The judgment established the principle that the 50% ceiling limit in reservations applies only to vertical reservations for SCs, STs, and Backward Communities, and does not apply to horizontal reservations, such as reservations for persons with disabilities and in-service candidates.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioners, who are MBBS Graduates and who have appeared for NEET PG Examination-2021, are aggrieved by the revision of number of seats for various reserved categories. According to the petitioners, the revision has reduced the merit seats available to general candidates to 38%.

2. The petitioners state that they have appeared in the NEET PG-2021 Examination. The total number of seats in PG Courses is 833. From it, 427 seats are to be filled up by the Commissioner of Entrance Examination, based on the Rank List prepared by the National Board of Examinations (NBE). The remaining All India Quota will be filled up by the Director General of Health Services, Government of India. All the conditions stipulated in the Prospectus will be applied to All India Quota also.

3. In Ext.P1 Prospectus, the quota earmarked for Socially and Educationally Backward Communities (SEBC) has been increased from 9% to 27%. Service Quota for in-service candidates of 10% has been introduced. The revised reservation pattern as prescribed by Ext.P1 Government Order is as follows:

Thus, 62% seats are kept apart for various reserved categories and only 38% is available to General candidates.

4. The petitioners argued that the Apex Court has considered constitutionality of reservations in the Post Graduate and Super Specialty Courses. The Apex Court held that the level of specialised Post Graduate reservations has to be minimum. At the undergraduate level, however, the extent of reservation can be liberal but still within the other constitutional limitations. The decision of the State Government as reflected in Ext.P1 goes against the spirit and content of the judgments of the Apex Court.

5. The Apex Court in Dr. Preeti Srivastava and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others [(1999) 7 SCC 120] has held that at the level of super specialisation, there cannot be any reservation because any dilution of merit at this level would adversely affect the national goal of having the best possible people at the highest levels of professional and education training. It is in public interest that we promote these skills. Such high degree of skill and expert knowledge in highly specialised areas cannot be acquired by anyone or everyone. It is for this reason that it would be detrimental to the national interest to have reservations at this stage. Opportunities for such training are a few and it is in the national interest that these are made available to those who can profit from them the most.

6. When the Government of India introduced 27% reservation for the backward classes in the year 1990, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that merit alone must prevail in specialities and super specialities in Medicine and that there should not be any reservation. By the increase of reservation for various categories, the merit seats are sidelined and virtually reduced to the minimum of 38%. It is the basic rule of reservation that the quantum of reservation should not cross 50% limit. By Ext.P1, the total reservation is increased to 62%. Ext.P1 therefore cannot stand the scrutiny of law, contended the petitioners.

7. The 2nd respondent opposed the writ petition. The learned Government Pleader representing the 2nd respondent submitted that the apprehension that the percentage of reservation would exceed 50%, is misplaced and incorrect. The 5% seats reserved for physically disabled persons and the 10% seats reserved for service quota, are horizontal reservations which will cut across the vertical reservations. The 10% of the total seats are set apart for economically weaker sections as per Article 15(6) of the Constitution of India. The seats reserved for economically weaker s