that the 51 additional seats reserved exclusively for unreserved candidates violate the Reservation Policy and directs the allocation of 83 seats as per guidelines. (Paras 4 , 7 , 27 , 32 )
(B) Reservation Policy - Implementation must ensure that existing quotas are not adversely affected - Increase of seats should reflect the required 25% to accommodate EWS without compromising other categories. (Paras 10 , 25 )
(C) Guidelines of NMC and Government of India - Guidelines mandate that the total intake must include the additional seats for EWS to maintain fairness in admissions. (Paras 11 , 12 )
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, unreserved and reserved category MBBS graduates, challenge the allocation of PG seats in Assam after the introduction of EWS reservation. They argue that the State failed to implement a 25% increase in seats, resulting in unfair allocation.
Findings of Court:
The Court ruled that the 51 seats must be allocated according to the Reservation Policy, and a total of 83 seats should be offered to ensure fairness in the admission process.
Issues: The main issues were whether the 51 seats could be reserved for unreserved candidates and whether the increase should be 51 or 83 seats.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the increase in seats should comply with the Reservation Policy, ensuring no category is unfairly disadvantaged and that the total increase should reflect a 25% rise.
Result: The State Government is directed to allocate 371 PG seats in accordance with the Reservation Policy.
JUDGMENT :
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.
1. Heard Mr. K.N.Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. J.Patowary, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No.6640/2024. Also heard Mr. B.D.Konwar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. J.M.Konwar , learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 6812/2024. Mr. B.Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel appears for the Health Department, Government of Assam, while Mr. D.K.Baidya, learned Standing Counsel appears for the National Medical Commission (NMC).
2. The grievance of the petitioners in WP(C) No.6640/2024, who are unreserved category MBBS degree holders is that the implementation of the 10% reservation quota for the Economically Weaker Section (EWS), required a corresponding 25% increase in the total seats for admission into the Post- Graduate courses in the Medical Colleges of Assam for the year 2024. However, the State respondents did not make any corresponding 25% increase in the Post-Graduate seats, while implementing 10% reservation for the EWS in the first round of counselling which was held on 18.11.2024.
3. The increase of seats by 25% was done only in the 2nd round of counselling, on the orders of this Court, that also by introducing an additional 51 seats only, instead of 83 seats. The prayer of the petitioners in WP(C) No. 6640/2024 is to direct the respondents to increase the seats for counselling from 51 additional PG seats to 83.
4. The petitioners in WP(C) No.6812/2024 are reserved category MBBS graduates, who do not belong to the EWS category. Their grievance is that the corresponding increase of 25% seats of the total Post-Graduate seats for implementation of the reservation of 10% quota seats for the EWS, numbering 51, which was introduced in the 2nd round of counselling, had not been allocated/distributed as per the Reservation Policy of the State of Assam. The State respondents had allocated all the 51 Post-Graduate seats solely for the unreserved quota candidates, without adding the 51 seats to the total State Medical Post-Graduate seats, which would have entailed a fresh calculation with regard to the number of seats to be allocated to the different reserved categories, thereby allowing for the petitioners to have a larger field of choice in the courses/subjects offered. The additional increase of 51 Post-Graduate seats, made in pursuance to the interim order dated 11.12.2024 passed in WP(C)6640/2024, which had been put up in the 2nd round of counselling on 12.12.2024, had not been distributed/allocated in terms of the Reservation Policy of the State of Assam, but had been reserved exclusively for allocation to the unreserved category candidates by the State Government, in violation of the guidelines and parameters laid down by the Government of India in relation to the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019.
5. The issue pertains to whether the 51 Post-Graduate seats that had been nd offered in the 2 round of counselling, for implementing the 10% reservation of seats for the EWS, could have been reserved exclusively for the unreserved category. The further question to be decided is whether the 25 % increase of seats out of the total Post-Graduate seats, for implementing the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019, in terms of the guidelines laid down by the Central Government and the NMC, should be 51 or 83 additional Post-Graduate seats.
6. The petitioners are all Post-Graduate medical aspirants who have obtained their MBBS degree from various recognized medical colleges within the State of Assam. Their aim is to pursue Post-Graduate medical degree courses. Admissions to Post-Graduate medical courses in India are regulated through the National Eligibility –cum- Entrance Test, ( NEET-PG), conducted by the National Board of Examination. Out of all the total Post-Graduate medical seats available in various disciplines in the State of Assam, 50% are allocated under the All Ind
The Court affirmed that the implementation of EWS reservation requires a 25% increase in total seats, mandating fair allocation as per the Reservation Policy.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory implementation of the EWS reservation policy as per the constitutional mandate provided under Article 15(6) and Article 16(6) of t....
The allocation of reserved seats must follow institutional policies ensuring compliance with relevant laws, without arbitrary conversion of categories.
The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of timely adherence to admission schedules, ensuring merit-based filling of medical seats under the all-India quota.
Admissions to Post Graduate courses must recognize prior rural service of candidates despite changes in area categorization, ensuring compliance with constitutional principles of equality.
The New Regulation PGMER 2023 permits seat sharing for reservation policies, overriding previous regulations, and minority institutions cannot claim all seats as All India Management Quota.
The court confirmed that state reservation policies may apply to AIQ seats for medical admissions, but it ruled that any excess reservations beyond established limits require the Supreme Court's appr....
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.