In AIIMS Students Union v. AIIMS three meritorious students aspiring admission in AIIMS challenged the admission to post graduate course in AIIMS. The system devised by AIIMS was institutional reservation of 33% (to students of AIIMS) coupled with 50% reservation disciplinewise and percentage system which ensured admission to all students graduating from AIIMS. It was said that there was no justification for such a reservation and it was violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution and hence liable to be struck down. In 1995 an All India Examination for admission to post graduate course in AIIMS was held. Any medical graduate who had secured minimum of 55% marks in MBBS examination was eligible to participate in the entrance test. The three writ petitioners who were qualified from college/universities other than AIIMS participated in the test. AIIMS students who had secured marks as low as 14% or 19% or 22% in the entrance test got admission to P.G. Course, while SC or ST candidates could not get admission in their 15% or 7% quota in-spite of having obtained marks far higher than in-house candidates of the institute. This reservation was introduced on account of demand made by the students union which resorted to agitation and dharnas. The petitioner 1 secure rank 10 and marks 68.667% and petitioner 2 got rank 12 with 66.667% but none of the two got the seat of his choice. But AIIMS students with marks 52% and 46% and ranked beyond 459 and 900 got P.G. seats in such discipline. The High Court struck down 33% quota carved out in favour of the AIIMS in-house candidates both at the entry level as also disciplinewise. In appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the High Court and held that such an institutional reservation in the absence of any relevant evidence of justification is unconstitutional and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution and, therefore, liable to be struck down. The impugned reservation, failed to satisfy the twin test under Art. 14. Having taken a common entrance test there was no intelligible differential which distinguished the institutional candidates from others, and there was no nexus sought to be achieved with objects of AIIMS by such reservation. The Court cannot sustain such a reservation. Giving a man his due, one of the basics of justice, finds reflected in right to equality. Mediocracy over meritocracy cuts at the roots of justice and jurts right to equality. The court gave the following directions: (1) Unconstitutional reservation for AIIMS is ultra vires the Constitution, hence struck down; (2) By way of institutional preference the institutional candidates, i.e., graduates of institutes shall be preferred for admission against 25% seats available to open category candidates and not 25% seats discipline-wise of total postgraduate seats for AIIMS understaduates as suggested by the Academic Committee; (3) "A uniform minimum cut off 50% marks in the entrance test should be eligibility for all candiddates' be adopted with further rider (i) that the last student to qualify for admission as AIIMS graduate cannot be one who has secured marks a the common entrance P.G. test less than the one secured by any onther candidate belonging to a reserved ategory enjoying constitutional protection such as SC/ST, etc. and (ii) that the margin of difference between the qualifying marks for institute's candidate shall not be too wide with the one for general category candidate; (4) Any seat left vacant out of the preference seats for AIIMS graduates consequent upon the above directions shall be open to general category candidates; (5) The preference for institute candidates to the extent of 25% as abovesaid shall remain confined to admission in P.G. course. There shall be no further reservation in the matter of allotment of seats disciplinewise which allotment shall be made solely on the basis of merit out of a common list drawn up pursuant to the result of common entrance test placing the selected candidates strictly as per ranking. However, the Court said that the judgment shall not have the effect of invalidating admission already made. These directions shall operate for future. The court made important observation that reservation other than constitutional reservation is subversion of fraternity, unity, integrity and dignity of individual. Fundamental duties cast on citizens are relevant in determining of reasonableness of reservation. Extending reservation beyond under graduate medical education is keeping the crippled, cripples for ever. This is the mandate of Preamble to Arts. 14, 41, 47, 51A and 226 of the Constitution. Institutional reservation is not supported by the Constitution. 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. Speaking about the fundamental duties enshrined in Art. 51A, the court said :
"Fundamental duties though not enforceable yet provide a valuable guide and aid to interpretation of the constitutional and legal issues. In case of doubt or choice people's wish as manifested through Art. 51A can serve as a guide not only for resolving the issues, but also for constructing or moulding the relief to be given by the courts. Constitutional enactment of fundamental duties, if it has to have any meaning, must be used by courts as a tool to tab - even a taboo - on State action drifing away from constitutional values."
Weightage of marks to inservice candidates in admission to P.G. Medical Course habing served in remote/difficult areas - In State of U.P v. Dinesh Singh Chauhan, the Court held that Regulation 9, clause (iv), Third Proviso of the Medical Council of India Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations 2000 framed under Section 33 of Medical Council Act, 1956 giving the weightage of 10% marks to inservice candidates for each year of service upto 30% of the marks obtained in NEET having served in notified remote and/or difficult area in State for one year in PG. Medical Degree Course was not unreasonable or irrational. The provision was in the larger public interest and not merely to provide institutional preference or for that matter to create separate channel, much less reservation. Had it been a case of giving 10% marks enbloc of the total marks irrestpective of the marks obtained by the eligible in-service candidates in NEET, it would have been a diggerent matter. The provision was in the larger public interest.
Admission to M.B.B.S/B.D.S seats - Requirement of education in the State - In Rajdeep Ghosh v. State of Assam, Rule 3(1)(c) of the Medical Colleges and Dental Colleges of Assam (Regulations of Admission into 1st Year M.B.B.S/B.D.S. Courses) Rules, 2017 inter alia, provided that a candidate must study in all the classes from Class VII to XII in the State of Assam and must pass the qualifying examination or its equivalent examination from any Institute sitated in the State of Assam. The Rule was challenged in the writ petition before the Supreme Court on the ground that the classification made was hostile one and was not based on any intelligible differentia.The relaxation was given to wards of State Government employees or Central Government employees or to employees of Corporation/Agency/Instrumentality under Government of Assam or Central Government, whether on deputation or transfer on regular posting from obtaining education from Class VII to XII for period his/her father or mother was working outside State. No relaxation was given to the employees of other State Government but residents of Assam. The Court held --
It is permissible to lay down essential educational requirements, residential/domicile in a particular State in respect of basic courses of M.B.B.S/B.D.S. The object sought to be achieved is that incumbent must serve State concerned and for emancipation of educational standard of people in a particular State.
The exclusion from relaxation to the residents of the State of Assam but in the employment of other State or in the private employment in other States cannot be said to be irrational and arbitrary as the wards of such employees would form a totally different calss bexause such wards are not likely to come back to State of Assam. The argument that some of the students may obtain admission in other States for the purpose of better coaching standards on a different footing. They beling to the affluent class and it is not nexessary that they should be adjusted in State quota seat; they can stake their claim for All India Quota seats for the State of Assam. They can staake their claim with respect to open seats witin the State of Assam. The exlusion is not total for them.
Wholesole reservation on the basis of domicile or institutional preference - In Pradeep jain v. union of India, a judgement of far-reaching imporatance, the Supreme Court held the wholesole reservation (all seats) of seats in the MBBS and BDS Courses made by State Government of Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh and Union Territory of Delhi on the basis of "domicile" or residence within the State or on the basis of institutional preference for students who had passed the qualifying examination excluding all students not satisfying the residence requirement, regardless of merit, was unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Delivering the majority judgment Bhagwati, J., held - The admission in these courses, such as MBBS, MS, MD etc. should be made primarily on the basis of merit and not on the basis of residential requirement or institutional preference. The equality of opportunity for wmployment cannot be made dependent upon where a citizen resides. The object of any valid scheme for admission must be to select the best candidates for admission to medical college. Any departure made from this rule must be justified on the touchstone of Article 14. Merit cannot be measured in terms of marks alone, but human sympathies are equally important. The hear is as much a factor as the head in assessing the social value of a member of the medical profession. Merit consists of a high degree of intelligence coupled with a keen and incisive mind, sound knowledge of the basic subjects and infinite capacity for hard work and also calls for a sense of social commitment and dedication to the cause of the poor. The departure from the rule of merit-based selection can be justified only on the grounds of regions claim of backwardness and State need to provide medical service to its people. But what should be the quantum of reservation based on residential requirement? This, in a particular case the Court held, would depend upon the social and econimic factors in the context of educational opportunities but in no case it should exceed more than 70 percent for MBBS. The Indian Medical Council was directed to review after every three years this outer limit of 70 percent and also whether it needed to be reduced.
0 Comments