Date of Judgement:
16thMarch 2022
Coram/judge:
Hon’ble Justice L. Nageswara Rao
Hon’ble Justice B.R. Gavai
Parties to the Case:
Petitioners- Dr. N. Karthikey &Ors.
Respondents- State of Tamil Nadu &Ors.
Subject
The present writ petition challenged government order dated 7th November 2020 issued by the Health and Family Welfare Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu, which provided for reservation of 50% Super Specialty seats (Doctorate of Medicine / Master of Chirurgiae) for in-service candidates in Government Medical Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu.
Legal Provisions
- 7th Schedule to Indian Constitution - The Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India defines and specifies the allocation of powers and functions between Union & States.
Overview
- Supreme Court vide an interim order dated 27th November, 2020, had directed that the counselling for admission to Super Specialty Medical Courses or the academic year 2020-21 shall proceed without providing for reservations to in-service doctors.
- The writ petitioners and the appellants in the present case had contended that the Court should continue the aforesaid interim order of this Court even for the academic year 2021-22. This prayer was strongly opposed by the State as well as the in-service candidates.
- Arguments Advanced by The Petitioner/ Applicants
- The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Court in the case of Indra Sawhney & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors as well as Constitution Bench of the Court in the case of Dr.Preeti Srivastava &anr v. State of M.P. &ors have specifically held that there cannot be any reservation for admission in Super Specialty courses.
- It was contended that the matters regarding coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education, research and scientific & technical institutions were clearly covered by Item 66 in List-I of the 7th Schedule to the Constitution of India. So, the Regulation issued by the Medical Council of India would prevail over state government order.
- It was further submitted that the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association & ors v. Union of India &ors, in holding that States have legislative competence and authority to provide reservation for in-service candidates did not lay down a correct proposition of law and further it was restricted only to postgraduate degree/diploma courses.
- In light of Indra Sawhney and other leading case laws, only merit and merit alone shall be weighed while giving admissions in the Super Specialty courses. Learned ASG, appearing for Union of India, supported the contentions of petitioners.
Arguments Advanced by The Respondents
- Learned counsel for State of Tamil Nadu submitted that the present bench was bound by the decision of the Constitutional bench in Tamil Nadu Medical Association v. Union of India &ors. case, wherein it was particularly held that the State was empowered to provide for a separate source of reservation for in-service candidates seeking admission to postgraduate degree/diploma courses, in view of List III Entry 25 in 7thSchedule of the Constitution of India.It was also held thatpolicy for such a reservation must provide for subsequent conditions on their employment for a certain number of years under the state government.
- It was submitted that on account of non-availability of candidates in super specialization, various vacancies couldn’t be filled. Channel for admission of in-service candidates would make them serve the state and they could be appointed of vacant posts of professors.
- It was submitted that if reservations werenot done, there would be a danger of a large number of Super Specialty seats being reduced on account of non-availability of the requisite number of faculty. In-service reservationswould be provided with an object of getting services of such candidates till their superannuation.
- Learned Additional Advocate general, appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu, submitted that the stand taken by the Union of India was inconsistent. The Government of India was already providing separate entrance examination for postgraduate and Super Specialty seats and was providing for separate entry for in-service candidates in the name of ‘sponsored candidates’
Issue
- Whether the said Government Order which provided for 50% reservation for admission in Super Specialty courses/seats is permissible in law or not?
- Whether the interim order dated 27th November, 2020, which was granted for the academic year 2020-21, should also be continued for the academic year 2021-22 or not?
Judgment Analysis
- The Honourable Bench observed that while passing the interim order on 27th November 2020, the court took cognizance of the fact that government order was issued on 7th November i.e., after the admission process had begun. So, the objective was that rules should not be changed after the admission process had begun. It was specifically clarified that the court had not expressed any opinion on the validity ofsaid Government Order. It was also reiterated that the said direction would be operative only for the academic year 2020-21.
- For the academic year 2021-22, undoubtedly, the said order. was notified before the commencement of the admission process of the said courses.
- In the case of Dr.Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P. &ors, the minimum qualifying marks for the general category candidates were 45%. However, for the reserved category candidates the condition was lowered down to 20%. In this situation, it was held that this would make it difficult for the reserved category candidates to bring their performance on par with the general category candidates in the course of postgraduate studies. Therefore, lowering the qualifying criteria for reserved category candidates, thereby resulting in great disparity of qualifying marks between a general category candidate and a reserved category was not permissible.
- The Court for medan opinion that the question, as to whether a reservation or a separate channel for admission can be provided to the in-service candidates did not fall for consideration in the case of Dr.Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P.
- The facts in the present case were much closer to the facts that were considered in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association v. Union of India & ors. The Bench for meda prima facie view that the facts that were considered in the case of Dr.Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P. & ors were distinct from the present case.
- Therefore, taking into consideration the principles of judicial discipline and judicial propriety, The Bench was guided by the judgment of the Constitution Bench in the case of Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association v. Union of India rather than the judgment in the case of Dr.Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P &Ors.
- It was held that there was no point in continuing interim protection which was granted for the academic year 2020-21 and the given petition was rejected.
Conclusion
The Honourable Supreme court allowed the State of Tamil Nadu to continue the counselling for academic year 2021-22 while going ahead with the reservation provided by it as per the impugned Government order. The decision was formed in light of various leading case laws decided by the Apex Court itself. Thus, for Medical Super speciality courses in Government Medical Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu, 50% of seats would be reserved for in-service candidates from the academic year 2021-22.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
