IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.P. SAHI, SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, JJ.
All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Represented by C.Ve. Shanmugam, District Secretary, Villupuram – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi & Others – Respondents
W.P. Nos. 8324, 8325, 8326, 8327, 8335, 8361, 8420, 8445, 8452, 8453, 8599, 8630 & 8828 of 2020 & W.M.P. Nos. 10394, 9986, 9987, 9988, 10446, 10178, 9996, 9997, 9989, 9995, 9990, 9994, 10393, 10166, 10167, 10722, 10723, 10042, 10118, 10176, 10119, 10179 & 10177 of 2020
Decided on : 27-07-2020
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. reservations for obc in medical admissions. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. legal basis for obc reservation. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments supporting obc reservation. (Para 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. petitioners' specific claims and arguments. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. judicial observations on reservation implementation. (Para 23 , 24 , 26) |
ORDER :
1. This legal battle has been brought forth practically by all the major political parties of the State and a couple of individual candidates seeking admission regarding reservations for the Other Backward Classes in the All India Quota seats contributed/surrendered by the State relating to Under Graduate and Post Graduate medical courses in the State Government/Union Territory and the Aided Medical Colleges, the admissions whereto are regulated by the Medical Council of India and the Dental Council of India. The concern has been expressed by political forums and this is a unique litigation where the State Government in power in Tamil Nadu has also joined hands on an equal footing with the other petitioners to press forward the implementation of such reservation.
2. All the thirteen writ petitions before us broadly raise one issue, namely, that of non implementation of the policy and percentage of reservation for Other Backward Classes in the State of Tamil Nadu and the Union Territory of Puducherry, to the extent as provided for – 69% (50% for Other Backward Categories and 19% for the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Categories in the State of Tamil Nadu), and 50% (34% for Other Backward Categories and 16% for the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Categories in the Union Territory of Puducherry) to such of the seats in the Under Graduate as well as Post Graduate Courses of recognized State run Medical Institutions within the above territories, contributed towards the All India Quota pool by the State, namely 50% of the seats in the Under Graduate courses and 15% seats of the Post Graduate Courses run in these institutions, including Dental Education Courses.
3. The challenge is based on the ground that such reservation has constitutional backing and is protected under Article 15(4) and (5) of the Constitution of India read with the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of Appointments or Posts in the Services under the State) Act, 1993 and the amended Medical Council of India Regulations for Graduate Medical Education as well as for Post Graduate Medical Education.
4. It is the contention of all the petitioners that reservation of seats in medical colleges for respective categories has to be provided as per applicable laws prevailing in States/Union Territories, nonetheless, in spite of these provisions being in place, and the proposal by the Union Government itself as disclosed in the short counter-affidavit filed by them, both in these proceedings as well as a similar affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.596 of 2015 pending before the Supreme Court of India in the matter of Dr.Saloni Kumari and another v. Director General, Health Services and others , which is incidentally sworn by the same Officer, no steps have been taken to extend this benefit of reservation against All India Quota seats contributed/surrendered by the State in spite of having specifically provided for and, therefore, a mandamus has been prayed for seeking implementation of reservation in favour of the Other Backward Categories to the aforesaid class of All India Quota seats available in the State run medical colleges and also apply the same percentage of State specific reservation in the institutions run and managed by the Central Government.
5. It is contended that, by not doing so, the respondents, namely, Union of India and the Medical Council of India, as well as the Counselling Agency, are acting arbitrarily by not enforcing the provisions of law for
Ajay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar [(1994) 4 SCC 401]
Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab [(1999) 7 SCC 209 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1239
Anupam Thakur and Ors. vs. State of H.P
Abhay Nath v. University of Delhi
Buddhi Prakash Sharma v. Union of India
Comptroller and Auditor General of India
Christian Medical College, Vellore and others v. Union of India and others
Dinesh Kumar v Motilal Nehru Medical College (I)
Dinesh Kumar v Motilal Nehru Medical College (II)
Dr.Pradeep Jain Vs. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 654
Dr.Preethi Srivastava vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Gulshan Prakash and others v. State of Haryana
Harsh Pratap Sisodia v. Union of India and others
Harish Verma and Others vs. Ajay Srivastava and Another
Medical Council of India v. Christian Medical College, Vellore and others
Nivedita Jain [State of M.P. v. Nivedita Jain
Preeti Mittal v. Gaganjot Kaur Saira [(1999) 3 SCC 700]
Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India (2003) 11 SCC 146
State of U.P. v. Dinesh Singh Chauhan
Suresh Y. Shingda vs. State of Maharashtra
Suresh Chandra vs. State of U.P
Sharwan Kumar v. Director General of Health Services and Another and connected writ petitions
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Gopal D.Tirthani
Union of India v. R. Rajeshwaran [(2003) 9 SCC 294 : (2001) 6 Scale 662]
AI
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.