http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Contempt Petition (civil)  398 of 2004

PETITIONER: Dr.Manu Bamal & Anr.

RESPONDENT: Shri J.V.R. Prasada Rao & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/05/2004

BENCH: R.C.LAHOTI, B.N. AGRAWAL, ASHOK BHAN & DR. AR.LAKSHMANAN.

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

O R D E R

IN WRIT PETITION (C) NO.29 OF 2003

       In view of the order passed today in I.A. No.8 of 2004 in  CWP No.29 of 2003 the prayer for initiation of contempt  proceedings cannot be entertained.  The petition is dismissed.

R.C. LAHOTI                  

B.N. AGRAWAL           

ASHOK BHAN             

DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN

New Delhi; May 7, 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (C) NO.189 OF 2004   

Dr.Prashant Yadav & Ors.        Petitioners

Versus

Union of India & Ors.           Respondents

O R D E R

       In view of the order passed today in I.A. No.8 of 2004 in  CWP No.29 of 2003, the present petition is rendered infructuous.   Dismissed.

R.C. LAHOTI                  

B.N. AGRAWAL              

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

ASHOK BHAN              

DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN

New Delhi; May 7, 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION

I.A.Nos.6-7 & 8 in W.P.(C) NO.29/2003   

Saurabh Chaudri & Ors.                            \005Petitioners

Versus

Union of India & Ors.                              \005Respondents

(With I.A. Nos. 9,10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of 2004)

O R D E R

Several applications have been filed seeking clarifications  in, and/or directions for implementing, the judgment of this  Court dated November 4, 2003 in W.P.(C) No.29 of 2003 \026   Saurabh Chaudri & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. and  connected cases (since reported as (2003) 11 SCC 146).   

The issue arising for decision was: whether any  reservation, be it based on residence or on institutional  preference, is constitutionally permissible in PG courses of study.   The conclusions arrived at by the Court may briefly be summed  up as under:-

(1)     All-India  quota of PG seats should be 50% (instead of  25% as prevailing hitherto) which should be filled up by  common entrance test.

(2)     The original scheme as framed by this Court in Dr.  Pradeep Jain’s case (1984) 3 SCC 654 should be  continued unless replaced by a Central Legislation in  preference to the scheme laid down by this Court in Dr.  Dinesh Kumar’s case (1986) 3 SCC 727.

(3)     Institutional preference to be given to medical students for  the purpose of admission against PG seats in All-India  Institute of Medical Sciences should remain confined to  50% of the total seats in MBBS and the decision of this  Court in AIIMS Students Union Vs. AIIMS (2002) 1 SCC  428 should continue to hold the field.

The examination for admission against All-India quota  seats is conducted by All India Institute of Medical Sciences  (hereinafter, ’AIIMS’).  The prospectus for holding All-India  Entrance Examination for MD/MS/PG Diploma  and MDS Courses

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

2004 was issued by the AIIMS and was available for sale on and  from Sept.22, 2003.  Therein it was declared that the  competitive entrance examination on All-India basis was being  held for admission to 25% open merit seats in various post- graduate courses.  Public advertisement in this regard was  issued on September 16, 2003.  The last date for receipt of  applications was October 27, 2003.  The examinations were held  on January 11, 2004.  The result was declared on March 4, 2004.   The AIIMS commenced counselling for the purpose  of allotting  25% PG seats.  At this point of time, several applications have  come to be filed.  IA No.8 of 2004 has been filed by the Union of  India submitting that it would be proper to confine the  percentage of seats for the All-India quota to 25%, i.e., the  percentage based whereon  the process for selection and  admission had already commenced before the date of judgment  of this Court.  There are several other similar applications filed  by a few students who have applied for admission against quotas  other than All-India quota.  IA No.7 of 2004 has been filed by a  batch of students seeking admission against All-India quota for  directing the Union of India to make available 50% seats under  the All-India quota consistently with the judgment of this Court.   There are other similar applications.  

We have heard the learned Solicitor General and all other  learned counsel appearing for the several applicants.  It is not  disputed at the Bar that the process of admission commenced  with the release of prospectus and public advertisement in  September, 2003 and at that point of time the seats available  under the All-India quota were only 25% and this is how the  examination was planned and obviously the medical graduates  also must have made applications seeking admissions against  25% seats.  The law has been settled by the Constitution Bench  of this Court through its judgment dated November 4, 2003.   However, this Court has nowhere in its judgment made the  declaration of law applicable to the process of admission which  had already commenced.  Indeed, there is no direction made to  the contrary either, i.e, as to the prospective applicability of the  judgment and prospective overruling of the decision of this Court  in Dr. Dinesh Kumar’s case (supra). This has prompted the  several applications being filed and the position, therefore, needs  to be clarified so as to clear the doubts.

In our opinion, it would be appropriate to hold and direct  the decision in Dr. Saurabh Chaudri’s case being made  applicable only prospectively and thus exclude from the  operation thereof the process of admission which had already  commenced and was nearing finalisation when the judgment  came to be pronounced.

Accordingly, it is directed that the allotment of seats under  All-India quota, the process as to which had commenced  pursuant to the advertisement dated September 16, 2003 shall  remain confined to 25% only.  As a consequence, IA No.8 of  2004 filed by the Union of India and IA Nos.9, 12, 13 and 14  seeking similar relief, and taking the same stand as has been  taken by the Union of India, are allowed.

IA Nos. 6, 7 and 10 seeking implementation of 50% All-  India quota for the current year and taking stand contrary to the  one taken by the Union of India are dismissed.

       IA No.11 seeking substitution of words ’post-graduate  course’ in place of ’MBBS course’ in para 74 of the judgment (as  reported in SCC) is totally uncalled for.  It is also rejected.

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

       The interim order of stay on counselling is vacated.  The  same shall now be resumed.