Holding

The Court held that the admission rules, framed pursuant to Supreme Court decisions and consistent with Article 14, cannot be disturbed, and therefore dismissed the petitioners' claims.

Summary

The petitioners, Delhi residents who completed their MBBS outside the National Capital Territory, sought admission to postgraduate medical courses at Delhi University under the 75% state‑quota seats. They argued that the university's rule, which reserves 25% of seats for an all‑India quota and the remaining 75% for Delhi residents, discriminated against them in violation of Article 14. The respondents contended that the admission scheme was framed in accordance with earlier Supreme Court decisions and that the petitioners, having studied under the 15% all‑India quota, were not eligible for the state‑quota seats. The Court examined the relevant precedents and held that the admission rules, having been formulated pursuant to Supreme Court judgments and mindful of local needs, could not be disturbed. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with the selection process and dismissed the petitions.

Issues considered

Whether Delhi University's admission rules, which allocate 75% of postgraduate medical seats to the state quota and 25% to an all‑India quota, violate Article 14 when applied to students who studied outside Delhi under the 15% all‑India quota.
Whether the scheme of admission, framed in accordance with Supreme Court precedents, can be interfered with by this Court.
Whether a uniform admission criterion across states is mandated by Article 14.

Subjects

AdmissionPostgraduate medical coursesReservationState quotaAll‑India quotaArticle 14UniformityHigher educationJudicial review

Judgment

"""' ABHINAV AGGARWAL AND ANR. A
'* v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 8, 2001

[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] B
~
Education-Higher Education-

Post graduate medical courses-Admission-Criteria-Institutional
preference-Legality of-Delhi University-25 per cent of seats filled on all- c
India basis against which any student from anywhere in the count1y could
compete and get selected-Remaining 75 per cent of seats reserved for State
quota--Petitioners hailing from Delhi having qualified MBBS course from
colleges situated in different parts of the country-Admission sought in post
graduate medical courses in Delhi University under the 75% State quota-
Denial of-Contention that petitioners had studied outside their home State D
under the 15 per cent all-India quota-Tenability of-Admission rules having
been fiwned pursuant to decisions of Supreme Court rendered bearing in
mind the scope of Article 14 of the Constitution vis-a-vis the local needs-
Held, it is not permissible or appropriate to disturb the admission rules or
to interfere with the process of selection being made to consider the cases E
of the petitioners-Uniformity in the matter of admission to post graduate
:- medical courses-Attainment of-Held, wrought with many complexities-In
the instant case process of selection not interfered with.

Petitioners who hail from Delhi completed MBBS course from colleges
~
situate in different parts of the country. They sought admission to post F
graduate medical courses in Delhi University under the 75% Delhi University
quota seats. However, they were held not entitled to seek admission against
the 75% reserved State quota as they had studied outside their home State
• under the 15% all-India quota. They were, thus, denied the opportunity to
compete in the entrance examination held by the Delhi University for
admission to post graduate courses. Aggrieved, they have filed the present G

* petition.

On behalf of the petitioners, it was contended that different criteria
adopted by different States encroached upon the right of the students who had
qualified MBBS by passing necessary entrance examinations and who
939
H
940 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 1 S.C.R.

A migrated to other States from their home State; that such students did not ,,._
get an opportunity for advancement of their career in their home State as ~
they were debarred from admission on account of different criteria, either on
account of reservation, on the ground of residential requirement in the
migrating State or on the ground of institutional preference adopted by the
State or Union Territories or Universities; that the students who were
B classmates of the petitioner were eligible to pursue post graduate courses in
their respective home States but the petitioner in their own homt State were
being denied the opportunity to compete in the entrance examination to seek --4
admission in post graduate courses; _that they got admission in M.B.B.S.
after passing the entrance examination on the basis of all-India entrance
c examination conducted by the respective institutions and, therefore, negation
of opportunity to the petitioners to compete in the entrance examination was
in gross violation of the fundamental rights as guaranteed under Article 14
of the Constitution; that the criteria set out by different States to fill in the
75% State quota to admission to post graduate medical courses did not
achieve any uniformity; that to strike a balance between the students who
D continued studies in their home States and those students who had pursued
· studies in other Universities or States who were invidiously discriminated
should be allowed to compete in their home States where they had rules to
pursue their post graduate studies.

On behalf of the Delhi University, it was contended that in respect of
E
Delhi University reservation was made in respect of 25% of the seats which
were kept to be filled by on all-India basis against which any student from
anywhere in the country was entitled to compete and get selected and only the
...
remaining 75% were reserved as permitted by Supreme Court in some
previously decided cases; that petitioners having studied outside their home
F State under the 15% all-India quota were not entitled to seek admission in
Delhi University against the 75% Delhi University Seats; that admission in
the institutions in which the petitioners did their M.B.B.S. Course was not
made on all-India entrance examination being conducted by the Central Board
of Secondary Education on behalf of the Director General of Health Services.

G
Dismissing the petitions, the Court

HELD: I. When the admission rules have been framed pursuant to the
...
decisions of the Supreme Court and those decisions have been rendered
bearing in mind the scope of Article 14 of the Constitution vis-a-vis the local
H needs, it is not permissible or appropriate to disturb that scheme. It would be
ABHINAV AGGARWAL v. U.0.1. [RAJENDRA BABU, .I.) 941

ideal for the States/authorities concerned to achieve uniformity by adopting A
appropriate criteria in the matter of admission to post graduate courses in
medical colleges. However, the question of attaining uniformity in the matter
of admission in post graduate medical courses in all medical colleges is ·
wrought with many complexities. In view of the law declared by Supreme
Court and directions issued pursuant thereto, schemes have been framed by B
respondents' institutions. Hence, the process of selection being made to
consider the cases of the petitioners cannot be interfered with.
(946-H; 947-A; 946-G; F; 947-A(

State of VIiar Pradesh v. Vineet Singh. 120001 7 SCC 262, applied.

Dr. Parag Gupta v. University of Delhi and others, 120001 5 SCC 684, C
relied on.

Dr. Pradeep Jain and others v. Union of India and others, 11984 j 3
SCR 942; Dr. Jagadish Saran v. Union of India, 11980] 2 SCC 768; State of
Rajasthan v. Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta, 11989] 1 SCC 93; Anant Madaan v.
State of Haryana, (1995] 2 SCC 135; Dr. Dinesh Kumar v. Moti/al Nehru D
Medical College, (1986] 3 SCC 727 and Sanjay Ahlawat v. Maharishi
Dayanand University, (1995( 2 SCC 762, referred to.

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) No. 5 of2001.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) E

With

W.P.(C) No. 13/200 I, SLP (C) No. I 04/200 I, W.P. (C) No. 38/2001 and
W.P.(C) No. 50/200 I.
F
Yogeshwar Prasad, S. Balakrishnan, P.P. Rao, Dinesh Dwivedi, Anis
Suhrawardy, Sandeep Garg, S. Mehdi Imam, M.C. Dhingra, Ms. Rachna Gupta,
M.K.D. Namboodiry, Subramonium Prasad, Sree Narian Jha, Ashok K.
Srivastava, A. Mariarputham, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Anurag D. Mathur, Ajay K.
Agrawal, Sanjay R. Hegde and Satya Mitra for the appearing parties.
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

RAJENDRA BABU, J. The petitioners in these cases claim to hail from
Delhi and have completed MBBS course from colleges situate in different
parts of the country. They state that they passed entrance examination held
by the concerned Governments of the States in which the colleges situate or H
942 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 1 S.C.R.

A the entrance test conducted by such colleges; that the classmates of the
petitioners who studied in Delhi and continued their study in the medical
courses also in one or the other medical college have an advantage over the
petitioners as they are being considered for admission to PG medical courses
in Delhi University by providing for institutional preference. The Delhi
B University has prescribec! the conditions for admission as follows :-

"Requirement for admission to Post-Graduate Degree Courses : (A)
I. Candidate must have completed satisfactorily one year of compulsory
rotating internship after passing the final M.B.B.S. examination from
the University of Delhi on or before 31.3.200 I and must have full
registration with the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India.
c
2. The candidate who has passed the MBBS examination from a
University other than Delhi University, having been allotted to the
same under the 15% All India Quota by the Director General of Health
Services would also be eligible if he/she is permanent resident of the
National Capital Territory of Delhi, (The proviso has been incorporated
D
as per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Parag Gupta's
case and is subject to further order of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court) and
if he/she also fulfils all the following three conditions :-

(i) He/She has passed I 0+2 examination from National Capital
Territory of Delhi.
E
(ii) He/She is a permanent resident of the National Capital Territory
of Delhi.
(iii) He/She has passed the MBBS examination from a University
other than Delhi University, having been allotted to the same
F under the 15% All India Quota by the Director General of Health
Services if he/she is permanent resident of the National Capital
Territory of Delhi.
Note : (i) A candidate must produce any one of the following
documents to prove his/her permanent residence in the National
G Capital Territory of Delhi :
(a) Ration Card (b) Voters Identity Card

(c ) Passport (d) Driving license
(ii) The Candidate must submit documentary proof for serial no. (i)
H &(iii)."
AB HIN AV AGGARWAL v. U.0.1. [RAJENDRA BABU, .I.] 943
"There are similar rules in the State ofUttar Pradesh and the contentions A
-~ raised by some of the petitioners who hail from Uttar Pradesh are identical.

After decision in Dr. Parag Gupta v. University of Delhi & Ors., [2000]
5 SCC 684, various States have adopted different criteria of reservation which
may be tabulated as follows :-
B
I. Delhi Institutional Residence ( 15%)

2. Gujarat Institutional

3. Maharashtra Institutional

4. U.P. Institutional Residence (15%)
c
5. West Bengal Institutional

6. Assam Residence

7. Goa Residence
D

8. Karnataka Residence

;... 9. Tamil Nadu Residence

I 0. Haryana Institutional or Residence E

11. H.P. Institutional or Residence

12. Kerala Institutional or Residence

13. M.P. Institutional or Residence F
14. Orissa Institutional or Residence

15. Punjap Institutional or Residence

16. Rajasthan Institutional or Residence G
17. Bihar Institutional or Residence

18. Pondicherry 25% all-India quota+ 37.5% institutional
of available seats+ 37.5% of available
seats open.
H
944 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001) I S.C.R.

A The contention put forth before us is that different criteria adopted by
different States encroach upon the right of the students who have qualified
MBBS by passing necessary entrance examinations and who migrated to
...
other States from their home State do not get an opportunity for advancement
of their career in their home State as they are debarred from admission on
account of different criteria, either on account of reservation, on the ground
B of residential requirement in the migrating State or on the ground of
institutional preference adopted by the State or Union Territories or
Universities. Though in a small area the States of Uttar Pradesh and Delhi
relax the condition of institutional preference by making provision for residence
in respect of 15% all-India quota in which none of the petitioners fall. The
c tabulation would disclose that some States allow admission to postgraduate
medical courses only to the residents, whereas some States allow admission
to postgraduate medical courses to such students who have qualified from
any medical college even from outside the home States and some other States
allow admission to postgraduate medical courses only to those students who
have qualified from the medical colleges situate within the State or University.
D Delhi University provides admission to postgraduate medical courses to
students who have qualified MBBS from Delhi University and also to such
students who have qualified MBBS from outside Delhi under the 15% all-
India scheme as formulated in Dr. Dinesh Kumar's case. The petitioners who
have qualified from different colleges are denied the opportunity to compete
E in the entrance examination held by the Delhi University for admission to
postgraduate courses, while the State of Rajasthan, Haryana and Punjab allow
admissions also to residents who have qualified MBBS from any medical
college for which admission is conducted on the basis of all-India entrance
examination or otherwise. Thus the students who are classmates of the
petitioners are eligible to pursue postgraduate courses in their respective
F home States but the petitioners in their own home State are being denied the
opportunity to compete in the entrance examination to seek admission in
postgr.iduate courses in universities in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh. Their claim
is that they got admission in MBBS after passing the entrance examination
on the basis of all-India en'.~ance examination conducted by the respective
G institutions and, therefore, negation of opportunity to the petitioners to
compete in the entrance examination is in gross violation of the fundamental
rights as guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. The contention put
forth is that the criteria set out by different States to fill in the 75% State quota
+
to admission to postgraduate medical courses does not achieve any uniformity.
Strong reliance is placed on Dr. Parag Gupta's case in this regard and it is
H contended that to strike a balance between the students who continued
ABHINAV AGGARWAL v. U.0.1. (RAJENDRA BABU. J.] 945
-~ studies in their home States and those students who had pursued studies in A
other universities or States who are invidiously discriminated should be
allowed to compete in their home States where they have rules to pursue their
postgraduate studies.

In reply, the contention put forth is that in respect of Delhi University
the scheme of admission is what was considered in Dr. Jagdish Saran's case B
_._ and reservation is made in respect of 25% of the seats which are kept to be
filled by on all-India basis against which any student from anywhere in the
country is entitled to compete and get selected and only the remaining 75%
are reserved as permitted by this Court.in Dr. Pradeep Jain's case read with
Dr. Dinesh Kumar's case. When the directions given by this Court in Dr. C
Parag Gupta's case were sought to be applied in a general manner to all
students who had studied outside the State in medical colleges and sought
for admission in their home State, it was noticed by this Court that such a
course was not permissible and this position was clarified in Vineet Singh 's
case. The petitioners having studied outside their home States under the 15%
all-India quota are not entitled to seek admission in Delhi University against D
the 75% per cent Delhi University seats by invoking the decision in Dr. Parag
Gupta's case. The institutions in which the petitioners did their MBBS course
are not covered by the judgment or scheme formulated in Dr. Pradeep Jain's
case and admission in the said institutions is not made on all-India entrance
examination being conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education
on behalfofthe Director General of Health Services pursuant to the judgment E
and directions of this Court in Dr. Pardeep Jain's case. Therefore, it is
submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to seek admission in postgraduate
medical courses in Delhi University under the 75% Delhi University quota
seats.

After considering the cases in Dr. Jagadish Saran v. Union of India,
F
[1980] 2 SCC 768; State of Rajasthan v. Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta, [1989] l SCC
93; Anant Madaan v. State of Haryana, [1995] 2 SCC 135; Dr. Dinesh Kumar
v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, [1986] 3 SCC 727 and Sanjay Ahlawat v.
Maharishi Dayanand University, [1995] 2 SCC 762, we stated in Dr. Parag
Gupta's case, as follows :- G
"These decisions lead us to the following principles: though
universitywise preference is permissible, collegewise preference is
not. 70% to 80% reservation has been sustained even where the
students from different universities appear at a common entrance test.
After the decisions in Dr. Pradeep Jain and followed by Dinesh Kumar H
946 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [200 I] I S.C.R.

A the practice all over the couniry was to make 15% of the seats in
MBBS course and 25% of the seats in postgraduate medical courses
in all the government medical colleges in the country available on the
basis of merit alone. Students from anywhere in the country can
compete for these seats which are allotted on the basis of an all-India
test conducted by the designated authority. The rule of preference on
B the basis of domicile or requirement of residence is not bad provided
it is within reasonable limits and does not result in reserving more 4.
than the aforesaid percentage. Where the students from different
universities appear at a common entrance test the rule ofuniversitywise
preference loses its relevance. The explanations of difference in
C evaluation, standards of education and syllabus lose much of their
significance when admission is based upon a common entrance test.
At the same time, the right of the State Government to regulate the
process of admission and their desire to provide for their own students
should also be accorded due deference. In the light of these principles,
we examine the facts arising in the present case."
D
In a way the decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Vineet Singh, [2000]
7 SCC 262, covers the matter in dispute. In that case extending the principle
in Dr. Parag Gupta's case, the High Court of Allahabad had directed to allow
taking entrance examination in respect of all students who had migrated to
E other States and sought for admission in their home States. This Court
explained that the decision in Dr. Parag Gupta's case was applicable only to
those selected pursuant to 15% All India quota provided under a scheme
framed in Dinesh Kumar's case. It is submitted that in these cases independent
of Dr. Parag Gupta's case, the Petitioners' case has to be examined as to
whether the Petitioners are discriminated against other students in their home
F States. The question of attaining uniformity in the matter of admission in PG
medical courses in all medical colleges is wrought with many complexities.
Students who have studied outside Delhi are also eligible to the 25% All India
quota provided under the scheme for admission to PG medical courses. In
view of the law declared by this Court and directions issued pursuant thereto,
G schemes have been framed by respondents' institutions. We reiterate that it
would be ideal for the States/authorities concerned to achieve uniformity by
adopting appropriate criteria in the matter of admission to PG courses in
medical colleges.

When the admission rules have been framed pursuant to the decisions
H of this Court to which we have adverted to and those decisions have been
ABHJNAV AGGARWAL v. U.0.1. [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 947
rendered bearing in· mind the scope of Article 14 of the Constitution vis-a-vis A
the local needs, we do not think, it is permissible or appropriate for us to
disturb that scheme. Hence, we decline to interfere with the process of
selection being made to consider the cases of the petitioners.

The petitions, therefore, stand dismissed.
B
M.P. Petitions dismissed.

•