Holding

States and universities must allow All‑India quota MBBS graduates to compete for postgraduate seats in their home state irrespective of domicile or institutional preference, provided reservation does not exceed the prescribed percentages.

Summary

The petitioners, MBBS graduates admitted under the 15% All‑India quota, challenged the differing reservation criteria adopted by various states for postgraduate medical seats, arguing that they were denied admission both in the state where they studied (Tamil Nadu) and their home state (Delhi). The Supreme Court examined earlier precedents on domicile and institutional preferences and held that while a reasonable domicile‑based reservation is permissible, it should not disadvantage students who migrated under the All‑India quota. The Court directed that states and universities must allow such students to appear for the postgraduate entrance examination of their home state irrespective of any preference rule, thereby promoting uniformity and preventing an unfair advantage. The judgment affirmed the validity of the 15% MBBS and 25% postgraduate All‑India merit seats and emphasized that any reservation must stay within the prescribed percentages. The petitions were partly allowed, permitting the petitioners to participate in the Delhi University counselling.

Issues considered

Whether state‑wise domicile or institutional preference for postgraduate medical seats violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether MBBS graduates admitted under the 15% All‑India quota can be denied admission in both the state of study and their home state for postgraduate courses.
Whether the rule of residence preference is permissible within reasonable limits.
Whether the existing reservation percentages (15% MBBS, 25% postgraduate) are constitutionally valid.

Subjects

Medical educationPostgraduate admissionReservationDomicile preferenceInstitutional preferenceAll India quotaArticle 14EqualityMeritSupreme Court

Judgment

- ... DR. PARAGGUPTAETC.
v.
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS.
A

APRIL 26, 2000

[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.] B

Education-Higher Education-Admission to Postgraduate Medical
Courses : Petitioner, a resident of Delhi admitted to MBBS Course in Tamil
Nadu on the basis ofAll-India competition under the 15% quota-Reservation
of 75% seats at State level for admission to postgraduate courses and 25% c
seats to be filled on the basis of All-India Competition-Petitioner completed
MBBS fmm Tamil Nadu-In Tamil Nadu 75% seats reserved for residents of
Tamil Nadu itself-In Delhi 75% seats reserved for candidates completing
graduate medical course fmm Delhi itself-Petitioner denied advantage of
reservation in both the States-Entitled to admission only on the basis of All
India competition limited to 25% seats-Held : Rule of residence preference
D
on the basis of damicile or requirement of residence not bad in law pmvided
it is within reasonable limits-Where students fmm different universities
appear at a common entrance test, the rule of university-wise preference loses
it relevance-Inclusion of students of home State leaving their State for
pursuing graduate medical courses in other States would be disadvantageous E
to the students of home State only to a smaller degree-But such inclusion will
bring uniformity all ave~- the country and will remove disadvantage existing
for students pursuing graduate courses fmm other States.

In India there are 32 States and Union Territories which provide for F
__... medical education and at the graduate level (MBBS) excepting Jammu &
Kashmir and Andhra Pradesh, all the States and Union Territories pool
15 % of seats to be filled from common entrance examination on all India
basis. Rest of the 85 % seats are filled by holding entrance examination at
the State level. In 15% seats filled on all India basis students from one
State have to migrate to other State allotted to them for pursuing MBBS G
course. Out of the above mentioned 32 States and Union Territories, apart
from Jammu & Kashmir and Andhra Pradesh, provide postgraduate medi-
cal courses on pooling 25 % seats to be filled on all India basis by a
common entrance examination conducted by AIIMS. All MilBS qualified
students can compete for admission without any restriction in this 25 % H
633
~-

634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) 3 S.C.R.
A quota and for filling the remaining 75% seats in post graduate courses the
States or Union Territories have adopted different criteria for admission.
Some States give institutional preference while some States give residential
preference. The writ petitioner was born and brought up in Delhi and
studied MBBS course in Tamil Nadu having been allotted to Tamil Nadu
B under the 15 % quota of seats being filled up on All India basis. The case of
the petitioner is that neither he is being given preference in the State of
Tamil Nadu for admission to post graduate course because the State of
Tamil Nadu gives preference on residential basis nor he is being given
preference in Delhi as preference in Delhi is given on institutional basis.
Thus, the petitioner is only entitled to compete on 25 % seats reserved on
c all India basis.
\

The petitioner contended that the different criteria adopted by dif-
ferent State encroach upon the rights of the students who have qualified
MBBS under the 15 % all India quota who invariably migrate to other
D States from their home-States and do not get any opportunity for advance-
- ment of their caree,r in their home-State as they are debarred from admis-
sion 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 Territo-
E ries or Universities.

Partly allowing the writ petitions, this Court

. HELD : 1. Presently, the practice all over the country is to make 15 %
of the seats in the MBBS course and 25 % of the seats in postgraduate medical
F courses in all the government 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 the basis of domicile or
requirement of residence is not bad provided it is within reasonable limits
G and does not result in reserving more than the aforesaid percentage. Where
the students from different universities appear at a common ~ntrance test
the rule of university-wise preference loses its relevance. The explanation
of difference in evaluation, standards of education and syllabus lose much
of their significance wh~n admission is based upon a common entrance test.
H At the same time, the right of the State Government to regulate the process
DR. P. GUPTA ETC. v. UNNERSITY OF DELHI 635

/
.Ii-
of admission and their desire to provide for own students should also be A
accorded due-defence. [638-F-H; 639-A]

Jadgish Saran (Dr.) v. Union ofIndia, [1980] 2 SCC 768; Pradeep Jain
(Dr.) v. Union of India, [1984] 3 SCC 654; Dinesh Kumar (Dr.) (II) v. Motilal
Nehru College, [1986] 3 SCC 727; State of Rajasthan v. Dr. Ashok Kumar
Gupta, [1989] 1 SCC 93; Anant Madaan v. State of Haryana, [1995} 2 SCC B
135; D.P. Joshi v. State of M.P., [1995] 1SCR1215 and Sanjay Ahlawat v.
~
Maharishi Dayanand University, [1995] 2 SCC 762, relied on.

2. The gi;ievance of the petitioners, if examined closely, is very lim-
ited and that is these students who have gone out of their home-States to
pursue studies elsewhere on all India quota should be allowed to compete
c
in their home-State where they have their roots, to pursue post graduate
studies. There does not seem to be any unfair advantage in this regard
inasmuch as all students have to take common entrance test with reference
~
to their home state and face stiff competition. The students in home State if
_at all are put to disadvantage only to a small degree of taking competition D
with respect to very few students falling in that category of the petitioners.
On the other hand, inclusion of such ·students will made at broad based as
well as striking a balance. Thus, if students of the house State are also
allowed to participate in the entrance test, there will be uniformity all over
.+ the country and small disadvantage removed with respect to a small sec- E
tion of student community does not disturb the balance and advantage
derived achieves uniformity. On this basis the States/Union Territories/
Universities should allow students who had pursued courses outside their
home State to participate in the entrance examination held in their home
State irrespective of any kind of preference that may have been adopted
for selection to postgraduate medical courses. [642-D-G; 643-C] F
y
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 12 of 1999
Etc. Etc.

Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
G
Mukul Rohtagi, Additional Solicitor General, D.D. Thakur, Subodh

• Markandeya, Parag Tripathi, Joseph Vellapally, M.C. Dhingra, Mrs. Rashmi
Vmnani, R.K. Vmnani, Vijay Gupta, Navin Prakash, N.K. Agarwal, M.A.
Krishna Moorthy, Rajiv Nanda, D.S. Mehra, Ms. Varuna Bhandari, Tara
Chandra Sharma, G. Prakash, Mrs. Kirti Renu Mishra, Mrs. Hemantika Wahi, H
636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 3 S.C.R.
A Brijender Chaher, Ashok Mathur, V.G. Pragasam, Sakesh Kumar, S.K.
Agnihotri, Mrs. Jayshree Anand, Karan Sharma, G. Sivabalamurugan, Rajiv
Dutta, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Ms. Chitra Markandeya, Alok Gupta, Ms. Feroze
Bano, A. Mariarputham, Aruna Mathur, Anurag D. Mathur, K.H. Nobin
Singh, .Anil Shrivastav, B.B. Singh, Ms. Sandhya Goswami, K.R. Nagaraja,
B Vijay Hansaria, Sunil Jain, Ms. A. Subhashini, S.V. Deshpande, Kavin Gulati,
Ms. Sunita Mukherjee, A.T.M. Sampath, V. Balaji, P.N. Ramalingam, R.S.
Suri, Ms. lndu Malhotra, D.B. Vohra, Maninder Singh, Ms. Kavita Wadia and
Manik Dogra for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
RAJENDRA BABU, J. Students who had qualified for medical degree
course got admission under the All India quota of 15 per cent and migrated
to different States to pursue the course of study and are now seeking
admission into Postgraduate courses. Their grievance is that the States_or
concerned authorities have framed admission rules in such a way that they
D can neither pursue their studies in the migrated State nor in their home State.

Before we address to the controversy we may briefly survey a few
decided cases. In Jagadish Saran (Dr.) V. Union of India, [1980] 2 sec 768,
the admission rules prescribed by the Delhi University provided that 70% of
E the seats at the post graduate level in the medical courses shall be reserved
for students who had obtained their MBBS degree from the same university
and the remaining 30% seats were open to all, including the graduates of
Delhi. After considering the decisions rendered till that day, this Court took
the view that "university-wise preferential treatment may still be consistent -
with the rule of equality of opportunity where it is calculated to correct an
F
imbalance or handicap and permit equality in the larger sense. If University-
wise classification for post graduate medical education is shown to be relevant
and reasonable and the differentia has a nexus the larger goal of equalisation
of education opportunities the vice of discrimination may not invalidate the
rule." The admission to post graduate medical course are determined on the
G basis of a common entrance test inasmuch as the students of Delhi University
are drawn from all over India and are not confined to the Delhi region. The
rule was held to be not invidious and recognised the desires of the students
for institutional continuity in education and recognised as one of the grounds
justifying the reservation. The argument of excessive reservation in that case
H could not be considered on the ground of inadequacy of material on record.
DR. P. GUPTA ETC. v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 637
In Pradeep Jain (Dr.) v. Union of India, [1984] 3 SCC 654, this Court A
opined that wholesale reservation made by some of the States on the basis
of 'domicile' or requirement of residence within the State or on the basis of
institutional preference for students who have passed the qualifying exami-
nation held by the university or the State and excluding the students not
satisfying the said requirement, regardless of merit, is unconstitutional and
B
being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Declaring that anyone from
anywhere in the country, irrespective of his language, religion, place of birth
or residence, is entitled to be afforded equal chance of admission to any
secalar educational course anywhere in the country, but, at the same time,
recognising the factual position as to inequalities existing in the society and
the need for affinnative action on that account, this Court directed that certain c
percentage of seats in the MBBS course and post graduate medical courses
in all the government colleges in the State should be set apart for being filled
purely on the basis of merit and students from all over the country were
entitled to compete for these seats and the admission was directed to be based
upon merit and merit alone. On further consideration of the matter, t11e D
percentage was fixed at 15% to students level and 25% P.G. level in a later
decision in Dinesh Kumar (Dr.) (II) v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, [1986]
3 SCC 727. It was, however, made clear that so far as super-specialties are
concerned there should be no reservation either on the basis of institutional
preference or otl1erwise and that admissions should be granted purely on merit
E
determined on all-India basis. In State of Rajasthan v. Dr. Ashok Kumar
Gupta, [1989] 1 SCC 93, the preference provided for admission to post
graduate medical courses in the colleges affiliated to the Rajasthan University
should be based upon the merit detennined at the competitive examination,
however, providing for 5 increasing marks if the applicant passed the final
MBBS examination from the Rajasthan University and another 5 marks if the F
applicant passed the final MBBS examination from the same institution for
which selections are being made was considered. This Court noticed that all
the medical colleges in tl1e State of Rajasthan located at Jaipur, Bikaner,
Udaipur, Jodhpur and Ajmer were not similarly situated and the students who
have passed their examination from Jaipur Medical College in the matter of G
admission to post graduate medical courses in that medical college brought

• about an extremely unfair and unjust result. It was pointed out that by virtue
of rule of preference students with far less marks would steal a march over
a student securing higher marks only because he has passed his MBBS
examination from the same college.
H
638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 3 S.C.R.
A In Anant Madaan v. State of Haryana, [1995] 2 SCC 135, challenge -..
was to a rule made by the Government of Haryana providing that in the matter
of admission to MBBS and BDS courses, 80% of the seats shall be reserved
for candidates who have studied 10th, 11th and 12th standards as regular
candidates in recognised institutions in the State of Haryana. This challenge
was levelled by students who had passed their 10th, 11th and 12th exami-
B
nations from schools and colleges outside the State of Haryana but whose
parents were either residing in or domiciled in the State of Haryana. The
challenge to the rule was repelled following the decision of this Court in D.P.
Joshi v. State of M.P., [1955] 1 SCR 1215, and Jagadish Saran (supra), Dr.
Pradeep Jain (supra) and Dinesh Kumar (supra) treating the rule providing
c for preference on the ground of domicile or residence to be valid.

In Sanjay Ahlawat v. Maharishi Dayanand University, 1995 (2) SCC
762, the challenge before the Court was in respect of a rule providing for
admission to post graduate medical courses, preference being given to local
D students by adding ten extra marks. The validity of the rule was sustained
on the basis that it was not a case of college wise or university wise
reservation but it is a rule providing for preference on the basis of domicile.

These decisions lead us to the following principles.

E Though university wise preference is pennissible, college wise prefer-
ence 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 (supra) and followed by Dinesh Kumar
(supra) the practice all over the country was to make 15% of the seats in
MBBS course and 25% of the seats in post graduate medical courses in all
F
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 ofan-all-India test conducted by the designated
authority. The rule of preference on the basis of domicile or requirement of
residence is not bad provided it is within reasonable limits.and does not result
G in reserving more than the aforesaid percentage. Where the students from
different universities appear at a common entrance test the rule of university-
wise preference loses its relevance. The explanation of difference in evalu-
ation, standards of education and syllabus lose much of their significance
when admission is based upon a common entrance test. At the same time,
H the right of the State Government to regulate the process of admission and
, --i-

DR. P. GUPTA ETC. v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 639
their desire to provide for their own students should also be accorded due A
y 1
deference. In the light of these principles, we examine the facts arising in lhe
present case.

There are 32 States and Union Territories which provide for medical
education. At the graduate level (M.B.B.S.), except Jarnmu & Kashmir and
Andhra Pradesh, all the States and Union Territories pool 15% seats to be B
filled from common entrance examination on all-India basis, rest of the 85%
of seats are filled by holding entrance examination at the State level. In 15%
seats filled on All-India basis students from one State have to migrate to other
State allotted to them for pursuing MBBS course. 18 States and Union
Territories, apart from Jammu & Kashmir and Andhra Pradesh, provide post c
.... graduate medical courses on pooling 25% seats to be filled on all-India basis
by a common entrance examination conducted by AIIMS. All MBBS quali-
fied students can compete for admission without any restriction in this 25%
> quota and for filling the remaining 75% seats in post graduate courses the
States or Union Territories have adopted different criteria for admission. Some D
states have adopted institutional preference, while some others residential
preference. Various States having different criteria of reservation may be
taOled as follows :-

State Nature of Preference
1. UP Institutional E
2. Delhi Institutional
3. Maharashtra Institutional
4. Gujarat Institutional
5. West Bengal Institutional
F
,,.. 6. Assam Residence
7. Tamil Nadu Residence
8. Goa Residence
9. Karnataka Residence
10. Madhya Pradesh Institutional OR Residence G
11. Hacyana Institutional OR Residence
) 12. Punjab Institutional OR Residence
13. Rajasthan Institutional OR Residence
14. Kerala Institutional OR Residence
15. Orissa Institutional OR Residence H
640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 3 S.C.R.
A 16. Himachal Pradesh Institutional OR Residence
17. · Bihar Institutional OR Residence
18. Pondicheny 25% All India quota + 37.5 %
institutional of available
seats + 27.5% of available
B seats open for all

The contention put forth before us is that the different criteria adopted
by different states encroach upon the rights of the students who have qualified
MBBS under the 15% all-India quota who invariably migrate to other States
from their home-State and do not get any opportunity for advancement of
c their career in their home-State as they are debarred for 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.

D Writ Petition (Civil) No. 12 of 1999 filed by Dr. Parag Gupta may be
taken as an illustrative case. The plea put forward by the writ petitioner in
this case is that he is born and brought up in Delhi and, therefore, he should
be permitted to participate in the entrance examination being conducted by
the Delhi University and should be considered for <i.drnission by Delhi
University against the 75% seats. The plea put forth is that he studied the
E
MBBS course in Tamil Nadu having been allotted to Tamil Nadu under the
15% quota of seats being filled up on all-India basis by the Director General
Health Service pursuant to the scheme framed by this Court after the decision
in Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra) and neither he is permitted in Tamil Nadu to
appear in the entrance examination on the ground that he is not a resident
F of that State nor is he allowed to take the entrance examination being
conducted by the Delhi University because he did not study for the last five
years in the Delhi University. On the other hand, the stance of the Delhi
University is that the petitioner can ce1tainly compete for the all-India 25%
of seats earmarked to be filled up on all-India basis from the candidates
G selected and sponsored by the Director General of Health Services, the
remaining 75% having been earmarked for students who have graduated from
Delhi University, he is not entitled to claim admission at all. Like most of
the Universities across the country, even in Delhi University, reservation of
seats other than the seats being filled up on all-India basis is on the basis
of institutional preference, that is, the seats are reserved to be filled up in the
H
DR. P. GUPTA ETC. v. U~VERSITY OF DELHI [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 641
,.
post· graduate medical courses in favour of students who have passed their A
MBBS course from the Delhi University. Irrespective of the place of birth
and having been a resident of Delhi if an applicant is an MBBS graduate of
the Delhi University, he is eligible to be considered for admissiol} against 75%
seats. This Court had upheld the validity of the criteria in view of the peculiar
circumstances arising in Delhi University in Jpgadish Saran (supra), to which B
we have adverted to earlier. This criteria was again considered by a Three
Judge Bench of this Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra) and, it is submitted
that, since the criteria has already been upheld by this Co~ the challenge
to the same is mis-conceived and is not maintainable at all. Inasmuch as the
petitioner is not an MBBS graduate of Delhi University the proper course for
him would be to seek a direction from the State of Tamil Nadu where he was c
a student of MBBS course that he should be permitted to seek admission in
the post graduate medical courses in the State of Tamil Nadu and the
requirement of domicile ~tipulated by the State of Tamil Nadu be considered
> to be invalid. It is further submitted that the petitioner would have an unfair
advantage inasmuch as he had secured admission under 15% all-India quota, D
he would became ineligible in the State of Tamil Nadu even though he is a
medical graduate from that State and would be deemed to be eligible from
Delhi merely on the ground that he was born and brought up in Delhi; that
because he obtained a low position in comparison to a large number of other
... + candidates with whom he is competing for the MBBS. course in the Delhi E
University, he would gain an unfair advantage on this and the petitioner being
fully aware of the criteria followed by the Delhi University to the MBBS
courses by the time he chose to secure admission in Tamil Nadu.from an:
India quota having been unable to secure admission in Delhi University. It
is contended that if the claim put forward by the petitioner is accepted, then
he would become eligible in 25% all-India quota in all institutions all .over
F
the country and would also become eligible for 75% seats in Tamil Nadu and
75% in Delhi. Thus he would have opportunity of competing against 175%
of seats. As regards the meritorious candidates in Delhi they would be eligible
against 100% of seats - 25% all-India quota and 75% seats in the Delhi
University and thus it would confer unjustified favour and benefits to all such G
candidates as the petitioner in the present case. If the pattern followed by the
Delhi University is adopted and foll~wed by all institutions and States
throughout the country which is in conformity with the norms laid down by
this Court it would ensure that no candidate secures any unfair advantage in
admission to post graduate courses. If the institutional preference is adopted H
642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 3 S.C.R.
A as a uniform criteria for reservation for post graduate courses, it would ensure
that every candidate irrespective whether he secures admission to the MBBS
courses from 85% seats reserved for local candidates or 15% seats for all-
India basis or whether he was allotted in the State of his origin or residence,
or to any other State, will have an equal opportunity to appear in post
B graduate course. Further it is contended that other institutions and States
which have adopted the criteria of domicile for State quota ought to be
directed to discontinue the same and reservation, if any, should be done as
is permitted in Dr. Pradeep Jain case (supra) case on the basis of institutional ~
preference.

C In this background, we have to evolve a principle which is equitable
to all. Taking into consideration local and regional compulsions we have
to strike a balance so that students· who have pursued studies in a particular
university or State are not invidiously stranded or marooned. The grievance
of the petitioners, if examined closely, ts very limited and that 1s
D these students who have gone out of their home-State to pursue studies
else where on all India quota -should be allowed to participate to compete in
their home-State where they have their roots, to pursue post-graduate studies.

The objection of the University and the intervening students is that such t
students will have an unfair advantage of competing in All India quota +
E home-State quota+ institutional quota in that University where they studied.
We fail to see any unfair advantage in this regard inasmuch as all students
have to take common entrance test with reference to their home State and
face stiff competition. The students in home State if at all are put to
disadvantage only to a small degree of taking competition with respect to very
F few students falling in that category of the petitioners. On the other hand,
inclusion of such students owill make it broad based as well t11ereby striking
a balance. Thus, we think, if students of the home State are also allowed to
participate in the entrance test, there will be uniformity all over fue country
and small disadvantage removed with respect to a small section of student
community does not disturb the balance and the advantage derived achieves ..._,
G uniformity.

The Delhi University appears to have conducted its entrance examina-
tion and we had allowed the petitioners to participate in the same whose
results will now have to be declared. Counselling in the Delhi University has
H gone on 10.4.2000 and 11.4.2000 and when we permitted the petitioners to
-
DR. P. GUPTA ETC. v. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 643

,,
.. ,. participate in such counselling subject to result of these petitions, the Uni-
versity thought fit to cancel such counselling already done and postponed the
A

same. In these peculiar circumstances, we have riveted our attention only to
the imminent problem arising and_in the manner presented before us. We are
not called upon to decide the lar~r issues requiring detailed examination of
the effect of earlier decisions of this Court and exten~ or manner of reservation
B
based on residence and/or institution with referen~e t{j conditions prevailing
in each of the State and how the same will have to be maintained or properly
balanced.

On this basis we think the States/Union Territories/Universities should
allow students who had pursued courses outside their home State to partici- c
pate in the entrance examination held in their home State irrespective of any
kind of preference that may have been adopted for selection to P.G.medical
course.

·- Before parting with this case, we make it clear that we are not deciding
that vexed question of attaining uniformity in all P.G.courses all over the
D
country excf:pt to the extent indicated earlier nor we are in a position to say
whether institutional preference based on any study in an institution or
requirement of residence or both fully complies with the various directions
-'-,
issued by this Court from time to time. We, therefore, think that it would be
~
+ appropriate for the concerned States or other authorities to achieve uniformity E
by adopting institutional and/or residential preference in terms of the deci-
sions referred to by us as otherwise, if challenged, may not stand scrutiny
of the Court. I

The petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above.
F
R.C.K. Petitions partly allowed.