Bar & Bench ()images.assettype.com/barandbench/import/2017/07/Judg… ·...

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATMADRAS

Reservedon:11.07.2017

Deliveredon:14.07.2017

CORAM

THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICEK.RAVICHANDRABAABU

W.P.No.16341/2017&W.M.P.Nos.17665&17666/2017

W.P.Nos.16379&16380/2017&W.M.P.Nos.17690to17695/2017

W.P.No.16449/2017&W.M.P.Nos.17792to17794/2017

W.P.Nos.16503to16509/2017&W.M.P.Nos.17848to17868/2017

W.P.No.16918/2017&W.M.P.Nos.18377to18379/2017

W.P.No.16826/2017&W.M.P.Nos.18271to18273/2017

W.P.No.16983/2017&W.M.P.Nos.18440to18442/2017


W.P.Nos.17021/2017&W.M.P.Nos.18475&18476/2017

W.P.No.17045/2017&W.M.P.Nos.18503to18505/2017


WP.No.16681of2017&WMP.Nos.18057to18059of2017

WP.No.17103of2017&WMPNo.18580of2017

WP.No.17104of2017&WMPNos.18581&18582of2017

WP.Nos.17137,17139to17146&WMPNos.18605,18606&18609to18624of2017

WP.Nos.17147to17149,&17151to17156of2017&WMPNos.18625to18630&18633to18644of2017

WP.No.17184of2017&WMPNos.18671to18673of2017



Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

WPNos.17410&17411of2017&WMP.Nos.18920to18923of2017

WPNo.17525of2017&WMP.Nos19015&19016of2017


WPNo.17533of2017&WMP.Nos.19027&19028of2017


WPNos.17545&17546of2017&WMPNos.19045to19048of2017

WPNo.17565of2017&WMPNos.19061&19062of2017

W.P.No.16341of2017

V.S.SaiSachin,

Minorrepresentedbyhisfather

andNaturalGuardian,V.Suresh,

atNo.B3,IIMainRoad,KasturibaiNagar,Adyar,

Chennai–600020. ..Petitioner

Vs.

1.TheStateofTamilnadu,

DepartmentofHealthandFamily

WelfarerepresentedbyitsSecretary,

FortSt.George,

Chennai,TamilNadu.

2.TheSelectionCommittee,

DirectorateofMedicalEducation,

162,PeriyarE.V.R.HighRoad,Kilpauk,

Chennai–600010.


3.ThePresident,

MedicalcouncilofIndia,

Pocket14,Phase-I,Sector-8,

NewDelhi.

4.TheRegistrar,

TheTamilNaduDr.M.G.R..MedicalUniversity,

No.69,AnnaSalai,

Chennai-600032....Respondents

PrayerinW.P.No.16341of2017:

WritpetitionfiledunderArticle226oftheConstitutionofIndia,forissuanceofaWrit

ofCertiorarifiedMandamustocallfortherecordsrelatingtotheProspectusfor

MBBS/BDSadmission2017-18onthefileoffirstandsecondrespondentspertaining

to admission to MBBS/BDS Courses in TamilNadu Government Colleges,

GovernmentSeats in Self-financing MedicalColleges affiliated to the fourth

respondentUniversityand seats in Rajah Muthiah MedicalCollege (Annamalai

University)andquashthatdecisionmadeinthealternateclauseofclause-IV(19)of

theProspectusforMBBS/BDSadmission2017-18thatoutoftheStateQuotaseas

inGovernmentMedicalCollegesandGovernmentQuotainselfFinancingPrivate

MedicalColleges,85percentofseatsshallbeearmarkedtothestudentswhohave

studiedintheTamilNaduStateBoardonlywithrest15percentwillbereservedfor

studentsfrom CBSEandotherboardssofarasitrelatestothepetitionerand

consequentlydirectthefirstandsecondrespondentstoconsiderthepetitioner

againstallavailableseatsin MBBS and BDS coursesoffered in Collegesand

EducationInstitutionswithintheStateofTamilNadufortheacademicYear2017-

2018.


ForPetitioner

inW.P.16341/2017:Mr.Om Prakash,SeniorCounsel

forMs.S.Rajalakshmi

ForPetitioner

inW.Ps.16379

and16380/2017:Mrs.HemaMuralikrishnan

ForPetitioner

inW.P.16449/2017:Mr.E.K.Kumaresan

forMr.M.Guruprasad

ForPetitioner

inW.Ps.16503

to16509/2017:Mrs.HemaMuralikrishnan

ForPetitioner

inW.P.16918/2017:Mr.Amalaraj

ForPetitioner

inW.P.16826&

16983/2017 :Mr.V.Srikanth

ForPetitioner

inW.Ps.17018

to17021

&17545&17546/2017:Mr.K.Sellathurai


ForPetitioner

inW.P.17045/2017:Mr.V.Karthikeyan

ForPetitioner

inW.Ps.17060

to17067/2017:Mr.T.Gowthaman

ForPetitioner

inW.P.16681/2017:Mr.RahulBalaji

ForPetitioner

inW.Ps.17103

&17104/2017:Mr.BharathaChakravarthyfor

M/s.SaiBharath&Ilan

ForPetitioner

inW.Ps.17137,

17139to17146,

17147to17149

&17151to

17156/2017 :Mr.K.Suresh

ForPetitioner

inW.Ps.17184

and17199/2017 :Mr.A.Muthukumar


ForPetitioner

inW.P.17312/2017:Mr.T.Karunakaran

ForPetitioner

inW.Ps.17410

&17411/2017:Mr.AshokMenan

ForPetitioner

inW.Ps.17525

&17565/2017:Mr.ManiSundarGopal

forMr.T.Meikandan

ForPetitioner

inW.P.17528/2017:Mrs.NaliniChidambaram

forMrs.C.Uma

ForPetitioner

inW.P.17533/2017:Mr.AR.L.Sunderasan,SeniorCounsel

forMrs.A.L.Ganthimathi

ForPetitioner

inW.P.17540/2017:Mr.P.S.Raman,Seniorcounsel

forMr.R.Sivaraman

ForRespondents:Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy,

AdvocateGeneral,


assistedbyMr.T.N.Rajagopalan&

Mr.P.Kumar,SpecialGovernmentPleaders

forState

Mr.V.P.Raman,

StandingCounsel

forMedicalCouncilofIndia

Mr.P.R.Gopinathan,

StandingCounselfor

TamilnaduDr.M.G.R.Medical

University

Mr.G.Nagarajan,

StandingCounselfor

CentralBoardofSchoolEducation.

COM M ONORDER

W.P.No.16341 of2017 isfiled challenging ClauseIV(19)oftheProspectusof

MBBS/BDSadmission2017-18,reserving85% ofseatsforthestudentsofTamil

NaduStateBoard,leavingtherest15%tothestudentsofCBSEandotherBoards.All

otherwritpetitionsarefiledchallengingG.O.Ms.No.233dated22.06.2017issuedby

theHealthandFamilyWelfare(MCA-1)Department,GovernmentofTamilNadu,

makingsuchreservation.


2.Thepetitionersarestudentswho passedtheHigherSecondaryExamination

throughCentralBoardofSecondaryEducation.Thesestudentsareaspiringtoget

admissiontotheM.B.B.S./B.D.S.Coursein2017-2018Session.Allthesepetitioners

arestatedtohavebeenqualifiedintheNationalEligibilitycum EntranceTest(NEET).

3.ThroughtheimpugnedG.O.,theStateofTamilNadudirectedtheAdditional

DirectorofMedicalEducation/Secretary,SelectionCommitteetoallocate85%ofthe

seatstothestudentswhohavestudiedinTamilNaduStateBoardand15%ofthe

seatstothestudentswhohavestudiedinCBSEandotherBoardsforadmissionto

MBBS/BDScoursesfor2017-2018sessionaftersurrendering15%oftheseatstoAll

IndiaQuota,inGovernmentMedicalCollegesandGovernmentQuotaseatsinSelf

Financing Private MedicalColleges including the seats to be surrendered to

GovernmentbyRajahMuthiahMedicalandDentalCollege,AnnamalaiUniversity,

Chidambaram.

4.Beforegoingintothemeritsofthematteritistobestatedthatoneofthewrit

petitionershereinnamelyMrs.KaaviyaaNakkiran(Minorrepresentedbyherfather

Mr.R.Nakkiran and others filed a WritPetition(C)No.491 of2017 before the

HonourableSupremeCourtofIndiachallengingtheverysameGovernmentOrder.It

isseenthattheHonourableSupremecourt,byorderdated07.07.2017disposedof

thesaidWritPetitionbypassingthefollowingorder:

“Learned counselforthepartiesareagreed,thatthesame

controversy,as has been raised in the instantpetition,is


pendingconsiderationbeforetheMadrasHighCourtwherein

pleadingsarecomplete.

2.Inview oftheabove,wedeclinetointerfereonthecause

raised bythe petitioners.We,however,grantlibertyto the

petitionerseithertofileafreshpetitionbeforetheMadrasHigh

Court,oralternativelytointerveneinthepetitionpendingbefore

theMadrasHighCourt.

3.Withtheaboveobservation,theinstantpetitionisdisposedof.

4.Keepinginviewoftheurgencyofthematter,werequestthe

High Courtto expedite the disposalofthe matterpending

beforeit.

Thus,from theaboveorderpassedbytheHonourableSupremecourtitisevident

thatthereisnoimpedimentforthisCourttoentertainandconsiderthesewrit

petitionsonmerits.LearnedAdvocateGeneralappearingfortherespondentsalso

concededtosuchposition.

5.Thepetitionersraisedthefollowingquestionsforconsideration.

a)WhethertheStateofTamilNadu,bywayofanexecutiveorder,canoverridethe

legislationoccupyingthefieldandorderspassedbytheApexCourttothateffect.

b)WhethertheimpugnedG.O.violatesArticle14oftheConstitutionofIndia,thereby

makingdiscriminationbetweenthestudentsofStateBoardandCentralBoard,

especially,whenthequalifyingexaminationtotheadmissiontoM.B.B.S./B.D.S.


Courseviz.,NEETiscommontoall.

6.Thus,thecruxofthegrievanceofthesepetitionersisthattheStateGovernment

cannotmaketheimpugnedreservationtherebyallottingonly15%ofthetotalseats

totheC.B.S.E.andotherBoardstudents,eventhoughtheyarequalifiedintheNEET

andentitledtocompeteequallywithothers.Inotherwords,itisthecontentionofthe

petitionersthatwhenthequalifyingexaminationforadmissiontotheM.B.B.S./B.D.S.

Course is only NEET and notthe marks obtained in the respective Board

Examinations,theStatecannotmakedistinctionbetweenthestudentsofState

BoardandCentralBoard,sincebothofthem areequallyplacedinsofarasthe

qualifyingexamination,namelyNEET,isconcerned.Therefore,itiscontendedby

them thattheimpugnedreservationdeniedtheirreasonableopportunitytocompete

foradmissioninrespectofalltheseats,eventhoughtheyareotherwisequalifiedin

theirNEET.Suchdiscrimination,accordingtothepetitioners,isinviolationofArticle

14oftheConstitutionofIndia.Inotherwords,thecruxofthecontentionofthe

petitionersisthattherecannotbereservation,amountingtodiscrimination,among

equals.

7.Onbehalfofthepetitioners,thelearnedseniorcounselsMrs.NaliniChidamaram,

Mr.P.S.Raman,Mr.AR.L.SundaresanandMr.Om Prakashandthelearnedcounsels,

Mrs.HemaMuralikrishnan,Mr.Gowthaman,Mr.BharathaCharavarthy,Mr.K.Suresh

Mr.RahulBalaji,Mr.Kumaresan,Mr.ManisundarGopal,arguedbeforethisCourtby

raising variouspointsand relying on variousCase Laws,which are discussed

hereunder.


8.Thecontentionsofallthelearnedcounselsappearingforthepetitionersare

summarisedasfollows:

Thebasisofmethodofselection,bywayoftheimpugnedreservation,isbasedon

uncertainproposition.WhattheStateisnotableto achieve,so farbywayof

legislation,cannotsoughttobeachievedthroughtheexecutiveorder.Intheplaceof

legislation,theGovernmentwantstoexerciseitsexecutivepower.WhenSection10-

DoftheIndianMedicalCouncilAct,1956hasalreadyoccupiedthefieldmandatinga

uniform entranceexaminationtoAllMedicalInstitutionatundergraduateleveland

postgraduatelevel,theexecutiveorderissuedbytheStateGovernmentcannot

overridethesaidCentrallegislation.ThereisnonexusbetweentheimpugnedG.O.

and theobjectsoughtto beachieved.On theotherhand,theimpugned G.O.

indirectlyseekstodefeattheobjectsoughttobeachievedthroughNEET.Thereis

norationaleinissuingtheimpugnedG.O.TheStateGovernmentistryingtotreatthe

equalsasunequalsbymakingthisimpugnedreservation.Thereservationwithin

reservationisbad.AlreadytheStatehasmadereservationforsociallyweaker

sectionlikeScheduleCasteandScheduleTribecommunitystudents.However,by

virtueoftheimpugnedG.O.,eventhosestudentsbelongingtoScheduleCasteand

ScheduleTribeundergonetheCentralBoardCourseareinfactpreventedfrom

competingwithallseats.NEETisintroducedforevaluatingequaltest.Byissuingthe

impugned G.O.,the State Governmentis trying to give preference to lesser

meritoriousstudentsofStateBoardthereby,themeritisgivenagoby.Therefore,it

defeatsthepurposeofNEET.AfterconductingtheNEETexaminationandallowing

thestudentstotakepartinthoseexamination,theStateGovernmentcannotchange


thegamepoleafterthegameisstarted.PreparationforNEETistotallydifferentwith

separatesyllabus.BothStateandCentralBoardstudentsaretotakethesame

examinationandtherefore,theycannotbetreatedwithdiscriminationlaterunderthe

guiseofpresentimpugnedreservation.WhentheMCInotificationdated21.12.2010

stipulatesthequalifyingexaminationasNEETandsuchnotificationwasupheldby

theSupremeCourt,theStateGovernmentcannotmaketheselectionbymakingthis

impugned reservation,thereby,diluting theobjectofNEET.Admittedly,theBill

passedbytheTamilNaduGovernmenttodoawaywithNEET,insofarasthisStateis

concerned,isstillpendingforgettingtheassentofthePresidentofIndiaand

therefore,whattheStateGovernmentisnotabletoachievetillthisdatebywayof

legislation,cannotbeachievedbypassingtheimpugnedorder.Whenthestudentsof

theCentralBoardarealsothedomicileofthisState,theycannotbegivenstep-

motherlytreatmentbymakingtheimpugnedreservation.Whenthesestudentstook

theiracademicexaminationunderCBSEandqualifyingexaminationunderNEET,

theyweregiventounderstandthatonlytheNEETexaminationwillbetakenassole

criteriaforselectiontoMBBS/BDScourse.Therefore,theirlegitimateexpectation

cannotbedefeatednow bytheimpugnedG.O.TheimpugnedG.O.waspassed

basedontheproposalreceivedfrom theAdditionalDirectorofMedicalEducation/

SecretarySelectionCommittee.Admittedly,thesaidproposalitselfwasmadeon

22.06.2017,onthesamedayonwhichtheimpugnedG.O.alsocametobepassed.

Therefore,itisevidentthattheimpugnedG.O.waspassedwithoutapplicationof

mind,moreparticularly,withoutconductingacabinetmeeting.Thepolicydecision

alreadytakenbytheGovernmentbyenactingthelegislation,namely,TamilNadu

AdmissiontoMBBS/BDSCourse,2017,isstillpendingforgettingassentfrom the

PresidentofIndiaunderArticle254(2)oftheConstitutionofIndiaandtherefore,the


StateGovernmentisnotentitledtomaketheimpugnedG.O.bywayofanexecutive

orderandimplementsuchpolicydecision.On04.11.2011itself,thesyllabusisgiven

forNEETandtherefore,theStateGovernmentcannotcontendthatthestudentsof

theStateBoardarenothavingsufficienttimetoequipthemselvesforNEET.The

CBSEhasgotnothingtodowiththepreparationofsyllabusforNEET,excepttothe

extentofconductingsuchNEETexaminationalone.Therefore,itcannotbesaidthat

thestudentsofCBSEareinmoreadvantageousposition.OnlybywayofState

legislationanequallevelplayingfieldcanbecreatedandnotbyanexecutiveorder

passedunderArticle162oftheConstitutionofIndia.Thepowerconferredunder

Article 162 can onlyco-existwith law and notto be exercised independently

unmindfulofthelawwhichisalreadyoccupyingthefield.TheExecutiveAuthorityof

theStateGovernmentisoverridingthelawmadebytheParliament.

9.Mr.P.R.RamanlearnedcounselappearingfortheIndianMedicalCouncilsupported

thecaseofthepetitionersandarguedasfollows:

The exemption granted during 2016-2017 academic yearfrom taking NEET

examinationwasinrespectoftheonlystudentswhoweresoughttobeadmitted

underGovernmentquota.InsofarastheManagementquotaforthesaidacademic

yearisconcerned,NEETexaminationwasfollowed.TheverysameStateBoard

studentstookNEET examination during 2016-2017 and competed with Central

Boardstudentsforgettingadmissionundermanagementquota.Thereasonsgiven

bytheStateGovernmenttoopposetheNEET,whileintroducingthepresentBill,

namely,TamilNaduAdmissiontoMBBS/BDSCourseBill2017andtoissuethe


impugnedorderareoneandthesame.Suchreasoningsarenotacceptedbythe

ApexCourtwhileupholdingtheNEET.Thelegislationnowsoughttobebroughtinis

alsopendingforgettingassentfrom thePresidentofIndiaandtherefore,asondate,

theStateGovernmentisnotentitledtobringtheimpugnedreservationbystatingthe

verysamereasons.AllotherStateshaveacceptedNEETandarefollowingthesame.

ThesyllabusforNEETispreparedbyMCIandalreadyputupinthedomainin2011

itself.Therefore,enoughtimewasavailablefortheStateBoardstudentstoprepare

themselves.BytheimpugnedG.O,twomeritlistsaresoughttobepreparedbythe

StateGovernmentwhichisimpermissible.

10.Thefollowingarethecaselawsreliedoninsupportoftheabovecontentions:-

(i)AIR1968SC1012(MinorP.RajendranV.StateofMadrasandothers)

(ii)(1984)4SCC296(SuneelJatleyandothersV.StateofHaryana&Others).

(iii)(2016)7SCC487(SankalpCharitableTrustandAnotherV.UnionofIndiaand

Others)

(iv)ThedecisionoftheGujaratHighCourtatAhmedabadmadeinSpecialCivil

ApplicationNo.5749of2017(NilayParagJoshi&10othersV.StateofGujarat&47

others)

(v)1992(2)LawWeekly155(AssociationofPrivateSchoolsAffiliatedtotheCentral

BoardofSecondaryEducationrep.ByitsPresidentV.Venkatachalam andAnotherV.

StateofTamilnadu,rep.BySecretarytoGovernmentandothers)


(vi)(1980)2SCC768(Dr.JagadishSaranandOthersV.UnionofIndia)

(vii)(1984)3SCC654(Dr.PradeepJainandOthersV.UnionofIndiaandothers)

(viii)2002(4)CTC449(M.Aarthi(Minor)rep.Byhermotherandnaturalguardian

Mrs.M.Renukaand2othersV.ThestateofTamilnadurep.BySecretaryto

Government,Chennai–9and11others)

(ix)ThedecisionoftheDivisionBenchofthisCourtmadeinW.A.No.2624of2001

etc.,(ManupatraManu/TN/007/2002)(S.MuthuSenthilandOthersVs.Stateof

Tamilnadu,EducationDepartment,Chennaiandothers)

(x)(2016)9SCC749(StateofUttarpradeshandothersV.DineshSinghChauhan)

(xi)(1990)1I.L.R.PunjabandHaryana282(N.K.BatraandOthersV.Kurukshetra

Universityandothers)

11.Therespondents1&2filedtheircounter,wherein,itisstatedasfollows:-

TheStateisempoweredtolaydownpolicytoprotectitsstudentsforadmission

undertheStateGovernmentSeatsforMBBS/BDSCourse.Theentranceexamination

foradmissiontoProfessionalEducationalInstitutionscreatedmorehardshiptothe

studentcommunity,especiallyintheruralareaandthestudentswhocouldnot

affordtoenrollthemselvesincoachingclasses.TheissueofNationalEligibility-cum-

EntranceTest(NEET)aroseinitiallyaftertheMedicalCouncilofIndiadecidedto

introduceaCommonEntranceExaminationforalltheUnderGraduateandPost

GraduateMedicalCourses,byissuingnotificationsunderitsRegulationsintheyear


2010.From that time itself,the Government of TamilNadu is repeatedly

emphasizingthattheintroductionofNEETisadirectinfringementontherightsof

the State.Though,the MCInotification forconducting NEET examination was

quashedbytheHon'bleSupremeCourt,initsorderdated18.07.2013,however,later,

pursuanttothereviewpetitionfiledbytheGovernmentofIndia,theHon'bleSupreme

Courtintheorderdated11.04.2016allowedthereview petitionandre-calledthe

earlierorderdated18.07.2013anddecidedtohearthecaseafresh.TheBenchto

takeupthecaseafreshisyettobeconstituted.However,inthePublicInterest

LitigationfiledbyoneSankalpCharitableTrustseekingforintroductionofNEET

from 2016-2017,theHon'bleSupremeCourtpassedanorderon09.05.2016tothe

effectthatalladmissionstoMBBS/BDSCoursesshouldbeonlythroughNEET.The

admissionforMBBS/BDSCourseuptotheyear2016-2017hasbeenmadesolelyon

thebasisofmarksobtainedinHigherSecondaryExaminationintheTamilNadu

StateBoard,CBSEandotherBoards.Now,theGovernmentofIndiahaveissuedthe

IndianMedicalCouncil(Amendment)Act,2016andDentists(Amendment)Act,2016

by inserting a new Section i.e.Section 10(D)mandating common entrance

examinationforUnderGraduateandPostGraduateCourseswithanexemptionto

Statesfrom NationalEligibilitycum EntranceTest(NEET)onlyfortheacademicyear

2016-2017 for MBBS/BDS admissions in Government MedicalColleges and

GovernmentQuotaseatsinPrivateMedicalColleges.However,from theacademic

year2017-2018,NEEThasbecomemandatoryforallMedical/DentalCoursesboth

inUnderGraduate/PostGraduateCourses.ToprotectthepolicydecisionofTamil

Naduforadmissionofstudentsbasedon+2examinationmarksinrelevantsubjects,

TamilNaduAdmissiontoMBBSandBDSCoursesBill,2017wasintroducedand

unanimouslypassedintheTamilNaduLegislativeAssemblyon01.02.2017.TheBill


isawaitingfortheAssentofHisExcellencyThePresidentofIndia.NEETplaces

studentsfrom theStateBoardatatotaldisadvantagevis-a-visCBSEstudents,asthe

syllabus,methodologyandthecontentoftheStateBoardandtheexamination

patternarequitedifferent.TheaccessibilitytotheCBSEschoolsisnotpossibletoall

thestudentsintheState.Comparingwiththenumbers,theCBSEandotherBoards

studentsareverymeagrethantheStateBoardStudents.ThesyllabusfortheNEET

examinationisinthepatternofCBSE.Now,aspertheNEET,ifnosourcereservation

isdone,outofthetop300seats,only76willgotothestudentsfrom StateBoardi.e.

28% while72% willgotothestudentsfrom CBSE/otherBoards.Brightstudents

from theStateBoardwillthus,bedeniedoftheopportunitytostudyinMadras

MedicalCollege,StanleyMedicalCollege,KilpaukMedicalCollegeetc.,Article14

forbids class legislation,butdoes notforbids classification which rests upon

reasonablegroundsofdistinction.ThestudentsstudiedintheStateBoardandthe

studentsstudiedintheCBSEBoardarenotequals.Hence,unequalscannotbe

treatedasequalsaspertheArticle14oftheConstitutionofIndia.TheGovernment

ofTamilNaduisstillexpectingthattheGovernmentofIndiawillgettheAssentof

HisExcellencyThePresidentofIndiaontheBilloftheGovernmentofTamilNadu.

Untilthen,theGovernmentofTamilNaduhastoobeytherulesinforce.Atthesame

time,theGovernmentofTamilNaduishavingthepowertoallocatetheseats

betweenthestudentsstudiedinStateBoardsyllabusandthestudentsstudiedin

CBSEandotherBoardssyllabus.

12.Therespondents1and2alsofiledadditionalcounteraffidavitdated13.07.2017

afterthematterwasreserved'fororders'.Inthesaidadditionalcounter,apartfrom


reiteratingthecontentionsalreadyraisedintheoriginalcounteraffidavit,itisstated

furtherasfollows:

Therewere2279studentsfrom theStateBoardand39studentsfrom theCBSEand

otherBoardsadmittedintheMBBSCoursefortheyear2016-17intheGovernment

MedicalColleges.AspertheNEET,nosourcereservationisdone,outofthetop300

seatsonly76willgotostudentsfrom StateBoardi.e.,28% while72% willgoto

studentsfrom CBSE/otherBoards.Hence,unequalscannotbetreatedasequalsas

perArticle14oftheConstitution.Itisfurtherstatedthatinordertomaintainequality

beforelaw,theimpugnedG.O.cametobepassed.TheGovernmentiswellawareof

theinterestofthestudentsoftheStateBoardandotherBoardsandplantoissue

commonmeritlistcombiningofstudentsstudiedinvariousboardswithaparameter

ofNEETmarkonly.Allotmentonlywillbemadecompartmentwisei.e.,85%ofseats

willbeallottedtostudentsstudiedinStateboardand15% ofseatstostudents

studied in CBSE and other Boards. The rule of reservation of 69% for

BC/MBC/BC(M)/SC/ST/SCAetc.,willbefollowedforboththecandidatesforState

BoardstudentsandCBSEandotherBoardstudents.Hence,thereisnodeviationin

theruleofreservationenactedwhileallottingtheseatstothecandidates.

13.Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy,learned Advocate Generalappearing forthe State

submittedasfollows:

TheStateofTamilNaduisagainstconductingtheentranceexaminationfrom the

verybeginning.AlreadyaBillviz.,"TamilNaduAdmissiontoMBBSandBDSCourses

Bill,2017"(T.N.L.A.BillNo.7of2017)waspassedunanimouslyintheTamilNadu


LegislativeAssemblyon01.02.2017andtheBillisawaitingfortheAssentofHis

ExcellencyThePresidentofIndia.Upto2016-2017,onlyacademicmarksinthe

HigherSecondarySchoolweretreatedasqualificationtotheadmissionintothe

MBBS/BDSCourses.Intheyear2016-2017NEETexaminationisexcludedinrespect

ofstudentssoughttobeadmittedundertheStateQuota.IftheBillhasnotassented

bythePresidentofIndia,theStatehastocertainlyfollowSection10(D)oftheIndian

MedicalCouncilAct.EvennowNEETwillbethesolecriteriaforadmissionintothe

MBBS/BDSCoursesandwhattheimpugnedGovernmentOrderproposesisonly

makingreservationamongthestudentsonapro-ratebasis,basedonthestatistics

ofthetotalstrengthofstudentswhohavetakenpartintheStateBoardandCentral

BoardExamination.TheimpugnedGovernmentOrderwasnotpassedbasedonthe

AdditionalDirector'sproposalalone.Ontheotherhand,theGovernmentwantedto

examinetheissueandgetthereportonthataspectandaccordingly,passedthe

impugnedGovernmentOrder.NEETsyllabusisbasedonCBSEstandard.Therefore,

theStateiscreatingonlydifferentsourcessincethereisin-equalityamongthe

studentsofStateandCentralBoard.Thecompetencyforissuingtheimpugned

GovernmentOrderistraceableunderArticle162oftheConstitutionofIndiaand

therefore,basedonsuchpowertheStateistryingtomakeclassificationamongthe

studentswithinitsState.Itisonlycreatinglevelplayingfieldamongthestudents.

Therefore,itcannotbetreatedasdiscriminationandconsequently,thereisno

violationofArticle14oftheConstitutionofIndia.Reasonableclassificationis

alwayspermissible.Here,wholesomereservationisnotmadeandtherefore,the

petitionersarenotjustifiedincontendingotherwise.Inordertoproducerealequality,

theStatehaspassedtheimpugnedGovernmentOrderwhichcannotbefaulted.As

perthereservationmadethroughtheimpugnedGovernmentOrder,outoftotal4350


seats,theStateBoardstudentswillget2867seatsandotherBoardStudentswillget

520seats.Therefore,thepetitionerscannothaveanygrievance.Thecaselaws

relied on by the learned counselappearing forthe petitioners are factually

distinguishable.Ontheotherhand,theobservationmadebytheApexCourtinthe

ModelDentalCollegecasereportedin2016Volume7SCC353isfavouringthe

Government.

14.Onthesideoftherespondents,followingcaselawsarecited:-

(i)(2016)7SCC353(ModernDentalCollegeandResearchCentreandOthersV.

StateofMadhyaPradeshandOthers)

(ii)1970AIR35(ChitraGhoshandAnotherV.UnionofIndiaandothers)

(iii)(1980)2SCC768(Dr.JagadishSaranandOthersV.UnionofIndia)

15.Heardthelearnedcounselsappearingoneitherside.Ihavegivenmycareful

considerationtotheirsubmissionsaswellastherespectivepleadingsandthe

respectivecaselawsreliedonbythem.

16.TheissueinvolvedinthesecasesisastowhethertheimpugnedGovernment

OrderinG.O.Ms.No.233dated22.06.2017issuedbytheHealthandFamilyWelfare

(MCA-1)Department,GovernmentofTamilNadu,andtherelevantimpugnedclause


intheprospectusaresustainableintheeyeoflaw.Ihavealreadypointedoutthat

the impugned GovernmentOrdermakes reservation of85% ofthe seats in

MBBS/BDSCoursestotheStateBoardstudentstherebyleaving15%oftheseatsfor

the students from otherBoards such as CBSE etc.,The reasons and the

justificationsstatedintheimpugnedorderformakingsuchreservationaremainly

focussedonthepolicydecisionoftheGovernmenttoprotecttheStateBoard

studentswhosesyllabus,methodologyandpatternofexaminationarestatedtobe

entirelydifferentfrom theCentralBoardofSecondaryEducation.Furtherjustification

statedintheimpugnedorderisthattheGovernmentwantstoensureanequal

opportunitytothestudentsofvariousBoardsandnormalizethesame.

17.ItisfurtherstatedintheimpugnedGovernmentOrderthatitwaspassed,since

NEETisbasisforadmission,toensurethatfairandequalopportunityaregivento

thecandidatesofdifferentBoardsoutofalltheStates,equalseatsinGovernment

MedicalCollegesandGovernmentQuotaseatsinSelfFinancialPrivateMedicaland

DentalColleges.TheAdditionalDirectorofMedicalEducation/Secretary,Selection

Committeeproposedthat85%oftheseatsmaybeearmarkedtothestudentswho

arestudyingintheTamilNaduStateBoardwiththerestavailabletotheother

Boardsonaproratebasis.Itisalsostatedthatmorethan95% ofthestudents

appearedintheStateBoardandnotmorethan5%appearedintheremainingBoards.

AfterextractingtheaboveproposalmadebytheAdditionalDirectorofMedical

Education/Secretary,SelectionCommitteedated 22.06.2017,theGovernmentof

TamilNadutookthedecisiontoacceptsuchproposalandissuedtheimpugned

GovernmentOrderwherein,theconsiderationandexaminationofthesaidproposal


arediscussedonlyatthepenultimateparagraph8whichreadsasfollows:

“TheGovernmenthaveexaminedtheproposalofthe

AdditionalDirectorofMedicalEducation/Secretary

SelectionCommitteeatparagraph7aboveanddecided

toacceptthesame.Accordingly,theGovernmenthave

takenapolicydecisionanddirecttheAdditionalDirector

ofMedicalEducation/SecretarySelectionCommitteeto

allocatethe85%oftheseatstostudentswhohave

studiedinTamilNaduStateBoardand15%oftheseats

tothestudentswhohavestudiedinCBSEandother

BoardsforadmissiontotheMBBS/BDScoursefor2017-

2018sessionaftersurrendering15%oftheseatstoAll

IndiaQuota,inGovernmentMedicalCollegesand

GovernmentQuotaseatsinSelfFinancingPrivate

MedicalCollegesincludingtheseatstobesurrenderedto

GovernmentbyRajahMuthiahMedicalandDental

College,AnnamalaiUniversity,Chidambaram.”

18.Itisnotoutofcontexttonotehereatthisjuncture,thatthesaidproposalaswell

astheconsequentialimpugnedGovernmentOrderweremadeononeandthesame

dayi.e.on22.06.2017.AcarefulperusalofthefindingsgivenbytheGovernment

thereinatparagraph8,asextractedsupra,wouldundoubtedlyindicatethatthereis

noapplicationofmindontheproposalmadebytheAdditionalDirectorofMedical

EducationexceptstatingthattheGovernmenthaveexaminedtheproposaland

decidedtoacceptthesame.Curiously,itisalsostatedatparagraph8thatthe

GovernmenthavetakenapolicydecisionanddirectedtheAdditionalDirectorof

MedicalEducation to allocatetheseatsto thestudentsaspertheimpugned


reservation.

19.Therefore,itisevidentthatapolicydecision,asprojectedintheimpugned

GovernmentOrder,seems to have been taken based on the proposalofthe

AdditionalDirectoronly,withouttherebeinganydiscussionbytheCabinettothat

effect.Certainly,theAdditionalDirectorisnotcompetenttotakeapolicydecision

andontheotherhand,itistheGovernment,whichiscompetenttodoso.Inthese

cases,theAdditionalDirectorbymakingtheproposalhasrequestedtheGovernment

toconsiderapolicytofacilitatethestudentsfrom allpartsoftheStatetogetan

opportunitytostudymedicineandDentalCourses.Atthisjuncture,itisrelevantto

notethattheStateGovernmenthasalreadytakenapolicydecisiontodoawaywith

ortogetridofNEETbypassingaBillviz.,TamilNaduAdmissiontoMBBS/BDS

Course Bill2017,unanimously.Itis notin dispute thatthe said Billhas not

transformeditselfintoaLegislation,sincetheConstitutionalrequirementofgetting

assentfrom the PresidentofIndia,as required underArticle 254(2)ofthe

ConstitutionofIndia,isyettobecompliedwith.Therefore,whentheverysame

policytakenbytheGovernmentbywayofpassingtheabovesaidBillisstillpending

considerationbeforethePresidentofIndia,thequestionthatwouldarisenowisas

towhethertheGovernmentisentitledtoissuethisimpugnedreservationasamatter

ofpolicydecisionstatingtheverysamereasoning.

20.Ihavealreadypointedoutthattotakeapolicydecisiontheremustbeathorough

discussionoftheissuebytheCabinetanditcannotbetakensimplybasedona


reportsubmittedbytheAdditionalDirectorofMedicalEducation.Evenotherwise,

assumingthattheGovernmentisentitledtotakethepresentpolicydecision,stillthis

Courtisnotexcludedorprecludedfrom consideringthevalidityoftheimpugned

GovernmentOrderresultingoutofsuchpolicydecision,ifthenetresultofsuch

GovernmentOrderisviolatingcertainConstitutionalprovisions,moreparticularly,

Article14oftheConstitutionofIndia,orifitworksagainstthelegislationalready

occupyingthefield.

21.Beforeproceedingfurther,letmenarratethebrieffactsandcircumstances

whichledtheGovernmenttotaketheimpugneddecision.

22.ForadmissiontoMBBS/BDSCourseintheStateofTamilNadu,previouslythe

marksobtainedintherespectiveBoardExaminationin+2aretakenasthesole

criteria.TheMedicalCouncilofIndiaamendeditsRegulations2010andissued

Notificationdated21.12.2010,wherebyitismandatedthateligibleforadmissionto

M.B.B.S.Courseinaparticularacademicyearistobeassessedbasedonthemarks

obtainedintheNationalEligibilitycum EntranceTesttoM.B.B.S.Courseandthat

selectionforadmissiontoM.B.B.S.Courseshallbepreparedonthebasisofthe

marks obtained in such NationalEligibilitycum Entrance Testonly.The said

RegulationwaschallengedbeforetheHonourableSupremeCourtofIndia.Though

byanorderdated18.07.2013,thesaidRegulationwasquashedbytheApexCourt,

pursuanttofilingofareviewpetition,thesaidorderdated18.07.2013wasrecalled

and thematterwasdirected to beheard afresh.Thereafter,in orderto bring


uniformityamongallthestudents,theGovernmentofIndiaissuedIndianMedical

Council(Amendment)Act,2016andDentists(Amendment)Act,2016,mandating

commonentranceexaminationforUnderGraduateandPostGraduateCourses,

however,bygiving exemption to States from such entrance testonlyforthe

academicyear2016-2017inrespectofadmissioninGovernmentMedicalColleges

andGovernmentQuotaseatsinSelfFinancingPrivateMedicalColleges.Accordingly,

from theacademicyear2017-2018NEEThasbecomemandatoryforallMedical/

DentalcoursesbothinUnderGraduateandPostGraduatelevelinGovernment

MedicalCollegesandGovernmentQuotaseatsinSelfFinancingPrivateMedical

Colleges.Therefore,theadmittedpositionasontodayisthatNEETistheonly

qualifyingexaminationforadmissionintotheMedical/DentalCourses.Inother

words,themarksobtainedintherelevantBoardexaminationofHigherSecondary

Coursedonotmakeanyimpactordifference,excepttotheextentthatinorderto

qualifytowritetheNEET,thestudentsshouldhaveobtained50% ofthemarksin

suchBoardexamination.

23.Nodoubt,theStateGovernmentfrom thebeginninghasopposedtothecommon

entrancetestviz.,NEET.Butthefactremainsthattheyfailedtosucceedbeforethe

ApexCourt,whenthesaidissuewasconsideredanddecidedinSankalpCharitable

Trustcase.Therefore,nowtheStateGovernmenthaspassedarecentBillviz.,Tamil

NaduAdmissiontoMBBS andBDS CoursesBill,2017togetridoftheNEET.

However,asstatedsupra,thesaidBillhasnottransformeditselfintoaLegislation

forwantofPresidentialAssent.Therefore,theStateGovernmentisleftwithnoother

optionexcepttoacceptandmaketheselectiononlyinaccordancewiththemeritsof


themarksobtainedinNEETexaminationandnototherwise.

24.Undersuchcircumstances,theimpugnedGovernmentOrderistobetestedon

thetouchstoneofreasonableness,fairness,apartfrom consideringthesameasto

whetheritisarbitrary,discriminatoryandviolatingArticle14oftheConstitutionof

India.ItisalsotobeseenastowhetherthepresentimpugnedGovernmentOrder

indirectlydilutesormakestheobjectofNEET,namelyselectingthemeritorious

candidates,getsdeviated.

25.The strong contention raised bythe State Governmentin supportofthe

impugned G.O.isthatthestudentsfrom theStateBoard havetakendifferent

syllabus,methodologyandpatternofexaminationcomparedwiththestudentsof

CentralBoardofEducation.ItisalsostatedthatStateBoardstudentsmostlyare

from ruralbackground.Idonotunderstandastohow theStateGovernmentis

justifiedinmakingsuchcomparison,especially,whenthequalificationforadmission

intoMBBS/BDScourseisnotbasedonthemarksobtainedbythosestudentsin

differentBoardsandontheotherhand,itisbasedonthemarksobtainedinthe

commonentrancetest,namelyNEET,conductedforallthestudents.Therefore,the

students,afterpassingtheirrespectiveBoardexaminationsandobtaining50%and

moremarkstherein,areassembledtogetherasoneUnittotakepartinthecommon

entrancetest,namelyNEET,inordertoqualifythemselvestogetadmissioninto

MBBS/BDScourses.Whenthequalifyingexaminationisthecommonentrancetest,

namelyNEET,irrespectiveofthefactwhetherthestudentisfrom StateBoardor

CentralBoard,theGovernmentthereafterisnotentitled to maketwo different

classificationsbywayoftheimpugnedreservationamongthestudentswhohave

takenpartintheNEETexamination.Inmyconsideredview,oncetheytakeNEET


examination,allsuchstudentsaretobetreatedequalandtherefore,theGovernment

isnotjustifiedinprojectingtheircaseasthoughtheyaredoinglevelplayingfield

among the unequals.Thus the impugned action violates Article 14 ofthe

ConstitutionofIndia.

26.Thereservationbasedonsocialstatusisonethingandthereservationbasedon

institutionwiseisanotherthing.WhatissoughttobedonebytheimpugnedG.O.is

nothingbutaninstitutionalreservation.Onecanunderstandthelogicbehindsuch

reservationifthequalifyingmarksforadmissionintoMBBS/BDScoursearetheone

obtainedintherespectiveBoardexamination.Butitisnotsointhepresentcase,as

thequalifyingexaminationviz.,NEETiscommonforallBoardstudents.Therefore,

theStateisnotjustifiedintreatingtheotherBoardstudents,namelyCBSEetc.

differentlyandcurtailingtheirrighttocompetewiththeotherStateBoardstudentsin

respectofalltheseatsearmarkedunderStatequota.

27.Atthisjuncture,Iwouldliketopointoutapaininganddisturbingfeature.The

caseasprojectedbytheGovernmentbytreatingthestudentsfrom theCBSEBoard

undoubtedlyindicatethemindoftheStateGovernmentthattheywanttolookat

thosestudentsasthoughtheydonotbelongtothisState.Needlesstosaythat

thosestudentsfrom CBSEandotherBoards,apartfrom theStateBoardstudents,

arealsothechildrenofthisStateandtheyhailfrom thisStateonly.Afterall,the

optionwasgiventothem eithertotakeStateBoardorCentralBoardstream for

qualifyingthemselvesintheHigherSecondaryCourse.Whenthechoiceisleftto

thosestudentsandtheirparentstochooseanyoneofsuchstream,therewasno


indicationthatthestudentswhoselectCBSEstream willgetmeagrepercentageof

reservation forgetting admission into the professionalcourses.Undersuch

circumstances,iftheGovernmentimposesthepresentrestrictionthattookafter

takingNEET,certainly,itwouldcauseundueandirreparablehardshipto those

studentsapartfrom treatingthem asadifferentclauseofpersons.

28.NeedlesstostatethatMedicalEducationisanimportantfieldwhichisexpected

toproducehighlytalented&meritoriousprofessionals,sincetheyaregoingtodeal

withthelifeofthepeople.AttimestheyarelookedatparwithGod.Therefore,the

selectionofstudentstosuchcoursesmustbebasedonstrictmeritonlyandnot

otherwise.Therecannotbeanycompromiseonmeritsofselectingthestudentsto

suchcourses.AnargumentisadvancedonthesideoftheStateGovernmentas

thoughthemeritoriousstudentswhoobtainedhighermarksintheHigherSecondary

ExaminationintheStateBoardwillbedeniedanopportunitytotakeadmissionin

someimportantcollegesifallthoseseatsareoccupiedbyotherboardstudents.I

am afraidthatthesaidreasoningsoundsnotbetter,whenadmittedlytheStateisnot

entitledtolookintothemarksobtainedintheBoardExaminationandontheother

hand,itisdutyboundtoconsideronlythemarksobtainedintheNEETexamination.

MerelybecausetheCBSEstudentsobtainedmoremarksintheNEET thanthe

studentsofStateBoard,cantheybetreatedwithjealousanddeniedtheirlegitimate

rightto getadmission into the professionalcourses byimposing the present

impugnedreservation,eventhoughtheyaremeritoriousintheNEET?Certainly,itis

impermissible,thattoo,fortheStatetoadoptsuchstep-motherlytreatmenttothose

studentsfrom CBSEBoard.Aretheyaliens?IsittheirsininselectingtheCBSEBoard


toqualifythemselvesin+2?

29.Itisnotoutofcontexttomentionatthisjuncturethatforanexample,inasame

family,oneofthechildrenmighthaveoptedtogotoStateBoardandanotherto

CentralBoard.Itdependsuponthechoiceofthestudentandhis/herwish.Stillthey

arefrom thesamefamilyandtheirqualifyingexaminationisalsooneandthesame,

namelyHigherSecondary.Whenbothofthem arecalledupontowriteacommon

entrancetestviz.,NEET toqualifythemselvesforadmissiontotheMBBS/BDS

course,theStatecannotmakeadistinctionthereafterbetweenthesestudents,

merelybecausethesyllabus,methodologyandpatternofexaminationareentirely

differentbetweenthesetwo.

30.ItiswellknownfactthatthesyllabusandpatternofexaminationinCBSEare

moretougherthantheStateBoard.Itisalsoaknownfactthatscoringhighermarks

intheCBSEexaminationsisadifficulttaskwhencomparedtotheStateBoard

Examination,whereobtainingcentpercentmarksinmostofthesubjects,thattoo,

bylargenumberofstudents,iscommon.Therefore,astudentwhohasundergone

CBSEcoursewithsuchdifficultsyllabusandexamination,hastobetreatedequal

withthestudentsofStateBoardexamination.Atanyevent,theyarenottobetreated

with discrimination.Ifsuch studentbecame successfulin the CBSE Board

examinationwithgoodmarksandhasalsoobtainedrequisitemarksintheNEET

examination,he/shecannotbesingledoutmerelybystatingthathe/shewillbefitin

onlyunder15%seatsallottedandnotentitledtocompetefortherestoftheseats.

Suchmeritoriousstudent,ifnotpattedathis/herbackasagentlegestureof


appreciation,atleast,shouldnotbehitwiththeknucklesontheirheadbywayofthis

disadvantageousanddiscriminatoryreservation.

31.AnotherreasonstatedinsupportoftheG.O.isthattheStateBoardstudentsare

unabletoequipthemselvestotakepartintheNEETexamination.Itisstatedthat

thereisnosufficienttimeforthem toprepareforsuchexaminationbasedonthe

syllabuspreparedseparately.IdonotthinkthattheinabilityoftheStateBoard

studentstoequipthemselvescanbeajustifiablereasontooverlookthemeritorious

studentsofotherboardstogetadmissionintotheprofessionalcourses.Itisnotin

disputethatthesyllabusofNEETwaspreparedmuchearlierandmadepublicas

earlyasintheyear2010-11.ItisseenthatthesyllabusispreparedbyMedical

CouncilofIndiaandnotbyCBSE.Therefore,itisfortheStateGovernmenttotakeall

stepstoequipthestudentsofStateBoardtocompetewiththeotherstudentsfrom

theotherBoards,byprovidingallfacilitiesandconductingCoachingclassesetc.,all

overtheState.Withoutdoingsometiculously,now theGovernmentcannottake

shelterundertheguiseofpolicydecisionandissuetheimpugnedG.O.,thereby,

undoubtedly,dilutingthemeritsforadmission.

32.MaybetheStateBoardandCBSEBoardaretwodifferentsourcesfortakingthe

HigherSecondaryExamination.Butwhenthequalifyingexaminationforadmission

toMBBS/BDSCourseisonlyacommontest,namelyNEET,conductedforboth

sourcesofstudents,theStateGovernment,cannotonceagaincreatetwosources,

thattooafterconductingNEETexamination,foradmittingthestudentsintheabove

courses,which actin fact,isnothing butindirectlydiluting theveryobjectof


conductingtheNEET.Atthisjuncture,itisrelevanttoquotetherelevantclausesin

theNotificationdated21.12.2010issuedbytheMedicalCouncilofIndiawhichholds

thefieldevenasontoday.Itreadsasfollows:-

“6.In ChapterII,clause 5,Sub-clause-5,underthe heading

“ProcedureforselectiontoMBBSCourseshallbeasfollows”

shallbesubstitutedasunder:

“1.Thereshallbeasingleeligibilitycum entranceexamination

namely“NationalEligibility-cum-EntranceTestforadmissionto

MBBS course in each academic year. The overall

superintendencedirectionandcontrolofNationalEligibility-cum

-EntranceTestshallvestwithMedicalCouncilofIndia.However,

MedicalCouncilofIndia with the previous approvalofthe

CentralGovernmentshallselectorganization/s to conduct

Nationaleligibility-cum-Entrancetestforadmission to MBBS

course.

ii.InordertobeeligibilityforadmissiontoMBBScoursefora

particularacademicyear,itshallbenecessaryforacandidateto

obtainminimum of50% (fiftypercent)marksineachpaperof

NationalEligibility-cum-EntranceTestheldforthesaidacademic

year.However,inrespectofcandidatesbelongingtoSchedule

Castes,Schedule Tribes and otherBackward Classes,the

minimum percentagemarksshallbe40%(fortypercent)ineach

paperandinrespectofcandidateswithlocomotorsdisabilityof

lowerlimbs,theminimum percentagemarksshallbe45%(forty

fivepercent)ineachpaperofNationalEligibilitycum Entrance

Test:

providedwhensufficientnumberofcandidatesbelongingto

respective categories failto secure minimum marks as

prescribed in Nationaleligibility cum Entrance Testin any


academic yearforadmission to MBBS course,the Central

GovernmentinconsultationwithMedicalCouncilofIndiamay,

at its discretion,lower the minimum marks required for

admission to MBBS course for candidates belonging to

respective categoriesand marksso lowered bythe Central

Governmentshallbeapplicableforthesaidyearonly.

iii.Thereservationofseatsinmedicalcollegesforrespective

categories shallbe as per applicable laws prevailing in

States/Unionterritories.AnallIndiameritlistaswellasstate

wisemeritlistoftheeligiblecandidatesshallbepreparedonthe

basisofthemarksobtainedinNationalEligibilitycum Entrance

TestandcandidatesshallbeadmittedtoMBBScoursefrom the

saidlistsonly.

iv.Nocandidatewhohasfailedtoobtaintheminimum eligibility

marksasprescribedinSubclause(ii)aboveshallbeadmittedto

MBBScourseinthesaidacademicyear.

v.Alladmissions to MBBS course within the respective

categories shallbe based solelyon marks obtained in the

NationalEligibilitycum EntranceTest.”

33.TheGovernmentofIndiathroughitsMinistryofLaw andJusticehasalso

broughtan amendmentto theIndian MedicalCouncil(Amendment)Act,2016,

wherein,afterSection10CoftheIndianMedicalCouncilAct,1956,Section10Dwas

introducedwhichreadsasfollows:

“10D.Thereshallbeconductedauniform entranceexamination

toallmedicaleducationalinstitutionsattheundergraduatelevel

andpost-graduatelevelthroughsuchdesignatedauthorityin

Hindi,Englishandsuchotherlanguagesandinsuchmanneras


maybeprescribedandthedesignatedauthorityshallensurethe

conductofuniform entrance examination in the aforesaid

manner:

Providedthatnotwithstandinganyjudgmentororderofany

court,theprovisionsofthissectionshallnotapply,inrelationto

theuniform entranceexaminationattheundergraduatelevelfor

theacademicyear2016-17conductedinaccordancewithany

regulations made underthis Act,in respectofthe State

Governmentseats(whetherinGovernmentMedicalCollegeorin

aprivateMedicalCollege)wheresuchStatehasnotoptedfor

suchexamination.”

34.From theperusaloftheabovesaidRegulationandprovisionoflaw,itisevident

thattherecannotbeanyothercriteriaforselectiontotheM.B.B.S//B.D.S.Course

otherthanthemarksobtainedintheNEET.InthesaidNotificationdated21.12.2010,

theMedicalCouncilofIndiahascategoricallyandspecificallystatedthatthestate

wisemeritlistofeligibilitycandidatesshallbepreparedonthebasisofthemarks

obtainedinNationalEligibilitycum Entrancetestandthatthecandidatesshallbe

admitted to the M.B.B.S.Course from the said listonly.Therefore,the State

Governmentcannotdilutesuchmeritlistoftheeligiblecandidatesbyintroducingthe

impugnedseatreservation.Hencetheimpugnedactionistobeseenasanarbitrary

exerciseofpowerunmindfulofthelegislationalreadyoccupyingthefield.

35.Argumentisadvancedonthesideofthewritpetitionersalsoonthequestionof

competencyoftheStateofTamilNaduinissuingtheimpugnedGovernmentOrder.

ItiscontendedthatthepresentGovernmentOrderisrepugnanttoCentralLawviz.,

IndianMedicalCouncilAct,1956andtherefore,withoutgettingtheassentofthe


PresidentofIndia underArticle 254(2)ofthe Constitution ofIndia,the State

GovernmentcannotimplementtheimpugnedGovernmentOrder.Idonotthinkthat

thepetitionersarejustifiedinquestioningthecompetencyinissuingtheimpugned

GovernmentOrderbyexercising thepowerconferred underArticle162 ofthe

ConstitutionofIndia.TheimpugnedGovernmentOrderisnotdirectlydoingaway

withtheNEETorpreventingitsapplicationorenforcement.Ontheotherhand,inthe

impugned order,the Governmentadmits thatNEET alone is the criteria for

admissiontoMBBS/BDScourse.However,whattheywanttoachievebyissuingthe

impugnedOrderistomakelargenumbersofseatsavailabletotheStateBoards

studentsviz.,85%,leavingtheresttootherBoardstudents.Nodoubt,bydoingso,

theStateGovernmentindirectlywantstodilutetheobjectofNEET.But,atthesame

time,while considering the question ofcompetency,Ido notthink thatthe

petitionersarejustifiedonsuchissue,sincetheissuedirectlyinvolvedhereinisthe

reservationafterNEETandnotthevalidityofNEETitself.Atthesametime,itistobe

noted thatallthe orders issued with competency,need notnecessarilybe a

justifiableone.Itdependsuponthefactualaspectsofthematterforwhichsuch

orderisissued.IfthisCourtfindsthatthereisnojustificationinissuingsuchorder,

thecompetencyenjoyedbytheGovernmentalonecannotmaketheorderlegalor

sustainable.Judicialscrutinyisalwaysavailabletotestthecorrectnessorotherwise

ofsuchorder.Ihavealreadypointedoutindetailbygoingintothemeritsofthe

orderandfoundastohowthesameisbadandcannotbesustainedontheground

ofviolationofArticle14oftheConstitutionofIndia,arbitraryexerciseofpowerand

thatitisagainsttheveryobjectofNEET.


36.Thelearnedcounselsforthepetitionersreliedonthefollowingcaselaws:-

(i)InthedecisionoftheHonourableSupremeCourtreportedinAIR1968SC1012

(MinorP.RajendranV.StateofMadrasandothers)wherein,amongotherthings,itis

observedasfollows:

“...Inthealternative,itisurgedthatdistrictwisedistributionviolatesArt.

14oftheConstitutionbecauseitdeniesequalitybeforethelaworequal

protectionofthelaws,inasmuchassuchallocationofseatsmayresult

incandidatesofinferiorcalibrebeingselectedinonedistrictwhile

candidatesofsuperiorcalibrecannotbeselectedinanotherdistrict.It

hasnotbeendeniedonbehalfoftheStatethatsuchathingcannot

happen,thoughtherearenostatisticsavailableinthisbehalfbecause

themark-sheetswerealldestroyedaftertheinterviews.Thequestion

whetherdistrictwiseallocationisviolativeofArt.14willdependonwhat

istheobjecttobeachievedinthematterofadmissiontomedical

colleges.Considering the factthatthere is a largernumberof

candidatesthanseatsavailable,selectionhasgottobemade.The

objectofselectioncanonlybetosecurethebestpossiblematerialfor

admission to colleges subject to the provision for socially and

educationallybackwardclasses.Furtherwhetherselectionisfrom the

sociallyandeducationallybackwardclassesorfrom thegeneralpool,

theobjectofselectionmustbetosecurethebestpossibletalentfrom

thetwosources.Ifthatistheobject,itmustnecessarilyfollowthatthat

objectwouldbedefeatedifseatsareallocateddistrictbydistrict.It

cannotbeandhasnotbeendeniedthattheobjectofSelectionisto

securethebestpossibletalentfrom thetwosourcessothatthecountry

mayhavethebestpossibledoctors.Ifthatistheobject,theargument

onbehalfofthepetitioners/appellantisthatthatobjectcannotpossibly

beservedbyallocatingseatsdistrictwise.ItistruethatArt.14doesnot

forbidclassification,buttheclassificationhastobejustifiedonthe

basisofthenexusbetweentheclassificationandtheobjectto be

achieved,even assuming that territorialclassification may be a


reasonableclassification.Thefacthoweverthattheclassificationby

itselfisreasonableisnotenoughtosupportitunlessthereisnexus

betweentheclassificationandtheobjecttobeachieved.Therefore,as

theobjecttobeachievedinacaseofthekindwithwhichweare

concerned is to getthe besttalentforadmission to professional

colleges,theallocationofseatsdistrictwisehasnoreasonablerelation

withtheobjecttobeachieved.Ifanything,suchallocationwillresultin

many cases in the objectbeing destroyed,and ifthatis so,the

classification,even if reasonable,would result in discrimination,

inasmuch as betterqualified candidates from one districtmaybe

rejectedwhilelessqualifiedcandidatesfrom otherdistrictsmaybe

admittedfrom eitherofthetwosources.

Letusnowlooktothejustificationwhichhasbeenputforwardonbehalf

oftheStateofMadrasinsupportofthisdistrictwiseallocation.Itissaid

thattherearebettereducationalfacilitiesinMadrascityascomparedto

otherdistrictsoftheStateandThereforeifdistrictwiseselectionisnot

made,candidatesfrom Madrascitywouldhaveanadvantageandwould

securemanymoreseatsthanjustifiedonthebasisofproportionofthe

populationofMadrascitycomparedtothepopulationoftheStateasa

whole. This in our opinion is no justification for districtwise

allocation,which results in discrimination, even assuming that

candidates from Madras citywillgeta largernumberofseats in

proportiontothepopulationoftheState.Thatwouldhappenbecausea

candidatefrom Madrascityisbetter.Iftheobjectistoattractthebest

talent,from thetwosources,districtwiseallocationinthecircumstances

woulddestroythatobject.

(emphasissupplied)

(ii)InthedecisionoftheHonourableSupremeCourtreportedin(1984)4SCC296

(SuneelJatleyandothersV.StateofHaryana&Others)interaliaatParagraphNo.5

andatParagraphNos.6and7,itisobservedasfollows:


“5......Therespondentscontendedthatthereservationof25seatsfor

candidatescomingfrom ruralareasisvalidandcanbesustainedunder

Art.14 oftheConstitution.Therefore,thequestion is:whetherthe

classification between the students educated in urban schooland

commonruralschoolsisbasedonanyintelligibledifferentiawhichhasa

rationalnexustotheobjectssoughttobeachieved?

6.Itiswell-settledthatArt.14forbidsclasslegislationbutpermits

reasonableclassificationinthematteroflegislation.Inordertosustain

theclassificationpermissibleunderArt.14,ithastosatisfythetwin

tests:(1)thattheclassificationisfoundedonanintelligibledifferentia

whichdistinguishespersonsorthingsthataregroupedtogetherfrom

othersleftoutofthegroupand(2)thedifferentiamusthavearational

relationtotheobjectsoughttobeachievedbytheimpugnedprovision.

7.Doestheclassificationonthebasisofcandidatescomingfrom rural

areasagainsturbanareainthematterofadmissiontomedicalcollege

satisfythetwintests.Iftheattemptatamplificationoftheclassification

resortedtobytherespondentsisignoredforthetimebeing,thebroad

classificationisthatthestudentscomingfrom ruralareasareclassified

separatelyforthepurposeofadmissiontothemedicalcollege.The

reservationisdescribedintheprospectusas:'Ruralareas-25seats'.If

thematterweretoresthere,itwouldhavebeenunnecessarytowrite

thisjudgmentinview ofthedecisionofthisCourtinStateofU.P.v.

PradeepTandon(1)InthatcasetheStateofU.P.hadmadereservation

foradmissiontomedicalcollegeinfavourofthecandidatesfrom rural,

hillandUttarkhandareasonthegroundthatthepeoplecomingfrom

theseareasbelongedtosociallyandeducationallybackwardclasses.

ThereservationwaschallengedasbeingviolativeofArts.14and15and

not protected by Art. 15(4). The State sought to sustain the

classificationunderArt.15(4)urgingthattheobjectoftheclassification

wastheadvancementoffacilityformedicaleducationforcandidates

comingfrom reservedareasasthepeoplecomingfrom theseareas

belonged to socially and educationally backward classes. This


contentionwasacceptedinpartandnegativedinpart.Strikingdown

reservationofcandidatescomingfrom ruralareas,theCourtheldthat

reservationforruralareascannotbesustainedonthegroundthatthe

ruralareasrepresentsociallyandeducationallybackwardclassesof

citizens and the reservation appears to be made forthe majority

populationoftheStateandonthegroundofplaceofbirth.TheCourt

upheldreservationinfavourofcandidatesfrom HillandUttarkhand

areasonthegroundthatreservationwasinfavourofthepeopleinthose

areaswhobelongedtosociallyandeducationallybackwardclassesof

citizens.Distinguishingthecaseofreservationinfavourofcandidates

comingfrom ruralareas,theCourtobservedthatthebackwardness

contemplatedbyArt.15(4)isbothsocialandeducationalbackwardness

ofthecitizens,theaccentbeingonclassesofcitizenssociallyand

educationally backward and therefore,socially and educationally

backwardcitizenscannotbeequatedwithareasasawholesociallyand

educationallybackward.TheCourtconcludedthatsomepeopleinthe

ruralareas maybe educationallybackward,some maybe socially

backwardandtheremaybefewwhoarebothsociallyandeducationally

backwardbutitcannotbesaidthatallcitizensresidinginruralareasare

sociallyand educationallybackward.Accordingly,the reservation in

favour of candidates coming from rural areas was held as

constitutionallyinvalid.Thisreasoningwouldapplymutatismutandisto

thefactsinthepresentcasebecausethereservationisinfavourof

candidatescomingfrom ruralareas.”

(emphasissupplied)

(iii)InthedecisionoftheHonourableSupremeCourtreportedin(2016)7SCC487

(SankalpCharitableTrustandAnotherV.UnionofIndiaandOthers)atParagraph

Nos.11and12,itisobservedasfollows:


“11.Itmaybementionedherethatsomelearnedcounselrepresenting

thosewhoarenotpartiestothispetitionhavemadesubmissionsthatin

view oftheJudgmentpassedinChristianMedicalCollege,VelloreV.

UnionofIndia(2014)2SCC305:6SCEC407,itwouldnotbeproperto

holdNEETandthisordershouldnotaffectpendingmatters.

12.Wedonotagreewiththefirstsubmissionforthereasonthatthe

saidjudgmenthasalreadybeenrecalledon11.04.2016(MedicalCouncil

ofIndiaV.ChristianMedicalCollege,Vellore,(2016)4SCC342)and

therefore,theNotificationsdated21.12.2010areinoperationason

today.”

(iv)In the decision ofthe GujaratHigh CourtatAhmedabad in SpecialCivil

ApplicationNo.5749of2017(NilayParagJoshi&10othersV.StateofGujarat&47

others)atParagraphNos.1,2.2,26to29and33,itisobservedasfollows:

“1.TheissueinvolvedinthispetitioniswhethertheStateGovernmentis

justifiedintakingdecisiontograntadmissiononpro-ratadistributionof

seatsonthebasisofschoolboardsinM.B.B.S.,B.D.S.,Coursesin

MedicalColleges and Institutions situated in State ofGujaratafter

introductionofNEET.

2.2.TheStateofGujarathasfollowedapolicyofdistributingseats

betweendifferentBoardsonthebasisofthestrengthofnumberof

schoolsoftherespectiveBoardsbyoffering seatsto thestudents

passingStandardXIIonproratabasis,takingintoconsiderationnumber

ofstudentspassingfrom theGujaratBoard,CBSE,ISCEorIB.

26.Keeping in mind aforesaid decisions rendered by the Hon'ble

SupremeCourtaswellasthisCourt,ifthefactsofthepresentcaseare

examined,itcanbesaidthatitisopenfortheStatetoprescribethe


sourcesfrom whichthecandidatesaredeclaredeligibleforapplyingfor

admissiontotheMedicalColleges,onceacommonentrancetesthas

beenprescribedforallthecandidatesonthebasisofwhichselectionis

tobemade,thedecisionforgrantingadmissiononpro-ratabasisfor

StateBoardandotherBoardstudentsisarbitrary.Atthisstage,itis

required to be noted that admission into any professional

institution,meritmustplayanimportantrole.Whileseekingadmissionto

aprofessional,itisnecessarythatmeritoriouscandidatesaenotunfairly

treated orputata disadvantage by preferences shown to less

meritorious.Excellenceinprofessionaleducationwould requirethat

greateremphasisbelaidonthemeritofastudentseekingadmission.

27.Weareoftheviewthatoncethereiscommonmeritlistpreparedfor

thepurposeofgrantofadmissiononthebasisofresultofNEET,the

onlypermissiblereservationisinfavourofstudentswhohavestudiedin

schools situated within the State ofGujaratand therefore,itis

impermissiblefordistributionofseatsonthebasisoftheschoolboard

andtherefore,suchsegregation/distributionofseatsonthebasisof

schoolboardwouldamounttodiscriminatingstudentssolelyonthe

basisoftheirschoolboard.SuchpolicyoftheStatewoulddeprivethe

petitionersfrom beingconsideredforadmissiontoallavailableseatsin

various graduate courses offered by the colleges and educational

institutionsonlyonthegroundthatthepetitionersdidnotpassStandard

XIIfrom aschoolaffiliatedtotheStateBoard.

28.ItiswellsettledthatArticle14oftheConstitutionofIndiadoesnot

forbidclassification,buttheclassificationhastobejustifiedonthe

basisoftheclassification byitselfisreasonableisnotenough to

supportitunlessthereisnexusbetweentheclassificationandthe

objectsoughttobeachieved.Therefore,wheretheobjecttobeachieved

istogetthebesttalentforadmissiontoprofessionalcolleges,the

allocationofseatsonpro-ratabasisasperthepolicyoftherespondent

–Statehasnoreasonablerelationwiththeobjecttobeachieved.


29.Thecontentionofthelearnedadvocateappearingfortheprivate

respondentthatCBSEschoolsareinurbanareaswhereas,Gujaratboard

students come from ruralbackground and because ofsubstantial

differenceinthesyllabusoftheGujaratBoardandotherboards,the

policyimpugnedinthepetitionisrequiredtobecontinuedforthisyear.

SuchsubmissionisnotrequiredtobeacceptedastheHon'bleSupreme

CourtinthecaseofSuneelJatleyV.StateofHaryana(supra)hasheld

thatreservationofseatsforruralcandidatesforadmissiontoMBBS/

BDScoursesisinvalid.Thus,aforesaidcontentionisalsonotrequiredto

beaccepted.

33.Inviewofaforesaiddiscussion,weareoftheviewthatrespondent

Stateisnotjustifiedintakingdecisiontocontinueitspolicytogrant

admission on pro-rata distribution ofseatson the basisofschool

boards in MBBS and BDS courses in medicalinstitutions after

introductionofNEET.Thus,weherebydeclarethatforadmissionto

MBBSandBDScoursesincollegeswithintheStateofGujarat,therecan

benodistributionofseatsbetweencandidatesofGujaratBoardand

otherBoardseitherundertheGovernmentResolutions,rulesgoverning

admissiontoprofessionalmedicalcourseafterintroductionofNEET

andtherefore,allthestudentsqualifyingintheXIIBoardExamination

from schoolswithintheStateofGujaratareentitledtobeconsidered

againstallavailableseatsinMBBSandBDScoursesofferedincolleges

andEducationInstitutionswithintheStateofGujarat.Thepetitionis

allowed.Ruleismadeabsolute.”

(emphasissupplied)

(v)InthedecisionoftheDivisionBenchofthisCourtreportedin1992(2)Law

Weekly155 (Association ofPrivate Schools Affiliated to the CentralBoard of

SecondaryEducationrep.ByitsPresidentV.Venkatachalam andAnotherV.Stateof

Tamilnadu,rep.BySecretarytoGovernmentandothers)atParagraphNo.53,itis


observedasfollows:

“53.Ifthere is an entrance examination and meritis reckoned in

accordancewith theresultofthatexamination butadmissionsare

restrictedbyallotmentofseatstovarioussources,theequalityruleof

theConstitutionisviolated.Havingreckonedtheirmeritasaresultof

theentranceexaminationiftheyaresoughttobeclassifiedonthebasis

ofthesourcesthroughwhichtheycome,thereiseveryreasonthatthere

canbenonexuswiththeobjectofselectingthebestofthecandidates

forprofessionalcourses.TheSupremeCourthasmadeitclearmore

than once thatanysuch reservation willbe hitbyArt.14 ofthe

Constitution.”

(emphasissupplied)

(vi)InthedecisionoftheHon'bleSupremeCourtreportedin(1980)2SCC 768

(Dr.JagadishSaranandOthersV.UnionofIndia)atParagraphNos.18,33and34

interalia,itisobservedasfollows:

“18.Primafacie,equalmarksmusthaveequalchanceformedical

admissions,asurgedbythepetitioner.Andneitheruniversity-based

favouredtreatmentnorsatyagraha-inducedquotapolicycansurvivethe

egalitarianattack.Torepulsethecharge,equality-orientedgroundsmust

bemadeout.Constitutionalequalityitselfisdynamic,flexible,and

mouldedbythevariablesoflife.Forinstance,ifaregioniseducationally

backwardorwoefullydeficientinmedicalservices,thereoccursserious

educationalandhealth-servicemindedwelfarestate...........”

33.Evensowhatisfundamentalisequality,notclassification.Whatis

basicisequalopportunityforeachaccordingtohisability,no;artificial

compartmentalisationandinstitutionalapartheidisation,usingthemask

ofhandicaps.WecannotcontemplateasconsistentwithArticle14a


clannishexclusivism baseduponaparticularuniversity,withoutmore.

Alivetothesemajorpremisesletusexaminethemeritsofthecharge

'admission'discriminationinthepresentcase.....”

34.Thustheconstitutionalprinciplesandlimitationsareclearandthe

normsare belighted bythe precedentsbuttheirapplication to the

specific situation is an exacting task.The burden,when protective

discriminationpromotionalofequalisationispleaded,isontheparty

whoseekstojustifytheexfaciedeviationfrom equality.......”

(vii)InthedecisionofDivisionBenchofthisCourtreportedin2002(4)CTC449

(M.Aarthi(Minor)rep.ByhermotherandnaturalguardianMrs.M.Renukaand2

othersV.ThestateofTamilnadurep.BySecretarytoGovernemnt,Chennai–9and

11others)interaliaatParagraphNo19andatParagraphNo.44,itisobservedas

follows:

“19.The executive power of the State under Article 162 of the

Constitutionisco-extensivewiththelegislativepowerandwhenthefield

oflawisoccupiedbyalegislativeAct,theexerciseofexecutivepoweris

notavailable.ThereisnodisputeabouttheState'spowertoprovide

reservation even by executive orderunderArticle 162 of Indian

Constitution.Butsuchpowercanbeexercisedonlyintheabsenceofa

legislativeAct.Ofcourse,ifanaspectisnotcoveredbythelegislative

Act,thentheexecutivepowercanberesorted.Toputitprecisely,ifthe

powerofreservationisexhaustedunderTamilNaduAct45of1994,

thennopowerexiststoinvoketheexecutivepowerunderArticle162of

theConstitution.....”

“44.TheSupremeCourt,inthecaseofAnilKumarGupta,1995(5)SCC

173reiteratedwhathadbeensaidbythemajorityoftheNineJudge

BenchinthecaseofIndraSawhneywithregardtoArticle16(1)andheld

thesametobeapplicabletoArticle15(1)and(4)aswell.Thewordsof


cautionwithregardtocreationofspecialcategoriessetoutinthe

judgmentofmajorityinthecaseofIndraSawhneyare,

“Butatthesametimeonethingisclear.Itisinaveryexceptional

situationgiven– andnotforallsundryreasons– thatanyfurther

reservationsofwhateverkind,shouldbeprovidedunderclause(1).In

suchcases,theStatehastosatisfy,ifcalledupon,thatmakingsucha

provision wasnecessary(in publicinterest)to redressthespecific

situation.Theverypresenceofclause(4)shouldactasadamperupon

thepropensitytocreatefurtherclassesdeservingspecialtreatment.The

reasonforsayingsoisverysimple.Ifreservationsaremadebothunder

clause(4)aswellasunderclause(I),thevacanciesavailableforfree

competitionaswellasreservedcategorieswouldbecorrespondingly

whittleddownandthatisnotareasonablethingtodo”

“TheCourtinAnilkumar'scase,aftersettingoutthesewordsofcaution,

hasheldthat“Thoughthesaidobservationsweremadewithreference

toclauses(1)and(4)ofArticle16,thesameapplywithequalforceto

clauses(1)and(4)ofArticle15aswell”

(viii)InthedecisionofDivisionBenchofthisCourtmadeinW.A.No.2624of2001

etc.,(ManupatraManu/TN/007/2002)(S.MuthuSenthiland OthersVs.Stateof

Tamilnadu,EducationDepartment,Chennaiandothers)interaliaatParagraphNo.13,

itisobservedasfollows:

“13.Fortheforegoingdiscussion,weholdthattheruralreservation

providedatfirstwith15% andthenextendingto25% foradmissionin

professionalcollegesintheStateofTamilnadu,byissuanceofthe

impugnedGovernmentalordersbytheGovernment,hasgotabsolutely

no nexus to the objectto be achieved and there is no intelligible

differentiaeitherandthatthattheGovernmenthasfailedtojustifythe

discriminationandassuchtheyareinvalidbeinginfractiveofArticle14


ofIndianConstitutionandareherebysetaside....”

(ix)InthedecisionoftheHon'bleSupremeCourtreportedin(2016)9SCC749(State

ofUttarpradeshandothersV.DineshSinghChauhan)atParagraphNos.24,itis

observedasfollows:

“24.Bynow,itiswellestablishedthatRegulation9isaself–contained

coderegardingtheproceduretobefollowedforadmissionstomedical

courses.ItisalsowellestablishedthattheStatehasnoauthorityto

enactanylawmuchlessbyexecutiveinstructionsthatmayundermine

the procedure for admission to postgraduate medical courses

enunciatedbytheCentrallegislationandregulationsframedthereunder,

being a subjectfalling within Schedule VIIListIEntry 66 ofthe

Constitution(seePreetiSrivastavaV.StateofM.P.5(1999)7SCC120:1

SCEC 742) The procedure for selection of candidates for the

postgraduatedegreecoursesinonesuchareaonwhichtheCentral

legislationandregulationsmustprevail.

(emphasissupplied)

(x)InthedecisionofPunjabandHaryanaHighCourt,reportedin1990(1)I.L.R.

PunjabandHaryana282(N.K.BatraandOthersV.KurukshetraUniversityandOthers)

atParagraphNo.14,itisobservedasfollows:

“14.....Onthestrengthoftheafore-quotation,itwouldbelegitimatefor

ustoholdthatnodiscriminationcanbepractisedbetweenstudents

whopassthe10+2examinationfrom theHaryanaBoardandbetween

studentswhopassthesameexaminationfrom theCentralBoard.This

isnotonlythemandateoftheSupremeCourtbutisthepolicyofthe

Government of India as well,as aforequoted.Because of this

circumstance,letter Annexure r-4 with the return filed by the


respondents,beingaletterfrom theAssis-thatEducationalAdviser,

Government of India,Ministry of Human Resource Development

(DepartmentofEducation)tothePrincipalRegionalEngineeringCollege,

Kurukshetra,sayingthattheMinistryhadnoobjectiontotheadoptionof

theprocessofnormalisationofqualifyingmarksindicatedthereonfor

admissiontothe4-yearB.TechDegreeCourse,fortheSession1989-90,

byCollege,palesintoinsignificanceandnotworthyofanycredit.The

lawlaiddownbytheSupremeCourtinputtingatpartthestudentsofthe

HaryanaBoardandtheCentralBoardspecificallyrulingthattheyhave

nottotobediscriminatedintersewaslawnotbasedonthegovernment

policyassubmitted bytheAttorneyGeneralbutwasratheraview

authoritativelyexpressedbefore-handindependently.So,inthefaceof

theauthoritativepronouncementinDr.PradeepJain'scase(supra)any

efforttodisturbequalityexistingbetweenstudentsoftheHaryanaand

theCentralBoardinthematterofthemarksobtainedbythem intheir

respective examinations,would run counterto the decision ofthe

Supreme Courtin the said case,and on thataccountprinciple of

normalisationisillegal,discriminatoryandviolativeofArticles14and15

oftheConstitutionofIndia.Itdeservestobestruckdown.”

(emphasissupplied)

37.Acarefulperusaloftheobservationsmadeinalltheabovecaselawscitedon

behalfofthepetitionerswouldshow thattheyarefullysupportingthecaseofthe

petitionersandtherefore,Iam notreiteratingthelaw laiddowntherein,exceptto

statethatIrespectfullyfollow.

38.ThelearnedAdvocateGeneralappearingfortheStatereliedonthefollowing

decisions:


InthedecisionoftheHonourableSupremeCourtreportedin(2016)7SCC 353

(Modern DentalCollege and Research Centre and Others V.State ofMadhya

PradeshandOthers)atParagraphNo.101,106&149,itisobservedasfollows:

“101.Toourmind,Entry66inListIisaspecificentryhavingavery

specificandlimitedscope.Itdealswithcoordinationanddetermination

ofstandardsininstitutionofhighereducationorresearchaswellas

scientific and technicalinstitutions.The words “coordination and

determinationofstandards”wouldmeanlayingdownthesaidstandards.

Thus,whenitcomestoprescribingthestandardsforsuchinstitutionsof

higherlearning,exclusivedomainisgiventotheUnion.However,that

wouldnotincludeconductingofexamination,etc.,andadmissionof

studentstosuchinstitutionsorprescribingthefeeintheseinstitutions

ofhighereducation,etc.,Infact,suchcoordinationanddeterminationof

standards,insofarasmedicaleducationisconcerned,isachievedby

parliamentarylegislationintheform ofIndianMedicalCouncilAct,1956

andbycreatingthestatutorybodylikeMedicalCouncilofIndia(forshort

“MCT”)therein.ThefunctionsthatareassignedtoMCIincludewithinits

sweepdeterminationofstandardsinamedicalinstitutionaswellas

coordinationorstandardsandthatofeducationalinstitutions.Whenit

comestoregulating“education”assuch,whichincludesevenmedical

educationaswellasuniversities(whichareimpartinghighereducation),

thatisprescribedinListIIIEntry25,therebygivingconcurrentpowersto

both Union as wellas States.Itis significantto note thatearlier

education,includinguniversities,wasthesubject-matterofListIIentry

11(Educationincludinguniversities,subjecttotheprovisionsofEntries

63,64,65and66ofListIandEntry25ofListIII”.Thus,powertothis

extentwasgiventotheStateLegislatures.However,thisentrywas

omittedbytheConstitution(Forty-SecondAmendment)Act,1976with

effectfrom 03.07.1977 and atthesametimeListIIEntry25 was

amended(UnamendedEntry25inListIIIIreadas:“Vocationaland

technicaltrainingoflabour”).Education,includinguniversityeducation,

wasthustransferredtotheConcurrentListandintheprocesstechnical


andmedicaleducationwasalsoadded.Thus,iftheargumentofthe

appellantsisaccepted,itmayrenderEntry25completelyotiose.When

twoentriesrelatingtoeducation,oneintheUnionListandtheotherin

theConcurrentList,coexist,theyhavetobereadharmoniously.Reading

in this manner,itwould become manifestthatwhen itcomes to

coordinationandlayingdownofstandardsinthehighereducationor

researchandscientificandtechnicalinstitutions,powerrestswiththe

Union/ParliamenttotheexclusionoftheStateLegislatures.However,

otherfacetsofeducation,includingtechnicalandmedicaleducation,as

wellasgovernanceofuniversitiesisconcerned,evenStateLegislatures

aregivenpowerbyvirtueofEntry25.ThefieldcoveredbyListIIIEntry

25iswideenoughandascircumscribedtothelimitedextentofitbeing

subjecttoListIEntries63,64,65and66.

106.Inviewoftheabove,therewasnoviolationofrightofautonomyof

theeducationalinstitutionsinCETbeingconductedbytheStateoran

agencynominatedbytheStateorinfixingfee.TherightofaStatetodo

soissubjecttoaCentrallaw.Oncethenotificationsunderthethe

CentralstatutesforconductingCETcalled“NEET”becomeoperative,it

willbeamatterbetweentheStatesandtheUnion,whichwillhavetobe

sortedoutonthetouchstoneofArticle254oftheConstitution.Weneed

notdilateonthisaspectanyfurther.

....

....

149.Ihave no hesitation in upholding the vires ofthe impugned

legislationwhichempowerstheStateGovernmenttoregulateadmission

processininstitutionsimpartinghighereducationwithintheState.In

fact,theStatebeingresponsibleforwelfareanddevelopmentofthe

peopleoftheState,oughttotakenecessarystepsforwelfareofits

studentcommunity.Thefieldof“highereducation”beingonesuchfield

which directlyaffects the growth and developmentofthe State,it

becomesprerogativeofthestateoftakesuchstepswhichfurtherthe


welfareofthepeopleandinparticularpursuinghighereducation.Infact,

the State Governmentshould be the sole entity to lay down the

procedureforadmissionandfee,etc.,governingtheinstitutionsrunning

inthatparticularStateexcepttheCentrallyfundedinstitutionslikeIIT,

NIT,etc.,becausenoonecanbeabetterjudgeoftherequirementsand

inequalitiesinopportunityofthepeopleofaparticularStatethanthat

Stateitself.OnlytheStatelegislationcancreateequallevelplayingfield

forthestudentswhoarecomingoutfrom theStateBoardandother

streams.”

(emphasissupplied)

39.Nodoubt,thelearnedAdvocateGeneralheavilyreliedontheabovesaiddecision

oftheApexCourttoemphasizethatthepresentimpugnedorderissustainableas

Statepowertoissuethesameistracedbyvirtueofentry25.Thereisnodifficultyin

acceptingsuchcontention,providedtheimpugnedproceedingisintheform ofState

Legislation.Admittedly,itisonlyanexecutiveorderpassedbyexercisingpower

underArticle162oftheConstitutionofIndiaandtherefore,thesamecannotbe

equatedandtreatedasaStateLegislation.Neithertheimpugnedordercantakethe

shapeandcharacterofStateLegislation.InfactatparagraphNo.149oftheabove

saidJudgement,itisclearlystatedthatonlyStateLegislationcancreateequallevel

playingfieldforthestudentswhoarecomingoutfrom theStateBoardandother

streams.Inthesecases,admittedly,theattemptmadebytheStatetobringthe

Legislationisstillisintheform ofaBill,whichisyettogettheassentofthe

President.Therefore,Ifind thatthe above decision,instead ofhelping the

respondents,is onlysupporting the case ofthe petitioners forwantofState

Legislationontheissueinvolvedinthesecases.


40.HefurtherreliedonthedecisionofHon'bleSupremeCourtreportedin1970AIR

35(ChitraGhoshandAnotherV.UnionofIndiaandothers)whereinamongvarious

things,itisobservedasfollows:

“...Weareunabletoseehow Art.15(1)canbeinvokedinthepresent

case.Therulesdonotdiscriminatebetweenanycitizenongroundsonly

ofreligion,race,caste,sex,placeofbirthoranyofthem.NorisArt29(2)

ofany assistance to the appellants.They are notbeing denied

admissionintotheMedicalcollegeongroundsonlyofreligion,race,

caste,languageoranyofthem.ThisbringsustoArt.14.Itisclaimed

thatmeritshouldbesolecriterionandassoonasotherfactorslike

those mentioned in clause (c)to (h)ofRule 4 are introduced,

discriminationbecomesapparent.AslaiddowninShriRam Krishna

DalmiaV.ShriJusticeS.R.Tendolkarandothers(1),Art.14forbidsclass

legislationitdoesnotforbidreasonableclassification.Inordertopass

thetestofpermissibleclassificationtwoconditionsmustbefulfilled,(i)

thatthe classification is founded on intelligible differentia which

distinguishespersonsorthingsthataregroupedtogetherfrom others

leftoutofthegroupand,(ii)thatthatdifferentiamusthavearational

relationtotheobjectsoughttobeachieved.Thefirstgroupofpersons

forwhom seatshavebeenreservedarethesonsanddaughtersof

residentsofUnionterritoriesotherthanDelhi.Theseareasarewell

known to be comparatively backward and with the exception of

HimachalPradeshtheydonothaveanyMedicalCollegeoftheirwon.It

wasnecessarythatpersonsdesirousofreceivingmedicaleducation

from theseareasshouldbeprovidedsomefacilityfordoingso.As

regardsthesonsanddaughtersofCentralGovernmentservantsposted

inIndianMissionsabroaditisequallywellknownthatduetoexigencies

oftheirservicethesepersonsarefacedwithlotofdifficultiesinthe

matterofeducation.Apartfrom theproblemsoflanguage,itisnoteasy

oralwayspossibletogetadmissionintoinstitutionsimpartingmedial


educationinforeigncountries.Thecultural,ColomboPlanandthailand

scholarsaregivenadmissioninmedicalinstitutionsinthiscountryby

reasonofreciprocalarrangementsofeducationalandculturalnature.

RegardingJammu&Kashmirscholarsitmustberememberedthatthe

problemsrelatingtothem areofapeculiarnatureandtheredonotexist

adequatearrangementsformedicaleducationintheStageitselfforits

residents.Theclassificationinallthesecasesisbasedonintelligible

differentia which distinguishes them from the group to which the

appellantsbelong.

ItistheCentralGovernmentwhichbearsthefinancialburdenofrunning

themedicalcollege.Itisforittolaydownthecriteriaforeligibility.From

theverynatureofthingsitisnotpossibletothrowtheadmissionopen

tostudentsfrom alloverthecountry.TheGovernmentcannotbedenied

therighttodecidefrom whatsourcestheadmissionwillbemade.That

essentiallyisaquestionofpolicyanddependsinter-aliaonanoverall

assessmentandsurveyoftherequirementsofresidentsofparticular

territoriesandothercategoriesofPersonsforwhom itisessentialto

providefacilitiesformedicaleducation.Ifthesourcesareproperly

(1)(1959)S.C.R.279 classified whetheronterritorial,geographicalor

otherreasonablebasisitisnotforthecourtstointerferewithsthe

mannerandmethodofmakingtheclassification.Thenextquestionthat

hastobedeterminediswhetherthedifferentiaonwhichclassification

hasbeenmadehasrationalrelationwiththeobjecttobeachieved.The

mainpurposeofadmissiontoamedicalcollegeistoimparteducation

in'thetheoryandpracticeofmedicine.Asnoticedbeforethesources

from whichstudentshavetobedrawnareprimarily–determinedbythe

authorities who maintain and run the institution,e.g.,the Central

Governmentin the presentcase.In MinorP.Rajendran V.State of

Madras(1)ithasbeenstatedthattheobjectofselectionforadmission

istosecurethebestpossiblematerial.Thiscansurelybeachievedby

makingproperrulesinthematterofselectionbuttherecanbenodoubt

thatsuchselectionhastobeconfinedto,thesourcesthatareintended

tosupplythematerial.Ifthesourceshavebeenclassifiedinthemanner


doneinthepresentcaseitisdifficulttoseehowthatclassificationhas

norationalnexuswiththeobjectofimpartingmedicaleducationand

alsoofselection,forthepurpose.....”

41.Anotherdecision Hon'ble Supreme Courtreported in (1980)2 SCC 768

(Dr.JagadishSaranandOthersV.UnionofIndia)atParagraphNos.31and32,isalso

reliedonbythelearnedAdvocateGeneral,whereinitisobservedasfollows:

“31.WeagreewiththisapproachandfeelquiteclearlythattheState's

dutyistoproducerealequality,ratheregalitarianjusticeinactuallife.

32.Ifuniversity-wiseclassificationforpost-graduatemedicaleducation

isshowntoberelevantandreasonableandthedifferentiahasanexus

tothelargergoalofequalisationofeducationalopportunitiestheviceof

discriminationmaynotinvalidatetherule.”

42.Idonotthinkthattherespondentscanrelyontheabovesaiddecisionsofthe

ApexCourt,sincethepresentfactsandcircumstancesaretotallydifferentfrom the

onewhichwereprevailingatthetimeofrenderingthosedecisions.Itisnotin

disputethatNEEThasbeenintroducedmuchlaterbyvirtueoftheRegulationsmade

bytheMedicalCouncilofIndiaandalsobyintroducingrelevantprovisionviz.,

Section10-DoftheIndianMedicalCouncilAct,1956,stipulatingthatonlythemerit

intheNEEThastobeconsideredforadmissiontomedicalcourse.Therefore,the

abovedecisionsarealsonothelpingtherespondentsinanymanner.

43.Uponconsideringallthefactsandcircumstancesofthepresentcase,the

argumentsadvancedoneithersideandthecaselawscitedanddiscussedassupra,


thereisnodifficultyforthisCourttocometotheconclusionthattheimpugned

reservationamountstodiscriminationamongequalsandthus,itviolatesArticle14

oftheConstitutionofIndia;thatitisanarbitraryexerciseofpower;thatitistotally

unreasonable;that,undertheguiseoflevelplaying,itmakestheequalsunequal;that

ithasnonexusbetweentheobjectsoughttobeachieved;thatitindirectlymeddle

withtheobjectandprocessofNEETandthatitamountstocompromisingonthe

meritsoftheselection.

44.Competencytopassanorderisonethingandentitlementtodosoisanother

thing.Constitutionalcompetencyandjurisdictionalpowertopassanexecutiveorder

shouldalwaysbewithintheboundsoflaw andnotbyover-ridingorside-liningthe

same.WhenNEETisalreadyoccupyingthefield,thepresentattempttodiluteits

object,eitherdirectlyorbyanyindirectmeans,thattoo,bywayofanexecutiveorder,

becomesunlawful.

45.Beforepartingwiththecase,thisCourtwantstoplaceonrecordandmakesit

veryclearthatcertainly,itisnotagainstthepromotionofinterestofthestudents

from ruralbackground,moreparticularly,thosewhoarestudyinginStateBoard.It

haseveryconcernfortheirupliftment.Butwhensuchpromotionandupliftmentof

theirinterestare soughtto be achieved through some unlawfulmeans,more

particularly,attheriskofcausinggravediscriminationamongequals,inthiscase,

insofarasthequalifyingexaminationviz.,NEETisconcerned,thisCourtcannotbea

mutespectator,especially,whenthoseaggrievedequalsknockthedoorofthis


templeofjusticeand seekforredressaloftheirgrievance.Numberoflitigant

studentswhoarebeforethisCourtmaybeminimal.Butthatdoesnotmatter.What

thecausetheyhavebroughtinbeforethisCourtisimportant.

46.Thus,thisCourtisofthefirm view thattheimpugnedproceedings,namely

G.O.(Ms)No.233dated22.06.2017andtherelevantClause,namelyClauseIV(19)of

the Prospectus ofMBBS/BDS admission 2017-18,dealing with the impugned

reservationarebadinlaw andthus,theycannotbesustained.Accordingly,allthe

WritPetitionsareallowedandtheimpugnedG.O.(Ms)No.233,HealthandFamily

Welfare(MCA-1)Departmentdated22.06.2017andtheimpugnedClauseIV(19)of

theProspectusofMBBS/BDSadmission2017-18,arequashed.Consequently,the

respondentsaredirectedtoprepareafreshmeritlistandconductthecounselling

accordingly.Itismadeclearthatthisorderisnotconfinedtothewritpetitioners

aloneandontheotherhand,itshallapplytoallthestudentsconcerned.Nocosts.

Consequently,connectedmiscellaneouspetitionsareclosed.

14.07.2017

Speaking/Non-speakingorder

Index:Yes/No

vsi/mk/ssd

Note:Issueordercopytoday(14.07.2017)


K.RAVICHANDRABAABU,J.

Vsi/mk/ssd

Pre-deliveryordermadein

W.P.No.16341/2017etc.batchcase

14.07.2017


Bar & Bench ()images.assettype.com/barandbench/import/2017/07/Judg… ·...

Documents

Transcript of Bar & Bench ()images.assettype.com/barandbench/import/2017/07/Judg… ·...