http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

CASE NO.: Writ Petition (civil) 5  of  2001 Writ Petition (civil)   13       of  2001 Writ Petition (civil)   38       of  2001 Writ Petition (civil)   50       of  2001 Special Leave Petition (civil)  104      of  2001

PETITIONER: ABHINAV AGGARWAL & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       08/02/2001

BENCH: S. Rajendra Babu, & K.G. Balakrishnan.

JUDGMENT:

J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T RAJENDRA BABU,  J.  : L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

   The  petitioners in these cases claim to hail from Delhi and  have  completed  MBBS course from colleges  situate  in different parts of the country.  They state that they passed entrance  examination  held by the concerned Governments  of the  States  in which the colleges situate or  the  entrance test conducted by such colleges;  that the classmates of the petitioners  who studied in Delhi and continued their  study in  the  medical  courses also in one or the  other  medical college  have an advantage over the petitioners as they  are being  considered  for  admission to PG medical  courses  in Delhi  University by providing for institutional preference. The  Delhi  University  has prescribed  the  conditions  for admission as follows :-

   Requirement   for  admission  to  Post-Graduate   Degree Courses   :    (A)  1.    Candidate  must   have   completed satisfactorily  one  year of compulsory rotating  internship after  passing  the  final M.B.B.S.   examination  from  the University  of  Delhi on or before 31.3.2001 and  must  have full  registration  with the State  Medical  Council/Medical Council of India.

   2.   The  candidate who has passed the MBBS  examination from  a University other than Delhi University, having  been allotted  to  the same under the 15% All India Quota by  the Director  General of Health Services would also be  eligible if  he/she  is  permanent resident of the  National  Capital Territory  of  Delhi, (The proviso has been incorporated  as per the direction of the Honble Supreme Court in Dr.  Parag Guptas  case and is subject to further order of the Honble Supreme Court) and if he/she also fulfills all the following three conditions :-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

   (i)  He/She  has passed 10+2 examination  from  National Capital Territory of Delhi.

   (ii)  He/She  is  a permanent resident of  the  National Capital Territory of Delhi.

   (iii)  He/She  has  passed the MBBS examination  from  a University other than Delhi University, having been allotted to  the  same under the 15% All India Quota by the  Director General  of Health Services if he/she is permanent  resident of the National Capital Territory of Delhi.

   Note  :   (i)  A candidate must produce any one  of  the following  documents to prove his/her permanent residence in the National Capital territory of Delhi :

(a) Ration Card                 (b) Voters Identity Card (c ) Passport                       (d) Driving license

   (ii)  The  Candidate must submit documentary  proof  for serial no.  (i) & (iii).

   There  are  similar rules in the State of Uttar  Pradesh and  the  contentions raised by some of the petitioners  who hail from Uttar Pradesh are identical.

   After  decision  in Dr.  Parag Gupta vs.  University  of Delhi  & Ors., 2000 (5) SCC 684, various States have adopted different  criteria of reservation which may be tabulated as follows :-

   1 Delhi Institutional Residence (15%)

   2 Gujarat Institutional

   3.  Maharashtra Institutional

   4.  U.P.  Institutional Residence (15%)

   5.  West Bengal Institutional

   6.  Assam

   Residence

   7.  Goa

   Residence

   8.  Karnataka

   Residence

   9.  Tamil Nadu

   Residence

   10.  Haryana Institutional or

   Residence

   11.  H.P.  Institutional or Residence

   12.  Kerala Institutional or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

   Residence

   13.  M.P.  Institutional or

   Residence

   14.  Orissa Institutional or

   Residence

   15.  Punjab Institutional or

   Residence

   16.  Rajasthan Institutional or

   Residence

   17.  Bihar Institutional or

   Residence

   18.    Pondicherry   25%  all-India    quota   +   37.5% institutional  of available seats + 37.5% of available seats open.

   The  contention  put forth before us is  that  different criteria adopted by different States encroach upon the right of the students who have qualified MBBS by passing necessary entrance  examinations and who migrated to other States from their  home State do not get an opportunity for  advancement of  their  career in their home State as they  are  debarred from  admission on account of different criteria, either  on account  of  reservation,  on   the  ground  of  residential requirement  in  the  migrating State or on  the  ground  of institutional  preference  adopted  by the  State  or  Union Territories  or  Universities.  Though in a small  area  the States  of  Uttar Pradesh and Delhi relax the  condition  of institutional  preference by making provision for  residence in  respect  of  15% all-India quota in which  none  of  the petitioners  fall.  The tabulation would disclose that  some States  allow admission to postgraduate medical courses only to  the  residents, whereas some States allow  admission  to postgraduate  medical  courses  to such  students  who  have qualified  from  any medical college even from  outside  the home  States  and  some  other  States  allow  admission  to postgraduate medical courses only to those students who have qualified from the medical colleges situate within the State or  University.   Delhi  University  provides  admission  to postgraduate  medical courses to students who have qualified MBBS  from  Delhi University and also to such  students  who have  qualified  MBBS  from  outside  Delhi  under  the  15% all-India  scheme as formulated in Dr.  Dinesh Kumars case. The  petitioners who have qualified from different  colleges are  denied  the  opportunity  to compete  in  the  entrance examination  held  by the Delhi University for admission  to postgraduate  courses, while the State of Rajasthan, Haryana and  Punjab  allow  admissions also to  residents  who  have qualified  MBBS from any medical college for which admission is  conducted on the basis of all-India entrance examination or  otherwise.  Thus the students who are classmates of  the petitioners  are eligible to pursue postgraduate courses  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

their  respective  home States but the petitioners in  their own  home State are being denied the opportunity to  compete in   the   entrance  examination  to   seek   admission   in postgraduate  courses  in  universities in Delhi  and  Uttar Pradesh.   Their  claim is that they got admission  in  MBBS after  passing  the  entrance examination on  the  basis  of all-India  entrance examination conducted by the  respective institutions  and, therefore, negation of opportunity to the petitioners  to  compete in the entrance examination  is  in gross  violation  of  the fundamental rights  as  guaranteed under  Article  14 of the Constitution.  The contention  put forth  is  that the criteria set out by different States  to fill  in  the 75% State quota to admission  to  postgraduate medical  courses  does not achieve any  uniformity.   Strong reliance is placed on Dr.  Parag Guptas case in this regard and  it  is contended that to strike a balance  between  the students  who  continued  studies in their home  States  and those students who had pursued studies in other universities or  States  who  are  invidiously  discriminated  should  be allowed  to  compete  in their home States where  they  have rules to pursue their postgraduate studies.

   In reply, the contention put forth is that in respect of Delhi  University  the  scheme  of  admission  is  what  was considered  in Dr.  Jagdish Saran s case and reservation is made  in  respect of 25% of the seats which are kept  to  be filled  by on all-India basis against which any student from anywhere  in  the  country is entitled to  compete  and  get selected  and  only  the  remaining   75%  are  reserved  as permitted  by  this Court in Dr.  Pradeep Jains  case  read with Dr.  Dinesh Kumars case.  When the directions given by this  Court  in  Dr.  Parag Guptas case were sought  to  be applied  in a general manner to all students who had studied outside  the  State  in  medical  colleges  and  sought  for admission  in their home State, it was noticed by this Court that such a course was not permissible and this position was clarified  in  Vineet Singhs case.  The petitioners  having studied  outside  their home States under the 15%  all-India quota are not entitled to seek admission in Delhi University against  the 75% per cent Delhi University seats by invoking the  decision in Dr.  Parag Guptas case.  The  institutions in  which  the  petitioners did their MBBS  course  are  not covered by the judgment or scheme formulated in Dr.  Pradeep Jains  case  and admission in the said institutions is  not made  on  all-India entrance examination being conducted  by the  Central  Board of Secondary Education on behalf of  the Director General of Health Services pursuant to the judgment and  directions  of this Court in Dr.  Pardeep Jains  case. Therefore,  it  is  submitted that the petitioners  are  not entitled  to seek admission in postgraduate medical  courses in  Delhi  University under the 75% Delhi  University  quota seats.

   After  considering  the cases in Dr.  Jagadish Saran  v. Union  of  India, 1980 (2) SCC 768;  State of  Rajasthan  v. Dr.   Ashok  Kumar Gupta, 1989 (1) SCC 93, Anant  Madaan  v. State  of  Haryana, 1995 (2) SCC 135;  Dr.  Dinesh Kumar  v. Motilal  Nehru  Medical College, 1986 (3) SCC  727;   Sanjay Ahlawat v.  Maharishi Dayanand University, 1995 (2) SCC 762, we stated in Dr.  Parag Guptas case, as follows :-

   These  decisions  lead us to the following  principles: though universitywise preference is permissible, colelgewise

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

preference  is  not.   70%  to   80%  reservation  has  been sustained   even   where  the    students   from   different universities  appear  at a common entrance test.  After  the decisions  in Dr.  Pradeep Jain and followed by Dinesh Kumar the  practice  all over the country was to make 15%  of  the seats  in  MBBS course and 25% of the seats in  postgraduate medical  courses  in all the government medical colleges  in the country available on the basis of merit alone.  Students from  anywhere  in the country can compete for  these  seats which  are  allotted  on  the basis  of  an  all-India  test conducted   by  the  designated   authority.   The  rule  of preference  on  the  basis  of domicile  or  requirement  of residence is not bad provided it is within reasonable limits and  does  not result in reserving more than  the  aforesaid percentage.   Where the students from different universities appear  at a common entrance test the rule of universitywise preference  loses  its  relevance.    The  explanations   of difference  in  evaluation,  standards   of  education   and syllabus  lose much of their significance when admission  is based  upon  a common entrance test.  At the same time,  the right  of  the State Government to regulate the  process  of admission and their desire to provide for their own students should  also  be  accorded due deference.  In the  light  of these  principles,  we  examine  the facts  arising  in  the present case.

   In  a  way  the decision in State of  Uttar  Pradesh  v. Vineet  Singh,  2000  (7)  SCC 262,  covers  the  matter  in dispute.  In that case extending the principle in Dr.  Parag Guptas  case,  the High Court of Allahabad had directed  to allow taking entrance examination in respect of all students who had migrated to other States and sought for admission in their  home States.  This Court explained that the  decision in  Dr.   Parag  Guptas case was applicable only  to  those selected  pursuant  to 15% All India quota provided under  a scheme  framed in Dinesh Kumars case.  It is submitted that in  these cases independent of Dr.  Parag Guptas case,  the Petitioners  case  has  to be examined as  to  whether  the Petitioners  are  discriminated  against other  students  in their  home States.  The question of attaining uniformity in the matter of admission in PG medical courses in all medical colleges  is  wrought with many complexities.  Students  who have  studied outside Delhi are also eligible to the 25% All India  quota  provided under the scheme for admission to  PG medical  courses.  In view of the law declared by this Court and  directions  issued pursuant thereto, schemes have  been framed  by respondents institutions.  We reiterate that  it would  be  ideal  for the  States/authorities  concerned  to achieve  uniformity by adopting appropriate criteria in  the matter of admission to PG courses in medical colleges.

   When  the  admission rules have been framed pursuant  to the decisions of this Court to which we have adverted to and those decisions have been rendered bearing in mind the scope of Article 14 of the Constitution vis-Ã -vis the local needs, we  do not think, it is permissible or appropriate for us to disturb  that  scheme.  Hence, we decline to interfere  with the process of selection being made to consider the cases of the petitioners.

   The petitions, therefore, stand dismissed.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6