- The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Dr. N. Karthikeyan & Ors. V. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.[Writ Petition (Civil) No. 53 Of 2022] has allowed the State of Tamil Nadu to continue the counselling for Medical Super speciality courses in Government Medical Colleges for the academic year 2021-22 while going ahead with the reservation provided by it through the impugned Government order.
- Supreme Court vide an interim order dated 27th November, 2020, had directed that the counselling for admission to Super Specialty Medical Courses for 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.
- The Learned Counsel for the petitioners, while citing leading case laws, 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.
- Learned counsel for State of Tamil Nadu submitted that the present bench was bound by the decision of the Constitutional bench in the case of Tamil Nadu Medical Association v. Union of India, 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 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India.
- It was submitted that if reservations are not 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 reservation is provided with an object of getting services of such candidates till their superannuation.
- 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.
- For the academic year 2021-22, undoubtedly, the said order was notified before the commencement of the admission process of the said courses.
- The Bench formed a prima facie view that 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.
- 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 other leading judgments quoted during the proceedings.
- In the light of the above and the arguments put forward by the Learned Counsel for the Respondents It was held that there was no purpose to be served by continuing interim protection which was granted for the academic year 2020-21 and the given petition was rejected.50% reservation of seats would for in-service candidates from the academic year 2021-22 was allowed.
"Loved reading this piece by Neeraj?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
