Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL     APPEAL     Nos.       6304-6305     OF     2012      (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 8408-8409 of 2012)

  Bhawna Garg & Anr.                                        … Appellants

Versus

University of Delhi & Ors.                             … Respondents

AND

CIVIL     APPEAL     No.      6306      OF     2012      (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 13194 of 2012)

  Kopal Rohtagi                                                    … Appellant

Versus

University of Delhi & Ors.                             … Respondents

J     U     D     G     M     E     N     T   

A.     K.     PATNAIK,     J.   

Leave granted.

Page 2

2. These are appeals against the common judgment and  

order dated 23.12.2011 of the Division Bench of the High  

Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.7103 of 2011 and  

Writ Petition (C) No.4299 of 2011 declining to grant relief  

to the appellants in the matter of admission to the MBBS  

course in the medical colleges under Delhi University for  

the academic session 2011-2012.

3. The facts very briefly are that the Delhi University issued  

a Bulletin of Information for admissions to the Under-

Graduate Degree Courses for the academic session 2011-

2012 (for short ‘the Bulletin’).  Para 2 of the Bulletin dealt  

with admissions to MBBS course.  Para 2.1.1 of the  

Bulletin stated that the university conducts the MBBS  

course in three Medical Colleges, namely, Lady Hardinge  

Medical College (LHMC), Maulana Azad Medical College  

(MAMC) and University College of Medical Sciences  

(UCMS).  Para 2.1.1 of the Bulletin further stated that  

only female candidates were to be admitted in LHMC.  

Para 2.1.2 of the Bulletin stated that candidates for 15%  

2

Page 3

seats were to be selected directly by the Directorate  

General of Health Sciences (DGHS) based on the result of  

the examination conducted by the CBSE, New Delhi, as  

per the directions of this Court.  Para 2.1.3 of the  

Bulletin deals with admissions to seats by Nominees of  

Government of India (NGOI) and it states that candidates  

who wish to be considered for admission to this category  

of seats need not appear in the Delhi University Medical  

and Dental Entrance Test (DUMET) and they will  

correspond directly with the authorities listed in  

Appendix-II to the Bulletin.  Para 2.1.6 of the Bulletin  

furnishes the statement of total number of seats in  

Under-Graduate Courses for the session 2011-2012.  The  

statement is extracted hereunder:

Name  of the  Medical  College

Seats to be filled in on  the basis of DUMET

Seats to  be filled in  by DGHS

Seats to be  filled in by  the  Government  of India  Nominees

Total  Seats

MBBS Course General SC ST OBC 15%  

Quota NGOI

LHMC 55 19 10 14 22 30 150

3

Page 4

MAMC 113 25 12 14 30 6 200 UCMS 66 19 9 34 22 Nil 150 Total 234 63 31 62 74 36 500

The aforesaid statement shows that 30 out of 150 seats in  

LHMC and 6 out of 200 seats in MAMC in the MBBS course  

are reserved for NGOI.  The aforesaid statement further shows  

that out of a total of 500 MBBS seats in the three government  

colleges of the university, 36 seats are reserved for NGOI.  The  

Bulletin further provides that besides the 15% seats directly  

filled up by the DGHS based on the examination conducted by  

the CBSE, New Delhi, and the NGOI, all other candidates have  

to appear in the DUMET and will be admitted to the MBBS  

course on the basis of their merit in the category in which they  

have applied.

4. The appellants applied as female general category  

candidates and also took and cleared the DUMET.  

However, on account of their lower rank in the merit list  

of candidates who cleared the DUMET, the appellants  

could not be admitted to any of the seats in the three  

government medical colleges under the university.  

4

Page 5

Aggrieved, the appellants filed Writ Petition (C) No.7103  

of 2011 and Writ Petition (C) No.4299 of 2011 before the  

High Court of Delhi praying for a direction to quash the  

Bulletin insofar as it provides for filling up of 30 seats out  

of the 150 seats in the MBBS course in LHMC by NGOI  

and praying for a direction to the authorities to fill up  

these 30 MBBS seats earmarked for the NGOI for the  

academic session 2011-2012 from the general category  

candidates and the appellants be considered for such  

admission to the 30 seats as general category candidates.  

Before the High Court, the appellants contended that the  

reservation of as many as 30 seats in the MBBS course  

in LHMC was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution  

and that the procedure adopted by the Government of  

India in nominating the candidates for the 30 seats  

without holding a common entrance test for  

determination of their merit was contrary to the Medical  

Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical  

Education, 1997 (for short ‘the MCI Regulations’).

5

Page 6

5. In the impugned judgment and order, the High Court  

held that in Kumari Chitra Ghosh & Anr. v. Union of India  

& Ors. [1969 (2) SCC 228] a Constitution Bench of this  

Court has considered the challenge to reservation of  

seats for certain categories of students on the ground  

that it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and  

has held the reservation to be constitutionally valid.  The  

High Court further held that even though a sea-change  

may have taken place since the judgment was delivered  

by this Court in Kumari Chitra Ghosh (supra), it is only  

for this Court to hold that the ratio of Kumari Chitra  

Ghosh (supra) has become irrelevant.  The High Court  

has also held that as the nominations have already been  

made by the Government of India to the 30 seats in  

LHMC in the MBBS course and the nominated students  

have taken admission and are undergoing the course, it  

may not be appropriate to disturb their admission.  The  

High Court also found that the appellant had filed the  

writ petitions in June, 2011 and writ petitions could not  

be decided by 30th September, 2011 which was the last  

6

Page 7

date within which admissions were to be made to the  

MBBS course for the academic session 2011-2012 as per  

the directions of this Court in Mridul Dhar (Minor) & Anr.  

v. Union of India & Ors. [(2005) 2 SCC 65] and hence no  

relief could be granted to the appellants after the 30th  

September, 2011.

6. Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned senior counsel for the  

appellants, submitted that the Constitution Bench  

judgment of this Court in Kumari Chitra Ghosh (supra)  

has lost its relevance inasmuch as the entire procedure  

for medical admissions has undergone a sea-change  

during the past four decades after the aforesaid judgment  

was rendered in 1969.  She submitted that the MCI  

Regulations and in particular Regulation 5 thereof  

mandates that the selection of students to medical  

colleges shall be based solely on merit of the candidate  

and for determination of merit the criteria laid down in  

Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations has to be adopted  

uniformly throughout the country.  She submitted that  

Regulation 5(2) of the MCI Regulations provides that in  

7

Page 8

States having more than one  

University/Board/Examining Body conducting the  

qualifying examination, a competitive entrance  

examination should be held so as to achieve a uniform  

evaluation and Regulation 5(4) of the MCI Regulations  

provides that a competitive entrance examination is  

absolutely necessary in the cases of institutions of all-

India character.  She vehemently argued that there are  

no exceptions provided in Regulation 5 to holding of a  

competitive entrance examination and even candidates  

belonging to the reserved categories including the  

physically handicapped with 70% disability are required  

to appear in the competitive entrance examination to  

secure admission to the medical courses.  She argued  

that the Bulletin, therefore, could not have exempted the  

NGOI candidates from appearing in the DUMET and in  

fact the Bulletin by so exempting the NGOI candidates  

from appearing in the DUMET has clearly violated  

Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations and on this ground,  

Para 2.1.3 of the Bulletin providing that candidates who  

8

Page 9

wish to be considered for admission in the category of  

NGOI need not appear in the DUMET is ultra vires  

Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations.  She submitted that  

after the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in  

Kumari Chitra Ghosh (supra), the Constitution Bench of  

this Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation & Ors. v. State of  

Karnataka & Ors. [(2002) 8 SCC 481] has also  

emphasized the need for admissions to professional  

courses solely on the basis of merit even in private  

unaided colleges that enjoy maximum autonomy in  

choosing their candidates for admissions under their  

fundamental right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(g) of the  

Constitution.  She submitted that in T.M.A. Pai  

Foundation (supra), this Court has also held that the  

merit of the candidates seeking admission may be  

determined either through a common entrance test  

conducted by the University or the Government, followed  

by counselling.  She submitted that LHMC is not a  

private medical college but a government college and  

enjoyed much lesser autonomy in matters of admission  

9

Page 10

and admissions to all the 150 seats in LHMC including  

the 30 seats reserved for NGOI should have only been  

made on the basis of merit as determined in a  

competitive entrance examination or a common entrance  

test.  She submitted that contrary to this law which now  

holds the field, the admission to the seats reserved for  

the NGOI has been given during the academic session  

2011-2012 to four candidates who have even failed in the  

DUMET examination.  She cited a recent judgment of this  

Court in Asha vs. Pt.     B.D.     Sharma     University     of     Health    

Sciences     &     Ors.   (Civil Appeal No.5055 of 2012) to the  

effect that the criteria for selection for admission into  

MBBS course has to be on merit alone.   

7. Ms. Malhotra next submitted that the appellants are not  

claiming admissions under the quota reserved for NGOI  

but they are claiming admission to seats in general pool  

of candidates on the basis of their merit in the  

competitive examination.  In this context, she submitted  

that the quota reserved for NGOI has been taken out  

1

Page 11

from the seats earmarked for the common pool of seats  

and if admissions to the NGOI quota are held to be illegal  

then these seats have to be filled up on the basis of their  

merit amongst the general category candidates.  She  

further submitted that the quota for NGOI is not a  

reservation under Article 15 of the Constitution and yet  

as many as 30 out of 150 seats in LHMC have been  

reserved for the NGOI and this quota is as high as 20% of  

the total seats.  According to her, such reservation when  

considered along with the reservation of seats in favour of  

SC/ST/OBC candidates exceeds the ceiling of 50% for all  

reserved category fixed by the Constitution Bench of this  

Court in Indira     Sawhney   v. Union     of     India   [(1992) Suppl.3  

SCC 217] and is unconstitutional.  She also relied on the  

decisions of this Court in Post     Graduate     Institute     of    

Medical     Education     and     Research   v. Faculty     Association    

[(1998) 4 SCC 1], Union     of     India   v. Ramesh     Ram     &     Ors.    

[(2010) 7 SCC 234] and Indian     Medical     Association   vs.  

Union     of     India   [(2011) 7 SCC 179].

1

Page 12

8. In reply, Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Additional Solicitor  

General appearing for Union of India, submitted that the  

Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family  

Welfare, has issued guidelines for selection of candidates  

to be nominated for the quota of seats reserved for NGOI  

and the guidelines would show that the selection is to be  

based on academic merit of the candidates.  These  

guidelines are contained in the letter dated 09.12.1986 of  

the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family  

Welfare, Government of India, to all the States/Union  

Territories.  He further submitted relying on paragraph 4  

of the affidavit of the Union of India filed on 16.07.2012  

that the purpose of allotting the seats under the Central  

Pool Scheme for NGOI is that students from States and  

Union Territories where there are no adequate medical  

colleges need support for medical education and wards of  

Defence/Paramilitary Forces who have sacrificed their  

lives or have been permanently disabled in war/terrorism  

also need similar support for medical education.  He  

further submitted that the Central Pool Scheme is run on  

1

Page 13

the basis of voluntary contributions from the  

States/Union Territories/Ministries/ Agencies for the  

students nominated by them.  He submitted that these  

seats are only allocated to the beneficiary States/Union  

Territories/Ministries/Agencies and the allocation letters  

sent to the States/Union Territories/Ministries/Agencies  

like the Defence Ministry, MHA, MEA and HRD Ministries  

contain the guidelines indicating the eligibility and the  

method of selection to be followed at the time of selection  

of candidates against the Central Pool Schemes.  He  

explained that the beneficiary States/Union  

Territories/Ministries/Agencies prepare a list of eligible  

candidates on the basis of either the State Level Entrance  

Test or on the basis of academic merit and conduct  

counselling sessions for the available seats of the Central  

Pool and after the list of candidates is finalized, the  

States/Union Territories/Ministries/Agencies inform the  

successful candidates to report to the medical college in  

question for admission.  He submitted that the Central  

Government, therefore, has actually no role in  

1

Page 14

preparation of merit list of eligible candidates and its role  

is confined to only allocating the seats to the  

States/Union Territories/Ministries/Agencies.

9. Mr. Luthra submitted that the issues raised by the  

appellants have been considered by the Constitution  

Bench of this Court in Kumari Chitra Ghosh (supra) but  

decided in favour of the Central Government.  He  

submitted that the Medical Council of India has amended  

the MCI Regulations by the Regulation on Graduate  

Medical Education (Amendment 2012) and these  

amended Regulations will be applicable from the  

academic year commencing from 2013-2014.  He  

submitted that a reading of these amendments to  

Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations would show that in  

order to be eligible for admission in MBBS course for a  

particular year, it shall be necessary for a candidate to  

obtain minimum marks in the National Eligibility-cum-

Entrance Test to MBBS course held for that academic  

1

Page 15

year and such minimum marks would be 50% for general  

candidates and 40% for SC/ST/OBC.

10. We have considered the submissions of the learned  

counsel for the parties and we find that in Kumari Chitra  

Ghosh (supra) the facts were that in LHMC 23 seats were  

reserved by the Central Government for students of the  

following categories:  

“(a) Residents of Delhi ……..

(b) (i) Sons/Daughters of Central  Government servants posted in  Delhi at the time of admission.

(ii) Candidate whose father is dead and  is wholly dependent on  brother/sister who is a Central  Government servant posted in Delhi  at the time of admission.  

(c) Sons/Daughters of residents of Union  Territories specified below including displaced  persons registered therein and sponsored by their  respective Administration of Territory:

(i)Himachal Pradesh; (ii) Tripura; (iii) Manipur;  (iv) Naga Hills; (v) N.E.F.A; (vi) Andaman.

(d) Sons/Daughters of Central Government  servants posted in Indian Missions abroad.   

1

Page 16

(e) Cultural Scholars.

(f) Colombo Plan Scholars.      

   (g) Thailand Scholars.

 (h) Jammu and Kashmir State Scholars.”

A candidate seeking admission in any of the reserved seats  

must have obtained a minimum of 55 per cent aggregate  

marks in the compulsory subjects.  This reservation of 23  

seats was challenged before the High Court of Delhi as inter-

alia violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and the  

nomination of the candidates to the reserved seats was also  

challenged as contrary to the rules.  The Delhi High Court  

rejected the challenge and Kumari Chitra Ghosh carried the  

appeal to this Court.  A Constitution Bench of this Court held  

that the reservation of 23 seats by the Central Government in  

favour of specific categories of candidates was constitutionally  

valid.  Paragraph 9 of the judgment of the Constitution Bench  

of this Court in Kumari Chitra Ghosh  (supra) is quoted herein  

below:   

1

Page 17

“9.  It is the Central Government which bears the  financial burden of running the medical college.  It is for it to lay down the criteria for eligibility.  From the very nature of things it is not possible  to throw the admission open to students from all  over the country. The Government cannot be  denied the right to decide from what sources the  admission will be made. That essentially is a  question of policy and depends inter-alia on an  overall assessment and survey of the  requirements of residents of particular territories  and other categories of persons for whom it is  necessary to provide facilities for medical  education.  If the sources are properly classified  whether on territorial, geographical or other  reasonable basis it is not for the courts to  interfere with the manner and method of making  the classification.”  

Thus, this Court has held in Kumari Chitra Ghosh (supra) that  

it is for the Central Government which bears the financial  

burden of running the medical college to take a policy decision  

on the basis of over all assessment and survey of requirements  

of residents of particular territories and other categories of  

persons and the sources from which admissions are to be  

made in the medical college and so long as the sources are  

properly classified whether on territorial, geographical or other  

reasonable basis, the Court will not strike down the policy  

1

Page 18

decision of the Central Government on the ground that it is  

violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.   

11.   We may now examine the policy decision of the Central  

Government in reserving the seats in favour of the NGOI.  In  

the affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India dated  

16.07.2012,  it is stated that there are a number of States or  

the Union Territories which do not have medical/dental  

colleges of their own and the majority of such States are in the  

North-Eastern Region and in order to meet the requirements of  

these States/Union Territories and for some Central  

Government Ministries/Agencies and to fulfill some national  

and international obligations, a Central pool of MBBS/BDS  

seats is being maintained by the Ministry of Health and Family  

Welfare.  Along with the affidavit, a list of beneficiary  

States/Union Territories/Ministries/Agencies and the  

distribution of seats of the Central Pool for the academic year  

2011-2012 to the beneficiary Sates/Union  

Territories/Ministries/Agencies has also been furnished,  

which is extracted hereinbelow:

1

Page 19

S.No. Beneficiary States/UT/Agency 2011-12MBBS BDS 1. Tripura 7 2 2. Manipur 24 2 3. Mizoram 27 2 4. Meghalaya 22 2 5. Sikkim 8 2 6. Arunachal Pradesh 26 2 7. Nagaland 24 2 8. Lakshadweep 13 2 9. A & N Islands 18 2 10. Daman & Diu 7 2 11. Dadra & Nagar Haveli 8 2 12. J& K 4 - 13. Ministry of Defence 25 2

14. Cabinet Secretariat (For SSF, RAW, ARC Dte.) 5 1

15. Ministry of Home Affairs (for  BSF, CRPF, ITBP, CISF, Assam  Rifles, SSB Etc.)

7 2

16.

Ministry of External Affairs (i) For Indian Mission  

Staff posted abroad. (ii) For Self financing  

foreign students

4

26 1

17. Ministry of HRD (for Tibetan Refugees) 1 -

18. Indian Council for Child Welfare  (for National Bravery Award  Winners)

2 -

19. Ministry of Home Affairs (Civil Terrorist Victims) 2 -

Total: 260 28 ”

The Central Government has, therefore, reserved 260 seats in  

the MBBS course for the Central Pool and has classified the  

sources from which admissions were to be made to these 260  

1

Page 20

seats on geographical and other basis.  It has not been shown  

by the appellants that the classification of the sources from  

which admissions are to be made has no rational nexus with  

the objects sought to be achieved by the policy of the Central  

Government.  Hence, the validity and constitutionality of the  

policy of the Central Government to reserve some seats on  

geographical and some other rational basis cannot be  

questioned.  However, reservation of as many as 260 seats  

may not be justifiable in the changed circumstances discussed  

hereinafter in this judgment.   

12. In fact, the main contention of the appellants is that the  

policy of the Central Government to reserve seats in favour of  

the NGOI is in breach of the principle of selection solely on the  

basis of merit as laid down by the Constitution Bench of this  

Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra) and as provided in  

Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations.  It has, however, been  

held by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Kumari Chitra  

Ghosh (supra) that where some seats are reserved to be filled  

up only from properly classified sources, the selection on the  

2

Page 21

basis of merit has to be confined to the sources from which  

the seats are to be filled up.  Relevant extract from Paragraph  

10 of the judgment of this Court in Kumari Chitra Ghosh  

(supra) is quoted hereunder:

“As noticed before the     sources     from     which    students     have     to     be     drawn     are     primarily-    determined     by     the     authorities     who     maintain     and    run     the     institution,     e.g,     the     Central     Government    in     the     present     case.   In     Minor     P.     Rajendran     v.    State     of     Madras   [AIR (1968) SC 1012] it has been  stated that the object of selection for admission is  to secure the best possible material. This can  surely be achieved by making proper rules in the  matter of selection but     there     can     be     no     doubt    that     such     selection     has     to     be     confined     to     the    sources     that     are     intended     to     supply     the     material.  ”

                                                [Emphasis supplied]

Accordingly, the seats which are reserved for a particular  

source, i.e., the beneficiary State/Union  

Territory/Ministry/Agency are to be filled up by selection on  

the basis of merit of candidates who have applied as  

candidates of that particular source, i.e., that beneficiary  

State/Union Territory/Ministry/Agency. Thus, these  

candidates who constitute separate sources from which  

admissions are to be made to the seats allocated to the  

2

Page 22

sources are not required to take the DUMET.  They must go  

through the selection on the basis of merit as laid down in  

T.M.A. Pai Foundation (supra) and as provided in Regulation 5  

of the MCI Regulations but such selection has to be confined  

to the candidates of the respective sources.    

13. In Annexure –  R/3 to the affidavit filed on behalf of the  

Union of India filed on 16.07.2012, the particulars of the  

candidates who have been nominated to the seats allocated  

to the beneficiary States/Union  

Territories/Ministries/Agencies have been given.  It has  

been stated in Annexure –  R/3 that for the 26 seats  

allocated to the State of Arunachal Pradesh, the candidates  

were nominated on the basis of Joint Entrance  

Examination held by the State Government;  to the 24  

seats allocated to the State of Nagaland, the candidates  

have been nominated on the basis of Joint Entrance  

Examination conducted by the State Government;  to the  

27 seats allocated to the State of Mizoram, the candidates  

have been nominated on the basis of the State Technical  

2

Page 23

Entrance Examination conducted by the State Government;  

to the 22 seats allocated to the State of Meghalaya, the  

candidates have been nominated on the basis of academic  

merit in 10+2;  to the 8 seats allocated to the State of  

Sikkim, the candidates have been nominated on the basis  

of common entrance examination conducted by the State  

Government;  to the 7 seats allocated to the State of  

Tripura, the candidates have been nominated on the basis  

of Common Entrance Examination conducted by the State  

Government;  to the 24 seats allocated to the State of  

Manipur, the candidates have been nominated on the basis  

of the Common Entrance Examination conducted by the  

State Government;  to the 13 seats allocated to the Union  

Territory of Lakshadweep, the candidates have been  

nominated on the basis of Medical Entrance Examination  

conducted by the Union Territory Government;  to the 18  

seats allocated to the Union Territory of Andaman and  

Nicobar Islands, the candidates have been nominated on  

the basis of marks obtained in 10th (20% weightage) and  

12th (80% weightage): to the 8 seats allocated to the Union  

2

Page 24

Territory of Dadar and Nagar Haveli, the candidates have  

been nominated on the basis of percentage of marks  

obtained in 10+2;  to the 7 seats allocated to the Union  

Territory of Daman & Diu, candidates have been nominated  

on the basis of the percentage of marks obtained in 10+2;  

to the 4 seats allocated to the State of J & K, the  

candidates have been nominated on the basis of  

Professional Entrance Examination conducted by the State  

Government;  to the 25 seats allocated to the Ministry of  

Defence, the candidates have been nominated on the basis  

of marks obtained in the 10th (20% weightage) and 12th  

(80% weightage); to the 5 seats allocated to the Cabinet  

Secretariat, candidates have been nominated on the basis  

of marks obtained in 10th (20% weightage) and 12th (80%  

weightage); to the 7 seats allocated to the Ministry of Home  

Affairs, candidates have been nominated on the basis of  

marks obtained in 10th (20% weightage) and 12th (80%  

weightage); to the 4 seats allocated to the Ministry of  

External Affairs (Mission Staff), candidates have been  

nominated on the basis of marks obtained in 10+2; to the  

2

Page 25

26 seats allocated to the Ministry of External Affairs  

(Foreigners), candidates have been nominated on the basis  

of marks obtained in 10+2; to the one seat allocated to the  

Central Tibetan Administration, candidates have been  

nominated on the basis of marks obtained in 10+2; to the  

two seats allocated to the Indian Council for Child Welfare,  

candidates have been nominated on the basis of marks  

obtained in 10+2 and to the two seats allocated to the  

Ministry of Home Affairs, candidates have been nominated  

on the basis of marks obtained in 10+2.   

14.  The selection of candidates for the seats reserved for  

NGOI thus has been done either on the basis of marks in the  

Joint Entrance Examination or marks in the 10+2  

examinations.  Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations provides  

for determining the merit on the basis of marks obtained in  

Physics, Chemistry, Biology and English in the qualifying  

examination where one University/Board/Examining Body  

conducts the qualifying examination or on the basis of a  

competitive entrance examination where more than one  

2

Page 26

University/Board/ Examining Body conducts the qualifying  

examination.  Unless a candidate who had applied to any of  

the allocated seats and who had not been selected for  

nomination comes to Court and places materials before the  

Court to show that the selection has not been made in  

accordance with Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations or that  

his merit has been by-passed while making the selection, the  

Court cannot disturb the selection.  In this case, the  

candidates who had applied for the seats allocated to the  

beneficiary States/Union Territories/Ministries/Agencies have  

not approached the Court with their grievance that their merit  

has been bypassed or that the selection has not been made in  

accordance with Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations.  Instead  

the appellants who had not applied for the 30 seats reserved  

in LHMC for the NGOI have come before this Court with their  

grievance that they ought to have been selected and admitted  

to some of those 30 seats.  The appellants, who have not  

applied for the 30 seats reserved for the NGOI, could not  

challenge the selection of the candidates to the 30 seats  

reserved for the NGOI on the ground that merit as provided in  

2

Page 27

Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations or as laid down in T.M.A.  

Pai Foundation has not been considered while making  

selection for nomination of these reserved seats.   In taking  

this view, we are supported by the judgment of the  

Constitution Bench of this Court in Kumari Chitra Ghosh  

(supra), wherein it has been observed:

“…….It seems to us that the appellants do not  have any right to challenge the nominations  made by the Central Government. They do not  compete for the reserved seats and have no  locus standi in the matter of nomination to  such seats. …”

Hence, even if some of the students may have been selected  

for admission to the seats reserved for NGOI not on merit as  

determined strictly in accordance with Regulation 5 of the MCI  

Regulations, we are not inclined to disturb their admissions in  

exercise of our power under Article 142 of the Constitution.  

However, if there are vacant seats in the two government  

medical colleges, namely, LHMC or MAMC, for the academic  

year 2011-2012 out of the quota for NGOI, then the petitioners  

should be given admission to these vacant seats on the basis  

2

Page 28

of their merit in the DUMET 2011-2012 during the academic  

year 2012-2013.     

15.  The appellants, however, have contended that 4  

candidates, who have been given admission in the seats  

reserved for NGOI in LHMC and MAMC during the academic  

year 2011-2012, have even failed in the DUMET and to grant  

admission to such failed candidates is making a mockery of  

the entire system of medical admissions.  As we have already  

held, the candidates who have applied for the quota for the  

seats reserved for NGOI constitute separate sources from  

which admissions are to be made and the selection on the  

basis of merit is to be confined to each separate source from  

which the admissions are to be made and they are not  

required to take the DUMET.  Hence, even if they have failed  

in DUMET, they are still entitled to be admitted to the seats  

reserved for NGOI, if they are selected on the basis of merit  

from amongst all the candidates who have applied from the  

aforesaid separate sources for admission.  Nonetheless, if the  

candidates who have failed in the DUMET are admitted  

2

Page 29

through a separate source of admission, as in the present  

case, this may result in lot of heart burn amongst the students  

who have cleared the DUMET but have not got the admission  

to a seat in the MBBS course on account of their lower rank in  

the merit list.  Hence, in future the Delhi University must  

stipulate in the Bulletin and the Government of India must  

issue instructions that candidates who opt to take the DUMET  

but do not qualify will not be eligible for admission to the  

quota reserved for NGOI.  This anomaly, however, has been  

addressed by the MCI by making amendments to the MCI  

Regulations and by providing therein that from the academic  

year 2013-2014 every candidate seeking admission to the  

MBBS course must obtain a minimum marks of 50% in the  

National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test in the MBBS course if  

he is a general category candidate and must secure a  

minimum marks of 40% in the National Eligibility-cum-

Entrance Test if he is a candidate belonging to Scheduled  

Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward Classes.  From  

the academic year 2013-2014, therefore, NGOI applying for  

the reserved seats will have to secure the aforesaid minimum  

2

Page 30

marks in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for MBBS  

course.

16.  We may now deal with the contention of the appellants  

that the reservations of seats for NGOI in LHMC is  

excessive and when taken together with the quota of seats  

for SC, ST, OBC and 15% of all-India even exceeds the 50%  

ceiling of reservation fixed by this Court.  We have perused  

the decisions in Indira     Sawhney   v. Union     of     India,   Post  

Graduate     Institute     of     Medical     Education     and     Research   v.  

Faculty     Association   and Union     of     India   v. Ramesh     Ram     &    

Ors. (supra)  cited by Ms. Malhotra and we find that the  

aforesaid decisions do not relate to reservations of seats for  

admission in medical colleges or other educational  

institutions, but they relate to reservations of posts in  

favour of SC, ST and Other Backward Classes in public  

services.  We have also perused the decision of this Court  

in Indian     Medical     Association   vs. Union     of     India   (supra)  

cited by Ms. Malhotra and we find that the aforesaid  

decision holds that in the case of non-minority private  

3

Page 31

unaided professional institutions when the candidates are  

to be selected from the source of general pool, selection has  

to be based on inter se rank of students, who have qualified  

and applied or opted to choose to be admitted to such non-

minority private unaided professional institutions, whereas  

in the case of minority educational institutions the source  

can be delimited to the particular minority the institution  

belongs to.  The aforesaid decision in the case of Indian  

Medical     Association   vs. Union     of     India     (supra), therefore,  

has no application to the facts of this case as LHMC is not  

a private unaided medical college.  Instead, it is a college of  

the Central Government.  In any case, the total number of  

seats in MBBS course in the LHMC is 150 out of which 55  

seats are filled up from general candidates on the basis of  

their inter se merit in DUMET and 22 more seats are filled  

up by candidates on the basis of their inter se rank in the  

merit list pursuant to an all-India examination conducted  

by the CBSE.  Moreover, in para 13 of the affidavit filed on  

behalf of the Union of India on 16.07.2010, it is stated that  

LHMC had earlier an overall intake of 150 students which  

3

Page 32

has been increased to 200 students from the academic year  

2011-2012 and despite the increase of 50 seats, the  

number of seats for NGOI for the academic year 2011-2012  

was fixed at 30.  It is further stated in para 13 of the  

aforesaid affidavit that the seats reserved for NGOI in  

LHMC has been reduced to 20 during the academic year  

2012-2013, to 17 during the academic year 2013-2014 and  

to 15 for the academic year 2014-2015, as it will be clear  

from the letter dated 25.04.2012 of the Union of India to  

LHMC.  It is also stated in para 13 of the aforesaid affidavit  

that while LHMC is a Central Government institution,  

UCMS and MAMC are institutions controlled by the  

Government of NCT Delhi and the Government of India  

cannot demand surrender of seats towards Central Pool  

and further LHMC is the only college which specializes in  

medical education for the girl students and the  

Government wants to propagate medical education among  

the girls, particularly in the North-Eastern region.  

Considering the aforesaid steps taken by the Government  

of India to reduce the number of seats in phases from 30 to  

3

Page 33

15 for NGOI in LHMC, we think that the grievance that  

there has been excessive reservation for NGOI in LHMC, if  

any, has been taken care of.  That apart, for students of  

Delhi, UCMS and MAMC are also other institutions where  

MBBS course can be pursued by the general candidates  

including general female candidates and the total number  

of seats in these institutions are 200 and 150 respectively  

out of which only 6 are reserved for NGOI.

17.We, however, find that in para 31 of the impugned  

judgment, the High Court has held that even if there was a  

justification as offered by the Government of India that  

many States/Union Territories did not have medical  

institutions of their own, particularly in North-Easter  

States, there has been an overall economic development in  

the country and a number of State-funded and private  

medical and other institutions have been established in the  

meanwhile in the country and, therefore, a re-look by the  

Government of India at the extent of the seats reserved for  

the NGOI was necessary.  We agree with this view of the  

3

Page 34

High Court in the impugned judgment and we are of the  

considered opinion that the Central Government should  

review and find out the number of seats in MBBS course  

available in the State-funded and the private medical  

colleges in the States/Union Territories for which seats are  

being allocated from the quota for NGOI and decide afresh  

as to how many seats should be allocated to these  

States/Union Territories.            

18.  In the result, we:

(i) hold that the Bulletin insofar as it reserves 30  

seats in the MBBS course in LHMC for NGOI is not  

ultra vires the Constitution and in so far it  

exempts candidates to be admitted to these 30  

seats from taking the DUMET is not ultra vires the  

MCI Regulations.

(ii) hold that the provisions of Regulation 5 of the MCI  

Regulations for selection for admission to the  

MBBS course solely on the basis of merit have to  

be followed by the beneficiary States/Union  

3

Page 35

Territories/Ministries /Agencies while selecting the  

students who apply for the seats reserved or  

allocated for the concerned State/Union Territory/  

Ministry/Agency.

(iii)  hold that even if merit of the applicants may not  

have been determined strictly in accordance with  

Regulation 5 of the MCI Regulations by the  

beneficiary States/Union  

Territories/Ministries/Agencies while selecting  

some of the students for the seats reserved for  

NGOI for the academic session 2011-2012, we are  

not inclined to disturb their admissions in exercise  

of our powers under Article 142 of the  

Constitution.   

(iv)  direct that with effect from the academic year  

2012-2013, no admission will be made to any of  

the seats reserved for NGOI in LHMC, MAMC and  

UCMS of any student who has failed in the  

DUMET.

3

Page 36

(v) direct that for the academic year 2013-2014  

onwards, the candidate applying for seats reserved  

for NGOI have to obtain the minimum marks in  

the All India National Eligibility-cum-Entrance  

Test for admission to the MBBS course as provided  

in the amended MCI Regulations and the  

admissions will be made on merit after calling for  

applicants through advertisement in the  

newspapers having wide circulation.

(vi)  direct that the Central Government will make a  

review of the government and private medical  

colleges which have been established in the  

meanwhile in the States/Union Territories to  

which seats are being allocated under the quota  

for NGOI and if they find that additional intake  

capacity for the MBBS course has been created in  

these States/Union Territories, the Central  

Government will take a fresh decision on the  

number of seats in the MBBS course to be  

3

Page 37

reserved for NGOI for these States with effect from  

the academic year 2013-2014.  

(vii)   direct that if there are vacant seats in the quota  

for NGOI in the LHMC and MAMC for the academic  

year 2011-2012, the petitioners will be given  

admission to these vacant seats on the basis of  

their merit in DUMET 2011-2012 during the  

academic year 2012-2013.

19.   With the aforesaid directions, the appeals are disposed of.  

There shall be no order as to costs.        

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

………………………..J.     New Delhi,                                         (Swatanter Kumar)

September 05, 2012.    

3