REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.                 OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 4590 of 2008)

Dr. Gulshan Prakash & Ors.       .... Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Haryana & Ors.              .... Respondent(s)

WITH

WRIT PETITION (C) No. 69  OF 2009

J U D G M E N T  

P. Sathasivam, J.

1) The  petitioners  in  S.L.P.(C)  No.  4590  of  2008  and  

Writ  Petition (C) No. 69 of 2009 are one and the same.  

Leave granted in the special leave petition.

2) Challenge  in  this  appeal  is  to  the  judgment  dated  

05.02.2008  of  the  High  Court  of  Punjab  & Haryana  at  

1

Chandigarh, dismissing the Civil Writ Petition No. 1431 of  

2008, filed by the appellants herein for quashing  of the  

prospectus for the MD/MS/PG Diploma and MDS Courses  

issued  by  Maharshi  Dayanand  University,  Rohtak,  

Haryana for  Academic  Session 2007-2008 to the  extent  

that  it  does  not  provide  any  reservation  of  seats  for  

Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates.

3) Challenge in Writ  Petition (C)  No.  69 of  2009, filed  

under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India, relates to the  

prospectus issued by the aforesaid University for the same  

courses for Academic Session 2009-2010.

4) The brief facts leading to the filing of these matters are  

as under:

Vide  Notification  dated  12.11.2007,  State  of  Haryana  

instructed  Maharshi  Dayanand  University,  (‘MDU’  in  

short)  Rohtak  to  conduct  the  entrance  examination  for  

admission in the MD/MS/PG Diploma and MDS Courses  

in Government Medical and Dental Colleges in the State of  

Haryana for the session 2008-2009 and declare results.  

2

By  the  same  notification,  the  State  of  Haryana  also  

instructed Pt. B.D. Sharma PGIMS, Rohtak to conduct the  

counseling  and  to  finalize  the  admission  in  the  said  

courses.   In  pursuance  of  the  said  notification,  MDU,  

Rohtak  published  a  prospectus  for  holding  entrance  

examination  for  the  MD/MS/PG  Diploma  and  MDS  

Courses  in  Government  Medical  and Dental  Colleges  in  

the  State  of  Haryana  for  the  year  2008-2009.    On  

15.12.2007, the appellants made a representation to the  

Commissioner  and  Health  Secretary,  Ministry  of  Health  

and  Medical  Education,  Government  of  Haryana,  

Panchkula  for  implementation  of  SC/ST  reservation  in  

Post-Graduate  Courses  (MD/MS/MDS/Diploma)  PGIMS  

in  accordance  with  the  guidelines  issued  by  the  State  

Government on 19.03.1999.  Since there was no response,  

the  appellants  preferred  writ  petition  before  the  High  

Court  for  quashing  of  the  prospectus  which  was  

dismissed.    Hence,  the  appellants  have  preferred  this  

appeal by way of special leave.   

3

5) According  to  the  appellants,  on  07.08.2000,  MDU  

published  the  prospectus  for  the  

MBBS/BDS/BAMS/BHMS  Common  Entrance  

Examination  for  admission  to  Medical/  

Dental/Ayurvedic/Homeopathic  Colleges/Institutions  in  

Haryana  notifying  the  seats  for  admission  to  various  

categories providing 20% reservation for the members of  

Scheduled  Castes.   On  17.09.2005,  all  the  Institutions  

including All-India Institute of Medical Sciences provided  

reservation in the Post-Graduate courses for the members  

of  Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes.  The  

Government  Medical  College,  Patiala,  Amritsar  and  

Faridkot  also  provided  reservation  in  Post-Graduate  

Courses for the Academic Session, 2007.  The University  

of Delhi is also providing reservation to the members of  

the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.   In addition  

to  the  same,  counsel  for  the  appellants  submitted  that  

some  States  have  also  provided  reservation  in  Post-

Graduate Courses.  On the other hand, learned counsel  

4

for the respondents submitted that the State of Haryana  

has  already  provided  reservation  at  the  graduate  level  

courses  i.e.  MBBS/BDS/BAMS/BHMS etc.  and there  is  

no reservation in respect  of  Post-Graduate Courses and  

that is the reason the prospectus issued for Post-Graduate  

Courses does not contain any clause for reservation.  They  

also  contended  that  Article  15(4)  is  only  an  enabling  

provision and the State of Haryana, taking note of various  

aspects, decided not to provide reservation for Scheduled  

Caste,  Scheduled  Tribe  and  Other  Backward  Class  

candidates in Post-Graduate Courses.  They also pointed  

out that there cannot be any mandamus compelling the  

State  to  provide  reservation  for  a  particular  class  of  

persons.   

6)  We have heard Dr. Krishan Singh Chauhan, learned  

counsel  for  the  appellants  and  Mr.  Nidhesh  Gupta,  

learned senior counsel for the respondents and perused  

all the relevant materials and considered rival contentions.  

5

7)  Article  15  mandates  that  the  State  shall  not  

discriminate  against  any citizen on the grounds only of  

religion,  race,  caste,  sex,  place of  birth or any of  them.  

Sub-clause  (4)  in  both  Articles  15  and  16  is  only  an  

enabling  provision  for  the  State  Government  to  bring  

forward a legislation or  pass an executive  order  for  the  

benefit of socially and educationally Backward Classes of  

citizens  and  for  the  Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled  

Tribes.  Article 15(4) reads as follows:-

“4. Nothing in this Article or in clause (2) of Article 29  

shall prevent the State from making any special provision  

for  the  advancement  of  any  socially  and  educationally  

backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes  

and the Scheduled Tribes.”

8)  Learned counsel for the appellants, in support of his  

claim,  relied  on  a  seven-Judge  Bench  decision  of  this  

Court reported in State of Kerala and Another vs. N.M.  

Thomas  and  Others, (1976)  2  SCC  310.   The  issue  

therein  relates  to  constitutionality  of  Rule  13AA  of  the  

6

Kerala  State  and  Subordinate  Services  Rules,  1958  

granting exemption to members of Scheduled Castes and  

Scheduled Tribes for a specified period from special and  

departmental  tests  in  the  matter  of  promotion.   By  

majority, their Lordships have upheld the validity of Rule  

13AA of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules,  

1958,  and  two  consequential  orders  and  set  aside  the  

judgment  of  the  High Court.   In  the  said  decision,  the  

Court  nowhere  considered  the  effect  and  implication  of  

Article 15(4), particularly, whether it mandates the State  

to provide reservation in Post-Graduate Courses or is only  

an enabling provision.

9)  On the other hand, the consistent view of this Court is  

that Article 15(4) is only an enabling provision and it is for  

the respective States either to enact a legislation or issue  

an  executive  instruction  providing  reservation  in  Post-

Graduate Courses.  In  Indra Sawhney and Others  vs.  

Union of India and Others,  1992 Supp (3) SCC 217,  

which  is  a  nine-Judge  Bench  judgment  of  this  Court,  

7

while considering Articles 16(4) & (1), 15(4), 14, 32, 340  

and various other provisions, Jeevan Reddy, J. speaking  

for the majority held:

“744. The aspect next to be considered is whether clause  (4) is exhaustive of the very concept of reservations? In  other  words,  the  question  is  whether  any  reservations  can be provided outside clause (4) i.e., under clause (1) of  Article 16. There are two views on this aspect. On a fuller  consideration of the matter,  we are of the opinion that  clause (4) is not, and cannot be held to be, exhaustive of  the  concept  of  reservations;  it  is  exhaustive  of  reservations in favour of backward classes alone. Merely  because, one form of classification is stated as a specific  clause, it does not follow that the very concept and power  of  classification  implicit  in  clause  (1)  is  exhausted  thereby. To say so would not be correct in principle. But,  at  the  same  time,  one  thing  is  clear.  It  is  in  very  exceptional  situations,  —  and  not  for  all  and  sundry  reasons  —  that  any  further  reservations,  of  whatever  kind, should be provided under clause (1). In such cases,  the State has to satisfy, if called upon, that making such  a provision was necessary (in public interest) to redress a  specific situation. The very presence of clause (4) should  act as a damper upon the propensity to create further  classes  deserving  special  treatment.  The  reason  for  saying so is very simple. If reservations are made both  under  clause  (4)  as  well  as  under  clause  (1),  the  vacancies  available  for  free  competition  as  well  as  reserved categories would be a correspondingly whittled  down and that is not a reasonable thing to do.”

10)  In K. Duraisamy and Another vs. State of T.N. and  

Others,  (2001) 2 SCC 538,  a three-Judge Bench, while  

dealing  with  the  reservation  at  the  Post-Graduate  level  

and super-speciality level, observed as follows:-

8

“8. That  the  Government  possesses  the  right  and  authority to decide from what sources the admissions in  educational institutions or to particular disciplines and  courses therein have to be made and that too in what  proportion, is well established and by now a proposition  well  settled,  too.  It  has  been  the  consistent  and  authoritatively-settled  view  of  this  Court  that  at  the  super-speciality  level,  in  particular,  and  even  at  the  postgraduate  level  reservations  of  the  kind  known  as  “protective discrimination” in favour of those considered  to  be  backward  should  be  avoided  as  being  not  permissible. Reservation, even if it be claimed to be so in  this case, for and in favour of the in-service candidates,  cannot  be  equated  or  treated  on  par  with  communal  reservations envisaged under Articles 15(4) or 16(4) and  extended the special mechanics of their implementation  to ensure such reservations to be the minimum by not  counting those selected in open competition on the basis  of  their  own  merit  as  against  the  quota  reserved  on  communal considerations.”

11)  In  AIIMS Student’s Union vs.  AIIMS and Others,  

(2002) 1 SCC 428, while considering the similar issue, it  

was held:-  

“44. When  protective  discrimination  for  promotion  of  equalisation is pleaded, the burden is on the party who  seeks to justify the ex facie deviation from equality. The  basic rule is equality of opportunity for every person in  the  country,  which  is  a  constitutional  guarantee.  A  candidate who gets more marks than another is entitled  to preference for admission. Merit must be the test when  choosing the best, according to this rule of equal chance  for equal marks. This proposition has greater importance  when  we  reach  the  higher  levels  and  education  like  postgraduate courses. Reservation, as an exception, may  be justified subject to discharging the burden of proving  justification  in  favour  of  the  class  which  must  be  educationally handicapped — the reservation geared up  to getting over the handicap. The  rationale  of  reservation  in  the  case  of  medical  students  must  be  removal  of  regional  or  class  inadequacy  or  like  disadvantage.  Even  there  the  quantum  of  reservation  should  not  be  excessive  or  societally  injurious.  The  

9

higher  the  level  of  the  speciality  the  lesser  the  role  of  reservation.”

Again it was held that:-

“…..Permissible reservation at the lowest or primary rung  is  a  step  in  the  direction  of  assimilating  the  lesser  fortunates in the mainstream of society by bringing them  to the level of others which they cannot achieve unless  protectively  pushed.  Once  that  is  done  the  protection  needs to be withdrawn in the own interest of protectees  so  that  they  develop  strength  and  feel  confident  of  stepping on higher rungs on their own legs shedding the  crutches.  Pushing the  protection  of  reservation beyond  the primary level betrays the bigwigs’ desire to keep the  crippled  crippled  for  ever…….   Any  reservation,  apart  from being sustainable on the constitutional anvil, must  also  be  reasonable  to  be  permissible.  In  assessing  the  reasonability,  one  of  the  factors  to  be  taken  into  consideration  would  be  —  whether  the  character  and  quantum  of  reservation  would  stall  or  accelerate  achieving  the  ultimate  goal  of  excellence  enabling  the  nation  constantly  rising  to  higher  levels.  In  the  era  of  globalisation, where the nation as a whole has to compete  with  other  nations  of  the  world  so  as  to  survive,  excellence cannot be given an unreasonable  go-by and  certainly not compromised in its entirety…...”

12)  In Union of India vs. R. Rajeshwaran and Another,  

(2003) 9 SCC 294, direction was sought for to apply the  

rule of reservation to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled  

Tribes in respect of those seats which are set apart for All-

10

India pool in MBBS/BDS list.  In the present context, the  

following conclusion is relevant:-

“9. In Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab this Court held that  Article 16(4) of the Constitution confers a discretion and  does not create any constitutional duty and obligation.  Language  of  Article  15(4)  is  identical  and  the  view  in  Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Gian Prakash v.  K.S.  Jagannathan and  Superintending  Engineer,  Public   Health v. Kuldeep Singh that a mandamus can be issued  either to provide for reservation or for relaxation is not  correct  and  runs  counter  to  judgments  of  earlier  Constitution  Benches  and,  therefore,  these  two  judgments cannot be held to be laying down the correct  law. In these circumstances, neither the respondent in  the present case could have sought for a direction nor the  High Court could have granted the same. 10.  Hence, we allow the writ appeal transferred to this  Court and set aside order made in the writ petition.  The  appeal also shall stand disposed of accordingly.”

13)   The  principle  behind  Article  15(4)  is  that  a  

preferential  treatment  can  be  given  validly  when  the  

socially and educationally backward classes need it.  This  

article enables the State Government to make provisions  

for upliftment of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes  

including reservation of seats for admission to educational  

institutions.  It was also held that Article 15(4) is not an  

exception  but  only  makes  a  special  application  of  the  

principle of  reasonable classification.   Article  15(4)  does  

not make any mandatory provision for reservation and the  

11

power  to  make  reservation  under  Article  15(4)  is  

discretionary  and  no  writ  can  be  issued  to  effect  

reservation.  Such special provision may be made not only  

by the Legislature but also by the Executive.

14)   Learned  counsel  for  the  appellants  relying  on  the  

Constitution Bench decision of this Court in  Dr. Preeti  

Srivastava and Another vs.  State of M.P. and Others,  

(1999) 7 SCC 120, submitted that when it is permissible  

to  prescribe  a  lower  minimum  percentage  of  qualifying  

marks for the reserved category candidates, as compared  

to the general category candidates, it is incumbent on the  

part  of  the  State  Government  to  prescribe  certain  

percentage  for  SC/ST  candidates  even  for  the  Post-

Graduate Courses.  On going through the decision, we are  

unable to accept the said contention.  In para 10 of the  

judgment, this Court has posed the following question for  

consideration:-

“We  have  therefore,  to  consider  whether  for  admission to the postgraduate medical courses, it is  permissible  to  prescribe  a  lower  minimum  

12

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  postgraduate 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  PGMEE can be prescribed for the reserved category”

After discussing relevant aspects and earlier decisions this  

Court concluded:-

“In the premises, we agree with the reasoning and  conclusion in Dr Sadhna Devi v. State of U.P. and we  overrule  the  reasoning  and  conclusions  in  Ajay  Kumar  Singh v.  State  of  Bihar and  Post  Graduate   Institute  of  Medical  Education  &  Research v.  K.L.  Narasimhan. To conclude: 1.  We  have  not  examined  the  question  whether  reservations  are  permissible  at  the  postgraduate  level of medical education.

2.  A  common  entrance  examination  envisaged  under  the  regulations  framed  by  the  Medical  Council of India for postgraduate 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  postgraduate  level  of  medical  education  is  a  question  which  must  be  decided  by  the  Medical  Council  of  India  since  it  affects  the  standards  of  postgraduate 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  

13

the  reserved  category  and  45%  for  the  general  category is not permissible under Article 15(4), the  same being unreasonable at the postgraduate level  and contrary to the public interest.

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

It is clear that first of all in Preeti Srivastava (supra), this  

Court did not examine whether reservation is permissible  

at the Post-Graduate level in Medicine.  It is also clear that  

the  Court  has  dealt  with  only  the  question  as  to  the  

prescribing  lower  minimum  percentage  of  qualifying  

marks for the reserved category candidates at  the Post-

Graduate  Medical  Courses  and  ultimately  it  was  

concluded that the same is permissible, however, insofar  

as medical education is concerned, it must be decided by  

the Medical Council of India.  It is relevant to mention that  

pursuant to the said decision the Medical Council of India  

(‘MCI’ in short) has prescribed minimum qualifying marks  

as 50 per cent for the ‘general category candidates’ and 40  

per cent for the ‘reserved category candidates’.   In such  

14

circumstances, the argument based on Preeti Srivastava  

(supra), by the learned counsel for the appellants is liable  

to be rejected.   

15)  It  is also useful  to refer the judgment in  State of  

Punjab vs.  Dayanand  Medical  College  and  Hospital  

and  Others, (2001)  8  SCC  664, wherein  similar  

contention as projected before us by the counsel for the  

appellants  was  raised.   In  para  10  of  the  judgment  in  

Preeti Srivastava (supra), it was clarified that this Court  

was only paying attention to the question of fixing lower  

minimum  qualifying  marks  for  reserved  category  

candidates.  In the same decision, it was stated that such  

question must be decided by the Medical Council of India,  

since  it  affects  the  standard  of  Post-graduate  medical  

education.  In  State  of  T.N.  and  Another vs.  S.V.  

Bratheep (Minor) and Others, (2004) 4 SCC 513,  this  

Court reiterated the same reasoning as stated in State of  

Punjab (supra).   

15

16)  In  Ajit Singh and Others (II) vs.  State of Punjab  

and Others, (1999) 7 SCC 209,  Constitution Bench of  

this Court in paragraph 28 has held that Article 16(4) is  

only an enabling provision which reads as under:

“On the  face  of  it,  the above language in each of  Articles  16(4)  and  16(4-A)  is  in  the  nature  of  an  enabling  provision  and  it  has  been  so  held  in  judgments rendered by Constitution Benches and in  other cases right from 1963.”

17)  Learned counsel  for  the appellants next  contended  

that, inasmuch as even in All-India Entrance Examination  

for Post-Graduate Courses, the Government of India itself  

has  made  a  provision  for  reservation  for  SC/ST  

candidates, the State of Haryana is bound to follow the  

same  and  issue  appropriate  orders/directions  providing  

reservation  in  the  Post-Graduate  Courses.   He  further  

contended that the prospectus  de hors  any provision for  

reservation is  bad and is  liable  to  be quashed.   In our  

view, this contention is also liable to be rejected.  It is true  

that Government of India itself has made a provision for  

reservation of SC/ST categories.  This was a decision by  

16

the Government of India and it is applicable in respect of  

All-India Entrance Examination for MD/MS/PG Diploma  

and MDS Courses, and reservation for SC/ST candidates  

in All-India quota for PG seats.  However, the same cannot  

automatically be applied in other selections where State  

Governments  have  power  to  regulate.   In  fact,  the  

Government of Haryana, in the counter affidavit before the  

High  Court,  explained  their  position  that  according  to  

them, the matter regarding reservation of seats in the PG  

Courses  has  been  considered  by  the  State  Government  

from time to time and it has been decided that keeping in  

view the recommendations of the Medical Council of India  

and precedents in the other States, reservation of SC/ST  

in PG Courses is neither feasible nor warranted, as there  

is already a reservation of 50 per cent of the total seats in  

MD/MS/PG Diploma and MDS Course in the institutions  

of  the  State  of  Haryana  on  all-India  basis  entrance  

examination, being conducted by AIIMS, New Delhi, and  

that  the  appellants  had  already  availed  the  benefit  of  

17

reservation  of  seats  in  their  qualifying  examination  of  

MBBS/BDS.   They  further  clarified  that  only  the  State  

Government  is  the  Competent  Authority  to  decide  the  

reservation in the State.  The State Government did not  

prescribe  any  reservation  for  SC/ST  and  backward  

classes,  due  to  which  it  was  not  included  in  the  

prospectus.  They also clarified that the petitioners before  

the  High Court  were  on the  wrong impression that  the  

Government of Haryana has already taken a decision to  

make a reservation in admission to MD/MS/PG Diploma  

and MDS Courses for  SC/ST category.   It  was clarified  

that  the Government of  Haryana has never  granted the  

benefit of reservation to SC/ST category in admission to  

MD/MS/PG Diploma and MDS Course.  The Government  

of Haryana, for the first time, considered and decided on  

05.04.1988 that there will be no reservation in admission  

to  PG/Diploma  courses.   Again,  in  their  letter  dated  

01.01.1991, reiterated that Government of Haryana is not  

in  favour  of  reservation  for  SC/ST  categories  in  

18

PG/Degree/Diploma Courses.  Again, by the letter dated  

26.04.2002 reiterated that there will be no reservation for  

SC/ST  candidates  at  Post-Graduate  level  admission  in  

PGIMS, Rohtak.  It is pointed out that since Government  

of Haryana has taken a conscious decision of not to make  

reservation for SC/ST categories in admission at the Post-

Graduate level, such a decision of the Government suffers  

no  infirmity.   The  other  materials  placed  by  the  State  

shows that before taking such a decision, they considered  

the recommendations of the Medical Council of India and  

precedents/decisions in other States and concluded that  

the  reservation  for  SC/ST  categories  in  Post-Graduate  

Degree and Diploma Courses is not feasible in the State.  

Though, even at the Post-Graduate level,  reservation for  

SC/ST/Backward Community is permissible in view of the  

specific  decision  by  the  State  of  Haryana  not  to  have  

reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes at  

the Post-Graduate level, there cannot be any mandamus  

by  this  Court  as  claimed  by  the  appellants.   After  all,  

19

medical education is an important issue which should not  

have any mandatory condition of this nature which may  

give  rise  to  a  situation  against  public  interest  if  so  

interpreted by the State Government as State Government  

is  in  a  better  position  to  determine  the  situation  and  

requirement of that particular State, as mandated by the  

Constitution.

18)  Finally, learned counsel for the appellants, in more  

than one occasion, relied on an order dated 31.01.2007 of  

this  Court  in  Writ  Petition (C)  No.  138 of  2006,  Abhay  

Nath and Others vs. University of Delhi and Others.   

The operative part of the order is as follows:-

“The Additional Solicitor General pointed out that in  the  All  India  quota  of  50%  seats,  if  22.5%  are  reserved for SC/ST students, it would be difficult for  the State to give the entire percentage to reservation  out of the 50% seats left for them to be filled up.  It  is  equally  difficult  for  the  DGHS  to  have  entire  22.5%  reservation  out  of  the  50%  of  the  seats  allotted  to  be  admitted  in  the  All  India  Entrance  Examination.   Therefore,  it  is  suggested  that  the  Union  of  India  has  decided  to  provide  22.5%  reservation for SC/ST candidates in All India Quota  from the academic year 2007-2008 onwards.  The  Union  of  India  seeks  clarification  of  the  order  passed in Budhi Prakash Sharma vs. Union of India  

20

passed on 28.02.2005, to the effect that 50% seats  for  All  India  Quota  shall  exclude  the  reservation.  We review that order and make it clear that the 50%  of  the  seats to be filled up by All  India Entrance  Examination  shall  include  the  reservation  to  be  provided for  SC/ST students.   To that  extent  the  order passed on 28.02.2005 is clarified.”

The above order makes it clear that the directions of this  

Court  are  applicable  to  admission  on  All-India  basis  

whereas  the  same  have  no  bearing  on  the  admissions  

meant for State quota.  Inasmuch as the Government of  

Haryana has not prescribed any reservation for the Post-

Graduate Courses,  neither  the University  nor any other  

authority  be  blamed  for  approving  and  publishing  the  

prospectus which does not contain reservation for Post-

Graduate Courses. The clarificatory order of this Court in  

Abhay  Nath  (supra),  is  applicable  for  the  Institutes  

managed/run by the Central Government and unless the  

State  Government  takes  any  decision  for  granting  

reservation in MD/MS/PG Diploma and MDS Courses, it  

cannot be made applicable.  As the State Government is  

competent to make the reservation to a particular class or  

21

category, until it is decided by the State, as being a Policy  

matter,  there  cannot  be  any  direction  to  provide  

reservation  at  the  PG level.   The  State  of  Haryana has  

explained  that  reservation  in  under-Graduate  Medical  

Courses is being provided strictly as per their policy.  The  

Post-Graduate  Degree/Diploma  in  medical  education  is  

governed by Medical Council.  Even, the Medical Council  

of India has not followed strict adherence to the rule of  

reservation policy in admission for SC/ST category at the  

Post-Graduate level.   

19) As  stated  earlier,  Article  15(4)  is  an  enabling  

provision and the State Government is the best judge to  

grant reservation for SC/ST/Backward Class categories at  

Post-Graduate level in admission and the decision of the  

State of Haryana not to make any provision for reservation  

at  the  Post-Graduate  level  suffers  no  infirmity.   In  our  

view, every State can take its own decision with regard to  

reservation  depending  on  various  factors.   Since  the  

Government of Haryana has decided to grant reservation  

22

for  SC/ST  categories/Backward  Class  candidates  in  

admission at MBBS level i.e. under graduate level, then it  

does not mean that it is bound to grant reservation at the  

Post-Graduate  level  also.   As  stated  earlier,  the  State  

Government,  in  more  than  one  communication,  has  

conveyed its decision that it is not in favour of reservation  

for SC/ST/Backward Classes at Post-Graduate level.  In  

such  circumstances,  Court  cannot  issue  mandamus  

against their decision and their prospectus also cannot be  

faulted with for not providing reservation in Post-Graduate  

Courses.  However, we make it clear that irrespective of  

above conclusion, State of Haryana is free to reconsider its  

earlier  decision,  if  they  so  desire,  and  circumstances  

warrant in the future years.   

20) In  the  result,  the  Civil  Appeal  as  well  as  the  Writ  

Petition fail and the same are dismissed accordingly with  

no order as to costs.    

.….…….……………………CJI.                                                   (K.G. BALAKRISHNAN)

23

...…………………………………J.                   (P. SATHASIVAM)  

...…………………………………J.           (J.M. PANCHAL)  

NEW DELHI; DECEMBER 2, 2009.   

24