http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 29  

PETITIONER: DR.PREETI SRIVASTAVA,DR.SADHNA DEVI,DR.ASHUTOSH AGRAWAL.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS,STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       10/08/1999

BENCH: A.S.  Anand, Sujata V.Mahohar, K.Venkataswami, V.N.Khare

JUDGMENT:

Mrs.  Sujata V.  Manohar, J.

Leave granted in SLP(C) No.12231 of 1997.

     The  following  issue formulated by this Court at  the commencement  of  hearing,   requires  consideration:   "The question  is  whether apart from providing  reservation  for admission  to  the Post Graduate Courses in Engineering  and Medicine  for special category candidates, it is open to the State  to  prescribe  different admission criteria,  in  the sense of prescribing different minimum qualifying marks, for special  category  candidates  seeking admission  under  the reserved category."

     "This question certainly requires consideration of the Constitution  Bench as it arises and is likely to arise in a number of cases in different institutions of the country and needs  to  be  decided authoritatively keeping in  view  the observations  made  in  three different two  or  three-Judge Bench  judgments".   These judgments are Ajay Kumar Singh  & Ors.   v.   State of Bihar & Ors.  ([1994] 4 SCC  401),  Dr. Sadhna Devi & Ors.  v.  State of U.P.  & Ors.  ([1997] 3 SCC 90)  and  Post  Graduate Institute of  Medical  Education  & Research,  Chandigarh  & Ors.  v.  K.L.  Narasimhan  &  Anr. ([1997] 6 SCC 283)

     Facts:

     The  State  of  Uttar Pradesh has  prescribed  a  Post Graduate  Medical Entrance Examination for admission to Post Graduate  Degree/Diploma  courses in medicine.  This  is  in conformity  with  the  relevant Regulations of  the  Medical Council  of  India.   By G.O.  dated 11.10.1994,  the  State Government  fixed  a cut-off percentage of 45% marks in  the Post  Graduate  Medical  Entrance  Examination  (PGMEE)  for admission  of  the general category candidates to  the  Post Graduate  Courses  in  Medicine.  The cutoff  percentage  of marks  for the reserved category candidates viz.   Scheduled Castes,   Scheduled   Tribes  etc.    was  fixed   at   35%. Thereafter,  by  another G.O.  dated 31.8.1995 the State  of Uttar  Pradesh completely did away with a cut-off percentage

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 29  

of  marks in respect of the reserved category candidates  so that  there  were  no minimum qualifying marks in  the  Post Graduate  Medical  Entrance Examination prescribed  for  the reserved  category candidates who were seeking admission  to the Post Graduate Courses.

     This  G.O.   of 31.8.1995 was challenged  before  this Court in Writ Petition (C) No.679 of 1995 Dr.  Sadhna Devi & Ors.   v.   State of U.P.  & Ors.  [1997] 3 SCC  90).   This Court,  by  its  judgment dated 19.2.1997, held  that  while laying  down  minimum qualifying marks for admission to  the Post  Graduate Courses, it was not open to the Government to say  that there will be no minimum qualifying marks for  the reserved  category  of candidates.  If this is  done,  merit will  be sacrificed altogether.  This Court struck down G.O. dated 31.8.1995.

     After  the  said decision, the State of  U.P.   issued another  G.O.   dated  2.4.1997   under  which  the  cut-off percentage of marks for the reserved category candidates was restored  at  35%.   However, the State of  U.P.   moved  an application  before this Court, being I.A.  No.2 of 1997 Dr. Sadhna Devi (Supra) in which the State of U.P.  (inter alia) prayed  that  it should be given the liberty to  reduce  the cut-off percentage from 35% to 20% for the reserved category candidates  who  appear  in  the PGMEE  for  1997.   Without waiting for a decision, by an Ordinance dated 15.6.1997, the State  of U.P.  reduced the minimum qualifying marks for the reserved  category  candidates appearing in the  PGMEE  1997 from  35%  to  20%.   This Ordinance is  challenged  in  the present Writ Petition (C) No.300 of 1997.  The Ordinance has now been replaced by the Uttar Pradesh Post Graduate Medical Education  (Reservation  for   Scheduled  Castes,  Scheduled Tribes   and  Other  Backward   Classes)  Act,  1997.    The petitioners  have  now  amended the said  writ  petition  to challenge this Act.

     For  admissions  effected in 1998, the State  of  U.P. again  prescribed a cut-off percentage of 20% marks for  the reserved category candidates.  Learned counsel for the State of  U.P.   has  further stated that for the  current  year’s admission,  i.e.  for admission to the P.G.M.E.E.  1999, the State  has  introduced  a Bill in the  Legislative  Assembly prescribing the same cut-off percentage of 20% marks for the reserved category candidates.

     The  lower  percentage of qualifying marks  prescribed for  the scheduled caste, scheduled tribe and backward class candidates are in conjunction with the following reservation of seats at the PGMEE:

     Scheduled  Castes  :   21%, Scheduled  Tribes  :   2%, Backward  Classes :  27% In the State of Madhya Pradesh also a  common entrance examination is held for admission to  the Post Graduate Courses in Medicine.  Under the Madhya Pradesh Medical and Dental Post Graduate Entrance Examination Rules, 1997,  certain seats were reserved for the Scheduled  Caste, Scheduled  Tribe, BC and in-service candidates.  The  Rules, however,  did not lay down any minimum qualifying marks  for admission  to  the  Post  Graduate Courses  either  for  the general category or for the reserved category of candidates. These  Rules  were challenged by a writ petition before  the Madhya  Pradesh High Court.  By its judgment which is  under challenge  in  these  proceedings, the Madhya  Pradesh  High Court  directed  the State Government to  stipulate  minimum

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 29  

qualifying  marks  in  the  PGMEE   for  all  categories  of candidates,  including  the general category candidates,  in view  of  the decision of this Court in Dr.   Sadhna  Devi’s case (supra).

     By  G.O.   dated 7.6.1997 the State of Madhya  Pradesh prescribed  the  following minimum percentage of  qualifying marks  for  the  reserved category candidates to  make  them eligible  for counselling and admission to the Post Graduate Medical Courses:

     Scheduled  Castes :  20% Scheduled Tribes :  15% Other Backward Classes :  40%

     This  Government Order of the State of Madhya  Pradesh is under challenge before us.

     We  have, therefore, to consider whether for admission to  the Post Graduate Medical Courses, it is permissible  to prescribe a lower minimum percentage of qualifying marks for the  reserved category candidates as compared to the general category  candidates.  We do not propose to examine  whether reservations  are permissible at the Post Graduate level  in medicine.   That  issue  was not debated before us,  and  we express  no opinion on it.  We need to examine only  whether any  special provision in the form of lower qualifying marks in the PGMEE can be prescribed for the reserved category.

     The Constitutional Imperative:

     The  constitutional protection of equality before  the law under Article 14 of the Constitution is one of the basic tenets  of  the Constitution.  It is a cardinal value  which will  govern our policies and actions, particularly policies for employment and education.  Article 15(1) prohibits State discrimination  on  the ground (among others)  of  religion, race  or  caste.   Article   16(1)  prescribes  equality  of opportunity  for  all in matters relating to  employment  or appointment  to  any office under the State.  Article  16(2) prohibits  discrimination  on the ground (among  others)  of religion,  race,  caste or descent.  At the same  time,  the Constitution permits preferential treatment for historically disadvantaged  groups  in  the  context  of  entrenched  and clearly  perceived social inequalities.  That is why Article 16(4) permits reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class which is not adequately represented in the  services  under the State.  Reservation is linked  with adequate  representation  in the services.   Reservation  is thus a dynamic and flexible concept.  The departure from the principle  of  equality of opportunity has to be  constantly watched.   So  long as the backward group is not  adequately represented  in  the services under the State,  reservations should  be made.  Clearly, reservations have been considered as  a  transitory measure that will enable the  backward  to enter  and  be adequately represented in the State  services against the backdrop of prejudice and social discrimination. But  finally, as the social backdrop changes ?  and a change in  the  social  backdrop  is   one  of  the  constitutional imperatives,  as  the backward are able to  secure  adequate representation in the services, the reservations will not be required.   Article  335  enters a  further  caveat.   While considering  the  claims of Scheduled Castes  and  Scheduled Tribes  for  appointments, the maintenance of efficiency  of administration shall be kept in sight.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 29  

     Article  15(4),  which was added by  the  Constitution First  Amendment of 1951, enables the State to make  special provisions  for  the advancement, inter alia,  of  Scheduled Castes  and Scheduled Tribes, notwithstanding Articles 15(1) and  29(2).  The wording of Article 15(4) is similar to that of  Article 15(3).  Article 15(3) was there from  inception. It  enables  special  provisions being made  for  women  and children  notwithstanding  Article 15(1) which  imposes  the mandate  of non- discrimination on the ground (among others) of  sex.   This  was  envisaged as a  method  of  protective discrimination.   This  same protective  discrimination  was extended by Article 15(4) to (among others) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.  As a result of the combined operation of these Articles, an array of programmes of compensatory or protective  discrimination have been pursued by the  various States  and  the  Union Government.  Marc Galanter,  in  his book,    "Competing   Equalities"     has   described    the constitutional  scheme of compensatory discrimination  thus: "These   compensatory    discrimination    policies   entail systematic departures from norms of equality (such as merit, evenhandedness,    and     indifferences    of    ascriptive characteristics).  These departures are justified in several ways:  First, preferential treatment may be viewed as needed assurance  of  personal  fairness, a guarantee  against  the persistence  of discrimination in subtle and indirect forms. Second,  such policies are justified in terms of  beneficial results that they will presumably promote:  integration, use of neglected talent, more equitable distribution, etc.  With these  two  - the anti-discrimination theme and the  general welfare  theme  -  is  entwined   a  notion  of   historical restitution  or  reparation  to offset  the  systematic  and cumulative  deprivations  suffered  by lower castes  in  the past.    These   multiple  justifications   point   to   the complexities  of pursuing such a policy and of assessing its performance." Since every such policy makes a departure from the  equality norm, though in a permissible manner, for  the benefit of the backward, it has to be designed and worked in a  manner  conducive  to  the ultimate  building  up  of  an egalitarian  non-discriminating society.  That is its  final constitutional  justification.   Therefore,  programmes  and policies  of compensatory discrimination under Article 15(4) have  to  be designed and pursued to achieve  this  ultimate national  interest.   At the same time, the  programmes  and policies  cannot be unreasonable or arbitrary, nor can  they be  executed in a manner which undermines other vital public interests  or the general good of all.  All public  polices, therefore,  in  this area have to be tested on the anvil  of reasonableness  and  ultimate public good.  In the  case  of Article  16(4) the Constitution makers explicitly spelt  out in  Article  335  one  such  public  good  which  cannot  be sacrificed,  namely, the necessity of maintaining efficiency in  administration.   Article 15(4) also must be  used,  and policies   under   it  framed,  in   a   reasonable   manner consistently with the ultimate public interests.

     In  the  case  of M.R.  Balaji & Ors.   v.   State  of Mysore  ([1963]  Suppl.   1  SCR 439 at  pages  466-467),  a Constitution  Bench  of  this  Court  considered  this  very question  relating to the extent of special provisions which it  would be competent for the State to make, under  Article 15(4).   This  Court  accepted the submission  that  Article 15(4) must be read in the light of Article 46 and that under it,  the  educational and economic interests of  the  weaker sections  of  the  people  can   be  promoted  properly  and liberally,  to establish social and economic equality.   The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 29  

Court  said,  "No  one  can  dispute  the  proposition  that political  freedom and even fundamental rights can have very little  meaning or significance for the backward classes and the  Scheduled  Castes  and   Scheduled  Tribes  unless  the backwardness  and  inequality  from which  they  suffer  are immediately redressed".

     The  Court,  however, rejected the argument  that  the absence  of  any limitation on the State’s power to make  an adequate  special  provision under Article  15(4)  indicates that  if  the  problem of backward classes of  citizens  and Scheduled  Castes and Scheduled Tribes in any given State is of  such a magnitude that it requires the reservation of all seats  in  the higher educational institutions, it would  be open  to  the State to take that course.  This  Court  said: "When Article 15(4) refers to the special provisions for the advancement  of  certain  classes  or  Scheduled  Castes  or Scheduled  Tribes, it must not be ignored that the provision which  is authorised to be made is a special provision;   it is  not a provision which is exclusive in character so that, in  looking after the advancement of those classes the State would be justified in ignoring altogether the advancement of the rest of the society.  It is because the interests of the society   at  large  would  be   served  by  promoting   the advancement  of  the  weaker elements in  the  society  that Article  15(4) authorises special provision to be made.  But if  a  provision  which  is in the nature  of  an  exception completely excludes the rest of the society, that clearly is outside  the scope of Article 15(4).  It would be  extremely unreasonable  to  assume that in enacting Article 15(4)  the Parliament intended to provide that where the advancement of the  Backward Classes or the Scheduled Castes and Tribes was concerned,   the   fundamental  rights   of   the   citizens constituting  the rest of the society were to be  completely and   absolutely   ignored."  This   Court  struck  down   a reservation  of 68% made for backward classes for  admission to  Medical and Engineering Courses in the university.  This Court  further observed, (at page 407) "A special  provision contemplated by Article 15(4), like reservation of posts and appointments  contemplated by Article 16(4), must be  within reasonable  limits.   The  interest of  weaker  sections  of society  which  are  a first charge on the  States  and  the Centre  have  to  be  adjusted  with  the  interest  of  the community  as  a  whole".  The Court also  said  that  while considering  the reasonableness of the extent of reservation one  could  not lose sight of the fact that  the  admissions were   to  institutes  of   higher  learning  and   involved professional  and  technical  colleges.    "The  demand  for technicians,  scientists, doctors, economists, engineers and experts  for the further economic advancement of the country is  so great that it would cause grave prejudice to national interests if considerations of merit are completely excluded by  wholesale reservation of seats in all technical, medical or engineering colleges or institutions of that kind." (Page 468)  Therefore, consideration of national interest and  the interests  of the community or society as a whole cannot  be ignored  in  determining  the reasonableness  of  a  special provision under Article 15(4).

     In the case of Dr.  Jagdish Saran & Ors.  v.  Union of India  ([1980]  2 SCC 768), reservation of 70% of seats  for the  local  candidates  in admissions to the  Post  Graduate Medical  Courses by the Delhi University was struck down  by this  Court.  While doing so, Krishna Iyer J.  speaking  for the  Court  spelt out the ambits of Articles 14 and 15.   He

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 29  

said,  (at  page  778)  "But  it  must  be  remembered  that exceptions  cannot overrule the rule itself by running  riot or  by  making reservations as a matter of course  in  every university  and  every  course.  For  instance,  you  cannot wholly  exclude meritorious candidates as that will  promote sub-standard  candidates  and bring about a fall in  medical competence   injurious  in  the  long   run  to   the   very region..........Nor  can  the  very best  be  rejected  from admission  because  that  will be a national  loss  and  the interests  of  no  region can be higher than  those  of  the nation.   So,  within these limitations without  going  into excesses  there  is  room  for play of  the  State’s  policy choices."  He  further observed, "The first caution is  that reservation  must  be  kept  in  check  by  the  demands  of competence.   You  cannot extend the shelter of  reservation where minimum qualifications are absent.  Similarly, all the best  talent  cannot  be completely  excluded  by  wholesale reservation......A    fair    preference,    a    reasonable reservation,  a just adjustment of the prior needs and  real potentials  of the weak with the partial recognition of  the presence  of  competitive  merit - such is  the  dynamic  of social justice which animates the three egalitarian articles of the Constitution."

     "Flowing  from the same stream of equalism is  another limitation.   The  basic  medical needs of a region  or  the preferential  push justified for a handicapped group  cannot prevail  in  the  same  measure at  the  highest  scales  of speciality where the best scale or talent must be handpicked by  selecting  according  to capability.  At  the  level  of P.H.D.,   M.D.   or  levels  of  higher  proficiency   where international  measure  of talent is made, where losing  one great  scientist or technologist in the making is a national loss, the considerations we have expended upon as important, lose  their  potency,  where equality measured  by  matching excellence  has  more  meaning and cannot  be  diluted  much without grave risk."

     The  same  reasoning runs through Dr.  Pradeep Jain  & Ors.   v.   Union of India & Ors.  ([1984] 3 SCC  654).   It dealt  with  reservation of seats for the residents  of  the State  or the students of the same university for  admission to  the  medical  colleges.  The Court said, (at  page  676) "Now,  the  concept of equality under the Constitution is  a dynamic concept.  It takes within its sweep every process of equalisation  and protective discrimination.  Equality  must not  remain  mere  ideal indentation but it  must  become  a living  reality  for the large masses of  people............ It  is,  therefore, necessary to take into account de  facto inequalities  which  exist  in  the   society  and  to  take affirmative  action  by  way  of giving  preference  to  the socially   and   economically   disadvantaged   persons   or inflicting  handicaps on those more advantageously placed in order  to  bring  about  real  equality."  The  Court  after considering  institutional  and residential preferences  for admission  to  the  M.B.S.S.  course,  said  that  different considerations   would   prevail    in   considering    such reservations for admission to the Post Graduate Courses such as  M.D., M.S.  and the like.  It said, (at page 691) "There we  cannot  allow excellence to be compromised by any  other considerations  because  that  would be detrimental  to  the interest  of the nation." Quoting the observation of Justice Krishna  Iyer  in Dr.  Jagdish Saran case (supra) the  Court said,  "This proposition has far greater importance when  we reach  the  higher  levels of education like  Post  Graduate

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 29  

Courses.   After  all,  top technological expertise  in  any vital  field like medicine is a nation’s human asset without which its advance and development will be stunted.  The role of  high  grade skill or special talent may be less  at  the lesser  levels of education, jobs and disciplines of  social inconsequence,   but   more   at   the  higher   levels   of sophisticated  skills and strategic employment.  To  devalue merit  at  the  summit is to temporise  with  the  country’s development  in the vital areas of professional  expertise." (underlining ours)

     A similar strand of thought runs through Indra Sawhney &  Ors.   v.   Union of India & Ors.  ([1992]  Supp.(3)  SCC 217),  where a Bench of nine Judges of this Court considered the  nature,  amplitude  and  scope  of  the  constitutional provisions  relating to reservations in the services of  the State.   Jeevan  Reddy  J.  speaking for  the  majority  (in paragraph  836)  stated  that the very idea  of  reservation implies selection of a less meritorious person.  At the same time, we recognise that this much cost has to be paid if the constitutional  promise of social justice is to be redeemed. We  also formally believe that given an opportunity, members of  these  classes  are  bound  to  overcome  their  initial disadvantages  and  would  compete with ?  and may  in  some cases  excel  ?  members on open competition.   Having  said this,  the Court went on to add, (in paragraph 838) "We  are of the opinion that there are certain services and positions where either on account of nature of duties attached to them or  the level (in the hierarchy) at which they obtain, merit as  explained herein above alone counts.  In such situations it  may  not be advisable to provide for reservations.   For example,  technical  posts  in   research  and   development organisations/departments/institutions,  in specialities and super-specialities  in medicine, engineering and other  such courses  in  physical  science and mathematics,  in  defence services  and  in the establishments  connected  therewith." (underlining ours)

     A  similar  view  has been taken in  Mohan  Bir  Singh Chawla  v.  Punjab University, Chandigarh & Anr.  ([1997]  2 SCC  171)  where  this Court said that at higher  levels  of education  it  would  be dangerous to depreciate  merit  and excellence.   The higher you go in the ladder of  education, the lesser should be the reservation.  In Dr.  Sadhna Devi’s case  (supra)  also this Court has expressed a doubt  as  to whether there can be reservations at the Post Graduate level in Medicine.

     We  are,  however,  not directly  concerned  with  the question  of  reservations  at the Post  Graduate  level  in Medicine.   We are concerned with another special  provision under  Article  15(4) made at the stage of admission to  the Post  Graduate Medical Courses, namely, providing for lesser qualifying  marks or no qualifying marks for the members  of the  Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for admission  to the  Post  Graduate Medical Courses.  Any special  provision under Article 15(4) has to balance the importance of having, at  the  higher  levels  of   education,  students  who  are meritorious  and who have secured admission on their  merit, as  against the social equity of giving compensatory benefit of  admission  to  the Scheduled Caste and  Scheduled  Tribe candidates  who  are in a disadvantaged position.  The  same reasoning   which   propelled  this   Court   to   underline reasonableness  of  a  special provision, and  the  national interest  in  giving at the highest level of education,  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 29  

few  seats at the top of the educational pyramid only on the basis  of merit and excellence, applies equally to a special provision  in  the  form of lower qualifying marks  for  the backward at the highest levels of education.

     It  is  of  course,   important  to  provide  adequate educational  opportunities  for  all since it  is  education which ultimately shapes life.  It is the source of that thin stream  of  reason which alone can nurture a  nation’s  full potential.   Moreover,  in  a   democratic  society,  it  is extremely  important that the population is literate and  is able to acquire information that shapes its decisions.

     The  spread of primary education has to be wide enough to  cover  all  sections of the society whether  forward  or backward.   A  large  percentage  of  reservations  for  the backward  would  be  justified  at this  level.   These  are required  in  individual  as well as national  interest.   A university level education upto graduation, also enables the individual  concerned  to secure better employment.   It  is permissible  and necessary at this level to have  reasonable reservations  for the backward so that they may also be able to  avail  of  these opportunities  for  betterment  through education,  to which they may not have access if the college admissions  are  entirely  by merit as judged by  the  marks obtained  in  the qualifying examination.  At the  level  of higher  post-graduate  university education, however,  apart from  the individual self interest of the candidate, or  the national  interest  in promoting equality, a more  important national  interest  comes  into play.   The  facilities  for training  or education at this level, by their very  nature, are  not  available  in abundance.  It is essential  in  the national  interest  that these special facilities  are  made available  to persons of high calibre possessing the highest degree  of  merit  so  that   the  nation  can  shape  their exceptional  talent  that is capable of contributing to  the progress of human knowledge, creation and utilisation of new medical,  technical  or  other   techniques,  extending  the frontiers  of  knowledge  through research work  -  in  fact everything  that gives to a nation excellence and ability to compete  internationally  in   professional,  technical  and research fields.

     This  Court  has repeatedly said that at the level  of superspecialisation  there cannot be any reservation because any  dilution of merit at this level would adversely  affect the  national goal of having the best possible people at the highest levels of professional and educational training.  At the  level of a super speciality, something more than a mere professional   competence  as  a   doctor  is  required.   A super-specialist acquires expert knowledge in his speciality and  is expected to possess exceptional competence and skill in  his  chosen  field, where he may even make  an  original contribution in the form of new innovative techniques or new knowledge  to fight diseases.  It is in public interest that we  promote  these skills.  Such high degrees of  skill  and expert  knowledge  in  highly  specialised  areas,  however, cannot  be  acquired  by anyone or everyone.   For  example, specialised sophisticated knowledge and skill and ability to make   right  choices  of   treatment  in  critical  medical conditions and even ability to innovate and device new lines of treatment in critical situations, requires high levels of intelligent understanding of medial knowledge or skill and a high  ability  to learn from technical literature  and  from experience.   These  high  abilities are also  required  for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 29  

absorbing  highly  specialised  knowledge   which  is  being imparted at this level.  It is for this reason that it would be detrimental to the national interest to have reservations at  this stage.  Opportunities for such training are few and it is in the national interest that these are made available to  those  who can profit from them the most viz.  the  best brains  in  the country, irrespective of the class to  which they belong.

     At  the next below stage of post-graduate education in medical  specialities,  similar considerations also  prevail though perhaps to a slightly lesser extent than in the super specialities.   But the element of public interest in having the  most meritorious students at this level of education is present  even at the stage of post-graduate teaching.  Those who  have  specialised  medical knowledge  in  their  chosen branch  are  able  to  treat better  and  more  effectively, patients  who  are  sent to them for  expert  diagnosis  and treatment  in  their specialised field.  For a  student  who enrols for such speciality courses, an ability to assimilate and acquire special knowledge is required.  Not everyone has this  ability.  Of course intelligence and abilities do  not know  any frontiers of caste or class or race or sex.   They can  be  found  anywhere, but not in  everyone.   Therefore, selection  of the right calibre of students is essential  in public  interest  at the level of specialised  post-graduate education.   In  view  of this supervening  public  interest which  has  to  be  balanced against the  social  equity  of providing  some  opportunities to the backward who  are  not able  to qualify on the basis of marks obtained by them  for post-graduate learning, it is for an expert body such as the Medical  Council  of  India,  to  lay  down  the  extent  of reservations,  if any, and the lowering of qualifying marks, if  any,  consistent  with the broader  public  interest  in having  the most competent people for specialised  training, and the competing public interest in securing social justice and  equality.   The decision may perhaps, depend  upon  the expert  body’s  assessment of the potential of the  reserved category candidates at a certain level of minimum qualifying marks and whether those who secure admission on the basis of such  marks to post-graduate courses, can be expected to  be trained  in  two or three years to come up to the  standards expected of those with post-graduate qualifications.

     The  speciality  and  super   speciality  courses   in medicine  also  entail  on-hand experience  of  treating  or operating  on  patients in the attached teaching  hospitals. Those  undergoing  these programmes are expected  to  occupy posts in the teaching hospitals or discharge duties attached to  such  posts.   The elements of Article  335,  therefore, colour the selection of candidates for these courses and the Rules framed for this purpose.

     In  the  premises  the special  provisions  for  SC/ST candidates  whether reservations or lower qualifying marks - at  the speciality level have to be minimal.  There  cannot, however,  be  any  such special provisions at the  level  of super specialities.

     Entrance  Examination  for post-graduate  courses  and qualifying marks:

     When  a  common  entrance   examination  is  held  for admission  to postgraduate medical courses, it is  important that   passing  marks  or   minimum  qualifying  marks   are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 29  

prescribed  for the examination.  It was, however, contended before  us  by  learned counsel appearing for the  State  of Madhya  Pradesh  that  there  is no need  to  prescribe  any minimum qualifying marks in the common entrance examination. Because  all  the  candidates  who  appear  for  the  common entrance  examination have passed the M.B.B.S.   examination which  is  an  essential   pre-requisite  for  admission  to postgraduate  medical  courses.   The PGMEE  is  merely  for screening the eligible candidates.

     This  argument ignores the reasons underlying the need for  a common entrance examination for post-graduate medical courses  in a State.  There may be several universities in a State which conduct M.B.B.S.  courses.  The courses of study may  not  be  uniform.  The quality of teaching may  not  be uniform.   The  standard  of   assessment  at  the  M.B.B.S. examination  also  may  not  be  uniform  in  the  different universities.   With  the result that in some of the  better universities  which  apply more strict tests for  evaluating the   performance   of  students,  a  higher   standard   of performance is required for getting the passing marks in the M.B.B.S.   examination.   Similarly,  a higher  standard  of performance may be required for getting higher marks than in other  universities.   Some  universities   may  assess  the students  liberally with the result that the candidates with lesser  knowledge may be able to secure passing marks in the M.B.B.S.   examination;   while  it may also be  easier  for candidates  to  secure marks at the higher level.  A  common entrance   examination,   therefore,   provides  a   uniform criterion  for judging the merit of all candidates who  come from  different  universities.   Obviously, as soon  as  one concedes  that there can be differing standards of  teaching and  evaluation  in different universities, one cannot  rule out  the possibility that the candidates who have passed the M.B.B.S.   examination from a university which is liberal in evaluating  its  students,  would   not,  necessarily,  have passed,  had  they appeared in an examination where  a  more strict  evaluation is made.  Similarly, candidates who  have obtained  very high marks in the M.B.B.S.  examination where evaluation  is liberal, would have got lesser marks had they appeared  for the examination of a university where stricter standards  were  applied.  Therefore, the purpose of such  a common   entrance  examination  is   not  merely  to   grade candidates  for selection.  The purpose is also to  evaluate all  candidates by a common yardstick.  One must, therefore, also  take  into  account the possibility that some  of  the candidates  who  may have passed the  M.B.B.S.   examination from  more  "generous" universities, may not qualify at  the entrance examination where a better and uniform standard for judging  all  the candidates from different universities  is applied.   In the interest of selecting suitable  candidates for  specialised education, it is necessary that the  common entrance examination is of a certain standard and qualifying marks  are  prescribed for passing that  examination.   This alone   will  balance  the   competing  equities  of  having competent students for specialised education and the need to provide  for some room for the backward even at the stage of specialised  post-graduate education which is one step below the super specialities.

     The  submission, therefore, that there need not be any qualifying   marks  prescribed  for   the  common   entrance examination  has  to  be  rejected.  We  have,  however,  to consider   whether  different  qualifying   marks   can   be prescribed for the open merit category of candidates and the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 29  

reserved category of candidates.  Normally passing marks for any  examination  have to be uniform for all  categories  of candidates.   We are, however, informed that at the stage of admission  to  the  M.B.B.S.  course, that is  to  say,  the initial course in medicine, the Medical Council of India has permitted the reserved category candidates to be admitted if they  have  obtained the qualifying marks of 35% as  against the  qualifying  marks  of  45%  for  the  general  category candidates.   It is, therefore, basically for an expert body like  the  Medical Council of India to determine whether  in the   common  entrance  examination   viz.    PGMEE,   lower qualifying marks can be prescribed for the reserved category of candidates as against the general category of candidates; and  if so, how much lower.  There cannot, however, be a big disparity  in the qualifying marks for the reserved category of  candidates and the general category of candidates at the post-graduate  level.  This level is only one step below the apex  level  of  medical  training and  education  where  no reservations  are permissible and selections are entirely on merit.   At only one step below this level the disparity  in qualifying  marks,  if the expert body permits it,  must  be minimal.   It  must be kept at a level where it is  possible for the reserved category candidates to come up to a certain level  of excellence when they qualify in the speciality  of their  choice.  It is in public interest that they have this level of excellence.

     In the present case, the disparity of qualifying marks being  20% for the reserved category and 45% for the general category is too great a disparity to sustain public interest at   the  level  of   post-graduate  medical  training   and education.  Even for the M.B.B.S.  course, the difference in the  qualifying marks between the reserved category and  the general  category is smaller, 35% for the reserved  category and  45%  for  the  general category.  We see  no  logic  or rationale   for  the  difference  to   be  larger   at   the post-graduate level.

     Standard of Education:

     A  large  differentiation  in   the  qualifying  marks between  the  two  groups  of students would  make  it  very difficult to maintain the requisite standard of teaching and training  at  the  post-graduate level.  Any  good  teaching institution  has  to  take into account the calibre  of  its students and their existing level of knowledge and skills if it is to teach effectively any higher courses.  If there are a  number  of students who have noticeably lower skills  and knowledge,  standard  of  education will have to  be  either lowered  to reach these students, or these students will not be  able  to  benefit from or assimilate  higher  levels  of teaching,  resulting in frustration and failures.  It  would also  result  in a wastage of opportunities for  specialised training  and  knowledge  which are by  their  very  nature, limited.

     It  is,  therefore, wrong to say that the standard  of education  is  not affected by admitting students  with  low qualifying  marks,  or  that the standard  of  education  is affected  only  by those factors which come into play  after the  students are admitted.  Nor will passing a common final examination  guarantee a good standard of knowledge.   There is a great deal of difference in the knowledge and skills of those  passing  with  a high percentage of marks  and  those passing  with  a  low  percentage of  marks.   The  reserved

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 29  

category  of  students who are chosen for higher  levels  of university  education  must be in a position to benefit  and improve  their skills and knowledge and bring it to a  level comparable  with the general group, so that when they emerge with specialised knowledge and qualifications, they are able to  function efficiently in public interest.  Providing  for 20%  marks as qualifying marks for the reserved category  of candidates  and  45%  marks  for  the  general  category  of candidates, therefore, is contrary to the mandate of Article 15(4).   It is for the Medical Council of India to prescribe any  special  qualifying  marks  for the  admission  of  the reserved  category  candidates to the post-graduate  medical courses.   However,  the difference in the qualifying  marks should  be  at  least  the  same as  for  admission  to  the under-graduate medical courses, if not less.

     Learned  senior counsel Mr.  Bhaskar P.  Gupta for the intervenors  drew our attention to an interesting study done by  R.C.  Davidson in relation to the affirmative action and other  special consideration admissions at the University of California, Davis, School of Medicine.  The study graded the students  who  were admitted on a scale (MCAC) with a  range from  1  to  15.  On this scale, the students  who  received special consideration admission had an average score of nine while  the  students who were admitted on open merit had  an average  of  11.  However, when both these groups  graduated from  medical  school  both the groups had a  high  rate  of successful  graduation  though  the   general  group  had  a statistically  significant  higher rate.  The special  group had  a graduation rate of 94% while the general group had  a graduation  rate  of  98%.  The study also  found  that  the differences  in  the  abilities   of  special  consideration students  were more evident in the first and second years of the curriculum.  In the third year also the differences were visible.   However,  the  two groups had begun to  merge  in their  achievements;  and ultimately by the time the  groups qualified  in the final examination, there was a convergence of  academic  progress  between  the  special  consideration admission  students  and the regularly admitted students  as the  process  of training lengthened.  A similar study  does not  appear to have been made in our country relating to the progress  of the reserved category candidates in the  course of  their studies.  But two things are evident even from the study  made by Davidson.  The longer the period of training, the  greater  the chances of convergence of the two  groups. Secondly,  both the groups had an initial high score -  more than  halfway up the scale.  Also, the initial difference in their scores was not very large.  It was nine as compared to eleven on a scale of fifteen.  Therefore, at a high level of scoring,  the  narrower  the  difference,  the  greater  the chances  of  convergence.  This study, therefore,  will  not help  the  respondents  in the present case because  of  the substantial difference in the qualifying marks for admission prescribed  for the reserved category candidates as  against the  general category candidates;  and the very low level of qualifying  marks prescribed.  Thirdly, at the post-graduate level  the  course of studies is relatively shorter and  the course is designed to give high quality speciality education to  the  qualified doctors to enable them to excel in  their chosen  field  of speciality.  Therefore, unless there is  a proper  control at the stage of admission, on the  different categories  of the students who are admitted, and unless the differences are kept to a minimum, such differences will not disappear  in the course of time if the course of study is a specialised course such as a post-graduate course.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 29  

     Who  should  decide the qualifying marks and  will  it affect the standard of education:

     Learned  counsel  for the States of Uttar Pradesh  and Madhya  Pradesh contend that it is for the States to  decide the  qualifying  marks  which should be prescribed  for  the reserved  category candidates at the PGMEE.  It is a  matter of  state policy.  The Medical Council of India cannot  have any  say in prescribing the qualifying marks for the  PGMEE. The  two  States have contended that it is the  State  which controls   admissions  to  the   post-graduate  courses   in medicine.   It is for the State to decide whether to provide a  common entrance examination or not.  This examination may or  may not have any minimum qualifying marks or it may have different  qualifying  marks  for  different  categories  of candidates.   It  is,  therefore,  not  open  to  any  other authority  to interfere with the rules for admission to  the post-graduate medical courses in each State.  They have also contended  that a common entrance examination is merely  for the  purpose  of  screening  candidates and  since  all  the candidates  have  passed  the   M.B.B.S.   examination   the standard  is  not  affected  even if no  minimum  marks  are prescribed for passing the common entrance examination.  The latter argument we have already examined and negatived.  The other  contention,  however,  relating to the power  of  the State  to control admissions to the post-graduate courses in medicine requires to be examined.

     The  legislative competence of the Parliament and  the legislatures of the States to make laws under Article 246 is regulated by the VIIth Schedule to the Constitution.  In the VIIth  Schedule as originally in force, Entry 11 of  List-II gave  to  the  States  an exclusive power  to  legislate  on "Education  including universities subject to the provisions of  Entries  63,  64, 65 and 66 of List-I and  Entry  25  of List-III."  Entry 11 of List-II was deleted and Entry 25  of List-III  was amended with effect from 3.1.1976 as a  result of the Constitution 42nd Amendment Act of 1976.  The present Entry 25 in the Concurrent List is as follows:

     "Entry  25, List III:  Education, including  technical education,  medical  education and universities, subject  to the  provisions  of  entries 63, 64, 65 and 66  of  List  I: vocational and technical training of labour."

     Entry  25  is  subject,  inter alia, to  Entry  66  of List-I.  Entry 66 of List-I is as follows:-

     "Entry 66, List I:  Co-ordination and determination of standards  in institutions for higher education or  research and scientific and technical institutions."

     Both the Union as well as the States have the power to legislate on education including medical education, subject, inter  alia,  to Entry 66 of List-I which deals with  laying down  standards  in  institutions for  higher  education  or research  and scientific and technical institutions as  also co-ordination  of  such standards.  A State has,  therefore, the  right to control education including medical  education so  long  as  the  field  is   not  occupied  by  any  Union Legislation.   Secondly, the State cannot, while controlling education in the State, impinge on standards in institutions

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 29  

for  higher  education.  Because this is exclusively  within the  purview  of  the Union  Government.   Therefore,  while prescribing  the criteria for admission to the  institutions for higher education including higher medical education, the State cannot adversely affect the standards laid down by the Union  of  India under Entry 66 of List-I.  Secondly,  while considering the cases on the subject it is also necessary to remember  that  from 1977 education including,  inter  alia, medical  and university education, is now in the  Concurrent List  so that the Union can legislate on admission  criteria also.   If  it  does  so,  the State will  not  be  able  to legislate in this field, except as provided in Article 254.

     It  would  not  be correct to say that the  norms  for admission have no connection with the standard of education, or that the rules for admission are covered only by Entry 25 of List III.  Norms of admission can have a direct impact on the  standards of education.  Of course, there can be  rules for  admission  which are consistent with or do  not  affect adversely the standards of education prescribed by the Union in  exercise  of  powers  under Entry  66  of  List-I.   For example,  a  State may, for admission to  the  post-graduate medical  courses,  lay  down qualifications in  addition  to those  prescribed  under Entry 66 of List-I.  This would  be consistent  with promoting higher standards for admission to the  higher  educational courses.  But any lowering  of  the norms  laid  down can, and do have an adverse effect on  the standards   of  education  in   the  institutes  of   higher education.   Standards  of  education in an  institution  or college depend on various factors.  Some of these are:

     (1)  The calibre of the teaching staff;  (2) A  proper syllabus  designed  to achieve a high level of education  in the given span of time;  (3) The student-teacher ratio;  (4) The  ratio  between  the  students  and  the  hospital  beds available  to each student;  (5) The calibre of the students admitted  to the institution;  (6) Equipment and  laboratory facilities,  or hospital facilities for training in the case of  medical  colleges;  (7) Adequate accommodation  for  the college  and the attached hospital;  and (8) The standard of examinations  held including the manner in which the  papers are set and examined and the clinical performance is judged.

     While  considering  the standards of education in  any college  or  institution,  the calibre of students  who  are admitted  to that institution or college cannot be  ignored. If  the students are of a high calibre, training  programmes can be suitably moulded so that they can receive the maximum benefit  out of a high level of teaching.  If the calibre of the  students  is  poor  or they are unable  to  follow  the instructions  being  imparted,  the   standard  of  teaching necessarily  has  to be lowered to make them understand  the course  which  they  have  undertaken;  and it  may  not  be possible to reach the levels of education and training which can  be attained with a bright group.  Education involves  a continuous   interaction  between  the   teachers  and   the students.  The pace of teaching, the level to which teaching can  rise  and  the benefit which  the  students  ultimately receive, depend as much on the calibre of the students as on the calibre of the teachers and the availability of adequate infrastructural   facilities.    That  is    why   a   lower student-teacher  ratio has been considered essential at  the levels of higher university education, particularly when the training  to  be  imparted is highly  professional  training requiring  individual attention and on-hand training to  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 29  

pupils who are already doctors and who are expected to treat patients in the course of doing their post-graduate courses.

     The respondents rely upon some observations in some of the  judgments of this Court in support of their stand  that it  is  for  the State to lay down the rules and  norms  for admission;   and  that these do not have any bearing on  the standard of education.  In P.  Rajendran v.  State of Madras &  Ors.   ([1968] 2 SCR 786), a Constitution Bench  of  this Court  considered the validity under Articles 14 and  15(1), of district- wise reservations made for seats in the medical colleges.   In  that  case, the Act in  question  prescribed eligibility  and qualifications of candidates for  admission to  the  medical colleges.  The Court observed, "So  far  as admission  is concerned, it has to be made by those who  are in  control of the colleges - in this case, the  Government. Because  the  medical  colleges   are  Government   colleges affiliated  to the university.  In these circumstances,  the Government  was  entitled  to frame rules for  admission  to medical  colleges controlled by it, subject to the rules  of the  university as to eligibility and qualifications.   This was  what  was  done  in these  cases  and,  therefore,  the selection cannot be challenged on the ground that it was not in  accordance with the University Act and the rules  framed thereunder."  This  Court, therefore, upheld the  additional criteria  framed  by the State for admission which were  not inconsistent  with the norms for admission laid down by  the University  Act.  Since these additional qualifications  did not diminish the eligibility norms under the University Act, this  Court upheld the additional criteria laid down by  the state  as  not  affecting  the standards laid  down  by  the University Act.  The question of diluting the standards laid down, did not arise.

     The  respondents have emphasised the observation  that admission  has to be made by those who are in control of the colleges.   But, the question is, on what basis?  Admissions must  be  made  on  a basis which  is  consistent  with  the standards laid down by a statute or regulation framed by the Central Government in the exercise of its powers under Entry 66,  List I.  At times, in some of the judgments, the  words "eligibility"   and   "qualification"     have   been   used interchangeably,  and  in some cases a distinction has  been made  between  the two words ?  "eligibility" connoting  the minimum  criteria for selection that may be laid down by the University    Act   or    any    Central   Statute,    while "qualifications" connoting the additional norms laid down by the  colleges  or by the State.  In every case  the  minimum standards  as laid down by the Central Statute or under  it, have  to  be  complied  with  by  the  State  while   making admissions.   It may, in addition, lay down other additional norms  for admission or regulate admissions in the  exercise of  its  powers  under  Entry 25 List III in  a  manner  not inconsistent  with or in a manner which does not dilute  the criteria so laid down.

     In  Chitra  Ghosh  & Anr.  v.  Union of India  &  Ors. ([1970]  1  SCR 413), the Constitution Bench of  this  Court considered,  inter  alia, reservation of nine seats for  the nominees  of the Government of India in a Government Medical College  under  Article 14 of the Constitution.  This  Court upheld  the reservation as a reasonable classification under Article 14 on the ground that the candidates for these seats had  to  be  drawn from different sources and  it  would  be difficult to have uniformity in the matter of selection from

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 29  

amongst  them.   The  background and the course  of  studies undertaken  by  these  candidates  would  be  different  and divergent  and,  therefore, the Central Government  was  the appropriate  authority  which could make a proper  selection out  of these categories.  The questions before us, did  not arise in that case.

     In  the  State  of  Andhra Pradesh &  Ors.   v.   Lavu Narendranath  &  Ors.  etc.  ([1971] 3 SCR 699), this  Court considered  the  validity  of  a  test  held  by  the  State Government for admission to medical colleges in the State of Andhra  Pradesh.  The Andhra University Act, 1926 prescribed the  minimum qualification of passing HSC, PUC, I.S.C.  etc. examinations  for entry into a higher course of study.   The Act,  however, did not make it incumbent upon the Government to  make their selection on the basis of the marks  obtained by  the candidates at these qualifying examinations.   Since the  seats for the MBBS course were limited, the Government, which  ran  the  medical  colleges, had a right  to  make  a selection  out  of  the large number of candidates  who  had passed  the HSC, PUC or other prescribed examinations.   For this  purpose  the State Government prescribed  an  entrance test  of its own and also prescribed a minimum 50% of  marks at  the  qualifying examination of HSC, ISC, PUC  etc.   for eligibility  to appear at the entrance test.  The Court said that   merely  because  the   Government  supplemented   the eligibility  rules  by a written test in the  subjects  with which  the  candidates  were  already  familiar,  there  was nothing  unfair  in the test prescribed.  Nor did  the  test militate  against the powers of Parliament under Entry 66 of List-I.   Entry  66 List-I is not relatable to  a  screening test  prescribed  by the Government or by a  university  for selection  of  students from out of a large number  applying for admission to a particular course of study.

     Therefore,  this  Court considered the  entrance  test held  by the State in that case as not violating Entry 66 of List-I  because  the  statutory  provisions  of  the  Andhra University  Act were also complied with and the test was not inconsistent  with those provisions.  Secondly, in that case the Court viewed the test as not in substitution of the HSC, PUC,  ISC or other such examination, but in addition to  it, for  the  purpose  of proper selection from out of  a  large number of students who had applied.

     This latter observation is relied upon by the State of Madhya  Pradesh  in  support  of  its  contention  that  the additional  test  which the State may prescribe is only  for better  selection.   Therefore, it is not necessary  to  lay down  minimum qualifying marks in the additional test.  Lavu Narendranath  (supra), however, does not lay down that it is permissible  not  to  have minimum qualifying marks  in  the entrance test prescribed by the State;  nor does it lay down that  every test prescribed by the State must necessarily be viewed  as  only  for the screening of candidates.   On  the facts  before  it,  the  Court viewed the  test  as  only  a screening  test  for proper selection from amongst  a  large number of candidates.

     On  the  facts  before  us, the PGMEE is  not  just  a screening   test.   Candidates  who   have  qualified   from different   universities  and  in   courses  which  are  not necessarily  identical, have to be assessed on the basis  of their  relative  merit  for the purpose of  admission  to  a post-graduate  course.   It  is  for  proper  assessment  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 29  

relative  merit  of  candidates  who  have  taken  different examinations from different universities in the State that a uniform   entrance   test  is   prescribed.   Such  a   test necessarily partakes of the character of an eligibility test as  also  a  screening test.  In such a  situation,  minimum qualifying  marks  are necessary.  The question  of  minimum qualifying   marks  is  not  addressed   at  all   in   Levu Narendranath (supra) since it did not arise in that case.

     In  Dr.  Ambesh Kumar v.  Principal, L.L.R.M.  Medical College,  Meerut and Ors.  ([1986] Supp.  SCC 543), a  State order  prescribed  55%  as minimum marks  for  admission  to post-graduate  medical  courses.  The Court  considered  the question  whether  the  State can impose  qualifications  in addition  to those laid down by the Medical Council of India and  the Regulations framed by the Central Government.   The Court  said  that any additional or  further  qualifications which  the State may lay down would not be contrary to Entry 66  of  List-I  since additional qualifications are  not  in conflict  with  the Central Regulations but are designed  to further  the objective of the Central Regulation which is to promote  proper  standards.  The Court said, (at  page  552) "The  State  Government  by   laying  down  the  eligibility qualification,  namely,  the  obtaining of  certain  minimum marks in the M.B.B.S.  examination by the candidates has not in  any  way encroached upon the Regulations made under  the Indian  Medical Council Act nor does it infringe the central power  provided  in  the Entry 66 of List-I of  the  Seventh Schedule  to the Constitution.  The order merely provides an additional   eligibility  qualification."   None  of   these judgments  lays  down that any reduction in the  eligibility criteria would not impinge on the standards covered by Entry 66  of  List-I.  All these judgments dealt  with  additional qualifications  ?   qualifications in addition to  what  was prescribed by the Central Regulations or Statutes.

     There   are,  however,  two   cases  where  there  are observations  to the contrary.  One is the case of the State of  Madhya  Pradesh & Anr.  v.  Kumari Nivedita Jain &  Ors. ([1981]  4 SCC 296), a judgment of a Bench of three  judges. In  this case the Court dealt with admission to the M.B.B.S. course  in  the  medical  colleges of the  State  of  Madhya Pradesh.   The  Rules  framed by the State  provided  for  a minimum  of 50% as qualifying marks for the general category students for admission to the medical colleges of the State. But  for  the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes  the minimum  qualifying marks were prescribed as 40%.  Later on, the  minimum  qualifying marks for the Scheduled Castes  and the Scheduled Tribes were reduced to 0.  The Court observed, (paragraph  17) "That it was not in dispute and it could not be  disputed that the order in question was in conflict with the  provisions contained in Regulation 2 of the Regulations framed  by  the  Indian Medical Council." But it  held  that Entry  66  of  List-I would not apply to  the  selection  of candidates  for  admission to the medical  colleges  because standards  would  come in after the students were  admitted. The Court also held that Regulation 2 of the Regulations for admission  to  MBBS  courses framed by  the  Indian  Medical Council,  was only recommendatory.  Hence any relaxation  in the  rules  of  selection made by the State  Government  was permissible.    We  will  examine   the  character  of   the Regulations  framed by the Medical Council of India a little later.   But  we cannot agree with the observations made  in that judgment to the effect that the process of selection of candidates  for  admission to a medical college has no  real

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 29  

impact  on  the standard of medical education;  or that  the standard  of medical education really comes into the picture only  in  the course of studies in the medical  colleges  or institutions   after   the  selection   and   admission   of candidates.   For  reasons which we have explained  earlier, the  criteria  for  the  selection  of  candidates  have  an important  bearing on the standard of education which can be effectively  imparted  in the medical colleges.   We  cannot agree  with  the  proposition that  prescribing  no  minimum qualifying  marks for admission for the Scheduled Castes and the  Scheduled  Tribes  would  not have  an  impact  on  the standard  of education in the medical colleges.  Of  course, once  the  minimum standards are laid down by the  authority having  the power to do so, any further qualifications  laid down by the State which will lead to the selection of better students  cannot  be  challenged on the ground  that  it  is contrary  to  what  has  been laid  down  by  the  authority concerned.   But the action of the State is valid because it does  not  adversely impinge on the standards prescribed  by the  appropriate  authority.   Although   this  judgment  is referred  to  in  the Constitution Bench judgment  of  Indra Sawhney  &  Ors.   v.  Union of India &  Ors.   (supra)  the question  of  standards  being  lowered   at  the  stage  of post-graduate  medical  admissions was not before the  court for consideration.  The court merely said that since Article 16 was not applicable to the facts in Kumari Nivedita Jain’s case  (supra),  Article 335 was not considered there.   Fort post-  graduate medical education, where the "students"  are required  to discharge duties as doctors in hospitals,  some of  the considerations underlying Articles 16 and 335  would be  relevant  as  hereinafter set out.  But that  apart,  it cannot  be  said  that  the judgment  in  Nivedita  Jain  is approved  in  all its aspects by Indra Sawhney v.  Union  of India.

     The other case where a contrary view has been taken is Ajay  Kumar Singh & Ors.  v.  State of Bihar & Ors.  ([1994] 4  SCC  401)  decided by a Bench of three Judges.   It  also held,  following Kumari Nivedita Jain & Ors.(supra) (at page 417) that "Entry 66 in List-I does not take in the selection of  candidates  or regulation of admission to institutes  of higher  education.  Because standards come into the  picture after  admissions  are  made." For reasons stated  above  we disagree with these findings.

     In this connection, our attention is also drawn to the emphasis  placed  in some of the judgments on the fact  that since all the candidates finally appear and pass in the same examination, standards are maintained.  Therefore, rules for admission  do  not have any bearing on standards.   In  Ajay Kumar  Singh & Ors.  v.  State of Bihar & Ors.  (supra) this Court,  relying  on Kumari Nivedita Jain (supra), said  that everybody  has to take the same post-graduate examination to qualify   for  a  post-graduate   degree.   Therefore,   the guarantee  of  quality  lies in everybody passing  the  same final  examination.   The quality is guaranteed at the  exit stage.   Therefore, at the admission stage, even if students of  lower  merit  are  admitted, this  will  not  cause  any detriment  to the standards.  There are similar observations in  Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh  &  Ors.  v.  K.L.  Narasimhan &  Anr.   (supra). This  reasoning cannot be accepted.  The final pass marks in an  examination  indicate that the candidate  possesses  the minimum  requisite knowledge for passing the examination.  A pass  mark  is  not a guarantee of excellence.  There  is  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 29  

great deal of difference between a person who qualifies with the  minimum  passing marks and a person who qualifies  with high  marks.   If  excellence  is to be  promoted  at  post- graduate levels, the candidates qualifying should be able to secure  good marks while qualifying.  It may be that if  the final  examination standard itself is high, even a candidate with   pass   marks  would   have  a  reasonable   standard. Basically,   there  is  no   single  test  for   determining standards.   It  is  the result of a sum total  of  all  the inputs  - calibre of students, calibre of teachers, teaching facilities,  hospital  facilities, standard of  examinations etc.   that will guarantee proper standards at the stage  of exit.   We,  therefore,  disagree  with  the  reasoning  and conclusion  in Ajay Kumar Singh & Ors.  v.  Stage of Bihar & Ors.   (supra)  and  Post   Graduate  Institute  of  Medical Education   &   Research,  Chandigarh  &  Ors.    v.    K.L. Narasimhan & Anr.  (supra).

     The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and standards:

     Has  the  Union Government, by Statute or  Regulations laid  down  the  standards  at the  post-graduate  level  in medicine  in  the exercise of its legislative  powers  under Entry  66, List I?  the appellants/petitioners rely upon the Indian  Medical Council Act, 1956 and the Regulations framed under  it.   The  respondents  contend  that,  in  fact,  no standards  have  been  laid down by the Medical  Council  of India.   Also the standards laid down are only directory and not mandatory.

     Now,  one of the objects and reasons contained in  the Statement  of  Objects and Reasons accompanying  the  Indian Medical  Council  Act  of 1956  is:".................(d)  to provide  for  the formation of a Committee of  Post-Graduate Medical  Education for the purpose of assisting the  Medical Council  of India in prescribing standards of  post-graduate medical  education  for the guidance of universities and  to advice  universities  in  the  matter  of  securing  uniform standards  of  post-graduate  medical  education  throughout India."  Section 20 of the Indian Medical Council Act,  1956 deals  with  post-graduate medical education.  The  relevant provisions under Section 20 are as follows:-

     "20.   Postgraduate  medical education  committee  for assisting  council  in  matters   relating  to  postgraduate medical education:-

     (1)   The   Council  may    prescribe   standards   of postgraduate   medical  education  for   the   guidance   of universities,  and  advise  universities in  the  matter  of securing   uniform   standards   for  postgraduate   medical education throughout India, and for this purpose the Central government  may  constitute  from among the members  of  the council   a   postgraduate   medical   education   committee (hereinafter  referred  to  as   the  postgraduate   medical education committee).

     (2).............

     (3).............

     (4).............

     (5)  The views and recommendations of the postgraduate committee on all matters shall be placed before the Council;

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 29  

and  if the Council does not agree with the views  expressed or the recommendations made by the postgraduate committee on any matter, the Council shall forward them together with its observations to the Central government for decision."

     Section  33 of the Act gives to the Council the  power to  make regulations generally to carry out the purposes  of the   Act  with  the  previous   sanction  of  the   Central Government.   It  provides  that without  prejudice  to  the generality of this power such Regulations may provide, under Section  33(j)  for the courses and period of study  and  of practical  training  to  be   undertaken,  the  subjects  of examination  and the standards of proficiency therein to  be obtained  in universities or medical institutions, for grant of  recognised  medical  qualifications, and  under  Section 33(l)   for  the  conduct   of  professional   examinations, qualifications  of examiners and the conditions of admission to such examinations.

     Pursuant to its power to frame Regulations the Medical Council  of  India has framed Regulations  on  Post-Graduate Medical Education which have been approved by the Government of India under Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.   These  regulations  which have been  framed  on  the recommendations  of  the   Post-Graduate  Medical  Education Committee prescribe in extenso the courses for post-graduate medical  education,  the facilities to be provided  and  the standards  to be maintained.  After setting out the  various courses,   both   degree   and    diploma,   available   for post-graduate  medical  education, the  Regulations  contain certain  general provisions/conditions some of which need to be noted.  Condition 4 deals with the student-teacher ratio. It says:

     "The  student-teacher  ratio should be such  that  the number   of   post-graduate  teachers  to  the   number   of post-graduate  students admitted per year, be maintained  at one to one.

     For the proper training of the post- graduate students there  should be a limit to the number of students  admitted per  year.  For this purpose every unit should consist of at least  three full time post-graduate teachers and can  admit not more than three students for post- graduate training per year.   If the number of post-graduate teachers in the  unit is  more  than  three  then the number of  students  can  be increased  proportionately.   For this purpose, one  student should associate with one post- graduate teacher".

     Condition 5 says:

     "The  selection of post-graduates both for degree  and diploma  courses should be strictly on the basis of academic merit."

     Condition 6 is as follows:-

     "Condition  6:   The  training of  post-graduates  for degree should be of the residency pattern with patient care. Both  the in-service candidates and the stipendaries  should be given similar clinical responsibility .............".

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 21 of 29  

     Under   the  heading   "facilities  for  post-graduate students" clause (1) provides as follows:-

     "Clause  (1):   There  would  be two  types  of  post- graduate students:

     (a)  Those  holding posts in the same Department  like Resident,  Registrar, Demonstrator etc.  Adequate number  of paid posts should be created for this purpose.

     (b)  Those  receiving stipends.  The  stipends  should normally  be Rupees 300/- per month payable for the duration of the course."

     Under  the  heading  "criteria for  the  selection  of candidates" Clause (a) is as follows:-

     "(a)  Students  for post-graduate training  should  be selected  strictly on merit judged on the basis of  academic record  in  the  under-graduate course.  All  selection  for post-graduate   studies   should  be    conducted   by   the Universities."

     Under the heading "Evaluation of merit" it is provided as follows:-

     "The  Post-graduate Committee was of the opinion  that in order to determine the merit of a candidate for admission to post-graduate medical courses, (i) his performance at the M.B.B.S.   examinations,  (ii)  his performance  during  the course  of  internship  and housemanship for which  a  daily assessment  chart be maintained and (iii) the report of  the teachers  which  is  to  be submitted  periodically  may  be considered.

     Alternatively  the  authorities concerned may  conduct competitive entrance examination to determine the merit of a candidate for admission to post-graduate medical courses."

     Under  the heading "Methods of training" it is,  inter alia, provided:

     ".............The  in-service  training  requires  the candidate to be a resident in the campus and should be given graded  responsibility  in the management and  treatment  of patients  entrusted to his care.  Adequate number of post of clinical  residents  or  tutors should be created  for  this purpose."

     Mr.   Salve, learned counsel appearing for the Medical Council  of  India  has, therefore, rightly  submitted  that under  the  Indian  Medical Council Act of 1956  the  Indian Medical  Council  is  empowered to  prescribe,  inter  alia, standards  of  post-graduate  medical   education.   In  the exercise of its powers under Section 20 read with Section 33 the  Indian  Medical  Council has framed  Regulations  which

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 22 of 29  

govern  post-graduate medical education.  These Regulations, therefore,  are  binding  and  the  States  cannot,  in  the exercise of power under Entry 25 of List-III, make rules and regulations  which are in conflict with or adversely impinge upon  the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India for  post- graduate medical education.  Since the  standards laid  down are in the exercise of the power conferred  under Entry   66  of  List-I,  the   exercise  of  that  power  is exclusively  within the domain of the Union Government.  The power of the States under Entry 25 of List-III is subject to Entry 66 of List-I.

     Secondly,  it is not the exclusive power of the  State to frame rules and regulations pertaining to education since the subject is in the Concurrent List.  Therefore, any power exercised  by the State in the area of education under Entry 25 of List-III will also be subject to any existing relevant provisions  made in that connection by the Union  Government subject, of course, to Article 254.

     In  Ajay Kumar Singh & Ors.  v.  State of Bihar & Ors. (supra),  this  Court  examined  the powers  of  the  Indian Medical  Council  under  Section 20 of  the  Indian  Medical Council  Act, 1956 and held that the power of the Council to prescribe standards of post-graduate medical education under Section  20  are only for the guidance of the  universities. Since  Section 20 also refers to the power of the Council to advice  universities  in  the  matter  of  securing  uniform standards  for  post-graduate medical  education  throughout India, the Court said that the entire power under Section 20 was  purely  advisory.  Therefore, the power of  the  Indian Medical  Council  to  prescribe  the  minimum  standards  of medical  education  at  the post- graduate  level  was  only advisory  in  nature  and not of a binding  character  (page 415).

     We  do  not  agree  with this  interpretation  put  on Section 20 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.  Section 20(1)  (set out earlier) is in three parts.  The first  part provides  that  the  Council   may  prescribe  standards  of post-graduate   medical  education  for   the  guidance   of universities.   The second part of sub-section(1) says  that the  Council  may  advise  universities  in  the  matter  of securing   uniform  standards   for  post-graduate   medical education  throughout.   The last part of sub-  section  (1) enables  the  Central Government to constitute from  amongst the   members  of  the   Council,  a  post-graduate  medical education  committee.   The  first  part  of  sub-section(1) empowers the Council to prescribe standards of post-graduate medical   education  for  the   guidance  of   universities. Therefore,  the  universities  have  to  be  guided  by  the standards  prescribed by the Medical Council and must  shape their  programmes  accordingly.   The scheme of  the  Indian Medical  Council  Act, 1956 does not give an option  to  the universities  to follow or not to follow the standards  laid down  by  the  Indian  Medical Council.   For  example,  the medical  qualifications granted by a university or a medical institution  have to be recognised under the Indian  Medical Council  Act,  1956.   Unless   the  qualifications  are  so recognised,  the students who qualify will be not be able to practice.   Before  granting  such recognition, a  power  is given  to  the Medical Council under Section 16 to  ask  for information  as  to the courses of study  and  examinations. The  universities  are bound to furnish the  information  so required   by  the  Council.    The  post-graduate   medical

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 23 of 29  

committee  is  also  under Section 17, entitled  to  appoint medical  inspectors  to  inspect  any  medical  institution, college,  hospital  or  other   institution  where   medical education  is given or to attend any examination held by any university  or  medical institution before recommending  the medical  qualification granted by that university or medical institution.  Under Section 19, if a report of the Committee is   unsatisfactory  the  Medical   Council   may   withdraw recognition  granted  to  a  medical  qualification  of  any medical  institution  or university concerned in the  manner provided  in Section 19.  Section 19A enables the Council to prescribe  minimum  standards of medical education  required for  granting  recognised medical qualifications other  than post-graduate  medical qualifications by the universities or medical  institutions, while Section 20 gives a power to the Council  to  prescribe  minimum standards  of  post-graduate medical  education.   The universities must  necessarily  be guided  by  the standards prescribed under Section 20(1)  if their  degrees  or diplomas are to be recognised  under  the Medical  Council of India Act.  We, therefore, disagree with and  overrule  the finding given in Ajay Kumar Singh &  Ors. v.   State of Bihar & Ors.  (supra), to the effect that  the standards  of post-graduate medical education prescribed  by the  Medical  Council of India are merely directory and  the universities  are not bound to comply with the standards  so prescribed.

     In State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.  v.  Kumari Nivedita Jain  &  Ors.   (supra), the provisions  of  Indian  Medical Council  Act  and the regulations framed for  under-graduate medical  courses  were considered by the Court.   The  Court said that while regulation 1 was mandatory, regulation 2 was only  recommendatory  and need not be followed.  We  do  not agree  with this line of reasoning for the reasons which  we have set out above.

     In  the case of Medical Council of India v.  State  of Karnataka & Ors.  ([1998] 6 SCC 131) a bench of three judges of  this  Court has distinguished the observations  made  in Kumari  Nivedita  Jain (supra).  It has also disagreed  with Ajay  Kumar  Singh & Ors.  v.  State of Bihar & Ors  (supra) and  has  come  to the conclusion that the  Medical  Council Regulations  have a statutory force and are mandatory.   The Court  was concerned with admissions to the M.B.B.S.  course and  the  Regulations framed by the Indian  Medical  Council relating  to  admission to the M.B.B.S.  course.  The  Court took  note of the observations in State of Kerala v.  Kumari T.P.   Roshana & Anr.  ([1979] 1 SCC 572 at page 580) to the effect  that under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, the Medical  Council of India has been set up as an expert  body to control the minimum standards of medical education and to regulate  their  observance.   It   has  implicit  power  to supervise  the  qualifications or eligibility standards  for admission  into  medical institutions.  There is, under  the Act  an overall vigilance by the Medical Council to  prevent sub-standard  entrance  qualifications for medical  courses. These  observations  would  apply equally  to  post-graduate medical  courses.  We are in respectful agreement with  this reasoning.

     The   Regulations  governing   post-graduate   medical education already referred to earlier, provide for admission on  the basis of merit.  The Regulations, however, have  not clearly  spelt  out  whether  there can or  cannot  be,  any

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 24 of 29  

reservations  for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes  and/or backward  class  candidates  at the stage  of  post-graduate medical  admissions.   Whether  such   a  reservation  would impinge on the standards or not would depend upon the manner in  which such reservation is made, and whether the  minimum qualifying  marks  for the reserved categories are  properly fixed or not.  It is for the Medical Council of India to lay down  proper norms in this area and to prescribe whether the minimum  qualifying  marks for the admission of students  in the  reserved  category  can  be   less  than  the   minimum qualifying  marks  for the general category students at  the post-graduate level;  and if so, to what extent.  Even if we accept  the  contention  of  the respondents  that  for  the reserved  category candidates also, their inter se merit  is the  criterion  for  selection, although  for  the  reserved category  of  candidates lower minimum qualifying marks  are prescribed,  the  merit which is envisaged under the  Indian Medical  Council Act or its Regulations is comparative merit for  all  categories  of  candidates.  For  admission  to  a post-graduate course in medicine, the merit criterion cannot be  so  diluted by the State as to affect the  standards  of post-graduate  medical  education  as prescribed  under  the Regulations framed by the Indian Medical Council.  It is for the Indian Medical Council to consider whether lower minimum qualifying  marks  can  be prescribed at  the  post-graduate level for the reserved category candidates.  We have already opined  that the minimum qualifying marks of 20% as compared to  45% for the general category candidates appear to be too low.  This would make it difficult for the reserved category candidates  to bring their performance on a par with general category  candidates in the course of post-graduate  studies and  before  they qualify in the post-graduate  examination. It  is also necessary in public interest to ensure that  the candidates  at the post- graduate level have not just passed the  examination, but they have profited from their  studies in  a  manner which makes them capable of making  their  own contribution,  that they are capable of diagnosing difficult medical  conditions with a certain degree of expertise,  and are capable of rendering to the ill, specialised services of a  certain  acceptable  standard expected  of  doctors  with specialised training.

     The  States of U.P.  and Madhya Pradesh have contended that  if the minimum qualifying marks are raised in the case of  the reserved category candidates, they will not be  able to  fill  all  the seats which are reserved for  them.   The purpose, however, of higher medical education is not to fill the seats which are available by lowering standards;  nor is the  purpose  of reservation at the stage  of  post-graduate medical education merely to fill the seats with the reserved category  candidates.   The  purpose   of  reservation,   if permissible  at  this level, is to ensure that the  reserved category  candidates  having  the   requisite  training  and calibre  to benefit from post-graduate medical education and rise  to  the  standards  which   are  expected  of  persons possessing  post-  graduate medical qualification,  are  not denied  this opportunity by competing with general  category candidates.  The general category candidates do not have any social  disabilities which prevent them from giving of their best.    The  special  opportunity   which  is  provided  by reservation  cannot, however, be made available to those who are  substantially  below  the  levels  prescribed  for  the general  category  candidates.  It will not be possible  for such  candidates to fully benefit from the very limited  and specialised  post-graduate training opportunities which  are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 25 of 29  

designed  to produce high calibre well trained professionals for the benefit of the public.  Article 15(4) and the spirit of  reason  which  permeates it, do not permit  lowering  of minimum  qualifying marks at the post-graduate level to  20% for  the  reserved category as against 45% for  the  general category  candidates.  It will be for the Medical Council of India  to decide whether such lowering is permissible and if so  to what extent.  But in the meanwhile at least the norms which  are prescribed for admission to the M.B.B.S.  courses ought  not  to be lowered at the post-graduate  level.   The lowering  of  minimum qualifying marks for admission to  the M.B.B.S.   courses has been permitted by the Indian  Medical Council  upto  35% for the reserved category as against  45% for  the  general  category.  The marks  cannot  be  lowered further  for admission to the post-graduate medical courses, especially  when  at  the super speciality level it  is  the unanimous view of all the judgments of this Court that there should be no reservations.  This would also imply that there can  be  no  lowering of minimum qualifying  marks  for  any category  of  candidates  at the level of admission  to  the super-specialities courses.

     In  Mohan  Bir  Singh Chawla  v.   Punjab  University, Chandigarh  &  Anr.  (supra) also this Court has  taken  the view that the higher you go the less should be the extent of reservation  or  weightage  and  it would  be  dangerous  to depreciate  merit and excellence at the highest levels.   In S.  Vinod Kumar & Anr.  v.  Union of India & Ors.  ([1996] 6 SCC 580) this Court while considering Articles 16(4) and 335 held  that  for  the purpose of promotion  lower  qualifying marks   for  the  reserved   category  candidates  were  not permissible.   Dr.  Sadhna Devi & Ors.  v.  State of U.P.  & Ors.   (supra)  has  rightly prescribed  minimum  qualifying marks  for the common entrance examination for post-graduate medical  courses.  The Court left open the question  whether there could be any reservation at the post- graduation level and  to  what  extent  lesser   qualifying  marks  could  be prescribed,  assuming  the reservations can be made.  As  we have  said earlier, these are matters essentially of  laying down  appropriate  standards and hence to be decided by  the Medical  Council  of India.  However, the disparity  in  the minimum qualifying marks cannot be substantial.

     In  Post  Graduate  Institute of Medical  Education  & Research,  Chandigarh and Ors.  v.  K.L.  Narasimhan &  Anr. ([1997] 6 SCC 283) there are observations to the effect that the  reservation of seats at the post-graduate and  doctoral courses in medicine would not lead to loss of efficiency and would  be  permissible under Article 15(4).  There are  also observations  to  the effect that since all appear  for  the same   final  examination,  there  is  no   downgrading   of excellence.   These  observations,  in our view,  cannot  be accepted  for reasons set out earlier.  The judgment of  the Court  in  Post  Graduate Institute of Medical  Education  & Research,  Chandigarh and Ors.  v.  K.L.  Narasimhan &  Anr. (supra)  in  so  far as it lays down these  propositions  is overruled.

     In  the  premises,  we agree with  the  reasoning  and conclusion  in Dr.  Sadhna Devi & Ors.  v.  State of U.P.  & Ors.   (supra) and we overrule the reasoning and conclusions in  Ajay  Kumar  Singh  & Ors.  v.  State of  Bihar  &  Ors. (supra)  and Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education  & Research,  Chandigarh and Ors.  v.  K.L.  Narasimhan &  Anr.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 26 of 29  

(supra).  To conclude:

     1.    We  have  not   examined  the  question  whether reservations  are permissible at the post-graduate level  of medical education;

     2.   A common entrance examination envisaged under the Regulations  framed  by  the Medical Council  of  India  for post-graduate  medical education requires fixing of  minimum qualifying marks for passing the examination since it is not a mere screening test.

     3.   Whether  lower minimum qualifying marks  for  the reserved  category  candidates  can  be  prescribed  at  the post-graduate level of medical education is a question which must  be  decided by the Medical Council of India  since  it affects  standards of post-graduate medical education.  Even if  minimum qualifying marks can be lowered for the reserved category  candidates,  there  cannot  be  a  wide  disparity between  the  minimum  qualifying  marks  for  the  reserved category candidates and the minimum qualifying marks for the general  category candidates at this level.  The  percentage of  20%  for the reserved category and 45% for  the  general category  is  not permissible under Article 15(4), the  same being  unreasonable at the post-graduate level and  contrary to public interest.

     4.   At the level of admission to the super speciality courses,  no special provisions are permissible, they  being contrary to national interest.  Merit alone can be the basis of selection.

     In  the  premises,  the impugned  Uttar  Pradesh  Post Graduate   Medical  Education   (Reservation  for  Scheduled Castes,  Scheduled  Tribes and other Backward Classes)  Act, 1997 and G.O.  dated 7.6.1997 of the State of Madhya Pradesh are  set  aside.  However, students who have  already  taken admission  and are pursuing courses of post-graduate medical study  under  the impugned Act/G.O.  will not  be  affected. Our  judgment  will have prospective application.   Further, pending  consideration  of  this  question  by  the  Medical Council  of India, the two States may follow the norms  laid down  by the Medical Council of India for lowering of  marks for  admission  to  the   under-graduate  M.B.B.S.   medical courses,  at  the  post-graduate level also as  a  temporary measure  until the norms are laid down.  This, however, will not  be  treated  as our having held that such  lowering  of marks  will not lead to a lowering of standards at the post- graduate  level  of medical education.  Standards cannot  be lowered  at this level in public interest.  This is a matter to  be decided by an expert body such as the Medical Council of  India  assisted by its Post- Graduate Medical  Education Committee in accordance with law.

     I.A.   No.2  in  WP(C) No.679 of 1995,  Writ  Petition Nos.290  of  1997,  300  of 1997,  C.A.   No........of  1999 (Arising  out of SLP(C) No.12231 of 1997) and Writ  Petition (C) No.350 of 1998 are disposed of accordingly.

     Review   Petition   Nos.2371-72   of    1997   in   CA Nos.3176-77/97

     Normally  the power to review is used by us  sparingly to  correct  errors apparent on the face of the record.   In the  judgment  sought  to be reviewed,  however,  there  are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 27 of 29  

observations which are so widely worded that they may create mischief  or national detriment.  We would, therefore,  like to  clarify  the position regarding admissions to the  super specialities  in  medicine.  In Post Graduate  Institute  of Medical  Education & Research, Chandigarh and Ors.  v.  K.L. Narasimhan & Anr.  ([1997] 6 SCC 283), which is the judgment in  question,  it was, inter alia, held that there could  be reservation  of seats for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes  at  post-graduate  levels  or  doctoral  levels   in medicine and that such reservations would not lead to a loss of efficiency and are permissible under Article 15(4).

     In the group of civil appeals decided by Post Graduate Institute  of  Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh  and Ors.   v.   K.L.  Narasimhan & Anr.  (supra), the appeal  of the  present petitioners had challenged an Admission  Notice No.15/90  issued in the Indian Express of 25.11.1990,  under which  six  seats  for  the   super  speciality  courses  of D.M./M.C.H.   were kept reserved for the Scheduled Caste and the  Scheduled  Tribe candidates.  The  petitioners  rightly contend  that at the super speciality level there cannot  be any  relaxation  in  favour of any category  of  candidates. Admissions should be entirely on the basis of open merit.

     The  ambit  of special provisions under Article  15(4) has  already  been  considered by us.  While the  object  of Article  15(4)  is  to  advance the  equality  principle  by providing  for  protective discrimination in favour  of  the weaker sections so that they may become stronger and be able to  compete  equally with others more fortunate, one  cannot also  ignore  the wider interests of society while  devising such    special    provisions.     Undoubtedly,   protective discrimination   in  favour  of   the  backward,   including scheduled  castes  and  scheduled tribes is as much  in  the interest  of  society as the protected groups.  At the  same time,  there  may  be  other  national  interests,  such  as promoting  excellence at the highest level and providing the best  talent  in  the  country with  the  maximum  available facilities  to  excel and contribute to society, which  have also  to be borne in mind.  Special provisions must strike a reasonable balance between these diverse national interests.

     In the case of Dr.  Jagdish Saran & Ors.  v.  Union of India (supra) this Court observed that at the highest scales of  speciality, the best skill or talent must be hand-picked by  selection  according to capability.  Losing a  potential great  scientist  or technologist would be a national  loss. That  is why the Court observed that the higher the level of education  the lesser should be the reservation.  There  are similar  observations in Dr.  Pradeep Jain & Ors.  v.  Union of  India & Ors.  (supra).  Undoubtedly, Dr.  Pradeep Jain & Ors.   v.  Union of India & Ors.  (supra) did not deal  with reservation  in  favour  of  the Scheduled  Castes  and  the Scheduled  Tribes.   It dealt with reservation in favour  of residents and students of the same university.  Nevertheless it  correctly  extended  the  principle  laid  down  in  Dr. Jagdish  Saran  & Ors.  v.  Union of India (supra) to  these kinds  of  reservation  also, holding that  at  the  highest levels of medical education excellence cannot be compromised to  the detriment of the nation.  Admissions to the  highest available   medical   courses   in   the  country   at   the super-speciality  levels,  where  even  the  facilities  for training  are  limited, must be given only on the  basis  of competitive  merit.   There  can be no  relaxation  at  this level.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 28 of 29  

     Indra  Sawhney  &  Ors.   v.  Union of  India  &  Ors. (supra)  has also observed that in certain positions at  the highest  level  merit  alone counts.   In  specialities  and super-specialities in medicine, merit alone must prevail and there  should  not  be  any   reservation  of  posts.    The observations  in Indra Sawhney & Ors.  v.  Union of India  & Ors.(supra) were in respect of posts in the specialities and super-specialities  in  medicine.   Nevertheless,  the  same principle   applies  to  seats  in  the   specialities   and super-specialities   in  medicine.    Moreover,  study   and training at the level of specialities and super-specialities in  medicine  involve  discharging the  duties  attached  to certain specified medical posts in the hospitals attached to the  medical  institutions giving education in  specialities and  super-specialities.   Even where no specific posts  are created   or  kept  for  the   doctors  studying   for   the super-specialities  or specialities, the work which they are required   to  do  in  the   hospitals  attached  to   these institutions is equivalent to the work done by the occupants of such posts in that hospital.  In this sense also, some of the considerations under Article 16(4) read with Article 335 rub  off on admissions of candidates who are given seats for speciality  and super-speciality courses in medicine.   Even otherwise  under Article 15(4) the special provisions  which are  made  at this level of education have to be  consistent with  the national interest in promoting the highest  levels of  efficiency, skill and knowledge amongst the best in  the country so that they can contribute to national progress and enhance  the prestige of the nation.  The same view has been upheld  in  Dr.   Fazal Ghafoor v.  Union of  India  &  Ors. ([1988]  Supp.   SCC  794)  and Mohan Bir  Singh  Chawla  v. Punjab University, Chandigarh, & Anr.  ([1997] 2 SCC 171).

     The  Post-graduate Institute of Medical Education  and Research,  Chandigarh, has been set up as an institution  of national importance.  The Post-graduate Institute of Medical Education  and Research, Chandigarh Act, 1966, under Section 2  provides  that the object of the said institution  is  to make the institution one of national importance.  Section 12 sets  out  the  objects  of the  Institute.   These  are  as follows:-

     "Objects of Institute:

     The objects of the Institute shall be -

     (a) to develop patterns of teaching in under- graduate and  post-graduate medical education in all its branches  so as to demonstrate a high standard of medical education;

     (b)  to bring together, as far as may be, in one place educational facilities of the highest order for the training of  personnel in all important branches of health  activity; and

     (c)  to  attain  self-sufficiency  in  post-  graduate medical   education   to  meet   the  country’s  needs   for specialists and medical teachers."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 29 of 29  

     Under  Section  13  the  functions  of  the  Institute include  providing  both  under-graduate  and  post-graduate teaching,  inter  alia, in medicine as also  facilities  for research,  conducting experiments in new methods of  medical education both under-graduate and post-graduate, in order to arrive   at  satisfactory  standards   of  such   education, prescribe  courses and curricula for both under-graduate and post-graduate  study  and to establish and maintain  one  or more  medical  colleges  equipped  to  undertake  not   only under-graduate  but also post-graduate medical education  in the subject.

     Under  Section  32 of the said Act, the  Post-graduate Institute  of  Medical  Education and  Research,  Chandigarh Regulations,  1967 have been framed.  Regulation 27 provides for  20%  of  the  seats in every course  of  study  in  the Institute  to  be reserved for candidates belonging  to  the Scheduled  Castes,  Scheduled Tribes or other categories  of persons  in accordance with the general orders issued by the Central  Government  from  time  to  time.   Regulation  27, however, cannot have any application at the highest level of super-specialities  as this would defeat the very object  of imparting  the best possible training to select  meritorious candidates   who  can  contribute  to  the  advancement   of knowledge  in  the  fields  of   medical  research  and  its applications.   Since  no relaxation is permissible  at  the highest  levels in the medical institutions, the petitioners are  right when they contend that the reservations made  for the  Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe candidates  for admission   to   D.M.   and   M.C.H.   courses   which   are super-speciality  courses,  is  not   consistent  with   the constitutional  mandate  under  Articles  15(4)  and  16(4). Regulation  27 would not apply at the level of admissions to D.M.  and M.C.H.  courses.

     We, therefore, hold that the judgment of this Court in Post  Graduate  Institute of Medical Education  &  Research, Chandigarh  and  Ors.  v.  K.L.  Narasimhan & Anr.   (supra) cannot  be  read as holding that any type of  relaxation  is permissible  at  the super-specialities level.   The  review petitions are disposed of accordingly.

     All the interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.