IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
JUSTICE N. SESHASAYEE, J.
Minor. Shandeep S., Rep. by his father and natural guardian Mr. D. Santoche Coumar - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, Rep. by Secretary to Government, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare - Respondents
W.P. No.24139 & 24142 of 2023 and WMP. Nos.23616 & 23618 of 2023
Decided On : 28-03-2024
Writ Petition - Reservation in Education - Article 226, Article 341, Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes Order, 1964, JIPMER Act, 2008, Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 - The court analyzed the legal framework surrounding the reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes in educational institutions, particularly focusing on the distinction between state and central government institutions. It highlighted that the JIPMER Act, 2008 allows for a concession in seat allocation for local applicants, which does not equate to a constitutional reservation under Article 341. The court emphasized that the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 provides a pan-India reservation policy for Scheduled Castes, allowing candidates from any state to apply, thus influencing its decision to dismiss the petitions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, belonging to a Scheduled Caste under the Constitution (Pondicherry) Reservation Order, 1964, challenged the MBBS prospectus of JIPMER for the academic year 2023-24, arguing that it included candidates not recognized under the said order, thereby violating their rights to admission based on domicile.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the inclusion of migrant Scheduled Caste candidates in the merit list did not violate the Constitution (Pondicherry) Reservation Order, 1964, as the JIPMER Act, 2008 and the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 allowed for a broader interpretation of eligibility for admissions in central institutions.
Issues: Whether the eligibility criteria for the Puducherry UT Domicile prescribed in the JIPMER prospectus contravened the Constitution (Pondicherry) Reservation Order, 1964, and whether the inclusion of migrant Scheduled Caste candidates was lawful.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the reservation policies for central government institutions differ from those for state institutions, allowing for a pan-India eligibility for Scheduled Castes. The distinction between local and migrant candidates does not apply in the context of admissions to JIPMER, which is governed by central legislation.
Final Decision: Both writ petitions were dismissed, affirming the legality of the JIPMER prospectus and the inclusion of migrant Scheduled Caste candidates in the admission process.
ORDER :
(N. Seshasayee, J.) :
(Common Prayer : Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a (i) Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the prospectus for the MBBS course - academic year 2023-24 on the file of the 3rd respondent and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and ultravires and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to fill up P-SC seats in the MBBS course based on the Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes order, 1964 dated 05.03.1964 and as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and consequentially direct the third respondent to allot one seat under P-SC category in MBBS course at JIPMER Puducherry campus under Puducherry UT Domicile category to the petitioner by replacing the above referred migrant SC candidates who do not satisfy the Constitution (Pondicherry) Scheduled Castes order, 1964 dated 05.03.1964 or from the unfilled four seats earmarked for Puducherry Scheduled Tribe in JIPMER, Puducherry, and (ii) may pass such other or further orders as this Court may deem fit and proper to the facts and circumstances of the case.)
1. These writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the MBBS Prospectus of the 3rd respondent for the academic year 2023-2024 and for consequential directions to the 3rd respondent to fill up the Pondicherry Schedule Caste (P-SC) seats in the MBBS course on the basis of the Constitution Pondicherry Scheduled Castes Order, 1964, and allot one seat to the petitioners herein in the P-SC category in the MBBS course in place of the Schedule Caste candidates who have migrated from beyond the Union Territory of Puducherry.
2. The case of the petitioners, in a nutshell, is as follows:
| Writ Petition No. | Name of the Petitioner | Marks scored in Plus 2 Exam | Marks scored in NEET (Percentile) |
| 24139 of 2023 | Minor Shandeep.S | 533 | 452/720 (92.0742511) |
| 24142 of 2023 | Minor Sanjeeiv.S | 553 | 445/720 (91,6578861) |
c) The total reservation under the said category is 10 seats (7 seats for Puducherry and 3 seats for Karaikal). According to the petitioners, these seats ought to be filled up only from amongst those P-SC candidates who are notified as Scheduled Castes under the Constitution (Pondicherry) Reservation Order, 1964. In short, these seats must be allotted to those SC candidates who are natives of Pondicherry and not migrants.
d) It is the case of the petitioners that the 3rd respondent has released a merit list under the P-SC category but has included candidates who do not fall within the castes notified under the Constitution (Pondicherry) Reservation Order, 1964. It is pointed out that the 3rd respondent has failed to notice the distinction between a SC candidate domiciled in Pondicherry who holds a residence certificate from a SC candidate who falls within the scope of the Constitution (Pondicherry) Reservation Order, 1964. As the admissions have been made by the 3rd respondent in violation of the Constitution (Pondicherry) Reservation Order, 1964, the entire admission process is illegal and ought to be quashed.
3.The Union of India and JIPMER have resisted the aforesaid contentions pointing out that JIPMER is classified as an institution of national importance and it functions under the aegis of the JIPMER Act, 2008. The scheme of reservations contemplated for institutions run by the Central Government is completely different from the reservations contemplated under Article 341 which applies to institutions run by t
Anant Madaan Vs State of Haryana
Jagadish Saran (Dr) v. Union of India
Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. State of Maharashtra
Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v Dean, Seth G.S Medical College
Narinder Singh Vs State of Punjab
Puvvala Sujatha Vs Union of India
Santhosh Tamilarasan. E Vs Union of India
State of Maharashtra Vs Union of India
Subhash Chandra Vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board
The court established that reservations in central government institutions are governed by a pan-India policy, allowing Scheduled Castes from any state to be eligible for admission, irrespective of t....
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.
Domicile/residence-based reservation in PG Medical Courses is unconstitutional, violating the principle of equality under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
Domicile restrictions for admissions in minority institutions violate the equality clause under Article 14, mandating that PG medical course admissions be based on merit rather than residence.
Reservation of postgraduate medical seats based on domicile is constitutional, supporting local education while respecting equality principles.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgments to determine the correct categorization of candidates in UG Counselling for MBBS / BDS seats....
Candidates selected under the SC category, if eligible for the UR category, should be considered only under the UR category.
Legitimate classification based on residency for admission into medical programs is constitutional, ensuring local residents benefit while maintaining educational standards contrary to claims of disc....
The allocation of reserved seats must follow institutional policies ensuring compliance with relevant laws, without arbitrary conversion of categories.
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.