Education/Educational Institutions:
Rules framed by University – Providing for institutional Reservation/Preference – For admission in post-graduate medical course – Challenged as being violative of Medical Council Act and Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations after introduction of NEET Scheme – Petition dismissed by High Court – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: Institutional Preference/Reservation to the extent of 50% of total number of open seats is permissible – Introduction of NEET Scheme shall not affect such preference – Therefore the regulations providing for institutional Preference/Reservation are not ultra vires to s. 10D of Medical Council Act – Medical Council Act, 1956 – s. 10D – Post Graduate Medical Education Admission Regulations – Reg. 9. Dismissing the appeals/writ petitions, the Court HELD: 1. The purpose and object of the introduction of the NEET Scheme was to conduct a uniform entrance examination for all medical educational institutions at the undergraduate level or post-graduate level and admissions at the under-graduate level and post-graduate level are to be given solely on the basis of the merits and/or marks obtained in the NEET examination only. The only obligation by virtue of introduction of NEET is that, once centralized admission test is conducted, the State, its agencies, Universities and institutions cannot hold any separate test for the purpose of admission to Post-Graduate and PG and Diploma Courses and such seats are to be filled up by the State agencies, Universities/Institutions for preparing merit list as per the score obtained by the applicants in NEET examination and therefore by introduction of the NEET, Section 10D of the MCI, Act has been amended, consequently amendment to the Post-Graduate Education Regulations, 2000, admission to Post Graduate Courses are made providing for solely on the basis of the score secured by the candidates seeking admission based on centralized examination, i.e. NEET. [Para 10.3] [858-C-G]
2. Under the circumstances, introduction of the NEET Scheme, as such, has nothing to do with the “Institutional Preference”. Therefore, the change by introduction of the NEET Scheme shall not affect the Institutional Preference/Reservation as approved by this Court from time to time in catena of decisions. Under the guise of introduction of the NEET Scheme, the petitioners cannot be permitted to re-agitate and/or re-open the issue with respect to Institutional Preference which has been approved and settled by this Court in catena of decisions. [Para 10] [859-A-C]
3. Thus, Institutional Preference to the extent of 50% is approved and it is observed and held that introduction of the NEET Scheme shall not affect such Institutional Preference/Reservation. Such a regulation providing 50% Institutional Preference/Reservation shall not be in any way ultra vires to Section 10D of the Medical Council Act. Even otherwise, even in the case of Institutional Preference/Reservation, the admissions in the post graduate courses are to be given on the basis of the merits and marks obtained in the NEET examination result only. [Para 12] [860-A-B]
4. So far as the question that if the 50% seats are reserved for State quota and if institutional preference/reservation is permitted to the extent of 50% of the total number of open seats, in that case, not a single seat in the State quota shall be available is concerned, it will be for the appropriate authority/State to consider how much percentage seats are to be reserved for Institutional Preference/Reservation. It will be in the realm of a policy decision and this Court cannot substitute the same, unless it is held to be arbitrary and/or mala fide and/or not permissible. [Para 11] [859-C-D-F]
Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India 2003 (11) SCC
146 : [2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 152 – followed.
Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC
654 : [1984] 3 SCR 942 ; AIIMS Students’ Union v. AIIMS (2002) 1 SCC 428 : [2001] 2 Suppl. SCR 79 ; D.N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore (1971) 2 SCC
293 ; Gujarat University v. Rajiv Gopinath Bhatt (1996) 4 SCC 60 : [1996] 2 Suppl. SCR 184 ; Saurabh Dwivedi v.Union of India (2017) 7 SCC
626 : [2017] 4 SCR 286 ; Dinesh Kumar (Dr.) (II) v. Motilal Nehru Medical College (1986) 3 SCC 727 : [1986] 3 SCR 345 – relied on.
State of U.P. v. Dinesh Singh Chauhan (2016) 9 SCC
749 : [2016] 6 SCR 571 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.