ORDER

Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

Preliminary

1. Leave granted.

2. These four appeals by special leave, directed against the common judgment and order dated 23.04.2019, as passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 8234 of 2019 (O&M) and CWP No.

Signature Not Verified

9565 of 2019 (O&M) and involving essentially the same questions relating to Digitally signed by CHARANJEET KAUR Date: 2019.12.09 Reason:the legality and validity of domicile/residence-based reservation for admission to the Post Graduate Medical Courses (MD/MS Courses 2019)1 in Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh2, have been considered together and shall be governed by this common order.3

3. By the impugned judgment and order dated 23.04.2019, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh has held invalid the provisions made by the said Medical College in its prospectus, so far relating to the domicile/residence-based reservation as provided in UT4 Chandigarh Pool; and has struck down the same while directing that all the admissions made on the basis of such invalid reservation in the said Medical College be cancelled and fresh admission process for admission to the PG Medical Courses for the academic year 2019-20 be carried out on the basis of merit obtained by the candidates in National Eligibility-Cum-Entrance Test.5 Aggrieved, the candidates whose admission to the PG Medical Courses were to be cancelled as also the UT of Chandigarh and the said Medical College have preferred these appeals.

1 Hereinafter also referred to as “the PG Medical Courses”

2 Hereinafter also referred to as “the Medical College”/ “the said Medical College”.

3 It may be noticed at the outset that the questioned reservation has been provided for the ‘candidates with background of Chandigarh’. The candidates eligible under this category are those (i) who have studied for 5 years in Chandigarh; or (ii) whose parents have resided in Chandigarh for a period of 5 years; or (iii) who are children of the persons who have held or are holding immovable property in Chandigarh or who themselves have held or are holding such immovable property for a period of 5 years. Having regard to the submissions made and the questions involved, notwithstanding the subtle distinction in the two concepts of domicile and residence [as noted by this Court in the case of Yogesh Bhardwaj v. State of U.P. and Ors.: (1990) 3 SCC 355], the reservation/preference in question is referred herein as ‘domicile/residence-based reservation’.

4 ‘Union Territory’ is abbreviated as ‘UT’

5 Hereinafter also referred to as ”NEET” / ”NEET- PG 2019”

The basic facts concerning the parties

4. Before dilating on the rival contentions and the issue involved, appropriate it would be to make a brief reference to the factual aspects concerning the parties before us.

4.1. The appellant in the appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 12918 of 2019, completed her graduation in the year 2014; got herself registered as a doctor with the Punjab Medical Council on 04.08.2016; appeared for the NEET-PG 2019 for securing admission to a PG Medical Course; scored 410 marks and was placed at 51533 in All India Rank. The appellant thereafter applied for admission under UT Pool Quota as she was domiciled in Chandigarh since 2006. Pending adjudication of CWP No. 8234 of 2019 (O&M) before the High Court, the appellant was selected for admission to MD in Microbiology in the first round of counselling held on 05.04.2019; paid the course fees amounting to Rs. 33,420/-; and was waiting for her classes to begin from 01.05.2019. With the impugned order dated 23.04.2019 her admission being in jeopardy, she has preferred this appeal though she was not a party to the said writ petition/s.

4.2. The appellants of SLP(C) No. 11441 of 2019, upon completing their graduation, had appeared in the same NEET-PG 2019 conducted on 06.01.2019 and had secured 639 and 454 marks, thereby standing at 10910 and 40780 ranks respectively. The appellant No. 1 herein b