DR. KRITI LAKHINA AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

                        [2018] 3 S.C.R. 517                              517


              DR. KRITI LAKHINA AND OTHERS                               A
                                  v.
             STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS
                (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 204 of 2018)
                           APRIL 4, 2018                                 B
      [ARUN MISHRA AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]
      Education/Educational Institutions: Medical education –
Admission to Post Graduate courses – Clause 4 of the Information
Bulletin issued by Directorate of Medical Education, Government
                                                                         C
of Karnataka and Karnataka Examinations Authority, Government
of Karnataka – Imposition of condition of domicile for 10 years in
Karnataka, for admission to MD, MS and Post-Graduate courses
in respect of 50% government quota seats in Medical/Dental
Colleges in the State of Karnataka – Writ petition by doctors who
did their MBBS/BDS Courses from State of Karnataka and have              D
cleared the NEET-PG, 2018 examination, aspiring for admission to
Post-Graduate Courses in Karnataka, seeking quashing of clause
4 as invalid – Held: Clause 4.1 of the Information Bulletin (PGET-
2018) is invalid to the extent it disqualifies petitioners-doctors and
similarly situated candidates who completed their MBBS/BDS Degree
                                                                         E
Courses from colleges situated in Karnataka from competing for
admission to Post-Graduate Medical/Dental Courses in Government
Medical Colleges and against government quota seats in non-
governmental institutions – Issuance of direction to the State of
Karnataka and other respondents to suitably modify and amend
the Information Bulletin – Constitution of India – Art. 32.              F
      Vishal Goyal and Others v. State of Karnataka and
      Others (2014) 11 SCC 456 – relied on.
      Dr. Pradeep Jain and Others v. Union of India and
      Others (1984) 3 SCC 654 : [1984] 3 SCR 942; Saurabh
      Chaudri and Others v. Union of India and Others (2003)             G
      11 SCC 146 : [2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 152; Magan
      Mehrotra and Others v. Union of India and Others
      (2003) 11 SCC 186; Nikhil Himthani v. State of
      Uttarakhand and Others (2013) 10 SCC 237 : [2013]
                                                                         H
                                 517
518           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2018] 3 S.C.R.


A          14 SCR 23; D.P. Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat and
           Another AIR 1955 SC 334 : [1955] 1 SCR 1215;
           Kumari N. Vasundara v. State of Mysore and Another
           (1971) 2 SCC 22 : [1971] Suppl. SCR 381; Minor P.
           Rajendran v. State of Madras and Others [1968] 2 SCR
           786; Minor A. Peeriakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu
B
           and Others (1971) 1 SCC 38 : [1971] 2 SCR 430;
           D. N. Chanchala v. The State of Mysore and Others
           (1971) 2 SCC 293 : [1971] Suppl SCR 608;
           Dr. Jagadish Saran and others v. Union of India (1980)
           2 SCC 768 : [1980] 2 SCR 831; Fraz Naseem v. Union
C          of India (2014) 11 SCC 453 – referred to.
                            Case Law Reference
      [1984] 3 SCR 942               referred to               Para 7
      [2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 152        referred to               Para 7
D     (2003) 11 SCC 186              referred to               Para 7
      [2013] 14 SCR 23               referred to               Para 7
      [1955] 1 SCR 1215              referred to               Para 8
      [1971] Suppl. SCR 381          referred to               Para 11
E     [1968] 2 SCR 786               referred to               Para 11
      [1971] 2 SCR 430               referred to               Para 11
      [1971] Suppl SCR 608           referred to               Para 11
      [1980] 2 SCR 831               referred to               Para 11
F
      (2014) 11 SCC 453              referred to               Para 13
      (2014) 11 SCC 456              relied on                 Para 14
            CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
      204 of 2018.
G          Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
           Amarendra Sharan, Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sr. Advs., Amit
      Kumar, Shaurya Sahay, V. N. Raghupathy, Chinmay Deshpande,
      Ms. Ruchita Hiramath, Parikshit Angadi, Geet Ahuja, Gaurav Sharma,

H
        DR. KRITI LAKHINA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF                              519
                 KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

Dhawal Mohan, Prateek Bhatia, Ms. Mansi Sharma, H. Chandra Sekhar,            A
Ms. Rekha Patil, Ranjay Kr. Dubey, Ms. Priya Puri, Swatantra Rai,
Ms. Vijaya Laxmi, Advs. for the appearing parties.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
       UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. 1. This petition under Article 32 of
the Constitution of India has been filed by 44 Doctors who did their          B
MBBS/BDS Courses from State of Karnataka and have cleared the
NEET-PG, 2018 examination with high merit position and are aspiring
for admission to Post-Graduate Courses in Karnataka. The principal
prayer in the writ petition seeks issuance of an appropriate writ, order or
direction quashing Clause 4 of the Information Bulletin jointly issued by     C
Directorate of Medical Education, Government of Karnataka and
Karnataka Examinations Authority, Government of Karnataka,
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively.
       2. The Information Bulletin in question lays down, inter alia,
conditions for admission to Post-Graduate Medical and Dental Courses          D
in respect of government quota seats in Medical/Dental Colleges in State
of Karnataka and was published on the website on 10.03.2018. Relevant
portion of Clause 4 of this Information Bulletin deals with eligibility
conditions in following terms:
      “4. ELIGIBILITY                                                         E
      4.1 ELIGIBILITY for Government seats (G) &GMP seats:
          A candidate who fulfills the following criteria is eligible to
      appear for the online seat allotment process, namely:-
      • He/she is a citizen of India, who is of Karnataka Origin and
                                                                              F
      has studied MBBS or BDS degree in a Medical or Dental College
      situated in Karnataka or outside Karnataka and affiliated to any
      University established by law in India recognized by Medical
      Council of India or Dental Council of India and Government of
      India and has qualified in the NEET (National Eligibility-cum-
      Entrance Test) for admission to post graduate medical or dental         G
      degree/diploma courses.
      Note: Children for the purpose of the rule means natural born
      son/daughter and not adopted son/daughter and not grandson/grand
      daughter.
                                                                              H
520               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2018] 3 S.C.R.


A              Explanation: A candidate of Karnataka Origin: means, a
               candidate found eligible under clause A or B below.

                                         (Clause A)
               i) A candidate who has studied and passed in one or more
B              Government or Government recognized, educational institutions
               located in the State of Karnataka for a minimum period of TEN
               academic years as on the 31st March, 2018, commencing for 1st
               standard to MBBS/BDS and must have appeared and passed either
               SSLC/10th standard or 2nd PUC/12th standard examination from
               Karnataka State. In case of the candidate who has taken more
C              than one year to pass a class or standard, the year of academic
               study is counted as one year only (Document to be produced)
                                         (Clause B)
               ii) The candidate should have studied and passed 1st and 2nd year
D              Pre-University Examination or 11th or 12th standard examination
               within the State of Karnataka from an Educational Institution run
               or recognized by the State Government or MBBS/BDS from a
               professional educational institution located in Karnataka and that
               either of the parents must have studied/resided in Karnataka for
E              a minimum period of 10 years. (Documents to be produced)”
             3. It is submitted by the petitioners that this Information Bulletin
      issued by Respondent Nos.2 and 3, to the extent Clause 4.1 thereof
      imposes a condition of domicile for admission to MD, MS and Post-
      Graduate Diploma seats in State of Karnataka is invalid and
F     unconstitutional. According to the petitioners said Clause 4.1 arbitrarily
      and illegally deprives the petitioners who had obtained MBBS/BDS
      Degrees from the Colleges situated in Karnataka from competing for
      admission to Post-Graduate Medical/Dental Curses in Government
      Medical Colleges and against Government quota seats in non-
      Governmental institutions. Reliance has been placed on the Judgment
G     of this Court in Vishal Goyal and Others v. State of Karnataka and
      Others1 to submit that the controversy is no longer res-integra and the
      view taken in Vishal Goyal (supra) ought to have been adhered to by
      Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 while issuing the Bulletin.
      1
          (2014) 11 SCC 456
H
      DR. KRITI LAKHINA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF                                   521
    KARNATAKA AND OTHERS [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

       4. Since the matter involves urgency and the career prospects of          A
the petitioners and similarly situated candidates are in question, the matter
was taken up for hearing immediately. State of Karnataka entered
appearance and has filed its reply submitting inter alia, that under the
eligibility conditions, only candidates of Karnataka origin could compete
for admission to 50% government seats in government colleges and
                                                                                 B
against government quota seats in private colleges. The reply further
stated that these eligibility conditions were stipulated in order to ensure
that the State’s requirement of skilled human resource is met with and
that the Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulation 2000 (‘2000
Regulations’ for short) of Medical Council of India do not prohibit the
State from stipulating eligibility conditions for Post-Graduate courses.         C
According to certain statistics given in the reply, candidates of Karnataka
origin numbering 4093 candidates would be competing for admission to
1828 seats while 10003 candidates of origin other than Karnataka which
number includes 1263 candidates from outside the State who had studied
and completed MBBS/BDS Courses from the colleges situated in
                                                                                 D
Karnataka would be competing for admission to 2301 seats. The reply
further submitted that the State was within its right to formulate eligibility
conditions to give preference to candidates who were most likely to
serve the State.
       5. In its reply, Medical Council of India (“MCI”, for short)
submitted that the Information Bulletin (PGET-2014) issued by the State          E
of Karnataka in the year 2014 contained similar eligibility criteria as
provided in Clause 4.1 of the present Information Bulletin (PGET-2018)
which was challenged in the case of Vishal Goyal (supra) and that this
Court held the preference based on domicile to be violative of the principle
of equality and liable to be set aside. After referring to various Judgments     F
of this Court the reply set out the emerging legal position as perceived
by MCI in following terms:-
       “a. Reservation of seats at the post graduate level has been in
       principle disapproved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court;
       b. Reservation of seats at the post graduate level on the basis of        G
       domicile/ residence/ place of origin is impermissible and cannot
       be done by the State;
       c. Institutional reservation/ preference for reserving seats at the
       post graduate level is permissible subject to an outer limit of 50%;
                                                                                 H
522             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2018] 3 S.C.R.


A            d. Institutional reservation/ preference can be invalidated on the
             ground that the same is violative of the principle of equality
             enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India;
             e. There cannot be any domicile requirement imposed by the State
             while implementing institutional reservation;
B            f. Institutional reservation/ preference disguised as domicile
             reservation has been held to be invalid and violative of Article 14
             of the Constitution.”
             6. We heard Mr. Amrendra Sharan, learned Senior Advocate for
      the petitioners, Mr. Basavaprabhu S. Patil, learned Senior Advocate for
C     State of Karnataka and official respondents and Mr. Gaurav Sharma,
      learned Advocate for MCI.
             7. Mr. Sharan, learned Senior Advocate relied upon the decisions
      of this Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain and Others v. Union of India and
      Others2, Saurabh Chaudri and Others v. Union of India and Others3,
D     Magan Mehrotra and Others v. Union of India and Others4, Nikhil
      Himthani v. State of Uttarakhand and Others5 and finally on the decision
      of this Court in Vishal Goyal (supra). In his submission these decisions
      as culminated in the decision in Vishal Goyal (supra) fully conclude the
      matter. These submissions were supported by Mr. Gaurav Sharma,
E     learned Advocate for the MCI.
            8. Mr. Patil, learned Senior Advocate, on the other hand relied
      upon the decision of this Court in D.P. Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat
      and Another6 and on paragraphs 6, 13 and 16 of the decision in Dr.
      Pradeep Jain (supra), in support of his submissions.
F            9. After conclusion of hearing, written submissions were filed by
      the parties. In their written submissions, petitioners inter alia submitted
      that Clause 4.1 of the Information Bulletin in question was violative of
      Article 14 of the Constitution and was opposed to Regulation 9 of 2000
      Regulations. A chart was appended showing similarity between Clause
      2 of PGET-2014 which was subject matter of the decision in Vishal
G
      Goyal (supra) and the present Clause 4.1. In its written submissions
      2
        (1984) 3 SCC 654 paras 20, 22 and 24
      3
        (2003) 11 SCC 146 paras 29, 69 and 70
      4
        (2003)11 SCC 186 paras 3 and 8
      5
        (2013) 10 SCC 237 para 3
H     6
        AIR 1955 SC 334 = 1955 (1) SCR 1215
      DR. KRITI LAKHINA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF                                    523
    KARNATAKA AND OTHERS [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

MCI also relied upon 2000 Regulations and specially Regulation 9 thereof.         A
It was further submitted:
      “It is important to note that there are primarily two types of courses
      at post-graduate level i.e. post-graduate diploma courses and post
      graduate degree courses. On a close reading of Regulation 9(IV)
      and 9(VII) the distinction between post graduate diploma course             B
      and post-graduate degree course is apparent. It needs to be
      emphasized that as per Regulation 9 and the amendments made
      therein from time to time, reservation of seats for in-service
      candidates is only permissible in post-graduate diploma courses.
      Further, there is no provision under the IMC Act, 1956 and the
      Regulations framed thereunder which permits reservation in post-            C
      graduate degree courses.”
       10. State of Karnataka in its written submissions sought to justify
the action but did not explain how the decision in Vishal Goyal (supra)
would not be applicable in the present case. It was however submitted:-
                                                                                  D
      “The State of Karnataka has 11615 Public Health Care Institutions
      managed by the Health and Family Department of the State. It is
      the objective of the State to provide secondary and tertiary care
      services too within the reach of common public. This objective is
      sought to be fulfilled by setting up of new State of the art institutions
      and strengthen the existing institutions through provisions of              E
      equipments, up-gradation of infrastructure and recruitment of
      skilled man power. Today, there are 3435 posts of specialists
      about which 1312 are vacant, underlying the deficiency of skilled
      medical professional to address the health care needs of the State.
      In the medical and dental educational institutions out of 2700 posts        F
      of specialists, 517 are vacant highlighting the deficiency of skilled
      medical teachers to address the medical teachers’ needs of the
      State. 16 out of 39 medical colleges in Karnataka are run by the
      State. There are 970 senior resident posts in these medical
      colleges, 524 of which are vacant. The State has to ensure that
      these posts are filled up at any given point of time as stipulated by       G
      Medical Council of India. If these remain vacant for want of
      specialist, de-recognition looms large with the risk of jeopardizing
      the future of both undergraduate and post-graduate candidates’
      studying in these colleges. The posts of senior resident need to
      be filled by fresh post graduates passing out every year. There is          H
524             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 3 S.C.R.


A           a huge requirement of specialists to run these institutions. Hence
            the State Government has to ensure availability of adequate
            number of post graduates to fill these posts.”
            11. The decision of this Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra) had
      considered the Judgments rendered in Kumari N. Vasundara v. State
B     of Mysore and Another7, Minor P. Rajendran v. State of Madras
      and Others8, Minor A. Peeriakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu and
      Others9 and D.N. Chanchala v. The State of Mysore and Others10 as
      well as the decision in Dr. Jagadish Saran and others v. Union of
      India11 and finally concluded:
C           “…. We unreservedly condemn wholesale reservation made by
            some of the State Government on the basis of institutional
            preference for students who have passed the qualifying
            examination held by the university or the State excluding all
            students not satisfying this requirement, regardless of merit. We
            declare such wholesale reservation to be unconstitutional and void
D           as being in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.”
             12. During the course of its Judgment in Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra)
      this Court also considered the impact of submissions from the concerned
      States as advanced in various Judgments that were considered in
      paragraphs 14 to 16, which submissions were similar to the ones advanced
E     before us by the State either in the reply or in the written submissions.
      Para 22 of the decision in Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra) finally summed up
      the matter as regards post graduate courses as under:-
            “22. ….. The Medical Education Review Committee has also
            expressed the opinion that “all admissions to the post-graduate
F           courses in any institution should be open to candidates on an all-
            India basis and there should be no restriction regarding domicile
            in the State/Union Territory in which the institution is located”. So
            also in the policy statement filed by the learned Attorney General,
            the Government of India has categorically expressed the view
G           that:

      7
        (1971) Suppl. SCR 381 = (1971) 2 SCC 22
      8
        1968 (2) SCR 786
      9
        1971 (2) SCR 430 = (1971) 1 SCC 38 = AIR 1971 SC 2303
      10
         (1971) Suppl SCR 608 = (1971) 2 SCC 293
      11
H        (1980) 2 SCC 768= 1980 (2) SCR 831
      DR. KRITI LAKHINA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF                                 525
    KARNATAKA AND OTHERS [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

          “So far as admission to the institutions of post-graduate colleges   A
          and special professional colleges is concerned, it should be
          entirely on the basis of all-India merit subject to constitutional
          reservations in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
          Tribes.”
            We are therefore of the view that so far as admissions to          B
      post-graduate courses, such as MS, MD and the like are
      concerned, it would be eminently desirable not to provide for any
      reservation based on residence requirement within the State or
      on institutional preference. But, having regard to broader
      considerations of equality of opportunity and institutional continuity
      in education which has its own importance and value, we would            C
      direct that though residence requirement within the State shall not
      be a ground for reservation in admissions to post-graduate courses,
      a certain percentage of seats may in the present circumstances,
      be reserved on the basis of institutional preference in the sense
      that a student who has passed MBBS course from a medical                 D
      college or university, may be given preference for admission to
      the post-graduate course in the same medical college or university
      but such reservation on the basis of institutional preference should
      not in any event exceed 50 per cent of the total number of open
      seats available for admission to the post-graduate course…..”
                                                                               E
       13. In Vishal Goyal (supra) the challenge was to the validity of
Clause 2.1 of the Information Bulletin for PGET-2014. The eligibility
conditions as laid down in said Clause 2.1 are identical to those stipulated
in the present clause, namely, Clause 4.1 of PGET-2018. Paragraphs 4,
10 to 13 and 15 of the decision in Vishal Goyal (supra) were as under:
                                                                               F
      “4. The said Clause 2.1 of the two Information Bulletins, which is
      identically worded for admissions to postgraduate medical and
      postgraduate dental courses, is extracted hereinbelow:
          “2.1. No candidate shall be admitted to a professional
          educational institution unless the candidate possesses the           G
          following qualifications or eligibility to appear for the entrance
          test namely:
            (a) He is a citizen of India who is of Karnataka origin and
            has studied MBBS/BDS degree in a medical/dental college
            situated in Karnataka or outside Karnataka, and affiliated to
                                                                               H
526      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 3 S.C.R.


A          any university established by law in India recognised by
           Medical Council of India and the Government of India.
           Explanation.—‘A candidate of Karnataka Origin’ means a
           candidate found eligible under clause (i) or (ii) below, namely:
      (i) A candidate who has studied and passed in one or more
B     government recognised educational institutions located in the State
      of Karnataka for a minimum period of TEN academic years as
      on the last date fixed for the submission of application form,
      commencing from 1st standard to MBBS/BDS and must have
      appeared and passed either SSLC/10th standard or 2nd PUC/
C     12th standard examination from Karnataka State. In case of the
      candidate who has taken more than one year to pass a class or
      standard, the years of academic study is counted as one year
      only.
      Documents to be produced, namely:
D     (1) SSLC or 10th standard marks card.
      (2) 2nd PUC or 12th standard marks card of the candidate.
      (3) Candidates Study Certificate: A study certificate from the Head
      of educational institution where he or she had studied. Further,
      School Study Certificates should be countersigned by the Block
E
      Education Officer (BEO)/Deputy Director of Public Instructions
      (DDPI) concerned COMPULSORILY in the proforma
      prescribed.
      (4) Qualifying degree certificate and all phases marks card.
F     (5) Domicile certificate issued by the Tahsildar in the prescribed
      proforma (Annexure I); and if claiming reservation benefits: Caste/
      Caste Income Certificate issued by Tahsildar concerned, for SC/
      ST in Form D, Category 1 in Form E and 2-A, 2-B, 3-A and 3-B
      in Form F.
G     (6) MCI/DCI State Council Registration Certificate.
      (7) Attempt Certificate issued by the college Principal concerned.
      (ii) The candidate should have studied and passed 1st and 2nd
      years Pre-University Examination or 11th and 12th standard
      examination within the State of Karnataka from an educational
H
  DR. KRITI LAKHINA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF                             527
KARNATAKA AND OTHERS [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

 institution run or recognised by the State Government or MBBS/        A
 BDS from a professional educational institution located in
 Karnataka and that either of the parents should have studied in
 Karnataka for a minimum period of 10 years.
 Documents to be produced, namely:
 (1) SSLC or 10th standard marks card.                                 B

 (2) 2nd PUC or 12th standard marks card of the candidate.
 (3) Qualifying degree certificate and all phases marks card.
 (4) Domicile certificate issued by the Tahsildar in the prescribed
 proforma (Annexure I).                                                C
 (5) If claiming reservation benefits: Caste/Caste Income
 Certificate issued by Tahsildar concerned, for SC/ST in Form D,
 Category 1 in Form E and 2-A, 2-B, 3-A and 3-B in Form F; and
 (6) (a) A study certificate for either of the parent having studied
                                                                       D
 for at least 10 years in Karnataka from the Head of the educational
 institution where he/she had studied. Further, school study
 certificates should be countersigned by the Block Educational
 Officer (BEO)/Deputy Director of Public Instructions (DDPI)
 concerned COMPULSORILY in the proforma prescribed
 (Annexure III).                                                       E
 (b) The candidates study certificate for having studied both 1st
 and 2nd PUC or 11th and 12th standard in Karnataka issued by
 the Head of the educational institution.
 (7) MCI/DCI State Council Registration Certificate.
                                                                       F
 (8) Attempt Certificate issued by the college Principal concerned.”
  …………
 10. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel
 for the parties and we find that the basis of the judgment of this
 Court in Pradeep Jain case is Article 14 of the Constitution which    G
 guarantees to every person equality before the law and equal
 protection of the laws. As explained by this Court in paras 12 and
 13 of the judgment in Nikhil Himthani v. State of Uttarakhand:
 (SCC pp. 244-45)
                                                                       H
528     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 3 S.C.R.


A        “12. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees to every person
         equality before law and equal protection of laws. In Jagadish
         Saran v. Union of India, Krishna Iyer, J., writing the judgment
         on behalf of the three Judges referring to Article 14 of the
         Constitution held that equality of opportunity for every person
         in the country is the constitutional guarantee and therefore merit
B
         must be the test for selecting candidates, particularly in the
         higher levels of education like postgraduate medical courses,
         such as MD. In the language of Krishna Iyer, J.: (SCC pp.
         778-79, para 23)

C        ‘23. 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 all the highest scales of speciality
         where the best skill or talent, must be handpicked by selecting
         according to capability. At the level of PhD, MD, or levels of
D        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 expanded
         upon a important lose their potency. Here equality, measured
         by matching excellence, has more meaning and cannot be
E        diluted much without grave risk.’
         13. Relying on the aforesaid reasons in Jagadish Saran v.
         Union of India, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Pradeep
         Jain case held that excellence cannot be compromised by any
         other consideration for the purpose of admission to postgraduate
F        medical courses such as MD/MS and the like because that
         would be detrimental to the interests of the nation and therefore
         reservation based on residential requirement in the State will
         affect the right to equality of opportunity under Article 14 of
         the Constitution….”

G           In Magan Mehrotra v. Union of India and Saurabh
      Chaudri v. Union of India also, this Court has approved the
      aforesaid view in Pradeep Jain case that excellence cannot be
      compromised by any other consideration for the purpose of
      admission to postgraduate medical courses such as MD/MS and

H
  DR. KRITI LAKHINA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF                                529
KARNATAKA AND OTHERS [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

 the like because that would be detrimental to the interests of the       A
 nation and will affect the right to equality of opportunity under
 Article 14 of the Constitution.
 11. Mr Mariarputham is right that in Saurabh Chaudri v. Union
 of India this Court has held that institutional preference can be
 given by a State, but in the aforesaid decision of Saurabh Chaudri,      B
 it has also been held that decision of the State to give institutional
 preference can be invalidated by the court in the event it is shown
 that the decision of the State is ultra vires the right to equality
 under Article 14 of the Constitution. When we examine sub-clause
 (a) of Clause 2.1 of the two Information Bulletins, we find that
 the expression “A candidate of Karnataka origin” who only is             C
 eligible to appear for entrance test has been so defined as to exclude
 a candidate who has studied MBBS or BDS in an institution in the
 State of Karnataka but who does not satisfy the other requirements
 of sub-clause (a) of Clause 2.1 of the Information Bulletin for
 PGET-2014. Thus, the institutional preference sought to be given         D
 by sub-clause (a) of Clause 2.1 of the Information Bulletin for
 PGET-2014 is clearly contrary to the judgment of this Court in
 Pradeep Jain case.
 12. To quote from para 22 of the judgment in Pradeep Jain case:
 (SCC p. 693)                                                             E
    “22. … a certain percentage of seats may in the present
    circumstances, be reserved on the basis of institutional
    preference in the sense that a student who has passed MBBS
    course from a medical college or university, may be given
    preference for admission to the postgraduate course in the            F
    same medical college or university….”
 13. Sub-clause (a) of Clause 2.1 of the two Information Bulletins
 does not actually give institutional preference to students who
 have passed MBBS or BDS from colleges or universities in the
 State of Karnataka, but makes some of them ineligible to take the        G
 entrance test for admission to postgraduate medical or dental
 courses in the State of Karnataka to which the Information Bulletins
 apply.
 …………
                                                                          H
530               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2018] 3 S.C.R.


A              15. In the result, we allow the writ petitions, declare sub-clause
               (a) of Clause 2.1 of the two Information Bulletins for postgraduate
               medical and dental courses for PGET-2014 as ultra vires Article
               14 of the Constitution and null and void. The respondent will now
               publish fresh Information Bulletins and do the admissions to the
               postgraduate medical and dental courses in the government
B
               colleges as well as the State quota of the private colleges in
               accordance with the law by the end of June 2014 on the basis of
               the results of the entrance test already held. We also order that
               the general time schedule for counselling and admissions to
               postgraduate medical courses in our order dated 14-3-2014 in Fraz
C              Naseem v. Union of India12 will not apply to such admissions in
               the State of Karnataka for the academic year 2014-2015. Similarly,
               the general time schedule for counselling and admissions for
               postgraduate dental courses will not apply to such admissions in
               the State of Karnataka. The parties shall bear their own costs.”
D            14. Paragraphs 13 and 15 of the Judgment of this Court in Vishal
      Goyal (supra) are clear that the Information Bulletin for PGET-2014 did
      not actually give institutional preference to students who had passed
      MBBS/BDS from Colleges or universities in State of Karnataka but
      made some of them ineligible to take the entrance test for admission to
E     Post-Graduate Medical or Dental Course in State of Karnataka and that
      said clause was held ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution and declared
      null and void. The relevant clause under consideration, namely, Clause
      4.1 of the Information Bulletin for PGET-2018 is identical in substance
      to the one that was considered in Vishal Goyal (supra). The matter is
      thus no longer res-integra and is completely covered by the decision in
F     Vishal Goyal (supra). In the circumstances, we respectfully follow the
      decision of this Court in Vishal Goyal (supra) and hold Clause 4.1 of the
      Information Bulletin (PGET-2018) which was published on the website
      on 10.03.2018 to be invalid to the extent it disqualifies petitioners and
      similarly situated candidates who completed their MBBS/BDS Degree
      Courses from colleges situated in Karnataka from competing for
G
      admission to Post-Graduate Medical/Dental Courses in Government
      Medical Colleges and against government quota seats in non-
      governmental institutions.

      12
           (2014) 11 SCC 453
H
       DR. KRITI LAKHINA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF                                 531
     KARNATAKA AND OTHERS [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

      15. This writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. State       A
of Karnataka and Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to suitably modify
and amend the Information Bulletin in question in keeping with the
observations made in this Judgment and re-publish the Calendar of Events
in terms of this Judgment and complete the entire process within the
timeline stipulated by the concerned regulatory authorities.
                                                                                B

Nidhi Jain                                             Writ Petition allowed.




                                                                                C




                                                                                D




                                                                                E




                                                                                F




                                                                                G




                                                                                H