Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 1552
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
K. RAVICHANDRABAABU, J.
V.S. Sai Sachin, Minor represented by his father Guardian, V.Suresh - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tamilnadu and others - Respondents
W.P. No. 16341, 16379 and 16380, 16449, 16503 to 16509, 16918, 16826, 16983, 17078 to 17021, 17045, 17060 to 17067, 16681, 17103, 17104, 17137, 17139 to 17149 and 17151 to 17156, 17156, 17184, 17199, 17312, 17410 and 17411, 17525, 17528, 17533, 17540, 17545 and 17546, 17565 of 2017 and W.P. Nos. 17665 and 17666, 17690 to 17695, 17792 to 17794, 17848 to 17868, 18377 to 18379, 18271 to 18273, 18440 to 18442, 18469 to 18476, 18503 to 18505, 18521 to 18544, 18057 to 18059, 18580 to 18582, 18605, 18606 and 18609 to 18815, 18920 to 18923, 19015 and 19016, 19019 to 19023, 19027 and 19028, 19036 to 19038, 19045 to 19048, 19061 and 19062 of 2017.
Decided on : 14-07-2017
For the Petitioner:Mr. Om Prakash, Senior Counsel and for Ms. S. Rajalakshmi, Advocate, Mrs. Hema Muralikrishnan, Advocate, Mr. E.K. Kumaresan and for Mr. M. Guruprasad, Advocates, Mr. Amalaraj, Advocate, Mr. V. Srikanth, Advocate, Mr. K. Sellathurai, Advocate, Mr. V. Karthikeyan, Advocate, Mr. T. Gowthaman, Advocate, Mr. Rahul Balaji, Advocate, Mr. Bharatha Chakravarthy and for M/s. Sai Bharath and Ilan, Advocates, Mr. K. Suresh, Advocate, Mr. A. Muthukumar, Advocate, Mr. T. Karunakaran, Advocate, Mr. Ashok Menan, Advocate, Mr. Mani Sundar Gopal and for Mr. T. Meikandan, Advocates, Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram and for Mrs. C. Uma, Advocates, Mr. AR.L. Sunderasan, Senior Counsel and for Mrs. A.L. Ganthimathi, Advocates, Mr. P.S. Raman, Senior Counsel and for Mr. R. Sivaraman, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. R. Muthukumaraswamy, Advocate General assisted by Mr. T.N. Rajagopalan and Mr. P. Kumar, Special Government Pleaders, Mr. V.P. Raman, Standing Counsel for Medical Council of India Mr. P.R. Gopinathan, Standing Counsel for Tamilnadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University Mr. G. Nagarajan, Standing Counsel and for Central Board of School Education.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 - Section 10-D – Education matter - National Eligibility cum Entrance Test - Government Medical Colleges and Government Quota seats - MBBS/BDS admission - All India Quota - Reservation - Petitioners are students who passed Higher Secondary Examination through Central Board of Secondary Education - These students are aspiring to get admission to M.B.B.S./B.D.S. Course in 2017-2018 Session - All these petitioners are stated to have been qualified in National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) - Through impugned G.O., State of Tamil Nadu directed Additional Director of Medical Education/Secretary, Selection Committee to allocate 85% of seats to students who have studied in Tamil Nadu State Board and 15% of seats to students who have studied in CBSE and other Boards for admission to MBBS/BDS courses for 2017-2018 session after surrendering 15% of seats to All India Quota, in Government Medical Colleges and Government Quota seats in Self Financing Private Medical Colleges including seats to be surrendered to Government by Rajah Muthiah Medical and Dental College - Held, It clear that certainly, it is not against promotion of interest of students from rural background, more particularly, those who are studying in State Board - It has every concern for their upliftment - But when such promotion and upliftment of their interest are sought to be achieved through some unlawful means, more particularly, at risk of causing grave discrimination among equals, in this case, insofar as qualifying examination viz., NEET is concerned, this Court cannot be a mute spectator, especially, when those aggrieved equals knock door of this temple of justice and seek for redressal of their grievance. Number of litigant students who are before this Court may be minimal - But that does not matter - What cause they have brought in before this Court is important - They cannot be sustained - Impugned G.O.(Ms) Health and Family Welfare (MCA-1) Department and impugned Clause IV(19) of Prospectus of MBBS/BDS admission quashed - Consequently, respondents are directed to prepare a fresh merit list and conduct counselling accordingly - Writ Petitions allowed.
Mr. K. Ravichandrabaabu, J.
W.P. No. 16341 of 2017 is filed challenging Clause IV(19) of the Prospectus of MBBS/BDS admission 2017-18, reserving 85% of seats for the students of Tamil Nadu State Board, leaving the rest 15% to the students of CBSE and other Boards. All other writ petitions are filed challenging G.O.Ms. No. 233 dated 22.06.2017 issued by the Health and Family Welfare (MCA-1) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, making such reservation.
2. The petitioners are students who passed the Higher Secondary Examination through Central Board of Secondary Education. These students are aspiring to get admission to the M.B.B.S./B.D.S. Course in 2017-2018 Session. All these petitioners are stated to have been qualified in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET).
3. Through the impugned G.O., the State of Tamil Nadu directed the Additional Director of Medical Education/Secretary, Selection Committee to allocate 85% of the seats to the students who have studied in Tamil Nadu State Board and 15% of the seats to the students who have studied in CBSE and other Boards for admission to MBBS/BDS courses for 2017-2018 session after surrendering 15% of the seats to All India Quota, in Government Medical Colleges and Government Quota seats in Self Financing Private Medical Colleges including the seats to be surrendered to Government by Rajah Muthiah Medical and Dental College, Annamalai University, Chidambaram.
4. Before going into the merits of the matter it is to be stated that one of the writ petitioners herein namely Mrs. Kaaviyaa Nakkiran (Minor represented by her father Mr.R.Nakkiran and others filed a Writ Petition(C)No.491 of 2017 before the Honourable Supreme Court of India challenging the very same Government Order. It is seen that the Honourable Supreme court, by order dated 07.07.2017 disposed of the said Writ Petition by passing the following order:
"Learned counsel for the parties are agreed, that the same controversy, as has been raised in the instant petition, is pending consideration before the Madras High Court wherein pleadings are complete.
2. In view of the above, we decline to interfere on the cause raised by the petitioners. We, however, grant liberty to the petitioners either to file a fresh petition before the Madras High Court, or alternatively to intervene in the petition pending before the Madras High Court.
3. With the above observation, the instant petition is disposed of.
4. Keeping in view of the urgency of the matter, we request the High Court to expedite the disposal of the matter pending before it.
Thus, from the above order passed by the Honourable Supreme court it is evident that there is no impediment for this Court to entertain and consider these writ petitions on merits. Learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents also conceded to such position.
5. The petitioners raised the following questions for consideration.
(a) Whether the State of Tamil Nadu, by way of an executive order, can override the legislation occupying the field and orders passed by the Apex Court to that effect.
(b) Whether the impugned G.O. violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India, thereby making discrimination between the students of State Board and Central Board, especially, when the qualifying examination to the admission to M.B.B.S./B.D.S. Course viz., NEET is common to all.
6. Thus, the crux of the grievance of these petitioners is that the State Government cannot make the impugned reservation thereby allotting only 15% of the total seats to the C.B.S.E. and other Board students, even though they are qualified in the NEET and entitled to compete equally with others. In other words, it is the contention of the petitioners that when the qualifying examination for admission to the M.B.B.S./B.D.S. Course is only NEET and not the marks obtained in the respective Board Examinations, the State cannot make distinction between the students of State Board and Central Board, since both of them are equally
