Supreme Court of India
TAMIL NADU MEDICAL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2018 INSC 332
- Decided
- 24 April 2018
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- DIPAK MISRA
Holding
The Court held that Regulation 9 is a self‑contained code, the Dinesh Singh Chauhan decision remains binding, and a separate source of entry for in‑service candidates would infringe the Union's power under Entry 66, thus refusing interim relief.
Summary
The Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association challenged Regulation 9(iv) and 9(vii) of the Post‑Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, alleging that the provisions barred states from creating a separate entry stream for in‑service doctors seeking postgraduate degree seats and were violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus and interim relief to stay the regulation and to permit the Tamil Nadu government to implement its policy of reserving seats for in‑service candidates. The Union of India and the Medical Council of India contended that Entry 25 of List III is subject to Entry 66 of List I, making the regulation a complete, centrally‑controlled code that precludes any state‑level reservation. The Court examined the earlier three‑judge decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dinesh Singh Chauhan, which interpreted Regulation 9 as a self‑contained code and held that the earlier judgment "holds the field". Relying on that precedent and on Constitution Bench rulings on the interplay of List I Entry 66 and List III Entry 25, the Court refused the interim relief, holding that granting a separate source of entry would impinge upon the Union's power to coordinate standards. Consequently, the petition for interim relief was dismissed and the matter was left to be decided by the reference to the Constitution Bench.
Issues considered
- The validity of Regulation 9(iv) and 9(vii) of the Post‑Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 with respect to a state's power to provide a separate entry stream for in‑service candidates.
- Whether the regulation is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
- The relationship between Union List Entry 66 and Concurrent List Entry 25 in the context of medical education admissions.
- Whether the earlier decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dinesh Singh Chauhan remains binding and precludes interim relief.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 19(1)(g), s. Article 246, s. Article 32
- Indian Medical Council Act, 1956
Subjects
Regulation 9Post‑Graduate Medical Education RegulationsIn‑service candidatesReservationSeparate source of entryUnion List Entry 66Concurrent List Entry 25Article 14Article 19Interim reliefConstitutional lawMedical education
Judgment
[2018] 3 S.C.R. 551 551
TAMIL NADU MEDICAL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND ORS. A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
(I. A. No. 33686 of 2018)
in B
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 196 Of 2018)
APRIL 24, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. K. SIKRI, A. M. KHANWILKAR,
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.] C
Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000:
Regulation 9 – Writ petition challenging the Regulation –
Provisions of the Regulation was considered in Dinesh Singh Chauhan
case by three Judge Bench – Matter referred to Constitution Bench
for reconsideration of *Dinesh Singh Chauhan case – Stay of D
operation of the Regulation sought to the extent the provision is
deemed to prohibit the States from providing a separate source of
entry to in-service candidates seeking admission to post-graduate
courses – Direction sought permitting the State Government to
implement its policy of providing for a separate source of entry to E
in-service candidates for admission to post-graduate courses for
academic year 2018-19 – Interim relief also referred to Constitution
Bench – Considering the interim relief, the Court held: Dinesh Singh
Chauhan case had construed the provision in Regulation 9(iv) after
taking due note of the decisions of Constitution Bench – The decision
in Dinesh Singh Chauhan case still holds the field and cannot be F
brushed aside at the stage of deciding interim relief – Grant of
interim relief at this stage would amount to a mandatory final order
and hence refused – Interlocutory order.
*State of Uttar Pradesh v Dinesh Singh Chauhan (2016)
9 SCC 749 : [2016] 6 SCR 571; R Chitralekha v. State G
of Mysore [1964] 6 SCR 368; Kumari Chitra Ghosh v.
Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 228 : [1970] 1 SCR 413;
Modern Dental College and Research Centre v State of
Madhya Pradesh (2016) 7 SCC 353; K Duraisamy v.
H
551
552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 3 S.C.R.
A State of Tamil Nadu (2001) 2 SCC 538 : [2001] 1
SCR 490; AIIMSStudents’ Union v. AIIMS (2002) 1
SCC 428 : [2001] 2 Suppl. SCR 79; State of M P v.
Gopal D Tirthani (2003) 7 SCC 83 : [ 2003] 1 Suppl.
SCR 797; Sudhir N v. State of Kerala (2015) 6 SCC
685 : [2015] 1 SCR 884; Dr Preeti Srivastava v. State
B
of M P (1999) 7 SCC 120 : [1999] 1 Suppl. SCR 249
– referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2016] 6 SCR 571 referred to Para 1
C [1964] 6 SCR 368 referred to Para 2
[1970] 1 SCR 413 referred to Para 2
(2016) 7 SCC 353 referred to Para 2
[2001] 1 SCR 490 referred to Para 7
D
[2001] 2 Suppl. SCR 79 referred to Para 7
[2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 797 referred to Para 7
[2015] 1 SCR 884 referred to Para 7
[1999] 1 Suppl. SCR 249 referred to Para 13
E
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: I. A. No. 33686 of 2018 in
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 196 of 2018.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
WITH
F
Writ Petition (C) Nos. 252, 295 and 293 of 2018.
Aman Lekhi, ASG, Arvind Datar, K.V. Vishwanathan, A.K.
Sinha, Vikas Singh, V. Giri, Sr. Advs., Ajay Bhargava, Ms. Vanita
Bhargava, Saman Ahsan, Aayush Jain, M/s. Khaitan & Co., Jose
Abraham, Harish Pandey, Dr. Nishesh Sharma, Sarad Kumar Singhania,
G Rohit Bhat, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Gaurav Sharma, Dhawal Mohan,
Prateek Bhatia, Amandeep Kaur Ahuja, Abhishek, Ms. Deepika Kalia,
Ms. Shristi Banerjee, K.V. Vijayakumar, Ms. Maitreyee Mishra, Tapesh
Kr. Singh, Mohd. Waquas, Aditya Pratap Singh, G. Prakash, Jishnu M.L.,
Mrs. Priyanka Prakash, Mrs. Beena Prakash, Vijay Shank V.L., Ms.
H Vijaya Mohan V., Advs. for the appearing parties.
TAMIL NADU MEDICAL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND ORS. 553
v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
The Order of the Court was delivered by A
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. The judgment rendered by
a three judge Bench in State of Uttar Pradesh v Dinesh Singh
Chauhan1, construed the provisions of Regulations 9(IV) and 9(VII) of
the Medical Council of India Post-Graduate Medical Education
Regulations 2000, as amended on 15 February 2012. In the present batch B
of cases, a Bench of three Judges opined, by an order dated 13 April
2018, that these petitions require consideration by a larger Bench.
2. In making this reference, the referring order primarily indicated
the following reasons :
(i) The decision in Dinesh Singh Chauhan has not considered C
the entries in the legislative lists of the Seventh Schedule,
more particularly Entry 66 of the Union List and Entry 25 of
the Concurrent List;
(ii) The main contention of the petitioners is that while coordination
and determination of standards in institutions for higher D
education falls within the exclusive domain of the Union (Entry
66 List I), medical education is a subject in the Concurrent
List (Entry 25 List III). Though, Entry 25 of List III is subject
to Entry 66 of List I, the State is not denuded of its power to
legislate on the manner and method of making admissions to E
post-graduate medical courses;
(iii) The contentions which have been raised in the present batch
of petitions were not addressed before this Court in Dinesh
Singh Chauhan;
(iv) The judgment in Dinesh Singh Chauhan does not consider F
three decisions of the Constitution Bench in R Chitralekha
v State of Mysore2, Kumari Chitra Ghosh v Union of
India3 and Modern Dental College and Research Centre
v State of Madhya Pradesh4; and
(v) There are decisions rendered by Benches of an equal strength G
as in Dinesh Singh Chauhan.
1
(2016) 9 SCC 749
2
((1964) 6 SCR 368
3
(1969) 2 SCC 228
4
(2016) 7 SCC 353 H
554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 3 S.C.R.
A 3. While making a reference to a larger Bench, the referring order
observed that it would be “appropriate that even the interim relief should
be considered by the larger Bench”. Accordingly, on the directions of
the learned Chief Justice, the proceedings have been placed before the
Constitution Bench to consider the question of interim relief.
B 4. We have heard Mr Arvind Datar and Mr K V Vishwanathan,
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Mr Aman Lekhi, learned
Additional Solicitor General and Mr A K Sinha, learned Senior Counsel
for the Respondents - Union of India, Mr Vikas Singh learned Senior
Counsel for the MCI and Mr V Giri, learned Senior Counsel for the
State of Tamil Nadu.
C
5. In Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association v Union of
India5, the following reliefs have been sought :
“(a) Declare by issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other
suitable writ/order/direction that Regulation 9 of the Post-Graduate
D Medical Education Regulations, 2000 (more particularly,
Regulation 9(iv) and 9(vii), does not take away the power of the
States under Entry 25, List III to provide for a separate source of
entry for in-service candidates seeking admission to Degree
Courses;
E (b) Alternatively, if Regulation 9 of the Post Graduate Medical
Regulations, 2000 is understood to not allow for States to provide
for a separate source of entry for in-service candidates seeking
admission to Degree Courses, declare by issuance of a writ of
mandamus or any other suitable writ/order/direction, Regulation
9 (more particularly, Regulations 9(iv) and 9 (vii) as being arbitrary,
F discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of
the Constitution and also ultra vires the provisions of the Indian
Medical Council Act, 1956;”
6. The interim prayer is that this Court should stay the operation
of Regulation 9 of the Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations
G 2000, to the extent that it is deemed to prohibit the states from providing
a separate source of entry to in-service candidates seeking admission to
post-graduate degree courses. A direction has been sought permitting
the State of Tamil Nadu to implement its policy of providing for a separate
5
WP (C) No. 196 of 2018
H
TAMIL NADU MEDICAL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND ORS. 555
v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
source of entry to in-service candidates for admissions to post-graduate A
degree courses for academic year 2018-2019.
7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
submit that since 1989, the State of Tamil Nadu has had a policy of
providing a separate source of entry to in-service candidates to the extent
of 50 per cent of the state’s seats in degree courses. Further, since 2007 B
the State of Tamil Nadu has, by a government order, provided a preferential
weightage to those in-service candidates who have served in rural, hilly
and difficult areas. This policy has been adopted to ensure the provision
of adequate healthcare facilities in government hospitals particularly in
rural, hilly and difficult locations. In this backdrop, the following
submissions have been urged : C
(i) Though, Entry 25 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the
Constitution (“education, including..medical education..”) is
subject to the provisions of Entry 66 of State List I
(“coordination and determination of standards in institutions
for higher education”), the state is not denuded of its power D
to determine the manner or method for making admissions to
post-graduate medical courses;
(ii) The relationship between Entry 66 of List I and Entry 25 of
List III has been considered by three Constitution Bench
decisions of this Court in R Chitralekha, Kumari Chitra E
Ghosh and Modern Dental College (supra);
(iii) In its decisions in K Duraisamy v State of Tamil Nadu6,
AIIMS Students’ Union v AIIMS7 and State of M P v
Gopal D Tirthani8, this Court has upheld the right of the
State Governments to set apart a definite percentage of seats
at the post-graduate level in degree and diploma courses with F
a separate source of entry for a defined classes of persons.
The exercise of such a power has been held to be valid so
long as it is based on a legitimate classification;
(iv) The classification between in-service doctors in government
and others is reasonable and has a nexus with the object of G
ensuring adequate and affordable healthcare facilities in the
public sector; and
6
(2001) 2 SCC 538
7
(2002) 1 SCC 428
8
(2003) 7 SCC 83 H
556 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 3 S.C.R.
A (v) The interpretation placed on Regulation 9 in Dinesh Singh
Chauhan that reservation for in-service candidates in post-
graduate degree courses is not permissible since it has been
provided only for diploma courses under Regulation 9(VII)
requires reconsideration for the following reasons :
B (a) There is no express or implied bar in Regulation 9,
prohibiting the State under Entry 25 of List III from
providing a separate channel of entry to in-service
candidates. On the contrary, the grant of preference to
in-service candidates is perceived to be a laudable object
by virtue of the proviso to Regulations 9(IV) and 9(VII);
C (b) An implied inclusion cannot be inferred in regard to the
states providing reservations for in-service candidates in
degree courses merely on the basis that Regulation 9(VII)
provides a reservation for diploma courses;
(c) While holding that Regulation 9 is a complete code in
D itself, the decision in Dinesh Singh Chauhan has not
appropriately dealt with the decisions in Sudhir N v State
of Kerala9 and Gopal D Tirthani (supra);
(d) Providing a separate source of entry for in-service
candidates would not result in a lowering of standards
E prescribed by the Medical Council of India10 since all
eligible candidates would have met the minimum qualifying
marks in the NEET examination and admissions would
take place on the inter se merit of in-service candidates;
and
(e) In its decision in Modern Dental College and Research
F
Centre, the Constitution Bench has observed that a State
being responsible for the welfare and development of its
residents, it is the prerogative of the State to adopt
appropriate steps;
(f) Merely providing a weightage for in-service candidates
G in degree courses will not ensure that an adequate number
of in-service candidates qualify, having regard to the
difficulties faced by such candidates while working in
difficult conditions.
9
(2015) 6 SCC 685
10
H The MCI
TAMIL NADU MEDICAL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND ORS. 557
v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
Since counselling in the first round has already taken A
place, it has been submitted that interim orders are
necessary to ensure that States are not precluded from
providing a separate source of entry to in-service
candidates in post-graduate degree courses.
8. On the other hand, it has been submitted on behalf of the Union B
of India and MCI that Entry 25 of List III is expressly subject to Entry
66 of List I. Hence, the authority of the States under Article 246 to
legislate on medical education is subject to the overriding authority of
the Union in matters relating to the coordination and determination of
standards in higher education. Regulation 9 is a complete code in itself.
Regulation 9(iv) provides an incentive to in-service candidates at the C
rate of 10 per cent of the marks obtained, for each year of service in
remote and/or difficult areas upto a maximum 30 per cent of the marks
obtained in the NEET examination. MCI, as an expert policy making
authority constituted under central legislation, has formulated statutory
regulations under which only incentive marks can be granted for in- D
service candidates in post-graduate degree admissions to medical courses.
In the considered view of the Union government and MCI, the grant of
reservations or a separate source of entry for in-service candidates would
directly impinge on the authority of MCI to coordinate and determine
standards of medical education. The decision in Dinesh Singh Chauhan
specifically construes the provisions of the Regulation 9 as amended in E
2012. The grant of any interim relief at this stage cannot be contemplated
so long as the three judge Bench decision holds the field. Prescribing a
separate source of entry for in-service degree candidates would, in the
submission of the MCI, directly result in a lowering of standards in medical
education. Merit would be compromised and the prescription of criteria F
under Entry 66 of List I would be a casualty.
9. Rule 9, as amended on 15 February 2012, reads as follows :
“9. Procedure for selection of candidate for postgraduate courses
shall be as follows.—
G
(I) There shall be a single eligibility-cum-entrance examination,
namely, “National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for
admission to Postgraduate Medical Courses” in each
academic year. The superintendence, direction and control
of National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test shall vest with
H
558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 3 S.C.R.
A National Board of Examinations under overall supervision
of the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government
of India.
(II) 3% seats of the annual sanctioned intake capacity shall be
filled up by candidates with locomotory disability of lower
B limbs between 50% to 70%:
Provided that in case any seat in this 3% quota remains
unfilled on account of unavailability of candidates with
locomotory disability of lower limbs between 50% to
70% then any such unfilled seat in this 3% quota shall
C be filled up by persons with locomotory disability of lower
limbs between 40% to 50% before they are included in
the annual sanctioned seats for general category
candidates:
Provided further that this entire exercise shall be
D completed by each medical college/institution as per the
statutory time schedule for admissions.
(III) In order to be eligible for admission to any postgraduate
course in a particular academic year, it shall be necessary
for a candidate to obtain minimum of marks at 50th percentile
E in “National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for Postgraduate
courses” held for the said academic year. However, in
respect of candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes,
the Scheduled Tribes, the Other Backward Classes, the
minimum marks shall be at 40th percentile. In respect of
candidates as provided in clause (II) above with locomotory
F disability of lower limbs, the minimum marks shall be at
45th percentile. The percentile shall be determined on the
basis of highest marks secured in the all-India common merit
list in “National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test” for
postgraduate courses:
G Provided when sufficient number of candidates in
the respective categories fail to secure minimum marks as
prescribed in National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test held
for any academic year for admission to postgraduate
courses, the Central Government in consultation with the
H
TAMIL NADU MEDICAL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND ORS. 559
v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
Medical Council of India may at its discretion lower the A
minimum marks required for admission to postgraduate
course for candidates belonging to respective categories
and marks so lowered by the Central Government shall be
applicable for the said academic year only.
(IV) The reservation of seats in medical colleges/institutions for B
respective categories shall be as per applicable laws
prevailing in States/Union Territories. An all-India merit
list as well as State-wise merit list of the eligible
candidates shall be prepared on the basis of the marks
obtained in National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test and
candidates shall be admitted to postgraduate courses C
from the said merit lists only:
Provided that in determining the merit of candidates
who are in service of Government/public authority,
weightage in the marks may be given by the
Government/competent authority as an incentive at the D
rate of 10% of the marks obtained for each year of
service in remote and/or difficult areas up to the
maximum of 30% of the marks obtained in National
Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test, the remote and difficult
areas shall be as defined by the State Government/ E
competent authority from time to time.
(V) No candidate who has failed to obtain the minimum eligibility
marks as prescribed in clause (II) above shall be admitted
to any postgraduate courses in the said academic year.
(VI) In non-governmental medical colleges/institutions, 50% (fifty F
per cent) of the total seats shall be filled by the State
Government or the Authority appointed by them, and the
remaining 50% (fifty per cent) of the seats shall be filled by
the medical colleges/institutions concerned on the basis of
the merit list prepared as per the marks obtained in National G
Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test.
(VII) 50% of the seats in postgraduate diploma courses shall
be reserved for medical officers in the government
service, who have served for at least three years in remote
H
560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 3 S.C.R.
A and/or difficult areas. After acquiring the PG diploma, the
medical officers shall serve for two more years in remote
and/or difficult areas as defined by State Government/
competent authority from time to time.
(VIII)The Universities and other authorities concerned shall
B organise admission process in such a way that teaching in
postgraduate courses starts by 2nd May and by 1st August
for super specialty courses each year. For this purpose,
they shall follow the time schedule indicated in Appendix
III.
(IX) There shall be no admission of students in respect of any
C academic session beyond 31st May for postgraduate courses
and 30th September for super specialty courses under any
circumstances. The Universities shall not register any
student admitted beyond the said date.
(X) The Medical Council of India may direct, that any student
D identified as having obtained admission after the last date
for closure of admission be discharged from the course of
study, or any medical qualification granted to such a student
shall not be a recognized qualification for the purpose of
the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The institution which
E grants admission to any student after the last date specified
for the same shall also be liable to face such action as may
be prescribed by MCI including surrender of seats equivalent
to the extent of such admission made from its sanctioned
intake capacity for the succeeding academic year.” (Id at
pages 764-766)
F Entry 66 of List I provides thus :
“66. Coordination and determination of standards in
institutions for higher education or research and scientific
and technical institutions.”
Entry 25 of List III provides thus :
G
“25. Education, including technical education, medical
education and universities, subject to the provisions of Entries
63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I; vocational and technical training
of labour.”
H
TAMIL NADU MEDICAL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND ORS. 561
v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
10. In Modern Dental College and Research Centre (supra), A
a Constitution Bench of this Court held that the expression “coordination
and determination of standards” means laying down standards. Hence,
when it comes to prescribing the standards for institutions of higher
learning, the exclusive domain is given to the Union. Dr Justice A K Sikri
speaking for the Constitution Bench held thus :
B
“102. Most educational activities, including admissions, have two
aspects: the first deals with the adoption and setting up the minimum
standards of education. The objective in prescribing minimum
standards is to provide a benchmark of the calibre and quality of
education being imparted by various educational institutions in the
entire country. Additionally, the coordination of the standards of C
education determined nationwide is ancillary to the very
determination of standards. Realising the vast diversity of the nation
wherein levels of education fluctuated from lack of even basic
primary education, to institutions of high excellence, it was thought
desirable to determine and prescribe basic minimum standards of D
education at various levels, particularly at the level of research
institutions, higher education and technical education institutions.
As such, while balancing the needs of States to impart education
as per the needs and requirements of local and regional levels, it
was essential to lay down a uniform minimum standard for the
nation. Consequently, the Constitution-makers provided for List I E
Entry 66 with the objective of maintaining uniform standards of
education in fields of research, higher education and technical
education.” (id at page 430)
Implementing the standards of education determined by Parliament and
regulating the complete activity of education entails the application of F
the standards so determined. The balance between Entry 66 of List I
and Entry 25 of List III has been drawn succinctly, on a review of the
earlier Constitution Bench decisions, thus :
“104…In Gujarat University [Gujarat University v. Krishna
Ranganath Mudholkar, AIR 1963 SC 703 : 1963 Supp (1) SCR G
112] , a Bench of five Judges examined the scope of List II Entry
11 (which is now List III Entry 25) with reference to List I Entry
66. It was held that the power of the State to legislate in respect
of education to the extent it is entrusted to Parliament, is deemed
H
562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 3 S.C.R.
A to be restricted. Coordination and determination of standards was
in the purview of List I and power of the State was subject to
power of the Union on the said subject. It was held that the two
entries overlapped to some extent and to the extent of overlapping
the power conferred by List I Entry 66 must prevail over power
of the State. Validity of a State legislation depends upon whether
B
it prejudicially affects “coordination or determination of standards”,
even in absence of a Union legislation. In R. Chitralekha v. State
of Mysore [R. Chitralekha v. State of Mysore, AIR 1964 SC 1823
: (1964) 6 SCR 368] , the same issue was again considered. It
was observed that if the impact of the State law is heavy or
C devastating as to wipe out or abridge the Central field, it may be
struck down. In State of T.N. v. Adhiyaman Educational &
Research Institute [State of T.N. v. Adhiyaman Educational &
Research Institute, (1995) 4 SCC 104 : 1 SCEC 682] , it was
observed that to the extent that State legislation is in conflict with
the Central legislation under Entry 25, it would be void and
D
inoperative. To the same effect is the view taken in Preeti
Srivastava [Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P., (1999) 7 SCC 120
: 1 SCEC 742] and State of Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar
Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya [State of Maharashtra v. Sant
Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya, (2006) 9 SCC 1
E : 5 SCEC 637] . Though the view taken in State of M.P. v. Nivedita
Jain [State of M.P. v. Nivedita Jain, (1981) 4 SCC 296] and Ajay
Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar[Ajay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar,
(1994) 4 SCC 401] to the effect that admission standards covered
by List I Entry 66 could apply only post admissions was overruled
in Preeti Srivastava [Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P., (1999) 7
F
SCC 120 : 1 SCEC 742] , it was not held that the entire gamut of
admissions was covered by List I as wrongly assumed in Bharati
Vidyapeeth [Bharati Vidyapeeth v. State of Maharashtra, (2004)
11 SCC 755 : 2 SCEC 535] . (Id at page 431)
The Constitution Bench held that while Entry 25 of List III is subject to
G Entry 66 of List I, the entire gamut of admissions is not excluded from
the purview of the statutes. However, the “exercise of any power under
List III Entry 25 has to be subject to a Central law referable to Entry
25”.
H
TAMIL NADU MEDICAL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND ORS. 563
v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
11. The provisions of Regulation 9 have been construed by the A
three judge Bench decision in Dinesh Singh Chauhan (supra). The
decision, it must be emphasised, has construed the amended provisions
of Regulation 9. Regulation 9 is held it to be a self-contained code
regarding the procedure to be followed for admissions to medical courses.
In that context, it has been held :
B
“24. By now, it is well established that Regulation 9 is a self-
contained code regarding the procedure to be followed for
admissions to medical courses. It is also well established that the
State has no authority to enact any law much less by executive
instructions that may undermine the procedure for admission to
postgraduate medical courses enunciated by the Central legislation C
and regulations framed thereunder, being a subject falling within
Schedule VII List I Entry 66 of the Constitution (see Preeti
Srivastava v. State of M.P. [Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P.,
(1999) 7 SCC 120 : 1 SCEC 742] ). The procedure for selection
of candidates for the postgraduate degree courses is one such D
area on which the Central legislation and regulations must prevail.”
(Id at page 766)
The above statement of the law in Dinesh Singh Chauhan is consistent
with the principles which have been reaffirmed by the Constitution Bench
in Modern Dental College and Research Centre. The referring E
order notes that the decision in Modern Dental College and Research
Centre was published in the reports after the decision in Dinesh Singh
Chauhan. In our view, the fundamental basis of the three judge Bench
decision is in accord with the principles which have been laid down by
the Constitution Bench.
F
12. While interpreting Regulation 9(IV), Dinesh Singh Chauhan
holds that the reservations referred to in the opening sentence are
obviously constitutional reservations for the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes and the socially and educationally backward classes
of citizens and not those for in-service candidates. Explaining the proviso
to Rule 9 (IV) it has been held : G
“25.4…This provision, however, contains a proviso. It predicates
that in determining the merit of candidates who are in service of
the Government or a public authority, weightage in the marks may
H
564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 3 S.C.R.
A be given by the Government/competent authority as an incentive
@ 10% of the marks obtained for each year of service in specified
remote or difficult areas of the State up to the maximum of 30%
of the marks obtained in NEET. This provision even if read liberally
does not provide for reservation for in-service candidates, but
only of giving a weightage in the form of incentive marks as
B
specified to the class of in-service candidates (who have served
in notified remote and difficult areas in the State).” (Id at page
767)
This interpretation of the proviso plainly follows the natural and ordinary
meaning of the words used. The proviso to Rule 9(IV) does not
C contemplate a reservation for in-service candidates in post-graduate
courses but the grant of incentive marks. Dinesh Singh Chauhan has
categorically rejected the submission that there is no express prohibition
on reservations for in-service candidates and hence it would be
permissible for the State Governments to provide them :
D “27…As there is no express provision prohibiting reservation to
in-service candidates in respect of admission to postgraduate
“degree” courses, it was contended that providing for such
reservation by the State Government is not impermissible in law.
Further, there are precedents of this Court to suggest that such
E arrangement is permissible as a separate channel of admission
for in-service candidates. This argument does not commend to
us. In the first place, the decisions pressed into service have
considered the provisions regarding admission process governed
by the regulations in force at the relevant time. The admission
process in the present case is governed by the regulations which
F have come into force from the academic year 2013-2014. This
Regulation is a self-contained code. There is nothing in this
Regulation to even remotely indicate that a separate channel for
admission to in-service candidates must be provided, at least in
respect of postgraduate “degree” courses. In contradistinction,
G however, 50% seats are earmarked for the postgraduate “diploma”
courses for in-service candidates, as is discernible from clause
(VII). If the regulation intended a similar separate channel for in-
service candidates even in respect of postgraduate “degree”
courses, that position would have been made clear in Regulation
9 itself.” (Id at pages 767-768)
H
TAMIL NADU MEDICAL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND ORS. 565
v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]
13. The judgment has noticed that in framing Regulation 9, A
reservations have been provided for in-service candidates of the
government in diploma seats. Where the delegate of the legislature
intended to provide reservations, a specific provision has been made, as
in Regulation 9(VII). On the other hand, for post-graduate degree seats,
there is only a prescription of incentive marks in Regulation 9(IV). Noticing
B
that these regulations have been framed by an expert body, it has been
held thus :
“35. As aforesaid, the Regulations have been framed by an expert
body based on past experience and including the necessity to reckon
the services and experience gained by the in-service candidates
in notified remote and difficult areas in the State. The proviso C
prescribes the measure for giving incentive marks to in-service
candidates who have worked in notified remote and difficult areas
in the State. That can be termed as a qualitative factor for
determining their merit. Even the quantitative factor to reckon
merit of the eligible in-service candidates is spelt out in the proviso. D
It envisages giving of incentive marks @ 10% of the marks
obtained for each year of service in remote and/or difficult areas
up to 30% of the marks obtained in NEET. It is an objective method
of linking the incentive marks to the marks obtained in NEET by
the candidate.” (Id at page 772)
E
It may be noted that in arriving at this conclusion, the court has taken
due note of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Dr Preeti
Srivastava v State of M P11 as well as of the decisions in Tirthani,
AIIMS Students’ Union and Sudhir N (supra) among other decisions.
14. The decision in Dinesh Singh Chauhan holds the field. It is F
based on a construction of Regulation 9(IV) which, at least at the present
stage, cannot be brushed aside. The principle which has been adopted in
that decision is consistent with the primacy which is attributed by the
Constitution to Entry 66 of List I. This is the clear intendment of the
words “subject to” in Entry 25 of List III. The grant of any interim relief
at the present stage would amount to a mandatory final order which G
cannot be countenanced. MCI has, as an expert body, proceeded on a
principled basis. Any attempt at this stage to read into Regulation 9(IV),
a separate source of entry or a reservation for in-service candidates in
11
(1999) 7 SCC 120
H
566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 3 S.C.R.
A degree courses would impinge upon Entry 66 of List I and the exercise
of regulatory powers under the central statute.
15. For these reasons, we are unable to accede to the prayer for
interim relief which has been urged on behalf of the petitioners. Interim
relief is accordingly refused. We, however, clarify that the counselling
B which takes place shall ultimately abide by the result of the reference.
I.A. No 33686 of 2018 is disposed of accordingly.
Kalpana K. Tripathy I.A. disposed of.
C
D
E
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Regulation 9"Sign in to search