Holding

There was no unreasonableness or impropriety in the State Government's decision to fill 70% of the seats first, and the High Court was not justified in directing the order of seat filling or the creation of additional seats without IMC approval.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the State of Maharashtra's policy for MBBS admissions in Bombay's municipal and government medical colleges, which allocated 70% of the remaining seats after the All India quota and Article 15 reservations to local Bombay students and 30% to students from elsewhere in the state. The Bombay High Court had directed that the 30% outside seats be filled before the 70% local seats and ordered the creation of additional seats without the Indian Medical Council's (IMC) approval. The Court held that the State's decision to fill the 70% local seats first was neither unreasonable nor improper and that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in prescribing the order of seat filling and in directing the creation of numerous additional seats without IMC consent. Consequently, the High Court's orders were set aside, the admission of two specific candidates was restored, and the remaining 36 seats were to be filled strictly on merit. The appeals were allowed in favor of the State.

Issues considered

The legality of the State Government's policy to fill 70% of the seats reserved for local Bombay students before the 30% reserved for outside candidates.
Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to direct the order of filling seats and to order the creation of additional seats.
The requirement of Indian Medical Council approval for the creation of additional medical seats and the bearing of associated costs.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 15
Indian Medical Council Act

Subjects

medical college admissionreservationlocal vs outside candidatesseat allocationIndian Medical Counciljudicial reviewunreasonablenessadditional seatsAll India quota

Judgment

A STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
v.
MINOO NOAZER KAVARANA & ORS.

APRIL 24, 1989
B [MURARI MOHON DUTT AND T.K. THOMMEN, JJ.)

Professional Colleges-Admission to. Medical Colleges run by
Municipal Corporation/State Government in Bombay-Reservation of
seats for local and outside students-Validity of-No unreasonableness
or impropriety in State Government filling up the local seats first-
c Creation of additional seats-Concurrence of Indian Medical Coun-
cil-Necessity for.
-><·.
The appellant-State by virtue of the judgment in Nidamarti
Maheshkumar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., [1986) 2 SCC 534, after
providing 15 per cent of seats under the All India Onota and under
D Article 15 of the Constitution for admission to MBBS course, laid down
the policy of reservation of the remaining seats for local students in the
city of Bombay and for students from outside Bombay but within th~ '
State of Maharashtra, in the ratio of70:30. <"

In the writ petitions preferred by the respondents a Single Judge
E of the High Court took the view that 30 per c_ent of seats meant for
students from outside Bombay should have been filled in before 70 per
cent of seats were filled in by local students. The Division Bench dis-
missed the Letters Patent Appeal by the State. In the Letters Patent
Appeals by the respondents it directed creation of five additional seats
in each of the three Municipal Medical Colleges and four additional
F seats in the Government Medical College.

Allowing the appeals,

HELD: I. There was no unreasonableness or impropriety in the
State Government's decision to fill up 70 per cent of seats first. The
G question whether the seats reserved for local students or for those resid- ,.___
\
ing outside Bombay should be filled up first was not within the purview
or the jurisdiction of the Court. The High Court was, therefore, not
justified in directing admission on the basis of filling up 30 per cent of
seats first. [713C-ri]
H 2. The Additional seats can be created only if the Indian Medical
710
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA '· M.N. KAVARANA 711

Council approves of it. There is also the question of bearing the cost of A
creation of such seats. In the instant case, neither the Government nor
the Indian Medical Council had consented to such creation. In excep·
tional circumstances and for ends of justice, the court may direct the
creation of one or two seats after giving the Indian Medical Council an
opportunity of being heard. The High Court, therefor_e, should not have B
directed the creation of so many additional seats. [713E·G I
___,j\
~ • [Appropriate directions issued for .admission to four s~ats in the.
Grant Medical College in Bombay and thirty four seats in' the other

- Medical Colleges outside Bombay available under the All India Quota.]

.CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2488
of 1989 etc. etc .
c
.--'---
/j
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.1.1989 of the Bombay
High Court in Appeal No. 67 of 1989.
D
G. Ramaswamy, Additional Solicitor General, A.M. Khanwil·
kar and A.S. Bhasme for the Appellant.

T.R. Andhrujina, R.F. Nariman, Mrs. K.K. Pradhan, R. Karan-
jawala, Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, H.S. Anand, P.B. Agarwal, P.G.
-~
Gokhale, R.B. Hathikhanawala, K.R. Nagaraja, R.S. Hegde, S. E
Menon, M.C. Shah, Madan Lokur, Adur Sanjay Vasant, and Mrs.
Urmila Sirur for the Respondents .
•
Mrs. Kitty Kumaramangalam, Kailash Vasdev, Ms. Vijaylaxmi
and .S.P. Pandey for the Intervener.
y F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DUTT, J. Special leave is granted in all these matters. Heard
learned Counsel for the parties.

These appeals preferred by the State of Maharashtra involve the G
question as to the admission in the MBBS Course in the Medical
Colleges in the State of Maharashtra. In the city of Bombay, there are
three Medical Colleges run by the Municipal Corporation of Greater
Bombay. Besides the said three Municipal Colleges, there is another
College in Bombay, namely, Grant Medical College, which is a
Government College run by the Government of Maharashtra. H
712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 2 S.C.R.

A Shorn of all details, it may be stated that after providing for 15 ~· ""
per cent of seats under the All India Quota and the seats which are to
be reserved under Article 15 of the Constitution of India, the Govern-
ment of Maharashtra laid down a policy of reservation of 70 per cent of
the remaining seats for the local students in the city of Bombay and 30
per cent of seats for the students outside Bombay within the State of
B Maharashtra.

Certain students feeling aggrieved by the said method of filling •
up of the seats in the MBBS Course in the said Medical Colleges in.the
city of Bombay moved writ petitions before the Bombay High Court.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court took the view that it was not
C proper on the part of the State Government to first of all fill up the 70
per cent of the seats out of the local Bombay students and thereafter
the remaining 30 per cent of seats from amongst the students residing
outside Bombay. The learned Single Judge, however, gave no specific
direction as to the admission of the writ f>etitioners, but left it to the
State Government for the purpose. The State of Maharashtra prefer-
D red a·Letters Patent Appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court.
The said appeal was summarily dismissed by the Bench holding that
the two points urged by the Assistant Government Pleader appear to
be quite frivolous. The writ petitioners also preferred Letters Patent
Appeals before the Division Bench. From time to time, the Bench .~/
passed some orders. The only order which is relevant for the purpose
E of these appeals is dated February 8, 1989. By that order, the Division
Bench of the High Court directed creation of 5 additional seats in each
of the three Municipal Colleges and 4 additional seats in the Govern-
ment Medical College, that is, in all, 19 additional seats. Certain direc-
tions were also given by the said order for admission of students in
those additional seats and also the seats under the All India Quota.
F
It has been strenuously urged by Mr. G. Ramaswamy, learned
Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the State of
Maharashtra, that the High Court was not justified in directing that
the 30 per cent of seats meant for the candidates outside Bombay to be
filled in before the 70 per cent of seats are filled in by local candidates.
G It may be stated at this stage that by virute of the judgment in the case
of Nidamarti Maheshkumar v. State of Maharashtra and others, [1986]
2 SCC 534 relating to admission in Medical Colleges in Maharashtra,
the State of Maharashtra laid down the policy of regional reservation
of 70 per cent of seats for the region of Bombay and the remaining 30
per cent of seats for the candidates outside Bombay but within the
H State of Maharashtra. It has already been noticed that the High Court
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. M.N. KAVARANA [DUTT, J.) 713

.... _J ·is of thl view that the 30 per cent of seats should have been filled up
r A
first and, thereafter, 70 per cent of regional seats should have been
filled up. We have not been able to understand the reason for this view
of the High Court. If 30 per cent of seats are filled up first, the candi-
dates who are residing outside Bombay will have to compete with the
local Bombay students who are also eligible for admission in the said
, seats. It may so happen that most of the seats meant for candidates B
A outside Bombay may be filled up by the local Bombay candidates. If,
• ''1owever, 70 per cent of seats are filled up first, the more meritorious
Bombay students would be admitted. and those, who would not be
admitted, would obviously be candidates obtaining lesser marks and it
will not be difficult for the outside candidates to compete with them
for the said 30 per cent of seats. The question whether 70 per cent of
seats or 30 per cent of seats should be filled up first is a question which C
~)"-should be left to the discretion of the Government. In our opinion, this
aspect is not within the purview or the jurisdiction of th!!Court. We do
not find any unreasonableness or impropriety in the State Govern-
ment's decision to fill up 70 per cent of seats first.. The High Court was
not, therefore, justified in directing admission on the basis of filling up D
30 per cent of the seats first and, thereafter 70 per cent of seats and
such direction has created some complications in the matter.

·r--{ There is considerable force in the contention of Mr. Ramaswamy
that the High Court was also not justified in directing creation of
additional seats. The additional seats can be created only if the Indian E
Medical Council approves of such creation. In the instant case, the
Indian Medical Council has vehemently opposed before us the crea-
tion of the additional seats. There is also the question of bearing the
cost of creation of additional seats. The High Court, in our opinion,
should not have directed the creation of additional seats. In excep-
Y tional circumstances and for ends of justice, the Court may direct the F
creation of one or two seats after giving the Indian Medical Council an
""':'."opportunity of being heard, but surely the Court should not direct the
creation of so many additional seats when neither the Government nor
the Indian Medical Council consents to such creation. In the circumc
stances, it is difficult to sustain the impugned judgment of the High
Court. G
.·~
We are told by the learned Additional Solicitor General that 4
seats in the Grant Medical College in Bombay and 34 seats in the other
Medical Colleges outside Bombay under the All India Quota are avail-
able for admission. We are also told that there are about 30 candidates
who are to be admitted in these seats. Of these 30 candidates, we find H
714 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 2 S.C.R.

A that one Sandeep Chaudhary and Miss Chauanary Seena, the applic-
ants in Civil Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 9049 of 1989 and 9050 of
~ *
1989 respectively, were already admitted in the 2 out of the 4 seats in
the Grant Medical College, Bombay. They were initially admitted in
the Gwalior Medical College, but on their representation they were
B transferred to the Grant Medical College, Bombay, by the Directol
General of Health Services in compliance with the guidelines laid
down by this Court in its judgment in the case of Amanjit Singh Gill v. .\
Directorate General of Health Services, [1989] 1 SCC 231, but in view• ,
of the impugned judgment of the High Court they have been thrown
out for no fault of theirs. The admission of these two candidate.! in the
Grant Medical College, Bombay, is restored and will not be disturbed.
C So far as the remaining 36 seats are concerned (2 seats in the Grant
Medical College, Bombay, and 34 seats in the Medical Colleges outside
Bombay), the admission to these seats shall be made strictly in order
of merit. The appellants shall complete the admissions in the said 36
seats within a week from today.
D
The impugned judgments of the High Court are set aside and
the appeals are allowe.d to the extent indicated above. There will be no
order as to costs.

The writ petitions and all other applications for int.ervention are r>·
E also disposed of as above without any order as to costs.

P.S.S. Appeals allowed.