1 REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.204 OF 2018

Dr. Kriti Lakhina and Others        ….Petitioners

Versus

State of Karnataka and Others    …. Respondents

J U D G M E N T  

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has been

filed  by  44  Doctors  who  did  their  MBBS/BDS  Courses  from  State  of

Karnataka  and  have  cleared  the  NEET-PG,  2018  examination  with  high

merit position and are aspiring for admission to Post-Graduate Courses in

Karnataka.  The principal prayer in the writ petition seeks issuance of an

appropriate writ,  order or  direction quashing Clause 4 of  the Information

Bulletin jointly issued by Directorate of Medical Education, Government of

2 Karnataka  and  Karnataka  Examinations  Authority,  Government  of

Karnataka, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively.

2. The Information Bulletin in question lays down, inter alia, conditions

for admission to Post-Graduate Medical and Dental Courses in respect of

government quota seats in Medical/Dental Colleges in State of Karnataka

and  was  published  on  the  website  on  10.03.2018.   Relevant  portion  of

Clause  4  of  this  Information Bulletin  deals  with  eligibility  conditions  in

following terms:

“4. ELIGIBILITY

4.1 ELIGIBILITY  for  Government  seats  (G)  &GMP

seats:  

A candidate who fulfills the following criteria is eligible to appear for the online seat allotment process, namely:-

 He/she is a citizen of India, who is of Karnataka Origin and has studied MBBS or BDS degree in a Medical or Dental College  situated  in  Karnataka  or  outside  Karnataka  and affiliated  to  any  University  established  by  law  in  India recognized by Medical Council of India or Dental Council of India and Government of India and has qualified in the NEET (National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test) for admission to post graduate medical or dental degree/diploma courses.

Note: Children for the purpose of the rule means natural born son/daughter  and  not  adopted  son/daughter  and  not grandson/grand daughter.

3 Explanation:  A  candidate  of  Karnataka  Origin:  means,  a candidate found eligible under clause A or B below.

(Clause A)

i) A candidate who has studied and passed in one or more Government  or  Government  recognized,  educational institutions located in the State of  Karnataka for  a minimum period  of  TEN academic  years  as  on  the  31st March,  2018, commencing  for  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 year  of  academic  study is  counted as  one year only (Document to be produced)

(Clause B)

ii) The candidate should have studied and passed 1st and 2nd year  Pre-University  Examination  or  11th or  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  must  have studied/resided in Karnataka for a minimum period of 10 years. (Documents to be produced)”

3. It is submitted by the petitioners that this Information Bulletin issued

by Respondent  Nos.2  and 3,  to  the  extent  Clause  4.1  thereof  imposes  a

condition of domicile for admission to MD, MS and Post-Graduate Diploma

seats in State of Karnataka is invalid and unconstitutional. According to the

petitioners said Clause 4.1 arbitrarily and illegally deprives the petitioners

who  had  obtained  MBBS/BDS  Degrees  from  the  Colleges  situated  in

4 Karnataka from competing for admission to Post-Graduate Medical/Dental

Curses  in  Government  Medical  Colleges  and  against  Government  quota

seats  in non-Governmental institutions.   Reliance has been placed on the

Judgment of this Court in Vishal Goyal and Others v.  State of Karnataka

and Others1 to submit that the controversy is no longer res-integra and the

view  taken  in  Vishal  Goyal (supra)  ought  to  have  been  adhered  to  by

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 while issuing the Bulletin.

4. Since  the  matter  involves  urgency and  the  career  prospects  of  the

petitioners and similarly situated candidates are in question, the matter was

taken up for hearing immediately.  State of Karnataka entered appearance

and  has  filed  its  reply  submitting inter  alia,  that  under  the  eligibility

conditions, only candidates of Karnataka origin could compete for admission

to 50% government seats in government colleges and against government

quota seats in private colleges. The reply further stated that these eligibility

conditions were stipulated in order to ensure that the State’s requirement of

skilled  human  resource  is  met  with  and  that  the  Post-Graduate  Medical

Education  Regulation  2000  (‘2000  Regulations’  for  short)  of  Medical

Council  of  India  do  not  prohibit  the  State  from  stipulating  eligibility

conditions for Post-Graduate courses.   According to certain statistics given

1 (2014) 11 SCC 456

5 in  the  reply,  candidates  of  Karnataka  origin  numbering  4093  candidates

would be competing for admission to 1828 seats while 10003 candidates of

origin other than Karnataka which number includes 1263 candidates from

outside the State who had studied and completed MBBS/BDS Courses from

the  colleges  situated  in  Karnataka  would  be  competing for  admission  to

2301 seats.  The reply further submitted that the State was within its right to

formulate eligibility conditions to give preference to candidates who were

most likely to serve the State.

5. In its reply, Medical Council of India (“MCI”, for short) submitted

that the Information Bulletin (PGET-2014) issued by the State of Karnataka

in the year 2014 contained similar eligibility criteria as provided in Clause

4.1 of the present Information Bulletin (PGET-2018) which was challenged

in the case of  Vishal Goyal (supra) and that this Court held the preference

based on domicile to be violative of the principle of equality and liable to be

set aside.    After referring to various Judgments of this Court the reply set

out the emerging legal position as perceived by MCI in following terms:-

“a. Reservation of seats at the post graduate level has been in principle disapproved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court;  

b. Reservation  of  seats  at  the  post  graduate  level  on  the basis of domicile/ residence/ place of origin is impermissible and cannot be done by the State;

6 c. Institutional reservation/ preference for reserving seats at the post graduate level is permissible subject to an outer limit of 50%;

d. Institutional reservation/ preference can be invalidated on the ground that the same is violative of the principle of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India;

e. There cannot be any domicile requirement imposed by the State while implementing institutional reservation;

f. Institutional reservation/ preference disguised as domicile reservation has been held to be invalid and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.”

6. We  heard  Mr.  Amrendra  Sharan,  learned  Senior  Advocate  for  the

petitioners, Mr. Basavaprabhu S. Patil, learned Senior Advocate for State of

Karnataka  and  official  respondents  and  Mr.  Gaurav  Sharma,  learned

Advocate for MCI.  

 7. Mr. Sharan, learned Senior Advocate relied upon the decisions of this

Court  in  Dr.  Pradeep Jain and Others v.  Union of  India  and Others2,

Saurabh  Chaudri  and  Others v.  Union  of  India  and  Others3,  Magan

Mehrotra and Others v.  Union of India and Others4, Nikhil Himthani v.

State of Uttarakhand and Others5 and finally on the decision of this Court

in Vishal Goyal (supra).  In his submission these decisions as culminated in

2 (1984) 3 SCC 654 paras 20, 22 and 24 3 (2003) 11 SCC 146 paras 29, 69 and 70 4 (2003)11 SCC 186 paras 3 and 8 5 (2013) 10 SCC 237 para 3

7 the  decision  in  Vishal  Goyal (supra)  fully  conclude  the  matter.   These

submissions were supported by Mr. Gaurav Sharma, learned Advocate for

the MCI.

8. Mr. Patil, learned Senior Advocate, on the other hand relied upon the

decision  of  this  Court  in  D.P.  Joshi v.  State  of  Madhya  Bharat  and

Another6 and on paragraphs 6, 13 and 16 of the decision in Dr. Pradeep

Jain (supra), in support of his submissions.

9. After  conclusion of  hearing,  written submissions  were filed by the

parties.   In their  written submissions,  petitioners inter  alia submitted that

Clause 4.1 of the Information Bulletin in question was violative of Article 14

of the Constitution and was opposed to Regulation 9 of 2000 Regulations.  A

chart  was  appended showing similarity  between Clause  2  of  PGET-2014

which was subject matter of the decision in  Vishal Goyal (supra) and the

present Clause 4.1.  In its written submissions MCI also relied upon 2000

Regulations and specially Regulation 9 thereof.  It was further submitted:  

“It is important to note that there are primarily two types of courses  at  post-graduate  level  i.e.  post-graduate  diploma courses and post graduate degree courses.  On a close reading of  Regulation  9(IV)  and  9(VII)  the  distinction  between  post graduate  diploma  course  and  post-graduate  degree  course  is apparent.  It needs to be emphasized that as per Regulation 9

6 AIR 1955 SC 334 = 1955 (1) SCR 1215

8 and  the  amendments  made  therein  from  time  to  time, reservation of seats for in-service candidates is only permissible in post-graduate diploma courses.  Further, there is no provision under  the  IMC  Act,  1956  and  the  Regulations  framed thereunder which permits  reservation in post-graduate degree courses.”

10. State  of  Karnataka  in  its  written  submissions  sought  to  justify  the

action but did not explain how the decision in  Vishal Goyal (supra) would

not be applicable in the present case.  It was however submitted:-

“The  State  of  Karnataka  has  11615  Public  Health  Care Institutions managed by the Health and Family Department of the State.  It is the objective of the State to provide secondary and  tertiary  care  services  too  within  the  reach  of  common public.  This objective is sought to be fulfilled by setting up of new  State  of  the  art  institutions  and  strengthen  the  existing institutions through provisions of equipments, up-gradation of infrastructure  and recruitment  of  skilled  man power.   Today, there are 3435 posts of specialists about which 1312 are vacant, underlying  the  deficiency  of  skilled  medical  professional  to address the health care needs of the State.  In the medical and dental educational institutions out of 2700 posts of specialists, 517 are vacant highlighting the deficiency of skilled medical teachers to address the medical teachers’ needs of the State.  16 out of 39 medical colleges in Karnataka are run by the State. There are 970 senior resident posts in these medical colleges, 524 of which are vacant.   The State has to ensure that these posts are filled up at any given point of time as stipulated by Medical Council of India.  If these remain vacant for want of specialist,  de-recognition  looms  large  with  the  risk  of jeopardizing the future of both undergraduate and post-graduate candidates’ studying  in  these  colleges.   The  posts  of  senior resident need to be filled by fresh post graduates passing out every year.  There is a huge requirement of specialists to run these institutions.  Hence the State Government has to ensure

9 availability of adequate number of post graduates to fill these posts.”

          11. The decision of this Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra) had considered

the Judgments rendered in  Kumari N. Vasundara  v. State of Mysore and

Another7, Minor P. Rajendran v.  State of Madras and Others8,  Minor A.

Peeriakaruppan v.  State of Tamil Nadu and Others9 and D.N. Chanchala

v. The State of Mysore and Others10 as well as the decision in Dr. Jagadish

Saran and others v. Union of India11 and finally concluded:

“…. We unreservedly condemn wholesale reservation made by some  of  the  State  Government  on  the  basis  of  institutional preference  for  students  who  have  passed  the  qualifying examination held by the university or the State excluding all students  not  satisfying  this  requirement,  regardless  of  merit. We declare such wholesale  reservation to be unconstitutional and void as being in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.”

12. During the course of its Judgment in  Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra) this

Court also considered the impact of submissions from the concerned States

as advanced in various Judgments that were considered in paragraphs 14 to

16, which submissions were similar to the ones advanced before us by the

State  either  in  the  reply  or  in  the  written  submissions.   Para  22  of  the 7 (1971) Suppl. SCR 381 = (1971) 2 SCC 22 8 1968 (2) SCR 786 9 1971 (2) SCR 430 = (1971) 1 SCC 38 = AIR 1971 SC 2303 10 (1971) Suppl SCR 608 = (1971) 2 SCC 293 11 (1980) 2 SCC 768= 1980 (2) SCR 831

10 decision  in  Dr. Pradeep  Jain (supra)  finally  summed  up  the  matter  as

regards post graduate courses as under:-

“22.  ….. The Medical Education Review Committee has also expressed the opinion that “all admissions to the post-graduate courses in any institution should be open to candidates on an all-India  basis  and  there  should  be  no  restriction  regarding domicile in the State/Union Territory in which the institution is located”. So also in the policy statement filed by the learned Attorney General,  the Government  of  India has categorically expressed the view that:

“So  far  as  admission  to  the  institutions  of  post- graduate colleges and special professional colleges is concerned, it should be entirely on the basis of all-India  merit  subject  to  constitutional reservations  in  favour  of  Scheduled  Castes  and Scheduled Tribes.”

We are therefore of the view that so far as admissions to post-graduate  courses,  such  as  MS,  MD  and  the  like  are concerned, it would be eminently desirable not to provide for any reservation based on residence requirement within the State or  on  institutional  preference.  But,  having  regard  to  broader considerations  of  equality  of  opportunity  and  institutional continuity  in  education  which  has  its  own  importance  and value,  we  would  direct  that  though  residence  requirement within  the  State  shall  not  be  a  ground  for  reservation  in admissions  to  post-graduate  courses,  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 post-graduate course in the same medical college or university but such reservation on the  basis  of  institutional  preference  should  not  in  any  event exceed 50 per cent of the total number of open seats available for admission to the post-graduate course…..”

11   

13. In Vishal Goyal (supra) the challenge was to the validity of Clause 2.1

of the Information Bulletin for PGET-2014.  The eligibility conditions as

laid down in said Clause 2.1 are identical to those stipulated in the present

clause, namely, Clause 4.1 of PGET-2018.  Paragraphs 4, 10 to 13 and 15 of

the decision in Vishal Goyal (supra) were as under:

“4. The said Clause 2.1 of the two Information Bulletins, which is  identically  worded for  admissions  to  postgraduate  medical and postgraduate 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 recognised by Medical Council of India and the Government of India.

Explanation.—‘A candidate of Karnataka Origin’ means a candidate found eligible under clause (i) or (ii) below, namely:

(i) A candidate who has studied and passed in one  or  more  government  recognised  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

12 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 or 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  countersigned  by  the  Block  Education Officer  (BEO)/Deputy  Director  of  Public Instructions  (DDPI)  concerned  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 Tahsildar concerned, for SC/ST in Form D, Category 1 in Form E and 2-A, 2-B, 3-A and 3-B in Form F. (6) MCI/DCI State Council Registration Certificate. (7)  Attempt  Certificate  issued  by  the  college Principal concerned.

(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  recognised  by  the State  Government  or  MBBS/BDS  from  a professional  educational  institution  located  in Karnataka  and  that  either  of  the  parents  should

13 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 or  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  Tahsildar  concerned, for SC/ST in Form D, Category 1 in Form E and 2- A, 2-B, 3-A and 3-B 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 studied. Further, school study certificates should be countersigned by the Block Educational Officer  (BEO)/Deputy  Director  of  Public Instructions  (DDPI)  concerned  COMPULSORILY in the proforma prescribed (Annexure III).

(b) The  candidates  study  certificate  for having studied both 1st and 2nd PUC or 11th and 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 college Principal

concerned.”   …………

10.  We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and we find that the basis of the judgment of this

14 Court in  Pradeep Jain case 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 paras 12  and  13  of  the  judgment  in  Nikhil  Himthani v.  State  of Uttarakhand: (SCC pp. 244-45)

“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,  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 speciality 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-Judge Bench of this  Court  in  Pradeep  Jain case held  that excellence  cannot  be  compromised  by any other

15 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 and  Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India also, this Court has approved the aforesaid view in Pradeep Jain 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.

11.  Mr Mariarputham is  right  that  in  Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India 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 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 Pradeep Jain case.

12. To quote from para 22 of  the judgment in  Pradeep Jain case: (SCC p. 693)

16 “22.  … 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. 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 postgraduate medical or dental courses in the State of Karnataka to which the Information Bulletins apply. …………

15. In the result, we allow the writ petitions, declare sub-clause (a)  of  Clause  2.1  of  the  two  Information  Bulletins  for postgraduate  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 postgraduate 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 postgraduate medical courses in our order dated 14-3-2014 in Fraz Naseem v. Union of India12 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 postgraduate dental courses will not apply to such admissions  in  the State  of  Karnataka.  The parties  shall bear their own costs.”

12 (2014) 11 SCC 453

17 14. Paragraphs 13 and 15 of the Judgment of this Court in Vishal Goyal

(supra)  are  clear  that  the  Information  Bulletin  for  PGET-2014  did  not

actually  give  institutional  preference  to  students  who  had  passed

MBBS/BDS from Colleges or universities in State of Karnataka but made

some of  them ineligible  to  take  the  entrance  test  for  admission  to  Post-

Graduate  Medical  or  Dental  Course  in  State  of  Karnataka  and  that  said

clause was held ultra vires  Article 14 of the Constitution and declared null

and void.  The relevant clause under consideration, namely, Clause 4.1 of the

Information Bulletin for PGET-2018 is identical in substance to the one that

was considered in Vishal Goyal (supra).  The matter is thus no longer res-

integra and is completely covered by the decision in Vishal Goyal (supra).

In the circumstances, we respectfully follow the decision of this Court in

Vishal  Goyal  (supra)  and  hold  Clause  4.1  of  the  Information  Bulletin

(PGET-2018)  which  was  published  on  the  website  on  10.03.2018  to  be

invalid  to  the  extent  it  disqualifies  petitioners  and  similarly  situated

candidates who completed their MBBS/BDS Degree Courses from colleges

situated  in  Karnataka  from  competing  for  admission  to  Post-Graduate

Medical/Dental  Courses  in  Government  Medical  Colleges  and  against

government quota seats in non-governmental institutions

18 15. This  writ  petition  stands  allowed in  the  aforesaid  terms.   State  of

Karnataka and Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to suitably modify and

amend the Information Bulletin in question in keeping with the observations

made in this Judgment and re-publish the Calendar of Events in terms of

this Judgment and complete the entire process within the timeline stipulated

by the concerned regulatory authorities.

...…..…………….J.                                                    (Arun Mishra)

...……….……….J. (Uday Umesh Lalit)  

New Delhi April 4, 2018