Page 1

       REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.   297-298     of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.13121-13122 of 2011)

Sudhir N. & Ors. …Appellants   

Versus

State of Kerala & Ors. …Respondents

With  

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.   299-300    of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.11597-11598 of 2011)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  301    of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.11606 of 2011)

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.  302-303   of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.13123-13124 of 2011)

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.   304-305    of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.13126-13127 of 2011)

AND

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.   306-307    of 2015 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.13130-13131 of 2011)

J U D G M E N T

1

Page 2

T.S. THAKUR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of a judgment and order dated  

30th March  2011  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Kerala  at  

Ernakulam in  Writ  Petitions  No.1014 of  2009 and 2610 of  

2010 filed by the respondents whereby the High Court has  

allowed the said petitions with the direction that selection of  

in-service  medical  officers  for  post-graduate  medical  

education under Section 5(4) of the Kerala Medical Officers’  

Admission to Postgraduate Courses under Service Quota Act,  

2008 (Kerala Act 29 of 2008), shall be made strictly on the  

basis of inter se  seniority of the candidates who have taken  

the  common  entrance  test  for  post-graduate  medical  

education and have obtained the minimum eligibility bench  

mark in that test in terms of the Regulations framed by the  

Medical Council of India.   

3. Forty  percent  of  the  seats  available  in  the  State  of  

Kerala for post-graduate medical admission are reserved for  

in-service doctors serving in the Health Service Department,  

Medical  College  lecturers  and  doctors  serving  in  the  

2

Page 3

Employees State Insurance Department of the State. As per  

the  practice  prevalent  before  the  enactment  of  the  

impugned legislation admissions against such reserved seats  

were made on the basis of seniority of in-service candidates  

in  each  category.   Post  Graduate  Medical  Education  

Regulations  of  Medical  Council  of  India,  2000,  however,  

made it mandatory for all candidates seeking admission to  

post-graduate  medical  courses  to  appear  for  a  common  

entrance  examination.  The  Regulations,  inter-alia,  provide  

that  candidates  who  appears  in  the  common  entrance  

examination and secure 50% in the case of general category  

candidates and 40% in the case of SC/ST candidates alone  

shall be qualified for such admission.  Consequently, even in-

service candidates had to appear and qualify in the common  

entrance examination.  Representations appear to have been  

received by the Government  from many quarters  pointing  

out that in-service candidates who were working around the  

clock for the benefit of the public even in remote rural areas  

could  hardly  find  time  to  update  their  knowledge  and  

compete with the general merit candidates so as to score  

the  required  50%  marks  in  the  common  entrance  

3

Page 4

examination  and  to  qualify  for  admission  to  any  post-

graduate  course.  Considering  these  representations,  the  

Government decided to bring a legislation to overcome the  

difficulties faced by in-service candidates in the matter  of  

getting admission to post-graduate courses.  The legislation  

envisaged a quota for medical officers in the service of the  

State Government on such terms and conditions as may be  

prescribed.  More importantly,  in terms of Section 3 of Act  

No.29  of  2008  selection  of  medical  officers  to  the  post-

graduate courses under the service quota was to be made  

by a Selection Committee called the Post Graduate Course  

Medical Selection Committee constituted under Section 4 of  

the  said  Act.  Section  5  of  the  Act  empowered  the  

Government  to  set  apart  seats not  exceeding 40% of  the  

total  seats  available  in  the State  quota for  any  academic  

year for selection of medical officers under ‘service quota’  

for admission to post-graduate medical courses in medical  

colleges of the State.  Sub-section (2) of Section 5 provided  

that the academic qualifications for admission to the post-

graduate courses shall be an MBBS degree with a minimum  

of  50%  marks  besides  other  qualifications  that  may  be  

4

Page 5

prescribed.  Sub-section (4) of Section 5 required the Post-

graduate Selection Committee to finalise the selection list  

directly  based  on  the  seniority  of  the  in-service  medical  

officers  and  following  such  other  criteria  as  may  be  

prescribed.  Section  6  provided  for  grant  of  weightage  for  

‘rural area service’ or ‘difficult rural area service’ as the case  

may  be,  in  the  matter  of  selection  of  the  candidates  for  

admission.  Sections  3,  4,  5  and 6 to  the  extent  they  are  

relevant may be re-produced at this stage:    

“3.  Selection  of  Medical  Officers  for  admission  to   Postgraduate Course Under the Service.

Quota.-  Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  the  Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (Central Act 102 of   1956) or any rule or regulation issued thereunder or   in  any  judgment,  decree  or  order  of  any  court  or   authority,  the  selection  of  Medical  Officers  for   admission  to  Postgraduate  Course  of  study  in  the   State  under  the  service  quota  shall  be  made only   under the provisions of this Act.

4.  Constitution  of  Post  Graduate  Course  Medical   Selection Committee –  

(1)  The  Government  may  constitute  a   Postgraduate  Course  Selection  Committee  for  the  purpose  of  selection  of  Medical   Officers  under  the  service  quota  with  the  following ex-officio members, namely:-

(a) The Secretary to Government, Health and  Family Welfare Department, Government of   Kerala;

(b) The Director of Medical Education;

(c) The Director Health Services;

5

Page 6

(d)  The  Director  of  Insurance  Medical   Services;

(e)  The Joint  Director  of  Medical  Education   (M);

(f)  The  Joint  Director  of  Medical  Education  (G).

(2)    The Secretary to Government,  Health  and Family Welfare Department shall be the  Chairman  and  the  Director  of  Medical   Education  shall  be  the  Convenor  of  the   Committee.

(3) The  Committee  shall  discharge  its   functions  in  such  manner  as  may  be  prescribed.

5. Procedure for selection. –  

(1) The Government may set apart seats not   exceeding  forty  percent  of  the  total  seats   available to state quota in an academic year,   for  selection  of  Medical  Officers  under   service quota considering their service under  the  Government  for  admission  to  Post   Graduate  Medical  Courses  in  the  Medical   Colleges of the State in such manner as may   be prescribed.

(2) The academic qualification for admission   to  the  Post  Graduate  Course  shall  be  M.B.B.S. degree with minimum fifty percent   marks and the other qualifications shall be  such as may be prescribed.

(3)  The details  of  eligibility  for  admission,   the duration of courses, allotment, fee to be  paid, reservations of seats and such other   details shall be published every year in the   prospectus  before  the  commencement  of   admission.

(4)  The  Postgraduate  Course  Selection  Committee  shall  finalise  the  selection  list   strictly based on the seniority in service of   the  Medical  Officers  and  following  such  other criteria as may be prescribed.

6

Page 7

(5)  The  selection  list  finalised  under  sub- section (4)  shall  be published by the Post   Graduate  Selection  Committee  for  the  information of the applicants.

6.  Weightage  for  rural  service.  –  Every  Medical   Officer who has ‘rural area service’ or ‘difficult rural   area service’ as the case may be, in the State shall   be given weightage in selection in such manner as   may be prescribed.”                          

4. Aggrieved  by  the  above  legislation,  Writ  Petitions  

No.1014  of  2009  and  2610  of  2010  were  filed  by  the  

respondents challenging the constitutional validity of Section  

5(4) of the Act in so far as it provides that ‘admission to post-

graduate  in-service  quota  shall  be  only  on  the  basis  of  

seniority’.  The  petitioners  also  questioned  the  validity  of  

some of  the provisions  of  the prospectus  for  the relevant  

year to the post-graduate admission in the service quota but  

gave up that prayer when the petitions eventually came up  

for hearing confining the relief prayed for in the writ petition  

to a declaration as to the validity of the statutory provisions  

under challenge.  

5. The  primary  ground  on  which  the  challenge  to  the  

validity of the legislation was mounted by the writ petitioners  

was that  the State legislature  could  not  enact  a  law that  

would  make  selection  for  admission  to  the  post-graduate  

7

Page 8

courses dependent solely on the seniority of the in-service  

candidates  without  prescribing  the  minimum conditions  of  

eligibility for the candidates concerned. Competence of the  

State  Legislature  to  enact  Section  5(4)  of  the  impugned  

Legislation was also called in question on the ground that the  

said piece of legislation violated the regulations framed by  

the Medical Council of India the authority competent to do so  

under the Medical Council of India Act, 1956. It was argued  

that the Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000  

provided the minimum requirements that all the candidates  

have to fulfil.  Inasmuch as the State enactment contrary to  

the said regulation and requirement postulates that selection  

of candidates shall be made only on the basis of seniority it  

was beyond the legislative competence of the Kerala State  

Legislature.  The  Indian  Medical  Council  Act  and  the  MCI  

Regulations framed under the same were, argued the writ  

petitioners-respondents herein, referable only to Entry 66 of  

List  I  of  Seventh Schedule. Any legislation enacted by the  

State Legislature in exercise of its power under Entry 25 in  

List III was subject to any law to the contrary passed by the  

Parliament in exercise of its power under Entry 66 of List I.  

8

Page 9

That  the  State  Act  was  reserved  for  consideration  of  the  

President  and  that  it  has  received  the  assent  of  His  

Excellency in terms of Article 254(2) of the Constitution did  

not  save  the  legislation  from  the  vice  of  legislative  

incompetence.   

6. The State of Kerala contested the petitions and,  inter  

alia,  argued  that  the  State  enactment  was  in  pith  and  

substance different from the Indian Medical Council Act and  

the  MCI  Regulations.  The  State  attempted  to  justify  the  

legislation under Entry 25 of List III and argued that it does  

not in any manner conflict with Entry 66 of List I.   It  was  

argued that the dominant purpose of the legislation under  

challenge  ought  to  be  seen,  and  that  purpose  did  not,  

according to the State, in any way, impinge upon the Central  

legislation so as to call for any interference by the Court.  

7. On  behalf  of  the  in-service  doctors  an  attempt  was  

made to justify the enactment on the ground that, but, for a  

provision  permitting  a  quota  for  service  aspirants  for  

admission to post-graduate courses it  would be difficult to  

compete  with  fresh  graduates  who  may  be  academically  

better  off  than  candidates  who  have since  long given  up  

9

Page 10

their studies and devoted themselves entirely to the service  

of the people at large some of them inhabiting in remote and  

difficult areas of the State.

8. The  Medical  Council  of  India  who  was  arrayed  as  a  

respondent  in  the  writ  petitions,  however,  supported  the  

case of the writ-petitioners (respondents herein) to point out  

that  the  MCI  Regulations  categorically  postulate  that  

students for post-graduate course can be selected only on  

the basis of their inter se academic merit.  Any other method  

of selection is, therefore, by necessary implication forbidden.  

Inasmuch  as  the  State  Legislation  has  attempted  to  

introduce another method of selection which has the effect  

of subverting the MCI Regulations the impugned enactment  

was bad.  

9. The  High  Court  of  Kerala  has,  by  the  judgment  and  

order impugned in these appeals,  agreed in principle that  

admission to post-graduate courses can be made only on the  

basis of inter se seniority provided the candidates appear in  

the common entrance examination and qualify. It has relying  

upon the decisions of this Court in Dr. Preeti Srivastava &  

anr.  v.  State of M.P. & ors. (1999) 7 SCC 120  and  

10

Page 11

State of  M.P.  & Ors.    v.   Gopal  D.  Tirthani  & Ors.   

(2003) 7 SCC 83 held that the prescription of an entrance  

examination with minimum eligibility marks to be secured in  

the entrance test for post-graduate course is within the field  

covered by Entry 66 of List I and that the State Legislature  

cannot, by reference to Entry 25 of List III, make any law that  

may have the effect of encroaching upon the field occupied  

by Entry 66 of List I.  The High Court observed:

“The  principles  of  law  emanating  from  the  above  include that the prescription as to the requirement of   an entrance examination with a minimum eligibility   bench mark to be acquired in that entrance test for   postgraduated medical education is within the field   covered by Entry 66 in List I and the competence of   the State Legislature to make a law with reference to  Entry 25 in List III would not enable it to make any   such law encroaching on the field occupied by Entry   66  in  List  I.  The  MCI  Regulations  framed  under  Section  33  of  the  IMC  Act  is  insulated  from  any  contradiction by any State legislation. Therefore, the  State  cannot  make  a  law  doing  away  with  the  requirement, for in-service candidates, to participate   in  the  common  entrance  test  for  admission  to  postgraduate  medical  courses  and  obtaining  the   minimum  eligibility  requirement  prescribed  by  the  MCI in the Regulations.”     

10. The High Court then held that inasmuch as Section 5(4)  

of the impugned enactment provides for the preparation of a  

select list of in-service medical officers based on seniority,  

such selection shall be made from among in-service medical  

11

Page 12

officers only who have appeared in the common entrance  

test  of  post-graduate medical  education and obtained the  

minimum eligibility bench mark in that test in terms of the  

MCI Regulations.  The High Court held:

“The conclusion is that the provision in Section 5(4)   of  the  State  Act  that  the  select  list  of  in-service  medical officers for postgraduate medical education   shall be strictly on the basis of seniority is subject to   the  requirement  that  such  selection  can  be  made  only  from among  those  in-service  medical  officers   who have undergone the common entrance test for   postgraduate medical education and have obtained  the minimum eligibility  bench mark in  that  test  in   terms  of  the  MCI  Regulations.   It  is  so  declared.   These writ petitions are allowed to that extent.”  

11. The present appeals assail the correctness of the above  

order and judgment.

12. Regulation 9 of the Regulations framed under the MCI  

Act,  inter  alia,  provides  that  admission  to  post-graduate  

medical courses shall be made strictly on the basis of inter  

se academic merit of the candidates. The Regulation further  

stipulates  the  methodology  for  determining  the  academic  

merit of the candidate.  It reads:

“Selection of Postgraduate Students

(1)  (a)  Students  for  Postgraduate  medical  courses   shall be selected strictly on the basis of their inter-se   Academic Merit.  

12

Page 13

(b)  50% of  seats  in  Post  Graduate  Diploma  Course shall be reserved for Medical Officers   in the Government service, who have served  for at least three years in remote and difficult   areas.  After  acquiring  the  PG  Diploma,  the  Medical  Officers  shall  serve  for  two  more  years in remote and/or difficult areas.

(2)  For  determining  the  ”Academic  Merit”,  the   University/Institution  may  adopt  the  following  methodologies:

(a) On the basis of merit as determined by  a ‘Competitive Test’ conducted by the state   government or  by the competent  authority   appointed by the state government or by the  university/group of universities in the same  state; or

(b) On the basis of merit as determined by  a  centralised  competitive  test  held  at  the  national level; or

(c) On  the  basis  of  the  individual   cumulative performance at the first, second  and  third  MBBS  examinations  provided  admissions are University wise; or

(d) Combination of (a) and (c).

Provided  that  wherever  ‘Entrance  Test’  for   postgraduates  admission  is  held  by  a  state  government or a university or any other authorized  examining body, the minimum percentage of marks   for eligibility for admission to postgraduate medical   course  shall  be  50  percent  for  general  category   candidates  and  40  percent  for  the  candidates   belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and  Other Backward Classes.

Provided  further  that  in  Non-Governmental   institutions fifty percent of  the total seats shall  be   filled  by  the  competent  authority  notified  by  the   State Government and the remaining fifty percent by   the management(s) of the institution on the basis of   inter-se Academic Merit.

Further provided that in determining the merit   and  the  entrance  test  for  postgraduate  admission   weightage in the marks be given as an incentive at   the rate of 10% of the marks obtained for each year   

13

Page 14

in  service  in  remote  or  difficult  areas  upto  the  maximum of 30% of the marks obtained.’   

13. The above leaves no manner of doubt that admissions  

to post-graduate medical courses have to be made only on  

the basis of academic merit of the candidates.  It is clear  

from  sub-Regulation  (2)  (supra)  that  for  determining  the  

“academic merit” the university/institution can adopt any of  

the methodologies stipulated therein.  In terms of proviso (1)  

to  Regulation 9,  general  category candidates  must  secure  

50%  marks  while  those  belonging  to  SC/ST  and  other  

backwards classes are required to secure at least 40% marks  

in the entrance test in order to be eligible for admission.  In  

terms of the third proviso to Rule 9 (supra) weightage for  

service  rendered  in  remote  and  difficult  areas  is  made  

permissible  at  the rate of  10% of  the marks  obtained for  

each  year  in  service  in  remote  or  difficult  areas  upto  a  

maximum 30% of the marks.  

14. Regulation 9 is, in our opinion, a complete code by itself  

inasmuch  as  it  prescribes  the  basis  for  determining  the  

eligibility  of  the  candidates  including  the  method  to  be  

adopted for determining the inter se merit which remains the  

14

Page 15

only basis for  such admissions.  To the performance in the  

entrance test can be added weightage on account of rural  

service rendered by the candidates in the manner and to the  

extent indicated in the third proviso to Regulation 9. Suffice  

it  to  say that  but  for  the impugned legislation making an  

attempt to change the basis  on which admissions can be  

made, such admissions must, in all categories, be made only  

on the basis of merit as determined in terms of the provision  

extracted above.  That method, however, is given a go-bye  

by the impugned legislation when it provides that in-service  

candidates seeking admission in the quota reserved for in-

service doctors shall be granted such admission not on the  

basis of one of the methodologies sanctioned by Rule 9(2) of  

the  Rules  but  on  the  basis  of  inter  se seniority  of  such  

candidates.  The  question  is  whether  the  State  was  

competent to enact such a law.  Our answer to that question  

is in the negative.  The reasons are not far to seek.  As noted  

earlier,  the  subject  is  fully  covered  by  several  

pronouncements  of  this  Court  to  which we shall  presently  

refer but before we do so we may extract Article 246 of the  

Constitution which reads as under:

15

Page 16

“246.  Subject  matter  of  laws  made  by  Parliament  and by the Legislatures of States  

(1) Notwithstanding anything in clauses (2) and (3),   Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with   respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I in   the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to   as the Union List)  

(2) Notwithstanding  anything  in  clause  (3),   Parliament,  and,  subject  to  clause  (1),  the  Legislature of any State also, have power to make   laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated  in List III in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution   referred to as the Concurrent List)  

(3)  Subject to clauses  (1) and (2), the Legislature of   any State has exclusive power to make laws for such  State or any part thereof with respect to any of the   matters  enumerated  in  List  II  in  the  Seventh  Schedule  (in  this  Constitution  referred  to  as  the  ‘State List’)

(4) Parliament has power to make laws with respect   to any matter for any part of the territory of India not   included  (in  a  State)  notwithstanding  that  such  matter is a matter enumerated in the State List”

15. We may also refer, at this stage, to Entry 66 of List I  

which runs as under:

“66. Co-ordination and determination of  standards  in institutions for higher education or research and  scientific and technical institutions.”

16. In State of T.N. and Anr. v. Adhiyaman Educational   

&  Research  Institute  &  Ors.  (1995)  4  SCC  104,  this  

Court was examining the scope of Entry 66 of the Union List  

vis-a-vis Entry 25 of  the Concurrent List  in relation to the  

provisions  of  Tamil  Nadu Private  Colleges  (Regulation)  Act  

16

Page 17

and  Madras  University  Act  vis-a-vis Council  for  Technical  

Education Act, 1987. This Court held that the Central Act was  

intended to achieve the object of coordinated and integrated  

development of the technical education system at all levels  

throughout the country with a view to promoting qualitative  

improvement of such education. This Court further held that  

the  Central  Act  namely,  All  India  Council  for  Technical  

Education Act, 1987 was within the scope of Entry 66 of List I  

and Entry 25 of List III and that on the subject covered by the  

statute the State could neither make a law under Entry 11 of  

List II nor under Entry 25 of List III after the 42nd Amendment.  

If  there  was  any  law  existing  immediately  before  the  

commencement  of  the Constitution within  the meaning of  

Article  372,  such as  the Madras University  Act,  1923,  the  

Central  Legislation  would,  to  the  extent  of  repugnancy,  

impliedly repeal  such pre-existing law. This Court summed  

up the legal position and the test applicable in the following  

paragraph:

“41. What emerges from the above discussion is as   follows: (i) The expression ‘coordination’ used in Entry 66 of   the  Union  List  of  the  Seventh  Schedule  to  the   Constitution  does  not  merely  mean  evaluation.  It   

17

Page 18

means harmonisation with a view to forge a uniform  pattern for a concerted action according to a certain   design, scheme or plan of development. It, therefore,   includes action not only for removal of disparities in   standards but also for preventing the occurrence of   such  disparities.  It  would,  therefore,  also  include   power  to  do  all  things  which  are  necessary  to  prevent  what  would  make  ‘coordination’  either   impossible  or  difficult.  This  power  is  absolute  and  unconditional  and  in  the  absence  of  any  valid   compelling reasons,  it  must be given its full  effect   according to its plain and express intention.

(ii)  To  the  extent  that  the  State  legislation  is  in   conflict  with  the  Central  legislation  though  the  former is purported to have been made under Entry   25 of  the Concurrent  List  but  in  effect  encroaches   upon  legislation  including  subordinate  legislation  made  by  the  Centre  under  Entry  25  of  the   Concurrent List or to give effect to Entry 66 of the   Union List, it would be void and inoperative.

(iii) If there is a conflict between the two legislations,   unless the State legislation is saved by the provisions  of  the  main  part  of  clause  (2)  of  Article  254,  the   State  legislation  being  repugnant  to  the  Central   legislation, the same would be inoperative.

(iv) Whether the State law encroaches upon Entry 66   of the Union List or is repugnant to the law made by   the Centre under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List, will   have to  be  determined by  the  examination  of  the   two  laws  and  will  depend  upon  the  facts  of  each   case.

(v)  When  there  are  more  applicants  than  the   available situations/seats, the State authority is not   prevented  from  laying  down  higher  standards  or   qualifications than those laid down by the Centre or   the  Central  authority  to  short-list  the  applicants.   When  the  State  authority  does  so,  it  does  not   encroach upon Entry 66 of the Union List or make a  law which is repugnant to the Central law.

(vi) However, when the situations/seats are available   and the State authorities deny an applicant the same  on  the  ground  that  the  applicant  is  not  qualified   according to  its  standards  or  qualifications,  as  the  

18

Page 19

case  may  be,  although  the  applicant  satisfies  the   standards or qualifications laid down by the Central   law,  they  act  unconstitutionally.  So  also  when  the  State  authorities  de-recognise  or  disaffiliate  an  institution  for  not  satisfying  the  standards  or   requirement laid down by them, although it satisfied  the  norms  and  requirements  laid  down  by  the  Central authority, the State authorities act illegally.”

. 17. In Dr. Preeti Srivastava (supra) one of the questions  

that  fell  for  consideration  was  whether  the  standard  of  

education and admission criteria could be laid under Entry  

25 of List III by a Central Legislation.  A Constitution Bench of  

this Court by majority held that standard of education and  

admission criteria could be laid down under Entry 66 of List I  

and under Entry 25 of List III.  It was held that both the Union  

as well as the State have the power to legislate on education  

including medical education and the State has the right to  

control education so far as the field is not occupied by any  

union legislation.  When the maximum marks to be obtained  

in  the  entrance  test  for  admission  to  the  institutions  for  

higher education including higher medical education is fixed,  

the State cannot adversely affect the standards laid down by  

the union government.  It was held that it is for the MCI to  

determine  reservation  to  be  made  for  SC/ST  and  OBC  

candidates and lowering the qualifying marks in their favour  

19

Page 20

on the pretext or pretence of public interest.  Speaking for  

the  majority,  Sujata  V.  Manohar,  J.  summed  up  the  legal  

position as under:

“35. The legislative competence of Parliament and  the  legislatures  of  the  States  to  make  laws  under   Article 246 is regulated by the VIIth Schedule to the   Constitution.  In  the  VIIth  Schedule  as  originally  in   force,  Entry  11  of  List  II  gave  to  the  State  an   exclusive power to legislate on “education including  universities, subject to the provisions of Entries 63,   64, 65 and 66 of List I and Entry 25 of List III”.

Entry 11 of List II was deleted and Entry 25 of List III   was amended with effect from 3-1-1976 as a result   of  the Constitution  42nd Amendment Act  of  1976.   The  present  Entry  25  in  the  Concurrent  List  is  as   follows:

“25.  Education,  including  technical   education,  medical  education  and  universities, subject to the provisions of   Entries  63,  64,  65  and  66  of  List  I;   vocational  and  technical  training  of   labour.”

Entry 25 is subject, inter alia, to Entry 66 of List I.  

Entry 66 of List I is as follows:

“66. Coordination and determination of standards in   institutions  for  higher  education  or  research  and  scientific and technical institutions.”

Both the Union as well as the States have the power   to  legislate  on  education  including  medical   education,  subject,  inter  alia,  to  Entry  66 of  List  I   which  deals  with  laying  down  standards  in   institutions  for  higher  education  or  research  and  scientific  and  technical  institutions  as  also   coordination  of  such  standards.  A  State  has,   therefore,  the  right  to  control  education  including   medical  education  so  long  as  the  field  is  not   occupied  by  any  Union  legislation.  Secondly,  the  State  cannot,  while  controlling  education  in  the  

20

Page 21

State, impinge on standards in institutions for higher  education.  Because  this  is  exclusively  within  the   purview of the Union Government.  Therefore, while  prescribing  the  criteria  for  admission  to  the  institutions  for  higher  education  including  higher   medical education, the State cannot adversely affect   the standards laid down by the Union of India under   Entry  66  of  List  I.  Secondly,  while  considering  the   cases  on  the  subject  it  is  also  necessary  to   remember that from 1977, education, including, inter   alia, medical and university education, is now in the  Concurrent  List  so that  the Union can legislate on   admission criteria also. If it does so, the State will not  be able to legislate in this field, except as provided in  Article 254.

36. It would not be correct to say that the norms for   admission have no connection with the standard of   education,  or  that  the  rules  for  admission  are   covered  only  by  Entry  25  of  List  III.  Norms  of   admission can have a direct impact on the standards   of  education.  Of  course,  there  can  be  rules  for   admission which are consistent with or do not affect   adversely the standards of education prescribed by  the Union in exercise of powers under Entry 66 of   List I. For example, a State may, for admission to the  postgraduate  medical  courses,  lay  down  qualifications  in  addition to those prescribed under  Entry  66  of  List  I.  This  would  be  consistent  with  promoting  higher  standards  for  admission  to  the  higher educational courses. But any lowering of the  norms  laid  down  can  and  does  have  an  adverse  effect on the standards of education in the institutes  of  higher  education.  Standards  of  education  in  an  institution  or  college  depend  on  various  factors.  Some of these are: (1) the calibre of the teaching staff; (2)  a  proper  syllabus  designed  to  achieve  a  high   level of education in the given span of time; (3) the student-teacher ratio; (4) the ratio between the students and the hospital   beds available to each student; (5)  the  calibre  of  the  students  admitted  to  the   institution; (6)  equipment  and  laboratory  facilities,  or  hospital   facilities for training in the case of medical colleges; (7) adequate accommodation for the college and the   attached hospital; and

21

Page 22

(8) the standard of examinations held including the  manner in which the papers are set and examined   and the clinical performance is judged.”

     (emphasis supplied)

18. This Court further held that MCI had framed regulations  

in  exercise of  the power  conferred under Section 20 read  

with  Section 33 of  the Medical  Council  of  India  Act  which  

covered post-graduate medical education. These regulations  

are binding and the States cannot, in exercise of their power  

under Entry 25 of List III, make any rule which are in conflict  

with or adversely impinge upon the regulations made by the  

MCI. Since the standards laid down are in exercise of power  

conferred under Entry 66 of List I, the exercise of that power  

is  exclusively within the domain of the union government.  

The State’s power to frame rules pertaining to education was  

in any case subject to any provision made in that connection  

by the union government. The Court observed:

“52. Mr.  Salve,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  Medical  Council  of  India  has,  therefore,  rightly   submitted that under the Indian Medical Council Act   of 1956 the Indian Medical Council is empowered to   prescribe,  inter  alia,  standards  of  postgraduate  medical  education.  In  the  exercise  of  its  powers   under  Section  20  read  with  Section  33  the  Indian  Medical Council has framed regulations which govern  postgraduate medical education. These regulations,   therefore, are binding and the States cannot, in the   exercise of  power under Entry 25 of  List  III,  make   

22

Page 23

rules  and regulations  which  are  in  conflict  with  or   adversely  impinge upon the regulations framed by  the Medical Council of India for postgraduate medical   education.  Since the standards laid down are in the   exercise of  the power conferred under Entry 66 of   List I, the exercise of that power is exclusively within   the domain of the Union Government. The power of   the States under Entry 25 of List III is subject to Entry  66 of List I.

53. Secondly,  it  is  not  the exclusive  power  of  the  State  to  frame rules  and regulations  pertaining  to   education since the subject is in the Concurrent List.   Therefore, any power exercised by the State in the  area of education under Entry 25 of List III will also   be subject to any existing relevant provisions made  in that connection by the Union Government subject,   of course, to Article 254.”

      (emphasis supplied)

19. We may also at this stage refer to the decision of this  

Court in  Gopal D. Tirthani case (supra). That was a case  

where the State defined the percentage at post-graduation  

level for degree and diploma course exclusively for in-service  

candidates. The reservation came under challenge but was  

upheld by this Court holding that the setting apart of 20%  

seats in post-graduate course for in-service candidates was  

not a reservation but a separate and exclusive channel of  

entry or source of admission, the validity whereof cannot be  

determined  on  the  constitutional  principles  applicable  to  

communal reservation. In-service candidates and those who  

are not in-service are two classes based on an intelligible  

23

Page 24

differentia.  The  purpose  sought  to  be  achieved  by  such  

classification  was  a  laudable  purpose  as  such  candidates  

would, after they acquire higher academic achievements, be  

available  to  be  posted  in  rural  areas  by  the  State  

Government. Having said that, this Court held that there can  

be no relaxation for in-service candidates in so far  as the  

common entrance test is concerned and MCI regulation could  

not  be  relaxed  for  that  purpose.  The  argument  that  in-

service candidates are detached from theoretical study and  

cannot,  therefore,  compete  with  other  candidates  was  

rejected by this Court. The following passages, in this regard,  

are apposite:

“25. The eligibility test, called the entrance test or   the  pre-PG  test,  is  conducted  with  dual  purposes.   Firstly,  it  is  held  with  the  object  of  assessing  the  knowledge and intelligence quotient of a candidate   whether he would be able to prosecute postgraduate   studies  if  allowed  an  opportunity  of  doing  so;   secondly, it is for the purpose of assessing the merit   inter  se of  the  candidates  which  is  of  vital   significance  at  the  counselling  when  it  comes  to   allotting  the  successful  candidates  to  different   disciplines wherein the seats are limited and some  disciplines  are considered to  be  more  creamy and  are more coveted than the others. The concept of a  minimum  qualifying  percentage  cannot,  therefore,   be  given  a  complete  go-by.  If  at  all  there  can be   departure, that has to be minimal and that too only   by  approval  of  experts  in  the  field  of  medical   education, which for the present are available as a   body in the Medical Council of India.

24

Page 25

26. The  Medical  Council  of  India,  for  the  present,   insists,  through  its  Regulations,  on  a  common  entrance test being conducted whereat the minimum  qualifying marks would be 50%. The State of Madhya   Pradesh must comply with the requirements of the  Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India  and hold a common entrance test even if there are   two separate channels of entry and allow clearance  only  to  such candidates  who secure  the  minimum  qualifying  marks  as  prescribed  by  the  MCI   Regulations.  If  the  State  has  a  case  for  making  a   departure  from  such  rule  or  for  carving  out  an   exception in favour of any classification then it is for   the  State  to  represent  to  the  Central  Government   and/or the Medical Council of India and make out a   case of justification consistently with the aforequoted  observation  of  this  Court  in  Dayanand  Medical  College and Hospital case.”

    (emphasis supplied)

20. It is in the light of the above pronouncements futile to  

argue that the impugned legislation can hold the field even  

when it is in clear breach of the Medical Council of India’s  

Regulations.  The  High  Court  was,  in  our  opinion,  right  in  

holding that inasmuch as the provisions of Section 5(4) of  

the impugned enactment provides a basis  for  selection of  

candidates  different  from  the  one  stipulated  by  the  MCI  

Regulations it was beyond the legislative competence of the  

State Legislature.  Having said that the High Court adopted a  

reconciliatory approach when it directed that seniority of the  

in-service candidates  will  continue to play a role provided  

the  candidates  concerned  have  appeared  in  the  common  

25

Page 26

entrance  test  and  secured  the  minimum  percentage  of  

marks stipulated by the Regulations.  The High Court was, in  

our opinion, not correct in making that declaration. That is  

because,  even when in  Gopal D. Tirthani’s case (supra)  

this Court has allowed in-service candidates to be treated as  

a  separate channel  for  admission to post-graduate course  

within that category also admission can be granted only on  

the basis of merit. A meritorious in-service candidate cannot  

be denied admission only because he has an eligible senior  

above him though lower in merit.  It is now fairly well settled  

that merit  and merit  alone can be the basis  of admission  

among  candidates  belonging  to  any  given  category.  In  

service  candidates  belong  to  one  category.  Their  inter-se  

merit cannot be overlooked only to promote seniority which  

has no place in the scheme of MCI Regulations. That does  

not  mean  that  merit  based  admissions  to  in-service  

candidates cannot take into account the service rendered by  

such candidates in rural areas. Weightage for such service is  

permissible while determining the merit of the candidates in  

terms of the third proviso to Regulation 9 (supra). Suffice it  

to say that Regulation 9 remains as the only effective and  

26

Page 27

permissible  basis  for  granting  admission  to  in-service  

candidates  provisions  of  Section  5(4)  of  the  impugned  

enactment notwithstanding.  That being so, admissions can  

and ought to be made only on the basis of inter se merit of  

the  candidates  determined  in  terms  of  the  said  principle  

which gives no weightage to seniority simplicitor.  

21. In  the  result,  these  appeals  fail  and  are  hereby  

dismissed but in the circumstances without any order as to  

costs.

………………………………….…..…J.        (T.S. THAKUR)

     …………………………..……………...J.         (R. BANUMATHI)

New Delhi January 12, 2015.

27