Page 1

'REPORTABLE'

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 48 OF 2014    

Vishal Goyal & Ors. …  Petitioners

Versus

State of Karnataka & Ors.                             …  Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 70 OF 2014, WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 72 OF 2014, WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 75 OF 2014, WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 65 OF 2014, WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 92 OF 2014, WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.156 OF 2014, WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 83 OF 2014, WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 87 OF 2014  

AND WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.196 OF 2014

J U D G M E N T

A.K. PATNAIK, J.

Page 2

This  batch of writ  petitions under Article 32 of the  

Constitution  relates  to  admissions  in  Post  Graduate  

Medical Dental courses in Government medical and dental  

colleges as well as in the State Quota in private medical  

and dental colleges in the State of Karnataka.   

2. The petitioners claim that they were selected on the  

basis of common entrance tests conducted by the CBSE or  

by  the  authorities  of  the  State  Government  or  by  the  

association of private medical and dental colleges in the  

State  of  Karnataka  and  admitted  into  the  MBBS/BDS  

courses in  different  Government  or  private medical  and  

dental  colleges  and  after  completing  their  MBBS/BDS  

courses  were  keen  to  get  admitted  into  Post  Graduate  

medical or dental courses in the year 2014.

3. The  National  Board  of  Examinations  issued  two  

Information  Bulletins  for  Post  Graduate  Entrance  Test,  

2014  (for  short  ‘the  PGET-2014’)  for  admissions  to  the  

State Quota seats in Karnataka Government Colleges and  

Institutions  and  Karnataka  Government  Quota  seats  in  

private  colleges/institutions/deemed  universities.   One  

Bulletin  contained  all  information  for  admission  to  

2

Page 3

MD/MS/Medical Post Graduate Diploma Courses (Medical)  

and the other contained all  information for admission to  

MDS/PG  Diploma  Courses  (Dental).   Clause  2  of  these  

Information Bulletins lays down the criteria for PGET-2014.  

Clause 2.1 of  these Information Bulletins for  PGET-2014  

provides  that  no  candidate  shall  be  admitted  to  a  

professional  educational  institution unless  the candidate  

possesses the qualifications or eligibility to appear for the  

entrance test stipulated thereunder.  The said clause 2.1  

of  the  two  Information  Bulletins,  which  is  identically  

worded for admissions to Post Graduate Medical and Post  

Graduate Dental Courses, is extracted hereinbelow:

2.1.  No  candidate  shall  be  admitted  to  a  professional  educational  institution  unless  the  candidate possesses the following qualifications or  eligibility to appear for the Entrance test namely:

a.  He  is  a  citizen  of  India  who  is  of  Karnataka origin and has studied MBBS/BDS  degree in a Medical/Dental college situated  in  Karnataka  or  outside  Karnataka,  and  affiliated  to  any  university  established  by  law in India recognized by Medical Council  of India and Government of India.

Explanation:  “A  candidate  of  Karnataka  Origin”  means  a  candidate  found  eligible  under clause (i) or (ii) below, namely:

3

Page 4

i. A candidate who has studied and passed  in  one  or  more  Government  recognized,  educational institutions located in the State  of Karnataka for a minimum period of TEN  academic years as on the last date fixed for  the  submission  of  application  form,  commencing  from  1st  standard  to  MBBS/BDS  and  must  have  appeared  and  passed  either  SSLC/10th  standard  or  2nd  PUC/12th  standard  examination  from  Karnataka State.  In case of the candidate  who has taken more than one year to pass  a class or standard, the years of academic  study is counted as one year only.

Documents to be produced, namely:

1) SSLC or 10th Standard Marks Card;

2) 2nd PUC of 12th Standard Marks Card of  the candidate;

3)  Candidates  Study  Certificate:  A  study  certificate  from  the  Head  of  educational  institution  where  he  or  she  had  studied.  Further, School Study Certificates should be  counter  signed  by  the  concerned  Block  Education Officer (BEO)/Deputy Director of  Public Instructions (DDPI) COMPULSORILY in  the proforma prescribed;

4)  Qualifying  degree  certificate  and  all  phases marks card;

5)  Domicile  certificate  issued  by  the  Tahsildar  in  the  prescribed  proforma  (Annexure-I);  and  if  claiming  reservation  benefits:  Caste/Caste  Income  Certificate  issued by Concerned Tahsildar – For SC/ST  in  Form-D,  Category-1  in  Form-E  and  2A,  2B, 3A and 3B in Form F.

4

Page 5

6)  MCI/DCI  State  Council  Registration  Certificate.

7)  Attempt  Certificate  issued  by  the  concerned college Principal.

ii.  The candidate should have studied and  passed  1st  and  2nd  years  Pre-University  Examination  or  11th  and  12th  standard  examination within the State of Karnataka  from  an  Educational  Institution  run  or  recognized  by  the  State  Government  or  MBBS/BDS from a professional educational  institution  located  in  Karnataka  and  that  either of the parents should have studied in  Karnataka  for  a  minimum  period  of  10  years.

Documents to be produced, namely:

1) SSLC or 10th Standard Marks Card;

2) 2nd PUC of 12th Standard Marks Card of  the candidate;

3)  Qualifying  degree  certificate  and  all  phases marks card;

4)  Domicile  certificate  issued  by  the  Tahsildar  in  the  prescribed  proforma  (Annexure-I);

5)  If  claiming  reservation  benefits:  Caste/Caste  Income  Certificate  issued  by  Concerned Tahsildar – For SC/ST in Form-D,  Category-1 in Form-E and 2A, 2B, 3A and 3B  in Form F and

6) (a)  A study certificate for  either of  the  parent having studied for at least 10 years  in  Karnataka  from  the  Head  of  the  educational  institution  where  he/she  had  

5

Page 6

studied.   Further,  school study certificates  should be countersigned by the concerned  Block  Educational  Officer  (BEO)/  Deputy  Director  of  Public  Instructions  (DDPI)  COMPULSORILY in the proforma prescribed  (Annexure-III);

(b)  The  candidates  study  certificate  for  having  studied  both  1st  and  2nd  PUC  or  11th & 12th Standard in Karnataka issued  by the head of the educational institution.

7)  MCI/DCI  State  Council  Registration  Certificate

8)  Attempt  Certificate  issued  by  the  concerned Principal.  

4. It will be clear from sub-clause (a) of clause 2.1 of the  

Information Bulletins extracted above that to be eligible to  

appear  for  the  Entrance  Test,  a  candidate  must  be  of  

“Karnataka Origin”.  The Explanation under sub-clause (a)  

of  clause  2.1  of  the  Information  Bulletins  gives  the  

meaning of “A candidate of Karnataka Origin”.  The case  

of  the  petitioners  is  that  by  virtue  of  sub-clause  (a)  of  

clause  2.1  of  the  two  Information  Bulletins,  they  are  

debarred  from  appearing  in  the  Entrance  Tests  for  

admissions  to  MD/MS/Medical  Post  Graduate  Diploma  

Courses,  2014 or  to  MDS/Dental  Post  Graduate Diploma  

Courses, 2014 in the State of Karnataka even though they  

6

Page 7

have  studied  MBBS/BDS  in  institutions  in  the  State  of  

Karnataka.  They have, therefore, challenged sub-clause  

(a) of clause 2.1 of the two Information Bulletins, as ultra  

vires Article 14 of the Constitution as interpreted by this  

Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain and Others v. Union of India and  

Others [(1984) 3 SCC 654].  They also contend that in the  

aforesaid case of Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra), this Court has  

held that a certain percentage of seats must be reserved  

on the basis of institutional preference to enable students  

who have passed MBBS or BDS courses from medical or  

dental colleges in the State of Karnataka to get admission  

to Post Graduate medical or dental courses in the medical  

or  dental  colleges  of  the  State  of  Karnataka.   The  

petitioners have, therefore, prayed that sub-clause (a) of  

clause 2.1 of the two Information Bulletins be declared as  

ultra  vires the  Constitution  and  appropriate  writs  and  

directions  be  issued  to  the  respondents  to  permit  the  

petitioners  to  participate  in  the  admission  process  of  

MD/MS/MDS and other Post Graduate medical and dental  

courses in the State of Karnataka.

7

Page 8

5. Soon after the writ petitions were filed and moved,  

this Court passed orders permitting the petitioners to take  

the Entrance Test for admission to Post Graduate medical  

and dental courses in the State of Karnataka conducted by  

the National Board of Examinations and pursuant to the  

said orders the petitioners have also been permitted to  

take the Entrance Test.

6. Learned  counsel  for  the  petitioners  submitted  that  

the  judgment  of  this  Court  in  Dr.  Pradeep  Jain’s  case  

(supra) still holds good.  They referred to the decision of  

this Court in Magan Mehrotra v. Union of India [(2003) 11  

SCC 186],  Saurabh Chaudri v.  Union of India [(2003) 11  

SCC 146] and  Nikhil Himthani v.  State of Uttarakhand &  

Others [(2013)  10  SCC  237],  in  which  this  Court  has  

reiterated the principles laid down in Dr.  Pradeep Jain’s  

case  (supra).   They  submitted  that  this  Court,  should,  

therefore, strike down sub-clause (a) of clause 2.1 of the  

two Information  Bulletins  as  ultra  vires the  Constitution  

and direct the respondents to give institutional preference  

in accordance of the judgment in Pradeep Jain’s case.

8

Page 9

7. In reply to the contentions of the petitioners, Mr. A.  

Mariarputham,  learned senior  counsel  appearing for  the  

State of Karnataka, relied on the statements of objections  

filed on behalf of the State of Karnataka.  He submitted  

that  Article  371J  of  the  Constitution  is  titled  ‘Special  

Provisions with respect to State of Karnataka’ and Clause  

(2)  read  with  Clause  (1)  sub-clause  (C)  of  this  Article  

provides  that  the  Governor  may,  by  order  make  

reservation  of  a  proportion  of  seats  in  educational  and  

vocational  training  institutions  in  the  Hyderabad-

Karnataka region for students who belong to that region  

by birth or by domicile.  He submitted that the State of  

Karnataka  has,  therefore,  fixed  institutional  preference  

quota of 50% and this was constitutionally permissible as  

per  the  judgment  of  this  Court  in  Saurabh  Chaudri v.  

Union of India (supra).    

8. Mr.  Mariarputham next  submitted  that  pursuant  to  

the  judgment  of  this  Court  in  Dr.  Pradeep  Jain’s  case  

(supra), a scheme has been formulated by this Court in  

Dr.  Dinesh  Kumar  and  Others v.  Motilal  Nehru  Medical   

College, Allahabad and Others [(1986) 3 SCC 727] and a  

9

Page 10

reading of the said scheme would show that it applies to  

only medical and dental colleges or institutions run by the  

Union of India or a State Government or a Municipal and  

other local authority.  He submitted that the judgments of  

this Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain’s case (supra) and in Dinesh  

Kumar  and  Others v.  Motilal  Nehru  Medical  College,   

Allahabad and Others (supra), therefore, do not apply to  

private  medical  and  dental  college  in  the  State  of  

Karnataka.  He explained that the State of Karnataka has  

also a quota of seats in the private medical and dental  

colleges in the State of Karnataka and the seats for Post  

Graduate medical and dental courses that fall in the State  

quota  can  be  filled  up  by  the  State  from  among  the  

candidates of Karnataka Origin as provided in sub-clause  

(a) of clause 2.1 of the two Information Bulletins.

9. We  have  considered  the  submissions  of  learned  

counsel for the parties and we find that the basis of the  

judgment of this Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain’s case (supra) is  

Article 14 of the Constitution which guarantees to every  

person equality before the law and equal protection of the  

laws.  As explained by this court in paragraphs 12 and 13  

10

Page 11

of  the  judgment   in  Nikhil  Himthani v.  State  of  

Uttarakhand & Others (supra):

“12. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees  to every person equality before law and equal  protection of laws.  In Jagadish Saran v. Union  of  India (1980)  2  SCC 768,  Krishna Iyer,  J.,  writing the judgment on behalf of the three  Judges  referring  to  Article  14  of  the  Constitution held that equality of opportunity  for  every  person  in  the  country  is  the  constitutional guarantee and therefore merit  must  be  the  test  for  selecting  candidates,  particularly in the higher levels of education  like  postgraduate  medical  courses,  such  as  MD.  In the language of Krishna Iyer, J. (SCC  pp.778-79, para 23)

“23.  Flowing from the same stream of  equalism  is  another  limitation.   The  basic medical needs of a region or the  preferential  push  justified  for  a  handicapped group cannot prevail in the  same measure all the highest scales of  specialty where the best skill or talent,  must  be  handpicked  by  selecting  according to capability.  At the level of  PhD, MD, or levels of higher proficiency,  where international measure of talent is  made, where losing one great scientist  or  technologist  in-the-making  is  a  national  loss,  the  considerations  we  have  expanded  upon  a  important  lose  their potency.  Here, equality, measured  by  matching  excellence,  has  more  meaning  and  cannot  be  diluted  much  without grave risk.”

13.  Relying  on  the  aforesaid  reasons  in  Jagadish  Saran  v.  Union  of  India,  a  three-

11

Page 12

Judge  Bench  of  this  Court  in  Pradeep  Jain  case held excellence cannot be compromised  by any other consideration for the purpose of  admission  to  postgraduate  medical  courses  such  as  MD/MS  and  the  like  because  that  would be detrimental to the interests of the  nation  and  therefore  reservation  based  on  residential requirement in the State will affect  the  right  to  equality  of  opportunity  under  Article 14 of the Constitution……..”  

In Magan Mehrotra v.  Union of India (supra) and Saurabh  

Chaudri v.  Union  of  India (supra)  also,  this  Court  has  

approved the  aforesaid  view in  Dr.  Pradeep Jain’s  Case  

that  excellence  cannot  be  compromised  by  any  other  

consideration  for  the  purpose  of  admission  to  

postgraduate medical courses such as MD/MS and the like  

because that would be detrimental to the interests of the  

nation and will affect the right to equality of opportunity  

under Article 14 of the Constitution.

10. Mr. Mariarputham is right that in Saurabh Chaudri v.  

Union  of  India (supra),  this  Court  has  held  that  

institutional preference can be given by a State, but in the  

aforesaid  decision of  Saurabh Chaudri,  it  has  also  been  

held  that  decision  of  the  State  to  give  institutional  

preference can be invalidated by the Court in the event it  

12

Page 13

is shown that the decision of the State is  ultra vires the  

right  to  equality  under  Article  14  of  the  Constitution.  

When we examine sub-clause (a) of clause 2.1 of the two  

Information  Bulletins,  we  find  that  the  expression  “A  

candidate  of  Karnataka  Origin”  who  only  is  eligible  to  

appear  for  Entrance  Test  has  been  so  defined  as  to  

exclude a candidate who has studied MBBS or BDS in an  

institution  in  the  State  of  Karnataka  but  who  does  not  

satisfy the other requirements of sub-clause (a) of clause  

2.1 of the Information Bulletin for PGET-2014.  Thus, the  

institutional preference sought to be given by sub-clause  

(a) of clause 2.1 of the Information Bulletin for PGET-2014  

is  clearly  contrary  to  the  judgment  of  this  Court  in  Dr.  

Pradeep Jain’s case (supra).  To quote from paragraph 22  

of the judgment in Dr. Pradeep Jain’s case:

“…… a certain percentage of seats may  in  the  present  circumstances,  be  reserved  on  the  basis  of  institutional  preference in the sense that a student  who  has  passed  MBBS  course  from  a  medical  college  or  university,  may  be  given  preference  for  admission  to  the  postgraduate  course  in  the  same  medical college or university…..”

13

Page 14

Sub-clause  (a)  of  clause  2.1  of  the  two  Information  

Bulletins does not actually give institutional preference to  

students who have passed MBBS or BDS from Colleges or  

Universities in the State of Karnataka, but makes some of  

them ineligible to take the Entrance Test for admission to  

Post Graduate Medical or Dental courses in the State of  

Karnataka to which the Information Bulletins apply.

11. We now come to the argument of Mr. Mariarputham  

that the scheme formulated by this Court in  Dr. Dinesh  

Kumar  and  Others v.  Motilal  Nehru  Medical  College,   

Allahabad and Others (supra) pursuant to the judgment in  

Dr. Pradeep Jain’s case (supra) is confined to medical and  

dental colleges or institutions run by the Union of India or  

a State Government or a Municipal or other local authority  

and does not apply to private medical and dental colleges  

or institutions.  Paragraph (1) of the scheme on which Mr.  

Mariarputham relied on is extracted hereinbelow:

“(1) In the first place, the Scheme has  necessarily  to  be  confined  to  medical  colleges or institutions run by the Union  of  India  or  a  State  Government  or  a  municipal  or  other  local  authority.   It  cannot apply to private medical colleges  or  institutions  unless  they  are  

14

Page 15

instrumentality or agency of the State or  opt to join the Scheme by making 15 per  cent of the total number of seats for the  MBBS/BDS course and 25 per cent of the  total  number  of  seats  for  the  post- graduate course, available for admission  on  the  basis  of  All  India  Entrance  Examination.  Those medical colleges or  institutions  which  we  have  already  excepted  from  the  operation  of  the  judgment  dated  June  22,  1984  will  continue to remain outside the scope of  the Scheme.”

This Court has, thus, said in the aforesaid paragraph (1) of  

the  scheme  that  the  scheme  cannot  apply  to  private  

medical and dental colleges or institutions unless they are  

instrumentalities or agencies of the State or opt to join the  

scheme.  The reason for this is that private medical and  

dental  colleges  or  institutions  not  being  State  or  its  

instrumentalities or its agencies were not subject to the  

equality clauses in Article 14 of the Constitution, but the  

moment  some  seats  in  the  private  medical  and  dental  

colleges  or  institutions  come to  the  State  quota,  which  

have to be filled up by the State or its instrumentality or  

its  agency  which  are  subject  to  the  equality  clauses  in  

Article 14 of the Constitution, the principles laid down by  

this Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain’s case (supra) will have to be  

15

Page 16

followed while granting admissions to the seats allotted to  

the  State  Quota  in  post  graduate  medical  and  dental  

courses even in private colleges.  

12. In the result, we allow the writ petitions, declare sub-

clause (a) of clause 2.1 of the two Information Bulletins for  

post graduate medical and dental courses for PGET-2014  

as  ultra-vires Article 14 of the Constitution and null  and  

void.  The respondent will now publish fresh Information  

Bulletins  and  do  the  admissions  to  the  post  graduate  

medical and dental courses in the Government colleges as  

well  as  the  State  quota  of  the  private  colleges  in  

accordance with the law by the end of June, 2014 on the  

basis of the results of the Entrance Test already held.  We  

also order that the general time schedule for counselling  

and admissions to post graduate Medical Courses in our  

order  dated  14.03.2014  in  Dr.  Fraz  Naseem  &  Ors. v.  

Union of  India will  not  apply  to  such admissions  in  the  

State  of  Karnataka  for  the  academic  year  2014-2015.  

Similarly,  the general  time schedule for  counselling and  

admissions for post graduate dental courses will not apply  

16

Page 17

to such admissions in the State of Karnataka.  The parties  

shall bear their own costs.  

                              .....……………..……………………….J.                                  (A. K. Patnaik)

             …....…………..………………………..J.

                        (Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla)

New Delhi, April 24, 2014.  

17