1. States claim power under Entry 25 List III; MCI and Union argue Regulation 9 bars such reservation. (Para 3 , 5 , 7 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2020 Supreme(SC) 529
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, INDIRA BANERJEE, VINEET SARAN, M.R. SHAH, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.
TAMIL NADU MEDICAL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION & ORS. – PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS – RESPONDENT(S)
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 196, 252, 295, 293 OF 2018, CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3025 OF 2020 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 26665 of 2019), CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3026-29 OF 2020 (@ SLP (CIVIL) Nos. 25487-25490 of 2019), CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3030-31 OF 2020 (@ SLP (CIVIL) Nos. 26448-26449 of 2019), CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3032-35 OF 2020 (@ SLP (CIVIL) Nos. 26507-26510 of 2019), CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3036 OF 2020 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No. 26648 of 2019), CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3037 OF 2020 (@ SLP (CIVIL) No.10289/2020 @ Diary No. 42890 of 2019)
Decided on : 31-08-2020
Advocates appeared:
For the parties :C. S. Vaidyanathan, V. Giri, Jayant Muthraj, Balaji Srinivasan, M. Yogesh Kanna, Amit Kumar, Avijit Mani Tripathi, Kuldeep Rai, Suman Banerjee, Jayesh Gaurav, Robin Khokhar, Nishesh Sharma, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Soumitra G. Chaudhuri, Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, Motahar Hossain, Sarifa Chowdhury, Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan, Sarad Kumar Singhania, Rashmi Singhania, Kartik Ray, Jose Abraham, M/S. Khaitan & Co., Ranjan Mukherjee, Subhasish Bhowmick, Manisha Pandey, A. K. Mishra, Gaurav Sharma, Dhawal Mohan, Prateek Bhatia, Jishnu M. L., Priyanka Prakash, Beena Prakash, G. Prakash, Ankit Anandraj Shah, Jose Abraham, Atul Kumar, V. N. Raghupathy, Krishna Kumar Singh, M/S. S-legal Associates, Advocates
For the parties :C. S. Vaidyanathan, V. Giri, Jayant Muthraj, Balaji Srinivasan, M. Yogesh Kanna, Amit Kumar, Avijit Mani Tripathi, Kuldeep Rai, Suman Banerjee, Jayesh Gaurav, Robin Khokhar, Nishesh Sharma, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Soumitra G. Chaudhuri, Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, Motahar Hossain, Sarifa Chowdhury, Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan, Sarad Kumar Singhania, Rashmi Singhania, Kartik Ray, Jose Abraham, M/S. Khaitan & Co., Ranjan Mukherjee, Subhasish Bhowmick, Manisha Pandey, A. K. Mishra, Gaurav Sharma, Dhawal Mohan, Prateek Bhatia, Jishnu M. L., Priyanka Prakash, Beena Prakash, G. Prakash, Ankit Anandraj Shah, Jose Abraham, Atul Kumar, V. N. Raghupathy, Krishna Kumar Singh, M/S. S-legal Associates, Advocates
States possess legislative competence to create separate entry channels or reservations for in-service doctors in postgraduate medical degree courses under Entry 25, List III, provided minimum standards are met, as this does not conflict with the Union's limited power to determine education standards under Entry 66, List I.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Entry 66, List I; Entry 25, List III; Entry 6, List II; Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 47, 246, 254 - Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 - Regulations governing postgraduate medical education - Regulation 9 - Power of the State to provide reservation for in-service candidates in postgraduate degree courses - Whether the regulations framed by the central regulatory body constitute a complete code that precludes State-led reservation in degree courses - The Union's power to coordinate and determine standards is specific and limited, meaning laying down benchmarks, and does not encompass the entire gamut of the admission process (Paras 10.1, 31) - The State's power to regulate education and medical education under the Concurrent List remains intact provided minimum standards are not compromised (Paras 32, 38).
(B) Nature of In-service Reservation - Allocation of seats for candidates already in government service is a "separate source of entry" and a distinct channel of admission, not to be equated with "compensatory discrimination" envisioned for socially and educationally backward classes - Such classification is based on an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the object of improving public healthcare in rural, tribal, and remote areas (Paras 28, 29).
(C) Interpretation of Statutory Regulations - A regulation may be a self-contained code for specific procedures but is not necessarily an exhaustive code for all facets of admission - Vacant legislative zones within a central code can be filled by the State legislature provided there is no direct and positive repugnancy (Paras 35, 36).
(D) Right to Health - The right to health is an integral facet of the right to life under Article 21, and the improvement of public health is a primary duty of the State under Article 47 (Paras 15.1, 15.2).
Facts of the case:
Certain State governments provided reservations in postgraduate medical degree courses for doctors in government service. This was challenged on the ground that regulations framed by the central regulatory body only explicitly permitted reservation in diploma courses and provided only for the grant of incentive marks in degree courses, thereby excluding the possibility of a separate quota for in-service candidates in degree courses.
Findings of Court:
The State is within its legislative competence to provide a separate channel of admission for in-service candidates in postgraduate medical degree and diploma courses, provided candidates clear the national common entrance examination with the minimum prescribed marks.
Issues: Whether the regulatory provisions for selection of postgraduate candidates take away the power of the States to provide a separate source of entry for in-service candidates in degree courses, and whether the relevant regulations act as an exhaustive code prohibiting state-led reservations in such courses.
Ratio Decidendi: The power of the Union to determine standards is specific to laying down benchmarks and does not exclude the State's power to regulate the admission process. Providing a separate entry path for in-service doctors is a reasonable classification aimed at enriching public health services in remote areas. Since the central regulations do not explicitly prohibit such reservations and candidates still meet minimum merit standards, there is no conflict or repugnancy between the Union's and the State's powers.
Result: Civil Appeals allowed; Writ Petitions allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
constitutional law
- legislative competence
- fundamental rights
-
directive principles
- article 47 duty to improve public health
-
medical education
-
postgraduate medical courses
- degree courses (Para 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47)
- diploma courses (Para 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47)
-
mci regulations 2000
- regulation 9 (Para 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47)
- neet (Para 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47)
-
admission
- merit list (Para 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47)
- reservation
- conversion of seats (Para 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47)
-
service law
- in-service doctors (Para 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47)
- quota (Para 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47)
- practice and procedure
-
postgraduate medical courses
Table of Contents
2. Entry 66 List I limited to standards; Regulation 9 does not prohibit State's power to provide separate entry channel for in-service doctors. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 18 , 20 , 27 , 30 , 35 , 38 , 42 )
3. State has legislative competence under Entry 25 List III to provide separate source for in-service doctors in PG degree courses, subject to NEET minimum standards. (Para 13 , 20 , 42 )
4. Appeals allowed; writ petitions allowed; Calcutta High Court judgment set aside; reservations restored; prospective operation. (Para 27 , 44 , 46 )
5. What is the scope of Entry 66 List I vis-à-vis Entry 25 List III regarding medical education?
Entry 66 is limited to coordination and determination of standards; States retain power under Entry 25 List III for admission processes like providing separate entry channels. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 20 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 )
6. Does Regulation 9 of MCI Regulations 2000 bar States from providing a separate source of entry for in-service doctors in postgraduate degree courses?
No, Regulation 9 does not take away State's power; it is not an exhaustive code and does not prohibit such reservation. (Para 12 , 13 , 18 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 )
7. Is reservation for in-service doctors a separate channel of entry or a reservation akin to constitutional reservation?
It is a separate channel of entry based on reasonable classification, not compensatory discrimination under Articles 15/16. (Para 28 , 29 )
8. Whether reservation for in-service doctors violates Article 14?
No, classification of in-service doctors is intelligible and has rational nexus with providing better healthcare in rural areas. (Para 15 , 29 )
9. What is the effect of conversion of diploma seats to degree seats on in-service reservation?
Conversion does not negate State's power; States can still provide reservation in degree courses; in-service doctors are not deprived of benefit. (Para 6 , 19 )
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
Leave & permission granted in the respective special leave petitions.
2. After considering the judgment rendered by a three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Dinesh Singh Chauhan ., (2016) 9 SCC 749, another three Judge Bench, pursuant to order dated 13.4.2018 in the case of T.N. Medical Officers Association v. Union of India, (2018) 17 SCC 478, has referred the present batch of cases to a larger Bench.
2.1 In the case of Dinesh Singh Chauhan (supra), a three Judge Bench construed the provisions of Regulations 9(IV) and 9(VII) of the MCI Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, as amended on 15.2.2012 (hereinafter referred to as the “MCI Regulations 2000”). In the case of Dinesh Singh Chauhan (supra), while considering the aforesaid Regulations, this Court held that the aforesaid Regulations do not provide for any reservation for in-service government doctors in PG degree courses, and therefore, the State Government order providing the reservation for PG degree courses for in-service government doctors is held to be illegal.
2.2 The present batch of cases came up for hearing before another Bench of three Judges. The Bench was of the opinion that the present batch of cases require consideration by a larger Bench and that is how the present batch of cases are referred to a larger Bench. On the basis of the submissions made, the following reasons were mentioned:
“(i) The decision in Dinesh Singh Chauhan has not considered the entries in the legislative lists of the Seventh Schedule, more particularly Entry 66 of the Union List and Entry 25 of the Concurrent List;
(ii) The main contention of the petitioners is that while coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education falls within the exclusive domain of the Union (Entry 66 List I), medical education is a subject in the Concurrent List (Entry 25 List III). Though, Entry 25 of List III is subject to Entry 66 of List I, the State is not denuded of its power to legislate on the manner and method of making admissions to postgraduate medical courses;
(iii) The contentions which have been raised in the present batch of petitions were not addressed before this Court in Dinesh Singh Chauhan;
(iv) The judgment in Dinesh Singh Chauhan does not consider three decisions of the Constitution Bench in R. Chitralekha v. State of Mysore (1964) 6 SCR 368 : AIR 1964 SC 1823, Chitra Ghosh v. Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 228 and Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of M.P. (2016) 8 SCC 353; and
(v) There are decisions rendered by Benches of an equal strength as in Dinesh Singh Chauhan.”
2.3 Now so far as Civil Appeals arising out of the Special Leave Petitions(C) Nos.26448-26449 of 2019 are concerned, they arise out of the impugned judgment and order dated 01/10/2019 in MAT Nos. 1245 and 1267 of 2019 passed by the High Court at Calcutta, by which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the batch of appeals confirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge holding that the State has no authority to reserve 40% seats for the in-service doctors and 60% seats for open category doctors.
2.4 In Writ Petition (Civil) No. 196 of 2018 filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners–Tamil Nadu Medical officers’ Association and others, for and on behalf of the in-service doctors in the State of Tamil Nadu have prayed for the following reliefs:
(a) declare by issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ/order/direction that Regulation 9 of the POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION REGULATIONS , 2000 (more particularly, Regulation 9(IV) and 9(VII), does not take away the power of the States under Entry 25, List III to provide for a separate source of entry for in-service candidates seeking admission to Degree courses;
(b) Alternatively, if Regulation 9 of the POST GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION REGULATIONS , 2000 is understood to now allow for States to provide for a separate sou
