Page 1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.444 OF 2015

Dr. Sandeep s/o Sadashivrao Kansurkar ... Petitioner(s) and Others

Versus

Union of India and Others ... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Dipak Misra, J.

The  gravamen  of  grievance  and  the  substratum  of  

discontent of the petitioners in this writ petition, preferred  

under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, is that though  

the primary eligibility  criteria for  appearing in the super-

specialty  entrance  examination  conducted  in  different  

States in India for admission to D.M. (Doctorate of Medicine)  

and M.Ch. (Masters of Chirurgiae) course regard being had  

to  the  purpose  that  it  endows  the  students  an  excellent

Page 2

opportunity  to  prosecute  super  specialty  subjects  and  to  

fulfill  their  aspirations for  a  bright  and vibrant  career  as  

well as to serve the society in the institutes recognized by  

the Medical Council of India (MCI) and most of the States,  

namely,  Maharashtra,  Uttar  Pradesh,  Gujarat,  Rajasthan,  

Delhi, Karnataka, Kerala, West Bengal, Bihar and Haryana,  

conduct the entrance examination for the eligible candidates  

from  All  Over  India  and  permit  them  to  appear  in  the  

entrance examination, yet the States like, Andhra Pradesh,  

Telangana and Tamil Nadu, confine the eligibility only to the  

candidates having domicile in their respective States.  The  

fall  out  of  the  restriction  is  that  candidates  having  the  

domicile  in  the  said  States  can  appear  in  other  States’  

entrance examination without any restriction and compete  

with other candidates, and the said situation creates a clear  

disparity, and further a state of inequality has been allowed  

to reign in the aforesaid three States.  The dissatisfaction is  

further  accentuated  by  asserting  that  the  institutes  with  

super-specialty courses are distributed all over India in a  

heterogeneous manner and the States like, Punjab, Madhya  

Prades,  Chhatisgarh,  Manipur,  Arunachal  Pradesh,  

2

Page 3

Nagaland, Mizoram, Tripura, Sikkim, Uttarakhand are not  

having  any  government  institutes  offering  super-specialty  

courses and the candidates from the  said States  have  to  

depend on the other States’ entrance examinations to seek a  

career  in  the  discipline  they  are  interested,  but  for  the  

restriction  imposed  by  the  States  like,  Andhra  Pradesh,  

Telangana  and  Tamil  Nadu,  they  are  deprived  of  the  

opportunity to participate in the entrance examination and  

that  invites  the  frown  of  Articles  14  and  16  of  the  

Constitution of India.

2. It  is  urged  in  the  writ  petition  that  the  restraint  

imposed  by  the  aforesaid  three  States  amounts  to  

reservation in respect of the post-graduate level; and as far  

as the super-specialty courses are concerned, the question  

of reservation based on residence or institutional preference  

is totally impermissible, for merit cannot be compromised  

by making reservation on the consideration, like residential  

requirement,  as  that  would  be  absolutely  against  the  

national interest and plays foul of equality clause engrafted  

in the Constitution.  It is put forth that the States of Andhra  

Pradesh  and  Telangana  have  drawn  support  from  the  

3

Page 4

Presidential  order,  namely,  Andhra  Pradesh  Educational  

Institutions  (Regulations  and Admissions)  order  1974 (for  

short “the Presidential Order”) issued under Article 371-D of  

the Constitution and G.O.P. No.646 dated 10th July, 1979  

issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh (for short, ‘the 1979  

circular’),  which  are  really  not  applicable  to  the  super-

specialty  courses,  for  the  legal  system  which  prevails  

throughout the territory of India is a singular and indivisible  

one and Article 14 lays a clear postulate for conferment of  

equal opportunity throughout the nation.  It is asseverated  

that the reservations made by the States of Andhra Pradesh,  

Telangana and Tamil Nadu, ushers in a state of inequality  

by putting the residents of the said States in one class solely  

on  the  foundation  of  domicile  and  others  in  a  different  

category altogether without any rationale and, therefore, the  

entire  action  smacks  of  arbitrariness  and  

unreasonableness.

3. On the basis of aforesaid assertions prayers have been  

made to issue a command to the Respondent Nos.1 and 6  

i.e.  the Secretary,  Ministry of  Health and Family Welfare,  

Union  of  India  and  the  Medical  Council  of  India,  

4

Page 5

respectively,  to  allow  the  petitioners  to  appear  in  the  

entrance examination conducted by the respondent Nos.3 to  

5  i.e.  the  States  of  Tamil  Nadu,  Andhra  Pradesh  and  

Telangana for  the  year  2015-2016 for  the  super-specialty  

courses and further to issue a writ of mandamus directing  

the respondent Nos.1 and 6, as well as the respondent No.2,  

the  Director  General  of  Health  Services  of  the  Union  of  

India, to conduct a common entrance test for admission to  

super-specialty courses, like DM/M.Ch. at All India Level,  

and for certain other ancillary reliefs.

4. A  counter  affidavit  has  been  filed  by  the  State  of  

Andhra Pradesh contending, inter alia, that the claim of the  

petitioners to appear in the entrance test conducted by the  

State  of  Andhra  Pradesh  for  admission  into  the  medical  

super-specialty  courses  is  contrary  to  the  scheme  of  the  

Presidential Order and the 1979 circular.  It is set forth in  

the counter affidavit that the two categories of institutions,  

namely, State wide educational Institutions and Non-State  

wide educational Institutions (Local Institutions) existed in  

the  State  of  undivided  Andhra  Pradesh  as  per  the  

Presidential Order and further clarified by 1979 circular all  

5

Page 6

professional under-graduate and post-graduate courses are  

covered under the aforesaid two categories of institutions.  It  

is contended that the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh was  

divided  into  three  local  areas  that  came  under  Andhra  

University,  Osmania  University  and  Sri  Venkateswara  

University for the purpose of admission into the educational  

institutions.  Subsequent to the bifurcation of the State, the  

Andhra  University  area  and  Sri  Venkateswara  University  

area  have  come  under  the  territory  of  State  of  Andhra  

Pradesh and the Osmania University area has come under  

the State of Telangana and 85% of the seats are reserved for  

the local candidates in each University area and the said  

system is to remain in vogue for a period of ten years.  A  

reference has been made to paragraph 3 of the Presidential  

Order, indicating the division of the local areas.  There is  

also  reference  to  paragraphs  5  and  7  of  the  Presidential  

Order, which indicate that the reservations are available for  

the local candidates in the University areas in Non-State-

wide  educational  institutions  and  State-wide  educational  

institutions.  Placing reliance on the same it is asserted that  

admissions  upto  85%  of  Non-State-wide  seats  shall  be  

6

Page 7

reserved  in  favour  of  the  local  areas  as  per  procedure  

specified in the 1979 circular as amended from time to time  

and remaining 15% seats are to be treated as unreserved  

seats for the Non-State candidates who have qualified in the  

Entrance Test.  Elaborating the same, it is contended that  

admission upto 85% State-wide seats shall be reserved in  

favour of Andhra and Nagarjuna University, Osmania and  

Kakatiya University and Sri Venkateswara University in the  

ratio 42:36:22 respectively as per the procedure specified as  

per the 1979 circular.  It is highlighted that paragraph 4 of  

the  Presidential  Order,  defines  the  local  candidate  in  

reference  to  a  local  area  and  how  the  remaining  15%  

unreserved seats have to be dealt with.  In essence, it is the  

stand of the State of Andhra Pradesh that according to Six  

Point Formula of the Constitution of India, as amended by  

32nd Amendment, inserting Article 371-D, special provisions  

have been made in respect of the State of Andhra Pradesh  

which provide equal opportunities in different parts of the  

State in the matter of public employment and education. To  

bolster the stand that there is no provision for admission to  

the  candidates  of  other  States  except  the  candidates  

7

Page 8

belonging to the State of Andhra Pradesh, emphasis is laid  

on the schematic context of the Presidential Order and the  

1979 circular and further it is reiterated that in view of the  

special status conferred on the State by the constitutional  

norms of equality which has been assiduously attempted to  

build is sans substance as per the Presidential Order read  

with 1979 circular.  

5. The  State  of  Telangana  has  also  filed  a  counter  

affidavit wherein it has been stressed that the Presidential  

Order, as well as the 1979 circular are protective in nature  

and  a  distinction  has  been  drawn  between  the  local  

candidates  and  reservation  for  local  candidates;  and  the  

candidates who are eligible to apply for admission in respect  

of the remaining 15% of the unreserved seats.  It is urged  

that  the 15% of  unreserved seats  as per  the Presidential  

Order and the circular issued by the State Government in  

1979, do not include the candidates from other States.  The  

other  grounds  which have  been put  forth  in  the  counter  

affidavit  need  not  be  stated  because  they  are  in  a  way  

repetition  of  the  stand  taken  by  the  State  of  Andhra  

Pradesh.

8

Page 9

6. The  State  of  Tamil  Nadu  has  also  filed  a  counter  

affidavit, but we shall not refer to the same in praesenti.  At  

the very outset, we would like to make it absolutely clear  

that when we reserved the matter, we had mentioned in our  

order  that  the  controversy  relating  to  the  State  of  Tamil  

Nadu shall be taken up after the judgment is pronounced in  

respect of the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.

7. We  have  heard  Ms.  Indu  Malhotra  and  Mr.  B.H.  

Marlapalle, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr.  

Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General for Union of India,  

Mr. H.P. Raval,  learned senior counsel,  along with Mr. S.  

Udaya  Kumar  Sagar,  learned  counsel  for  the  State  of  

Telangana, Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, learned counsel for the  

State of Andhra Pradesh and Mr. Gaurav Sharma, learned  

counsel for the Medical Council of India.

8. It is submitted by Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned senior  

counsel  appearing  for  the  petitioners  that  though  Article  

371-D of the Constitution of India makes special provisions  

for the State, yet that would not extend to cover reservations  

as  regards the  super-specialty  courses where  merit  alone  

matters as has been held by the Constitution Bench in Dr.  

9

Page 10

Preeti  Srivastava and Another  vs.  State  of  M.P.  and  

Others1. It  is  urged  by  her  that  equality  before  law and  

equal protection of the law serve the purpose of excellence  

and if merit is compromised on the bedrock of geographical  

boundary, the basic normative principle of equality would  

be marred.  Learned senior counsel would further contend  

that the residential requirement or institutional preference  

should not be allowed to have any room in this category of  

admissions  in  view  of  the  pronouncements  in  Nikhil  

Himthani vs. State of Uttarakhand2 and Vishal Goel vs.  

State of Karnataka3.  It is astutely canvassed by her that  

the  principle  pertaining  to  domicile  was  laid  down  more  

than  a  decade  back  in  Saurabh Chaudri  vs.  Union  of  

India4, but both the States, namely, Andhra Pradesh and  

Telangana  have  flagrantly  violated  the  said  principle  and  

given an  indecent  burial  to  the  guidelines  issued  by  the  

Medical Council of India.

9. Mr. B.H. Marlapalle, learned senior counsel appearing  

for the impleaded petitioners would submit that Rule 9 of  

the  Medical  Council  of  India  Postgraduate  Medical  1  (1999) 7 SCC 120 2  (2013) 10 SCC 237 3  (2014) 11 SCC 456 4  (2003) 11 SCC 146

1

Page 11

Education  Regulations,  2000,  as  amended  on  21st  

December, 2010, deals with the selection of post-graduate  

students by all the medical educational institutions all over  

the country and these Regulations are indubitably binding  

on all the universities in both the States and they cannot be  

allowed to violate the same.  It  is his further submission  

that the Presidential Order, issued under Article 371-D of  

the Constitution is primarily aimed at removing disparities  

between  the  three  different  regions  of  Andhra  Pradesh,  

namely, Andhra, Rayalaseema and Telangana, as prevailing  

at the time of its formation of the State of Andhra Pradesh  

consequent upon the States Reorganization Act, 1956,  in  

respect  of  employment  and  education  and  the  term  

“education”  as  finds  place  in  Clause  2(1)(a)  of  the  

Presidential Order, defines the term “available seats”, which  

means number of  seats in a course for admission at any  

time  after  excluding  those  reserved  for  candidates  from  

outside the State.  Learned senior counsel has referred to  

Clause  3  of  the  Presidential  Order  and  highlighted  that  

whatever  manner  the  interpretation  is  placed  on  those  

clauses, 15% has to be demarcated as non-local quota or  

1

Page 12

available  for  the candidates  who are not  residents  of  the  

State.  He has emphatically argued that clause 2(1)(a)  of the  

1979 circular, is only a clarifactory one and hence, it cannot  

convey  that  the  candidates  who  have  passed  the  

examination  from  any  State  other  than  Andhra  

Pradesh/Telangana, do not fall in the category of candidates  

from outside the State.  That apart, it is urged that in the  

name  of  clarification  it  cannot  place  an  erroneous  

interpretation on the Presidential Order, for that will make  

the said Order unworkable, and also would cause violence  

to the language employed in the Presidential Order.  

10. Mr.  Marlapalle  has  referred  to  paragraph  11  of  the  

1979 circular to buttress his stand that the procedure of  

implementation  of  reservation  is  clear  to  the  extent  that  

15% reservation will be meant for non-local candidates.  He  

has given an example by stating that if there are 12 seats  

available  for  a  particular  super-specialty  course  in  a  

university, the available seats will be arrived at by deducting  

the  national  quota,  that  may  be  2  seats,  and  from  the  

remaining 10 available seats, 85% will be earmarked for the  

local candidates and remaining 15% for those who are listed  

1

Page 13

in Clause 2 of the Presidential Order would go to non-local  

quota.  He has placed reliance on the prospectus issued for  

the academic year 2015-2016 by Dr.  N.T.R.  University  of  

Health Sciences, Andhra Pradesh, especially on Clause 3.8  

to 3.8.6.  Learned senior counsel has also drawn inspiration  

from Rule 2(2) of the Rules for Admission to Post Graduate  

Courses  in  the  Medical  Colleges  in  the  State  of  Andhra  

Pradesh, 1983.  Learned senior counsel has criticized that  

the  prospectus  of  the  academic  year  2015-2016  of  the  

universities,  namely,  Dr.  N.T.R.  University  of  Health  

Sciences, Andhra Pradesh and Nizam’s Institute of Medical  

Sciences, which do not provide for All India quota and only  

provide for the “available seats” and, in that backdrop it is  

suggested that  the Medical  Council  of  India should  issue  

appropriate  directions  under  the  approval  of  the  

Government of India to earmark national quota outside the  

State  of  Andhra  Pradesh  and  Telangana  in  the  super-

specialty post-graduate medical courses; and for the current  

academic  year,  the  Medical  Council  of  India  should  be  

directed to consider to create additional seats for national  

1

Page 14

quota in respect of these two States so that the Presidential  

Order is properly implemented.   

11.  Mr.  Marlapalle  has submitted that  to understand the  

controversy  in  the  proper  perspective  of  the  Presidential  

Order  and  how  the  States  have  worked  it  out,  the  

examination of certain Acts, Rules and Regulations, namely.  

(i)  A.P.  Educational  Institutions  (Regulation  of  Admission  

and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983;  (ii)  Rules for  

Admission to Post Graduate Courses in the Medical Colleges  

in  the  State  of  Andhra  Pradesh,  1983;  (iii)  The  Andhra  

Pradesh Regulation of Admission to Super Specialties in the  

Medical Colleges Rules, 1983; (iv) Andhra Pradesh Medical  

Colleges (Admission into Post  Graduate Medical  Courses),  

Rules 1997, as modified from time to time and (v) Medical  

Council  of  India  Postgraduate  Medical  Education  

Regulations,  2000,  as  amended  from  time  to  time  are  

necessary . We must immediately state that their relevance  

shall  depend  upon  our  eventual  analysis  of  the  

constitutional  provision,  the  Presidential  Order  and  the  

1979 circular issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh.  

1

Page 15

12. Mr.  Mukul  Rohatgi,  learned  Attorney  General  

appearing for the Union of India, would contend that Article  

371-D of the Constitution enables the President of India to  

issue  certain  category  of  orders  and  in  exercise  of  that  

power the Presidential Order had been issued in relation to  

the State of Andhra Pradesh which pertains to the field of  

education and that covers the super-specialty courses; and  

further the 1979 circular issued by the State Government is  

not  an  amendment  to  the  Presidential  Order,  but  only  

postulates the manner and method of implementation.  It is  

canvassed by him that there can be no cavil that merit is  

the rule in case of super-specialty courses and there cannot  

be any reservation, as has been held in Preeti Srivastava  

(supra) and  subsequent  judgments,  but  this  Court  has  

consistently held that as far as the State of Andhra Pradesh  

is concerned, the super-specialty courses would fall beyond  

the said concept.  It is propounded by Mr. Rohatgi that the  

submission that 15% would go to the students who have no  

domicile  in  the  State,  should  go  to  candidates  of  other  

States, is absolutely incorrect in view of the procedure for  

implementation of the Presidential  Order, which has been  

1

Page 16

elaborately determined by the State of Andhra Pradesh in  

1979.   He  has  commended  us  to  the  decisions  in  Dr.  

Pradeep  Jain  and  Others  vs.  Union  of  India  and  

Others5, Reita Nirankari vs. Union of India6, Dr. Dinesh  

Kumar vs. Motilal Nehru Medical College7,  C. Surekha  

vs. Union of India8 and Dr. Fazal Ghafoor vs. Union of   

India and Others9.  Needless to say, the learned Attorney  

General has submitted that the principles stated in the said  

authorities  shall  apply  on  all  fours  to  the  State  of  

Telangana.

13. Mr. Harin P. Raval, learned senior counsel, along with  

Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, learned counsel, appearing for  

the  State  of  Telangana  have  adopted  the  submissions  

advanced by the learned Attorney General.

14. To  appreciate  the  controversy  raised  in  this  writ  

petition  it  is  necessary  to  reflect  upon  the  language  

employed  in  Article  371-D  of  the  Constitution  and  the  

interpretation placed by this Court on the said provision.  

That  apart,  it  would  also  be  essential  to  understand the  

5  (1984) 3 SCC 654 6  (1984) 3 SCC 706 7  (1986) 3 SCC 727 8  (1988) 4 SCC 526 9  (1988) Supp SCC 794

1

Page 17

1979 circular issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh in the  

year 1979 and how this Court has perceived the ambit and  

scope of the same and further also consider  the concept of  

non-applicability  of  reservation  in  respect  of  the  super  

speciality  courses.  Having  stated  so,  we  may  reproduce  

Clauses 1 and 2 of Article 371-D of the Constitution, which  

are relevant for the present purpose, They read as follows:-

“371-D.  Special  provisions  with  respect  to  the  State  of  Andhra  Pradesh  or  the  State  of  Telangana.- (1) The President may by order made  with respect to the State of  Andhra Pradesh or  the State of Telangana, provide, having regard to  the  requirement  of  each  State,  for  equitable  opportunities  and  facilities  for  the  people  belonging to different parts of such State, in the  matter of public employment and in the matter of  education, and different provisions may be made  for various parts of the States.

(2) An  order  made  under  clause  (1)  may,  in  particular,-

(a) require  the  State  Government  to  organise  any class or classes of posts in a civil service of,  or any class or classes of civil posts under, the  State into different local cadres for different parts  of  the State  and allot  in accordance with such  principles and procedure as may be specified in  the order the persons holding such posts to the  local cadres so organized;

(b) specify any part or parts of the State which  shall be regarded as the local area –  

1

Page 18

(i) for direct recruitment to posts in any  local cadre (whether organized in pursuance  of an order under this article or constituted  otherwise) under the State Government;

(ii) for direct recruitment to posts in any  cadre under any local authority within the  State; and

(iii) for the purposes of admission to any  University within the State or to any other  educational  institution  which is  subject  to  the control of the State Government;

(c) specify the extent to which, the manner in  which  and  the  conditions  subject  to  which,  preference or reservation shall be given or made –

(i) in the matter of direct recruitment to  posts in any such cadre referred to in sub- clause (b) as may be specified in this behalf  in the order; (ii) in the matter of admission to any such  University  or  other  educational  institution  referred  to  in  sub-clause  (b)  as  may  be  specified in this behalf in the order,

to or in favour of candidates who have resided or  studied for any period specified in the order in  the local area in respect of such cadre, University  or other educational institution, as the case may  be.”

15. At  this  stage we think it  appropriate  to  refer  to the  

relevant  clauses of  the Presidential  Order.   The pertinent  

clauses, we are inclined to think, are:-

“(2) It extends to the whole of the State of Andhra  Pradesh.

1

Page 19

(3) It shall come into force on the 1st day of July,  1974.

2.  Interpretation:-  (1)  In  this  Order,  unless  the  context otherwise requires:-

(a)  “available  seats”  in  relation  to  any  course  of  study, means the number of seats provided in that  course for admission at any time after excluding  those  reserved  for  candidates  from  outside  the  State.

(b)  “Local  area”,  in  respect  of  any  University  or  other educational institution, means the local area  specified  in  paragraph  3  of  this  Order  for  the  purposes of admission to such University or other  educational institution.

(c) “Local candidate”, in relation to any local area,  means a candidate who qualifies under paragraph  4 of this Order as a local candidate in relation to  such local area:

(d) “State Government” means the Government of  Andhra Pradesh.

(e)  “State-wide educational  institution”  means an  educational  institution  or  a  department  of  an  educational institution specified in the Schedule of  this Order.

(f)  “State-wide  University”  means  the  Andhra  Pradesh Agricultural University constituted under  the  Andhra  Pradesh  Agricultural  University  Act,  1963  (Andhra  Pradesh  Act  24  of  1963),  or  the  Jawaharlal  Nehru  Technological  University  constituted  under  the  Jawaharlal  Nehru  Technological  University  Act,  1972  (Andhra  Pradesh Act 16 of 1972).

1

Page 20

(2) Any reference to any District in this Order shall  be construed as a reference to the area comprised  in that District on the 1st day of July, 1974.

(3)  The  General  clauses  Act,  1897(10  of  1897)  applies  for  the  interpretation  of  this  order  as  it  applies for the interpretation of a Central Act.

3. Local area:- (1) The part of the State comprising  the district of  Srikakulam, Visakhapatnam, West  Godavari,  East  Godavari,  Krishna,  Guntur  and  Prakasam shall be regarded as the local area for  the  purposes  of   admission  to  the  Andhra  University, (the Nagarjuna University) and to any  other educational institution (other than a State- wide  University  or  State-wide  educational  institution) which is subject to the control of the  State Government and is situated in that part.  

(2) The part of the State comprising the districts of  Adilabad,  Hyderabad,  Karimnagar,  Khammam,  Mahaboobnagar,  Medak,  Nalgonda,  Nizamabad  and Warangal shall be regarded as the local area  for  the  purposes  of  admission  to  the  Osmania  University,  (the  Kakatiya  University)  and  to  any  other  educational  institution(other  than  a  State- wide  University  or  State-wide  Educational  institution) which is subject to the control of the  State Government and is situated in that part.

(3) The part of the State comprising the districts of  Anantapur,  cuddapah,  Kurnool,  Chitoor  and  Nellore shall be regarded as the local area for the  purposes  of  admission  to  Sri  Venkateswara  University and to any other educational institution  (other than a State-wide University or State-wide  educational  institution)  which  is  subject  to  the  control of the State Government and is situated in  that part.

2

Page 21

4. Local  candidates:-  (1)  A  Candidate  for  admission to any course of study shall be regarded  as a local candidate in relation to a local area

(a) if he has studied in an educational institution  or educational institutions in such local area for a  period of not less than four consecutive academic  years ending with the academic year in which he  appeared or, as the case may be, first appeared in  the relevant qualifying examination; or.

(b) Where during the whole of any part of the four  consecutive  academic  years  ending  with  the  academic  year  in  which  he  appeared  or,  as  the  case  may  be,  first  appeared  for  the  relevant  qualifying examination, he has not studied in any  educational institution.  If he has resided in that  local area for a period of not less than four years  immediately preceding the date of commencement  of the relevant qualifying examination in which he  appeared or as the case may be first appeared.

(2)  A  candidate  for  admission  to  any  course  of  study  who  is  not  regarded  as  a  local  candidate  under  sub-paragraph (1)  in  relation to any local  area shall.

(a) if he has studied in educational institutions in  the  State  for  a  period  of  not  less  than  seven  consecutive  academic  years  ending  with  the  academic  year  in  which  he  appeared  or,  as  the  case  may  be,  first  appeared  for  the  relevant  qualifying  examination,  be  regarded  as  a  local  candidate in relation to.

(i)  such  local  are  where  he  has  studied  for  the  maximum period out of  the said period of seven  years; or.

(ii) Where the periods of his study in two or more  local areas are equal, such local area where he has  studied last in such equal periods; or.

2

Page 22

(b)  if  during the whole  or  any part  of  the seven  consecutive  academic  years  ending  with  the  academic  year  in  which  he  appeared  or,  as  the  case  may  be,  first  appeared  for  the  relevant  qualifying examination, he has not studied in the  educational institution in any local area, but has  resided in the State during the whole of the said  period  of  seven  years  be  regarded  as  a  local  candidate in relation to.

(i)  such local  area where he has  resided for  the  maximum period out of  the said period of seven  years, or.

(ii)  Where the period of  “his  residence in two or  more local areas are equal, such local area where  he has resided last in such equal periods”.]

Explanation – For the purpose of this paragraph.

(i) “Educational institution” means a University or  any educational institution recognized by the State  Government  a  University  or  other  competent  authority;

(ii) “relevant qualifying examination” in relation to  admission  to  any  course  of  study,  means  the  examination,  a  pass  in  which  is  the  minimum  educational  qualification  for  admission  to  such  course of study;

(iii)  in reckoning the consecutive  academic years  during which a candidate has studied,-

(a)  any  period  of  interruption  of  his  study  by  reason of his failure to pass any examination; and

(b)  any  period  of  his  study  in  a  State-wide  University or a State wide educational institution,  shall be disregarded.

2

Page 23

(iv)  the  question  whether  any  candidate  for  admission to any course of  study has resided in  any local area shall be determined with reference  to the places where the candidate actually resided  and  not  with  reference  to  the  residence  of  his  parent or other guardian.]

5. Reservation in non-State-wide Universities and  educational Institutions:- (1) Admissions to eighty- five percent of the available seats in every course  of study provided by the *(Andhra University, the  Nagarjuna  University,  the  Osmania  University.**  the  Kakatiya  University  or  Sri  Venkateswara  University) or by any other educational institution  (other than a State-wide University or a Statewide  educational  institution)  which  is  subject  to  the  control of the State Government shall be reserved  in favour of the local candidates in relation to the  local  area in respect of  such University or  other  educational institution.

(2) While determining under sub-paragraph (1) the  number of seats to be reserved in favour of local  candidates any fraction of a seat shall be counted  as one:

Provided  that  there  shall  be  at  least  one  unreserved seat.

6. Reservation in Statewide Universities and State- wide  educational  institutions  (1)  Admissions  to  eighty five percent of the available seats in every  course  of  study  provided  by  a  State-wide  University or a State-wide educational institution  shall be reserved in favour of and allocated among  the local candidates I relation, to the *(Local areas  specified  in  sub-paragraph(1),  sub-paragraph(2)  and sub-paragraph(3) of paragraph 3, in the ratio  of 42:36:22 respectively:

Provided that this sub-paragraph shall not apply  in  relation  to  any  course  of  study  in  which  the  

2

Page 24

total  number  of  available  seats  does  not  exceed  three.

(2) While determining under sub-paragraph(1) the  number of  seats  to  be  reserved in favour  of  the  local  candidates,  any  fraction of  a  seat  shall  be  counted as one.

Provided  that  there  shall  be  at  least  one  unreserved seat.

(3)  While  allocating  under  sub-paragraph(1)  the  reserved  seats  among  the  local  candidates  in  relation to the different local areas, fractions of a  seat  shall  be  adjusted  by  counting  the  greatest  fraction as one and, if necessary, also the greater  of the remaining fractions as another; and, where  the fraction to be so counted cannot be selected by  reason of the fractions being equal, the selection  shall be by lot.  

Provided  that  there  shall  be  at  least  one  seat  allocated for the local candidate in respect of each  local area.

7.  Filling  of  reserved  vacant  seats.-  If  a  local  candidate in respect of a local area is not available  to fill  any seat reserved or allocated in favour of  local candidate in respect of that local area, such  seat shall be filled as if it had not been reserved.

8. Power to authorise issue of directions. – (1) the  president  may,  by  order,  require  the  State  Government  to  issue  such directions  as  may be  necessary or  expedient  for  the  purpose of  giving  effect  to  this  Order  to  any  University  or  to  any  other educational institution subject to the control  of  the  State  Government;  and  the  University  or  other  educational  institution  shall  comply  with  such directions.  

2

Page 25

(2) The State Government may, for the purpose of  issuing any directions under sub-paragraph (1) or  for  satisfying  itself  that  any  directions  issued  under  that  sub-paragraph  have  been  complied  with require, by order in writing, any University or  any  other  educational  institution  subject  to  the  Control of the State Government to furnish them  such information, report or particulars as may be  specified in the order; and the University or other  educational  institution  shall  comply  with  such  order.”  

16.  The State Government issued the circular in 1979.  The  

relevant  paragraphs  of  the  circular  deserve  to  be  

reproduced.  They read as follows:-  

“2.  The Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions  (Regulation of Admissions) Order, 1974 provides  for  reservation  of  seats  in  favour  of  local  candidates in courses of  study provided by the  Universities  and  other  educational  institutions  subject to the Control of the State Government.  Paragraph  9  of  the  order  lays  down  that  the  provisions  of  that  order  shall  have  effect  notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  any  statute  ordinance,  rule,  regulation  or  other  order(whether  made  before  or  after  the  commencement  of  the  Order)  in  respect  of  admissions  to  any  University  or  any  other  educational institutions subject to the control of  the State Government. Paragraph 10 of the said  Order,  however,  declares  that  nothing  in  the  Order shall affect the operation of any provisions  made  by  the  State  Government  or  other  competent authority (whether before or after the  commencement  of  the  Order)  in  respect  of  reservations  in  the  matter  of  admission to  any  University or other education Institution in favor  or  women,  socially  and educationally  backward  classes of citizens, the Scheduled Castes and the  

2

Page 26

Scheduled Tribes in so far as such provisions are  not inconsistent with the Order.

3.  After  the  coming  into  force  of  the  above  Presidential  Order,  with  effect  from  1-7-1974,  admissions to the educational institutions in the  entire  State  are  to  be made in the light  of  the  provisions  of  the  said  order.   According  to  Paragraph  4  of  the  Order  a  candidate  for  admission  to  any  course  of  study  shall  be  regarded as a local candidate in relation to the  local area, -

(a)  If  he  has  studied  in  an  educational  institution or educational institutions in such  local  area for  a  period of  not  less than four  consecutive  academic  years  ending  with  the  academic year in which he appeared or, as the  case  may  be,  first  appeared  in   relevant  qualifying examination; or

(b) where during the whole or any part of the  four  consecutive  academic years ending with  the academic year in which he appeared or, as  the case may be, first appeared for the relevant  qualifying examination, he has not studied in  any educational  institution, if  he has resided  in that local area for a period of not less than  four years immediately preceding the date  of  commencement  of  the  relevant  qualifying  examination in which he appeared, or, as the  case may be, first appeared.

4.  It must be noted that para 4(a) as extracted  above covers the cases of those candidates who  studied  in  an  educational  institution  or  educational  institutions for  a period of  not  less  than  four  consecutive  academic  years  ending  with the academic year in which he appeared or,  as the case may be, first appeared in the relevant  qualifying examination, while para 4 (b) applies to  the  case  of  other  candidates.  For  purposes  of  

2

Page 27

para 4(a) educational institution has been defined  as  a  University  or  any  educational  institution  recognized by the State Government, a University  or other competent authority.  The eligibility of a  candidate who has studied during any part of the  four years period in an unrecognized institution  will  have to be dealt  with the under  para 4(b).  While considering the eligibility of a candidate to  be  regarded  as  a  local  candidate,  under  paragraph  4(a)  of  the  Order  by  virtue  of  four  consecutive  years  of  Study  in  a  local  area,  it  should  be  noted  that  in  reckoning  the  consecutive  academic  years  of  study,  any  interruption in the period of his study ,by reason  of  his failure to pass any examination shall  be  disregarded.  For instance, a candidate who has  studied  in  the  IXth  and  Xth  Classes  and  the  Junior  and  Senior  Intermediate  Classes  in  institutions of the sale local area with a break of  one year after the Xth class on account of failure  to  pass  the  Xth  Class  examination  at  the  first  attempt, shall be regarded as a local candidate in  relation  to  that  local  area  for  admission  to  a  degree course in any institution in that area.

5. The above definition of the local candidate (as  it stood until it was amended with effect from 25- 11-1976)  had  given  rise  to  certain  situations  wherein some of the candidates belonging to the  State  of  Andhra  Pradesh  who  have  studied  or  resided throughout within the State came to be  regarded as non-local candidates in all the local  areas within the State.  In order to avoid such a  situation,  the  Government  of  India  have  since  issued  the  Andhra  Pradesh  Educational  Institutions  (Regulation  of  Admission)  Second  Amendment  Order,  1976  amplifying  the  said  definition in paragraph 4 of the Order

6.  The Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions  (Regulation  of  Admissions)  Second  Amendment  Order, 1976 inserts a new sub-paragraph in the  

2

Page 28

said  1974  Order-viz.,  sub-paragraph  (2)  to  Paragraph  4  thereby  making  provision  for  considering the claims of persons, who under the  old  definition  would  have  become  non-local  in  relation to all local areas in the State.  According  to sub-para (2) (a) of Para 4, after amendment, if  such  a  candidate  has  studied  in  educational  institutions in the State for a period of not less  than  seven  consecutive  academic  years  ending  with the academic year in which he appeared on,  as  the  case  may  be,  first  appeared  for  the  relevant  qualifying  examination,  he  shall  be  regarded as a local candidate in relation to that  local area where he had studied for the longest  period out of the said period of seven years.  In  the event of the periods of study in two or more  local areas being equal he shall be regarded as  local  candidate  in  relation  to  that  local  area  where he studied during the last of the said equal  periods.  Clause (b) to sub-para (2) applies to a  candidate who, during the whole or any part of  the  seven  consecutive  academic  years  ending  with the academic year in which he appeared or  as  the  case  may  be,  first  appeared  for  the  relevant qualifying examination has not studied  in educational institutions in any local area, but  has resided in the State during the whole of the  said seven years, the candidate shall be regarded  as a local candidate in relation to that local area  where he has resided for the longest period out of  the  said  seven year  period.  This  residence  test  will be applies to candidates in whose cases there  is a gap in study, occasioned otherwise than by  reason of  failure to pass in an examination,  in  the  prescribed  full  term  of  seven  years  immediately  preceding  the  relevant  qualifying  examination.   It  has  also  been  provided  that  where  the  periods  of  residence  in  two  or  more  local areas are equal, such a candidate shall be  regarded as a local candidate in relation to the  local  area where  he  resided last  in  such equal  periods.   The  application  of  the  liberalized  

2

Page 29

definitions made through the Second Amendment  Order are illustrated by the examples given in the  Annexure – I.  

xxxxx xxxxx

9.   The Government  have  directed that  for  the  purpose  of  admission  into  educational  institutions,  those  who  claim  to  be  local  candidates with reference to para 4(1) (a) or para  4(2)  (a)  of  the  Andhra  Pradesh  Educational  Institutions  (Regulation  of  Admissions)  Order,  1974  should  produce  evidence  in  the  form  of  study  certificates  issued  by  the  heads  of  the  educational institutions concerned indicating the  details  of  the  year  or  years  in  which  the  candidate  has  studied  in  an  educational  institution or institutions in such local area for a  period of not less that four or seven consecutive  academic  years  ending  with  academic  year  in  which he appeared or, as the case may be, first  appeared in the relevant qualifying examination.  Those  who  do  not  qualify  as  local  candidates  under para 4(1) (a) or 4(2) (a) but claim to qualify  by virtue of residence under para 4(1)(b) or para 4  (2)  (b)  of  the  said  order  should  produce  a  certificate  issued  by  an  Officer  of  the  Revenue  Department not  below the rank of  Tahsildar  in  the form annexed vide Annexure – II.

xxxxx xxxxx

11.  As  clarifications  were  being  sought  on  the  question as to who should be considered eligible  to apply as candidates belonging to the State of  Andhra Pradesh for the purpose of admission to  courses  of  studies  offered  by  educational  institutions,  subject  to  the  control  of  the  State  Government  against  15% of  the  available  seats  kept  unreserved  in  terms  of  Andhra  Pradesh  Educational  Institutions  (Regulations  of  

2

Page 30

Admissions)  Order,  1974  the  Government  after  careful  consideration  have  directed  that  the  following categories of candidates may be treated  as eligible to apply for admissions to educational  institutions in the State subject to the control of  the State Government, as candidates belonging to  the State of Andhra Pradesh against the 15% of  the available seats left unreserved in terms of the  Presidential Order:

(i)  All  local  candidates  defined  in  the  Presidential Order.

(ii) Candidates who have resided in the State  for a total period of ten years excluding periods  of study outside the State; or either of whose  parents have resided in the State  for  a total  period  of  ten  years  excluding  periods  of  employment outside the state;

(iii)  Candidates  who  are  children  of  parents  who  are  in  the  employment  of  this  State  or  Central  Government,  Public  Sector  corporation,  Local  Bodies,  Universities  and  other  similar  quasi-public  institutions  within  the State; and

(iv) Candidates who are spouses of those in the  employment  of  this  State  or  Central  Government, Public Sector Corporations, Local  Bodies,  Universities  and  educational  institutions  recognized  by  the  Government  a  University  or  other  competent  authority  and  similar  other  quasi-Government  institutions  within the State.

12.  It  has  been  decided  that  persons  in  the  employment of this State or Central Government,  Public  Sector  Corporations,  Local  Bodies,  Universities  and  other  similar  Quasi-Public  Institutions, within the State may be treated as  eligible  to  apply  for  admission to  the  part-time  

3

Page 31

course  of  study  offered  by  the  educational  institutions in the State subject to the control of  the state government as candidates belonging to  the State of Andhra Pradesh.

13.  The Government consider that in the large  majority  of  cases  falling  under  the  above  categories, “nativity” may not be in doubt.  The  Heads  of  Educational  Institutions  or  other  admission  authorities  may  call  for  appropriate  certificates of study/residence or employment in  cases of doubt.”

We  shall,  as  we  are  obliged  to  in  the  instant  case,  

proceed to deal with the purport of the said circular on the  

bedrock of the Presidential Order.  Be it clarified, we are not  

called upon to decide upon the constitutional validity of the  

circular, but to understand the purport of the same through  

the interpretative purpose.  

17. In  Chief  Justice  of  A.P.  vs.  L.V.A.  Dixitulu10,  the  

question arose before the Constitution Bench of this Court  

as to whether Clause 3 of Article 371-D of the Constitution  

that deals with civil services of the State would include the  

staff of the High Court or of the Sub-ordinate judiciary. The  

Constitution Bench held that the statements and objects of  

reasons  do  not  indicate  that  there  was  any  intention  

whatsoever  on  the  part  of  the  legislature  to  impair  or  

10  (1979) 2 SCC 34

3

Page 32

derogate from the scheme of securing independence of the  

judiciary as enshrined in Articles 229 and 225; and indeed  

the  amendment  or  abridgment  of  this  basic  scheme  was  

never an issue of debate in Parliament.  The Constitution  

Bench while commenting on the Article 371-D had to say  

this:-

“73. It will be seen from the above extract, that  the  primary  purpose  of  enacting  Article  371-D  was  two  fold:  (i)  To  promote  “accelerated  development of the backward areas of the State of  Andhra so as to secure the balanced development  of  the  State  as  a  whole”,  and  (ii)  to  provide  “equitable opportunities to different areas of the  State in the matter of education, employment and  career prospects in public service”.

74. To achieve this primary object, clause (1) of  Article 371-D empowers the President to provide  by  order,  “for  equitable  opportunities  and  facilities  for  the  people  belonging  to  different  parts  of  the  State  in  the  matter  of  public  employment  and  in  the  matter  of  education”.  Clause  (2)  of  the  article  is  complementary  to  clause (1). It particularises the matters which an  order  made  under  clause  (1)  may  provide.  For  instance,  its  sub-clause  (c)(i)  enables  the  President to specify in his Order, “the extent to  which, the manner in which and the conditions  subject to which”, preference or reservation shall  be  given  or  made  in  the  matter  of  direct  recruitment to posts in any local cadre under the  State Government or under any local authority.  Sub-clause  (c)  further  makes  it  clear  that  residence for a specified period in the local area,  can be made a condition for recruitment to any  

3

Page 33

such local cadre. Thus, clause (4) also is directly  designed  to  achieve  the  primary  object  of  the  legislation.”

18. After so stating the Constitution Bench has ruled that  

the  evil  that  was  sought  to  be  remedied  pertained  to  

inequitable  opportunities  and  facilities  for  the  people  

belonging to different parts of the State of Andhra Pradesh  

in  matters  of  public  employment  and  in  the  matter  of  

education  and  had  no  causal  nexus  whatever  to  the  

independence of the High Court and subordinate judiciary  

which  the  Founding  Fathers  have  with  solemn  concern  

vouchsafed  in  Articles  229  and  235  of  the  Constitution.  

The Court also opined that the public agitation which led to  

the enactment of Article 371-D did not have any grievance  

against the basic scheme of Chapters V and VI in Part VI of  

the  Constitution.   The  Court  interpreting  the  Article  in  

entirety eventually expressed the view that the Parliament  

never had intended to confer a wide, liberal interpretation  

which will defeat or render otiose the scheme of Chapters IV  

and V, Part VI particularized in Articles 229 and 235 of the  

Constitution.   

3

Page 34

19. In Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra), a three-Judge Bench was  

dealing  with  admissions  to  medical  colleges,  both  at  the  

undergraduate  and  at  the  post-graduate  levels.   The  

question that  arose for  consideration was whether  regard  

being had to the constitutional values, admission to medical  

colleges or any other institution of higher learning situated  

in a State can be confined to those who have their domicile  

within the State or who are residents within the State for a  

specified  number  of  years  or  can  any  reservation  in  

admissions be made for them so as to given the precedence  

over  those  who  do  not  possess  domicile  or  residential  

qualification within the State,  irrespective of  merit.   After  

referring  to  various  aspects  in  the  Constitution  and  

authorities rendered in N. Vasundara v. State of Mysore11,  

Jagdish  Saran  v.  Union  of  India12 and  various  other  

authorities the three-Judge Bench came to hold thus:-

“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  

11  (1971) 2 SCC 22 12  (1980) 2 SCC 768

3

Page 35

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. This  outer  limit  which  we  are  fixing  will  also  be  subject to revision on the lower side by the Indian  Medical Council in the same manner as directed  by  us  in  the  case  of  admissions  to  the  MBBS  course. But, even in regard to admissions to the  post-graduate course, we would direct that so far  as super specialities such as neuro-surgery and  cardiology  are  concerned,  there  should  be  no  reservation  at  all  even  on  the  basis  of  institutional  preference  and  admissions  should  be granted purely on merit on all-India basis.”

20. After the said judgment was delivered, the said three-

Judge  Bench  passed  a  clarificatory  order  in  Reita  

Nirankari (supra)  wherein  the  Court  considered  three  

aspects one of which is relevant for the present case.  We  

reproduce the same:-

“We may make it clear that the judgment will not  apply  to  the  States  of  Andhra  Pradesh  and  Jammu  and  Kashmir  because  at  the  time  of  

3

Page 36

hearing of the main writ petitions, it was pointed  out to us by the learned advocates appearing on  behalf  of  those  States  that  there  were  special  constitutional provisions in regard to them which  would  need  independent  consideration  by  this  Court.”

21. The  aforesaid  clarificatory  order  has  its  own  

significance, for it undeniably excludes the applicability of  

the  domicile  test  stated  in  Dr.  Pradeep  Jain (supra)  in  

respect of  the State of  Andhra Pradesh.  At this stage, it  

would  be appropriate  to  refer  to  the  case of  C. Surekha  

(supra).  The said case arose from Osmania University in  

Andhra Pradesh.  The petitioner therein had passed from  

the said University and he intended to take the All  India  

Entrance Examination for admission to P.G. medical course  

in 1988.  He had challenged the constitutional  validity of  

Article 371-D(2) (b) (iii) and C (ii) of the Constitution as well  

as  the Presidential  Order  as a consequence of  which the  

students  of  Andhra  Pradesh  have  been  excluded  for  

competing  in  the  aforesaid  examination.   The  two-Judge  

Bench  referred  to  the  decisions  in  Dr.  Pradeep  Jain  

(supra),  Reita Nirankari (supra),  noted the  stand of  the  

Union of India and the Andhra Pradesh in their respective  

counter affidavits that had asserted that institutions in the  

3

Page 37

State of Andhra Pradesh were kept out of from the purview  

of the scheme in view of the decision rendered in the case of  

Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra).  The Court also took note of the  

fact  that  the  issue  was  kept  open  in  Reita  Nirankari  

(supra),  referred  to  the  pronouncements  in  P.  

Sambamurthy  v.  State  of  Andhra  Pradesh13,  Minerva  

Mills  Ltd.  v.  Union  of  India14,  P.  Sampath  Kumar  v.  

Union of India15 and reiterated the principle  that  Article  

371-D(3) was valid because clause (10) of the Article 371-D  

provides as follows:-

“The provisions of  this article and of any order  made  by  the  President  thereunder  shall  have  effect  notwithstanding  anything  in  any  other  provision of this Constitution or in any other law  for the time being in force.”

22. As has been stated earlier, Clause 5 of the Article 371-

D was declared ultra vires earlier  with which we are not  

concerned with in this case.  Thereafter, the Court posed  

the  question  whether  within  the  Presidential  Order,  the  

Scheme in  Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra) can be worked out.  

After so stating, the Court noted thus:-

13  (1987) 1 SCC 362 14  (1980) 3 SCC 625 15  (1985) 4 SCC 458

3

Page 38

5.  .....“The  Presidential  Order  of  1974  defines  “available  seats”  and  “local  area”  as  also  “statewide  educational  institutions”  in  sub- clauses  (a),  (b)  and  (e)  of  clause  2.  Clause  3  describes  the  three  local  areas.  Clause  9  gives  overriding effect to the Presidential Order. Under  the  Presidential  Order,  admission  to  the  educational  institutions  is  limited  only  to  local  and nonlocal candidates. It does not contemplate  of  admission  into  educational  institutions  otherwise. The contention of Mr Choudhary that  if the Presidential Order has got to be given effect  to  in its  true spirit,  the scheme in  Dr Pradeep  Jain  case cannot,  consistently  with  the  Presidential  Order,  be  implemented  cannot  be  brushed aside and bears serious examination on  certain  important  aspects.  If  the  15  per  cent  seats are not treated as reserved in terms of the  Presidential  Order  and  are  intended  to  go  to  those  who  qualify  at  the  All  India  Entrance  Examination it is a statable possibility that the  Presidential  Order  might  be  diluted.  It  may  be  doubtful  if,  in  ascertaining  the  import  of  ‘available  seats’,  it  would  be  permissible  to  deduct  the  15  per  cent  seats  for  non-locals  applying the formula of Dr Pradeep Jain case. We  are  inclined  to  think  that  the  contention  advanced  by  Mr  Choudhary  on  behalf  of  the  respondent-State  that  within  the  ambit  of  the  Presidential  Order,  the scheme adopted by this  Court  in  Dr  Pradeep  Jain  case is  eminently  arguable and raises certain important issues. It  is, however, not necessary to pronounce on this  question finally as the petitioner, admittedly, has  already  been  provided  admission  in  one  of  the  Medical Colleges.

6.  Before  we  part  with  the  case  we  would,  however, like to indicate that the Scheme in  Dr  Pradeep Jain case is, in the opinion of this Court,  in national interest as also in the interest of the  States. Competition at the national level is bound  

3

Page 39

to add to and improve quality. Andhra Pradesh  students  on the whole  are  not  at  all  backward  and we are of the opinion that they would stand  well on comparative basis. It is for the State and  the  Central  Governments,  apart  from the  legal  issues involved to decide whether in the general  interest  of  the  State,  the  scheme  in  the  Presidential  Order  should  either  be  so  understood  as  to  permit  and  assimilate  the  Pradeep Jain principle or should be explained, if  necessary, by an appropriate amendment of the  Presidential Order. We would, however, leave it to  the  respondents  to  take  their  decision  in  the  matter.  We  would  not  like,  therefore,  to  pronounce  on the  legal  question  finally  in  this  case.

23. Relying on the said passages, it  is submitted by Mr.  

Marlapalle,  learned  senior  counsel  that  the  observations  

made  in  1988,  despite  expiry  of  two  decades  and  seven  

years, has not been taken note of by the authorities which  

indicates  an  apathetic  attitude.   Learned  senior  counsel  

would  contend  that  the  State  of  Andhra  Pradesh  by  no  

stretch of imagination can be regarded as an educationally  

backward region compared to rest of the country.  It is also  

contended by him that the Presidential Order was issued at  

a stage feeling the need of the State but the same is not the  

condition  after  passage  of  more  than  40  years.   In  fact,  

submits Mr. Marlapalle, renouncing the merit criteria on the  

3

Page 40

domicile  basis  especially  in  respect  of  post  graduate  and  

super speciality courses  would tantamount to denouncing  

the concept of merit which has been enshrined commencing  

from  Dr.  Pradeep  Jain (supra)  to  many  a  judgment  

rendered thereafter in respect of the medical education.  The  

protective affirmation meant for the State of Andhra Pradesh  

by  the  Presidential  Order  issued  in  1974  has  to  be  

interpreted in such a manner so that the 50% which has  

been  demarcated  should  go  to  otherwise  meritorious  

candidates who have taken All India Entrance Examination  

for super speciality courses.  The concept of continuity of  

education,  its  progress and the rise in time,  submits Mr.  

Marlapalle,  requires  this  Court  to  give  a  broader  

interpretation to the 15% quota and not to be guided by the  

1979 clarificatory circular which is otherwise indefensible in  

law.  

24. It  is  apt  to  note  here  that  Mr.  Marlapalle  has  

commended  us  to  the  authority  in  Dr.  Dinesh  Kumar  

(supra), but we need not refer to the same as it dealt with  

the reservation on the domicile basis, regard being had to  

the principle stated in Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra) and as far  

4

Page 41

as the State  of  Andhra Pradesh (undivided)  is  concerned,  

the  said  authority  was  not  made  applicable  as  stated  in  

Reita Nirankari (supra).

25. At this juncture, it is absolutely necessitous to refer to  

a three-Judge Bench decision in NTR University of Health  

Sciences v. G. Babu Rajendra Prasad and Anr.16  In the  

said  case,  the  question  that  was posed was  whether  the  

Government  of  Andhra  Pradesh  while  framing  the  1979  

circular in terms of Presidential Order issued in 1974 under  

Article  371-D of  the  Constitution  of  India  was  bound  to  

provide  reservation  for  15%  of  non-local  seats,  although  

reservation in terms of the policy decision had been taken in  

respect  of  the  seats  available  for  local  candidates.   It  is  

worth mentioning here that the controversy had travelled to  

this Court questioning the validity of the policy of the State  

of  Andhra  Pradesh  as  regards  the  non-reservation  of  

scheduled castes,  scheduled tribes  and backward classes  

within  15%  that  has  been  separately  demarcated.   The  

learned  Single  Judge  of  the  High  Court  had  directed  to  

reserve 15% seats reserved for the reserved category.  The  

Division Bench in Letters Patent appeal noted the conflict of  16  (2003) 5 SCC 350

4

Page 42

views in earlier Division Bench judgments and referred the  

matter  to  the  Full  Bench  on  the  issue  whether  the  

reservations in terms of Article 15(4) of the Constitution of  

India in favour of  scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and  

backward classes could be provided in respect of 15% of the  

unreserved seats under the Presidential Order, 1974.   The  

Full  Bench  analyzing  the  law  in  the  field  dismissed  the  

appeals.  This Court dealing with the controversy referred to  

Article  371-D of  the  Constitution,  the  Presidential  Order,  

reproduced various paragraphs from the same, took note of  

the  1979  circular  issued  by  the  Government  of  Andhra  

Pradesh, noted the submissions of  the learned counsel for  

the  parties,  took  into  consideration  the  formation  of  

Universities by the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh after  

the Presidential Order and stated thus:-

“10. A bare perusal of the definition of local area  read with paras 3,  4 and 5 of  the  Presidential  Order,  as  referred  to  hereinbefore,  it  would  be  evident  that  85% of  the  seats  are  reserved  for  local candidates in relation to local areas.  So far  as  a  university  area  is  concerned,  a  local  candidate in one particular university area would  be  a  non-local  one  in  another.  The  criteria  for  admission of  a candidate  in the superspeciality  courses in the university on the ground of being  local or non-local is, therefore directly referable to  

4

Page 43

the university area and not the boundaries of the  State of Andhra Pradesh.

11. ...... In the matter of admission, the Health  University had followed the procedure provided in  Annexure  III  of  GOP No.  646  dated  10-7-1979  having regard to the fact that by reason of the  Presidential  Order,  1974 only  85% of  the seats  are  reserved  in  favour  of  the  local  candidates  which  are  required  to  be  confined  to  the  university area only.  We, thus, do not find any  legal  infirmity  in  the  action  of  the  appellants  herein  in  directing  that  15%  reserved  for  candidates of non-local area may be filled up only  on merit.

12. Article  371-D  of  the  Constitution  of  India  contains  a  special  provision  applicable  to  the  State of Andhra Pradesh only. 54% of seats are  required to be filled up from open categories and  46% of seats are to be filled up from the reserved  category candidates in each of the three regions  from  the  medical  colleges  and  engineering  colleges. Having regard to the reservations made  regionwise, indisputably 85% of seats are to be  filled up from amongst local candidates whereas  only  15%  of  seats  are  to  be  filled  up  from  amongst outside candidates.”

[Emphasis Supplied]

26. Be it noted, it was contended on behalf of the appellant  

therein that the High Court had committed a manifest error  

by directing for  reservation of  seats  for  reserved category  

from  15%  open  seats  also  on  the  ground  that  such  a  

reservation  would  exceed  50%  which  is  not  permissible.  

4

Page 44

The Court referred to the Presidential Order and eventually  

opined thus:-

“In the event, the ratio of the impugned judgment  of the High Court is given effect to having regard  to  the  limited  number  of  seats  available  by  providing  reservation  of  an  additional  seat,  principle  of  reservation  to  the  extent  is  50%  would be violated. Furthermore, it is not for the  High Court to say as to the efficacy or otherwise  of the policy of the State as regards providing for  reservation for the reserved category candidates  and in that view of the matter the High Court, in  our opinion must be held to have committed a  manifest  error  in  issuing  the  impugned  directions,  as  a  result  whereof  percentage  of  reservation would exceed 46%. Such a direction  by the High Court is not contemplated in law.”

27. Though the said authority had understood local area  

and the boundaries of the State, it was instructive to refer to  

the  said  passage.   It  is  clear  that  it  was  addressing  the  

controversy  as  regards  the  15%  but  dealing  with  the  

reservation of scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and other  

backward  classes  within  the  said  15% percentage  in  the  

context of instructions/circular of 1979 issued by the State  

Government. The aforesaid decision makes it graphically  

clear that the 85% reservation has been in respect of local  

areas  and  non-locals  area  is  directly  referable  to  the  

University area.   One has to bear in mind that  the local  

4

Page 45

areas  and  local  candidates  have  been  defined  in  the  

Presidential  Order  and  it  also  empowers  the  State  

Government to issue appropriate directions for the purpose  

of giving effect to the Presidential Order.  In pursuance of  

the power conferred in the said Presidential Order, the State  

Government has issued the Circular in 1979.  The Circular,  

as is manifest, reiterates the definitions of “local area” and  

“local  candidates”  and  simultaneously  it  also  lays  the  

postulate  the  manner  of  implementation of  reservation of  

local candidates as stipulated in the Presidential Order.  As  

far as 15% of the available seats which are kept unreserved  

in terms of Presidential Order, the State Government relies  

on the power conferred on it that the 15% of the available  

seats are kept unreserved subject to the control of the State  

Government.   The  State  Government  has  clarified  the  

position  about  the  local  candidates  in  respect  of  15% as  

provided  in  the  Presidential  Order.   It  covers  certain  

categories but the cavil does not relate to the same.  In fact,  

on a keen scrutiny, it is demonstrable that it engulfs certain  

categories which takes within its umbrella such candidates  

who are working in the State of Andhra Pradesh in certain  

4

Page 46

State  Government or Central  Government or  other  public  

undertakings or the candidates whose spouses are in the  

employment of the State or Central Government or public  

sector corporation, etc.  It does not refer to candidates who  

are from outside.  That is the only interpretation which can  

be placed on the circular.  It is the situation in vogue in the  

State of Andhra Pradesh since 1979 and in the absence of  

any challenge to the circular, there is no need to get into it.  

Therefore,  reference to  the other  Acts,  Rules,  Regulations  

which have been so done by Mr. Marlapalle do not require to  

be dwelt upon.   

28. One  aspect  that  has  been  highlighted  by  Mr.  

Marlapalle  that  almost  27  years  back,  this  Court  in  C.  

Surekha  (supra) had expressed the view that the scheme  

indicated in Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra) is in national interest  

and competition at the national level is bound to add to and  

improve quality and Ahdra Pradesh students on the whole  

are not at all backward and they would stand well on the  

comparative  basis.  The  need  for  assimilation  of  the  

principles stated in Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra) was felt and it  

was  observed  that  there  should  be  an  appropriate  

4

Page 47

amendment  of  the  Presidential  Order.   However,  as  the  

Court cannot do it, it left to the competent authorities.   

29. In this context, the decisions that have been cited by  

the learned counsel for the petitioner become relevant.  In  

Preeti  Srivastava (supra),  the  Constitution  Bench  

expressed that the object of Article 15(4) is to advance the  

equality  of  principle  by  providing  for  protective  

discrimination in favour of the weaker sections so that they  

may become stronger and may be able to compete equally  

with others more fortunate, but simultaneously one cannot  

ignore  the  wider  interests  of  society  while  devising  such  

special provisions.   The Court highlighted on the concept of  

national  interest  such  as  promoting  excellence  at  the  

highest level and providing the best talent in the country  

with  the  maximum  available  facilities  to  excel  and  

contribute to society which are also to be borne in mind.  

Analysing further, the majority stated thus:-

“In  the  case  of  Dr  Jagadish  Saran v.  Union  of  India this  Court  observed  that  at  the  highest  scales of speciality, the best skill or talent must  be  hand-picked  by  selection  according  to  capability.  Losing  a  potential  great  scientist  or  technologist would be a national loss. That is why  the Court  observed that  the higher the level  of  education the  lesser  should  be  the  reservation.  

4

Page 48

There are similar observations in Dr Pradeep Jain  v. Union of India. Undoubtedly, Dr Pradeep Jain v.  Union of  India did  not  deal  with  reservation in  favour  of  the  Scheduled  Castes  and  the  Scheduled  Tribes.  It  dealt  with  reservation  in  favour  of  residents  and  students  of  the  same  University. Nevertheless it correctly extended the  principle laid down in Dr Jagadish Saran v. Union  of India to these kinds of reservation also, holding  that  at  the  highest  levels  of  medical  education  excellence  cannot  be  compromised  to  the  detriment  of  the  nation.  Admissions  to  the  highest available medical courses in the country  at  the  superspeciality  levels,  where  even  the  facilities for  training are limited, must be given  only on the basis of competitive merit. There can  be no relaxation at this level.”

30. In  Saurabh Chaudri  (supra), the core question that  

arose for consideration centered around the constitutional  

validity  of  reservation  whether  based  on  domicile  or  

institution  in  the  matter  of  admission  into  post-graduate  

courses in Government run medical colleges.  In the said  

case,  the  court  referred  to  the  writ  petition  filed  by  the  

candidates who were residents of Delhi.  They had joined  

various medical colleges within Delhi for undertaking their  

MBBS courses  against  the  15% all-India  quota  on  being  

qualified  in  the  All-India  Entrance  Examination.   They  

intended  to  join  medical  colleges  in  Delhi  for  their  post-

graduate  medical  courses.   They  were  issued  admission  

4

Page 49

forms regard  being  had  to  the  decision  in  Parag Gupta  

(Dr.) v. University of Delhi17.  The University also informed  

them that the candidates would be entitled to admission in  

the  post-graduate  courses  subject  to  the  decision  in  the  

matter  pending before  this  Court  in  Magan Mehrotra v.  

Union of India18.   

31. In  Magan Mehrotra (supra) a three-Judge Bench of  

this  Court  held  that  reservation  by  way  of  institutional  

preference be maintained but also directed certain States to  

follow the pattern of institutional preferences as has been  

indicated in  Dr.  Pradeep Jain (supra).   Delhi  University  

issued a notification on the basis of the judgment rendered  

in  Magan Mehrotra (supra).  The writ petitioners assailed  

the notification issued by the Delhi University as reservation  

was made by way of institutional preference for admission  

to post graduate courses.  After the decision was rendered  

in  Magan Mehrotra (supra),  a  two-Judge Bench referred  

the matter to a three-Judge Bench which ultimately directed  

it to be placed before a five-Judge Bench.  The reservation of  

any kind,  namely,  residence or institutional  preference in  

17  (2000) 5 SCC 684 18  (2003) 11 SCC 186

4

Page 50

the  constitutional  backdrop  was  the  subject  matter  of  

assail.   The  first  question  posed  for  consideration  was  

whether  the  reservation  on  the  basis  of  a  domicile  is  

permissible  in  terms  of  Clause  1  of  Article  15  of  the  

Constitution of India.  The Court referred to the decision in  

D.P. Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat19 and State of U.P.  

v.  Pradip  Tandon20,  and  answered  the  issue  in  the  

negative.  The second issue that the Court addressed was  

whether  reservation  by  way  of  institutional  preference  

comes within the suspected classification warranting strict  

scrutiny test.  The Court referred to Ram Krishna Dalmia  

v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar21 and various other authorities  

and opined that no case had been made out for invoking the  

doctrine of strict construction or intermediate construction.  

The third issue that the Court dwelled upon was whether  

the  reservation  by  institutional  preference  is  valid.   The  

Court  referred  to  the  authorities  in  Jagadish  Saran  

(supra), Dr. D.P. Joshi (supra), Chitra Ghosh v. Union of  

India22 and various other  decisions including that  of  Dr.  

Pradeep Jain (supra) and opined that in Dr. Pradeep Jain  19  (1955) 1 SCR 1215 = AIR 1955 SC 334 20  (1975) 1 SCC 267 21  AIR 1958 SC 538 22  (1969) 2 SCC 228

5

Page 51

(supra) a distinction was made between the undergraduate  

course i.e. MBBS course and post-graduate medical course  

as  also  super  specialist  courses  and,  therefore,  the  said  

authority sought to strike a balance of rights and interests  

of concerned.  The Constitution Bench took note of the fact  

that the percentage of seats to be allotted on all-India basis,  

however,  came  to  be  modified  in  Dr.  Dinesh  Kumar  

(supra).   It  also  took  note  of  the  fact  that  the  directions  

issued  from  time  to  time  regulating  the  admissions  in  

different courses of study in the said case, the deviation of  

the said dicta by the two-Judge Bench in Dr. Parag Gupta  

(supra) wherein it created reservation on domicile which was  

forbidden in  Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra).  The larger Bench  

also referred to the authority in  AIIMS Students’ Union v  

AIIMS23,  T.M.  Pai  Foundation v.  State  of  Karnataka24  

and eventually held as follows:-

70. We, therefore, do not find any reason to depart  from the ratio laid down by this Court in Dr Pradeep  Jain.  The  logical  corollary  of  our  finding  is  that  reservation by way of institutional preference must  be  held  to  be  not  offending  Article  14  of  the  Constitution of India.

23  (2002) 1 SCC 428 24  (2002) 8 SCC 481

5

Page 52

71. However,  the  test  to  uphold  the  validity  of  a  statute  on  equality  must  be  judged  on  the  touchstone of reasonableness. It was noticed in  Dr  Pradeep Jain case that reservation to the extent of  50%  was  held  to  be  reasonable.  Although  subsequently, in  Dr Dinesh Kumar (II) case25 it was  reduced  to  25%  of  the  total  seats.  The  said  percentage of reservation was fixed keeping in view  the  situation  as  then  existing.  The  situation  has  now changed to a great extent. Twenty years have  passed. The country has during this time produced  a  large  number  of  postgraduate  doctors.  Our  Constitution  is  organic  in  nature.  Being  a  living  organ, it is ongoing and with the passage of time,  law must change. Horizons of constitutional law are  expanding.

32. In  Nikhil Himthani  (supra), the Court was dealing  

with the grievance that related to equality in the matter of  

admissions to post-graduate medical course in the medical  

college in the State of Uttarakahand guaranteed by Article  

14  of  the  Constitution  which  was  violated  by  the  

respondents.   After  noting  the contentions  of  the  learned  

counsel  for  the  parties,  the  Court  referred  to  the  

Constitution Bench judgment in Saurabh Chaudri  (supra)  

and the pronouncements in  Jagadish Saran  (supra) and  

Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra) and came to hold thus:-

“We now come to Clauses 2 and 3 of the eligibility  criteria  in  the  Information  Bulletin.  Under  Clauses 2 and 3, a domicile of Uttarakhand who  

25  (1986) 3 SCC 727

5

Page 53

has passed MBBS from a medical college of some  other State having been admitted either through  the  15%  all-India  quota  or  through  the  pre- medical test conducted by the State Government  concerned has been made eligible for admission  to  a  postgraduate  medical  course  in  the  State  quota.  Obviously,  a  candidate  who  is  not  a  domicile of Uttarakhand State is not eligible for  admission  to  the  postgraduate  course  under  Clauses  2  and  3  of  the  eligibility  criteria.  Preference, therefore is given only on the basis of  residence or domicile in the State of Uttarakhand  under Clauses 2 and 3 of the eligibility criteria  and such preference on the basis of residence or  domicile  within  a  State  has  been  held  to  be  violative  of  Article  14  of  the  Constitution  in  Pradeep  Jain v.  Union  of  India and  Magan  Mehrotra v. Union of India.

33. In  Vishal  Goel (supra),  the  two-Judge  Bench  

reiterated  the  principle  laid  down  in  Nikhil  Himthani  

(supra).

34. At this juncture, we may also refer to the Constitution  

Bench  decision  in  Faculty  Association  of All  India  

Institute of Medical Sciences v. Union of India26.  In the  

said case issue arose about the applicability of reservation  

in respect of speciality and super speciality faculty posts in  

all-India  Institute  of  Medical  Sciences.   The  matter  was  

referred to a larger Bench by the three-Judge Bench in view  

of the decisions rendered in  Jagadish Saran  (supra),  Dr.  

26  (2013) 11 SCC 246

5

Page 54

Pradeep  Jain  (supra)  and  Indra  Sawhney  v.  Union of  

India27.   The  Constitution  Bench  after  noting  various  

contentions ruled that:-

“22. Although  the  matter  has  been  argued  at  some  length,  the  main  issue  raised  regarding  reservation  at  the  superspeciality  level  has  already been considered in  Indra Sawhney case  by  a  nine-Judge  Bench  of  this  Court.  Having  regard to such decision,  we are not  inclined to  take any view other than the view expressed by  the nine-Judge Bench on the issue. Apart from  the decisions rendered by this Court in Jagadish  Saran case and Pradeep Jain case, the issue also  fell  for  consideration  in  Preeti  Srivastava  case  which  was  also  decided  by  a  Bench  of  five  Judges.  While  in  Jagadish  Saran  case and  in  Pradeep Jain case it was categorically held that  there could be no compromise with merit at the  superspeciality stage, the same sentiments were  also expressed in Preeti Srivastava case as well.

23. In  Preeti  Srivastava  case,  the  Constitution  Bench had an occasion to consider Regulation 27  of  the  Post  Graduate  Institute  of  Medical  Education  and  Research,  Chandigarh  Regulations, 1967, whereby 20% of seats in every  course  of  study  in  the  institute  was  to  be  reserved  for  candidates  belonging  to  the  Scheduled  Castes,  Scheduled  Tribes  or  other  categories  of  persons,  in  accordance  with  the  general  rules  of  the  Central  Government  promulgated from time to time. The Constitution  Bench came to the conclusion that Regulation 27  could  not  have  any  application  at  the  highest  level of superspeciality as this would defeat the  very object of imparting the best possible training  to  selected  meritorious  candidates,  who  could  

27  (1992) Supp (3) 217

5

Page 55

contribute  to  the advancement  of  knowledge in  the field of medical research and its applications.  Their Lordships ultimately went on to hold that  there could not be any type of relaxation at the  superspeciality level.”

35. Be  it  noted,  the  Court  laid  immense  emphasis  on  

paragraph 836 of Indra Sawhney (supra) wherein the nine-

Judge Bench has observed:-

“...that  there  were  certain  services  and  posts  where either on account of the nature of duties  attached to them or the level in the hierarchy at  which  they  stood,  merit  alone  counts.  In  such  situations,  it  cannot  be  advised  to  provide  for  reservations.  In  the  paragraph  following,  the  position was made even more clear when Their  Lordships observed that they were of the opinion  that  in  certain  services  in  respect  of  certain  posts, application of rule of reservation may not  be advisable in regard to various technical posts  including  posts  in  superspeciality  in  medicine,  engineering  and  other  scientific  and  technical  posts.”

36. Thereafter, the Court proceeded to state further:-

“We cannot take a different view, even though it  has been suggested that such an observation was  not  binding,  being obiter  in nature.  We cannot  ascribe to such a view since the very concept of  reservation implies mediocrity and we will have to  take  note  of  the  caution  indicated  in  Indra  Sawhney  case.  While  reiterating  the  views  expressed  by  the  nine-Judge  Bench  in  Indra  Sawhney case, we dispose of the two civil appeals  in  the  light  of  the  said  views,  which were  also  expressed in  Jagadish Saran case,  Pradeep Jain  

5

Page 56

case,  Preeti  Srivastava  case.  We  impress  upon  the  Central  and  State  Governments  to  take  appropriate  steps in accordance with the views  expressed  in  Indra  Sawhney  case and  in  this  case,  as  also  the  other  decisions  referred  to  above, keeping in mind the provisions of Article  335 of the Constitution.”

37. We have referred to the aforesaid judgments in extenso  

as learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have laid  

immense emphasis that there cannot be reservation of any  

kind in respect of post-graduate or super speciality courses  

regard being had to the law laid down by many a judgment  

of this Court.  It is urged that the State of Andhra Pradesh  

and Telangana cannot apply the domicile test only to admit  

its own students and that too also in respect of 15% quota  

meant for non-local candidates.  We have already analysed  

the  factual  score  and  the  legal  position.   The  undivided  

State of Andhra Pradesh enjoys a special privilege granted to  

it  under  Article  371-D  of  the  Constitution  and  the  

Presidential Order.  The judgments of the larger Bench do  

not  refer  to  the  said  Article  nor  do  they  refer  to  the  

Presidential  Order, for the said issue did not arise in the  

said cases.  A scheme has been laid down in the case of Dr.  

Pradeep Jain (supra) and the concept of  percentage had  

5

Page 57

undergone certain changes.   In  Reita Nirankari (supra),  

the same three-Judge Bench clarified the position which we  

have  already  reproduced  hereinbefore.   However,  in  C.  

Surekha (supra), the Court had expressed its view about  

the amendment of the Presidential Order regard being had  

to the passage of time and the advancement in the State of  

Andhra  Pradesh.   It  has  been  vehemently  urged  by  Mr.  

Marlapalle that despite 27 years having been elapsed, the  

situation  remains  the  same.    We  take  note  of  the  said  

submission and we are also inclined to echo the observation  

that  was  made  in  the  case  of  Fazal  Ghafoor (supra)  

wherein it has been stated thus:-

“In Dr Pradeep Jain case this Court has observed  that in Super Specialities there should really be  no reservation. This is so in the general interest  of the country and for improving the standard of  higher  education  and  thereby  improving  the  quality of available medical services to the people  of India. We hope and trust that the Government  of  India  and  the  State  Governments  shall  seriously  consider  this  aspect  of  the  matter  without delay and appropriate guidelines shall be  evolved by the Indian Medical  Council  so as to  keep the Super Specialities in medical education  unreserved, open and free.”

38. The  fond  hope  has  remained  in  the  sphere  of  hope  

though  there  has  been  a  progressive  change.   The  said  

5

Page 58

privilege remains unchanged, as if to compete with eternity.  

Therefore,  we  echo  the  same  feeling  and  reiterate  the  

aspirations  of  others  so  that  authorities  can  objectively  

assess  and  approach  the  situation  so  that  the  national  

interest can become paramount.  We do not intend to add  

anything in this regard.   

39. Consequently, the writ petition as far as it pertains to  

the State of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, is dismissed.  

As  regards  State  of  Tamil  Nadu,  the  matter  be  listed  on  

November 4, 2015 for hearing.  

.............................J. [Dipak Misra]

..........................., J.     [Prafulla C. Pant]

New Delhi October 27, 2015

5