http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: VINEET SINGH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       01/09/2000

BENCH: S. RAJENDRA BABU, J., S.N. PHUKAN, J. & SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, J.

JUDGMENT:

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

Leave granted.

L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

   These  appeals  arise out of an order made by  the  High Court  directing  that  the States,  Union  Territories  and Universities  should  allow students who had passed  courses outside  their  home  State to participate in  the  entrance examination  held  in their home State irrespective  of  any kind  of preference that may have been adopted for selection of  PG  Medical  Course.  In doing so, the  High  Court  has followed  the decision of this Court in Dr.  Parag Gupta vs. University  of Delhi & Ors., reported in JT 2000 (5) SC 345, without  any  detailed consideration of the claims.  In  Dr. Parag Guptas case [supra] the controversy before this Court was  in  relation to students who had qualified for  medical degree course got admission under All India quota of 15% and migrated  to different States to pursue the course of  study and who sought admission into Postgraduate courses and their grievance  was that the States or concerned authorities  had framed admission rules in such a way that they could neither pursue their studies in the migrated State nor in their home State.  In order to set right the imbalance arising thereby, after  considering  the effect of the decisions in  Jagadish Saran  (Dr.) v.  Union of India, 1980 (2) SCC 768;   Pradeep Jain  (Dr.)  v.  Union of India, 1984 (3) SCC  654;   Dinesh Kumar (Dr.) (II) v.  Motilal Nehru Medical College, 1986 (3) SCC  727;   State of Rajasthan v.  Dr.  Ashok  Kumar  Gupta, 1989  (1)  SCC 93;  Anant Madaan v.  State of Haryana,  1995 (2)  SCC  135;  D.P.  Joshi v.  State of M.P., 1955 (1)  SCR 1215,  and Sanjay Ahlawat v.  Maharishi Dayanand University, 1995  (2) SCC 762, this Court evolved a principle which  was equitable  to  all.   It  was  noticed  that  the  different criteria  adopted by different States excluded the  students who  had  qualified  MBBS  under 15%  All  India  quota  who migrated  to other States from their home State and did  not get any opportunity for advancement of their career in their home State as they were debarred for admission on account of either  reservation on ground of residential requirement  or on  the  ground of institutional preference adopted  by  the States  or  Union  Territories or  Universities.   What  was observed therein is that taking into consideration the local and  regional compulsions a balance had to be struck so that students  who had pursued studies in a particular university

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

or  State  are  not invidiously stranded or  marooned.   The grievance of such students was very limited inasmuch as they constituted  not more than 15% all over the country and  out of  them  very few might choose to come back to  their  home States.  The arguments that have been advanced before us are the  very arguments considered in that case as to why relief in  the  manner aforesaid should not be given to  them.   We also  do not find that there is any conflict between Pradeep Jain  (Dr.)  case  (supra)  and the  present  case  and  the decision  in  Dr.  Parag Guptas case (supra).  The  problem felt  by  the  Uttar  Pradesh Government  or  certain  other students  as modifying the decision in Pradeep Jain  (Dr.)s@@ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ case  (supra) is not at all well founded In fact, what  this@@ JJJJ Court  stated  in  summarising the law on the matter  is  by culling  out  the principles from the said decisions and  we have  not evolved any new principle at all.  Based on  these principles  we  have  adjusted the equities  in  respect  of students  selected  under  15% All India quota and  who  had migrated to other States.  If the judgment rendered by us in Dr.   Parag  Guptas  case  (supra)   is  confined  to  such students,  we  do  not  think the  difficulty  felt  by  the appellants  in these cases would arise at all.  The  general direction  given by the High Court following the judgment of this  Court in Dr.  Parag Guptas case (supra) in respect of all  petitioners without examining their cases whether  they fell  within  15% All India quota and who had been  selected under  the 15% All India quota and migrated to other  States or  not  would  not be appropriate.  The order of  the  High Court,  therefore,  stands modified by confining  its  order only  to  fresh  students  who were covered  by  Dr.   Parag Guptas  case  (supra]  that  is such of  students  who  had migrated  to  other States/Universities under 15% All  India quota  and who were desirous of pursuing study in their home States and not to every student who has gone out of his home State  and desires to return to his home State.  In  respect of  such other students the relief granted by the High Court should  not  apply.  The appeals are partly allowed and  the order  made by the High Court is set aside in each of  these cases  and matter is remanded for fresh consideration in the light  of  this order and in accordance with law.  The  Writ Petition also stands disposed of.