1 REPORTABLE    

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION  

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 196 OF 2018      

TAMIL NADU MEDICAL OFFICERS   ASSOCIATION AND ORS.                          .... PETITIONERS  

           VERSUS  

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                                ..... RESPONDENTS        

WITH  

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 252 OF 2018    

WITH  

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 295 OF 2018    

AND  

WITH  

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 293 OF 2018     

                                             2   

O R D E R   

Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J  

1 The judgment rendered by a three judge Bench in State of Uttar Pradesh  

v Dinesh Singh Chauhan1, construed the provisions of Regulations 9(IV) and  

9(VII) of the Medical Council of India Post-Graduate Medical Education  

Regulations 2000, as amended on 15 February 2012. In the present batch of  

cases, a Bench of three Judges opined, by an order dated 13 April 2018, that these  

petitions require consideration by a larger Bench.   

2 In making this reference, the referring order primarily indicated the following  

reasons :  

(i) The decision in Dinesh Singh Chauhan has not considered the entries in  

the legislative lists of the Seventh Schedule, more particularly Entry 66 of  

the Union List and Entry 25 of the Concurrent List;  

(ii) The main contention of the petitioners is that while coordination and  

determination of standards in institutions for higher education falls within the  

exclusive domain of the Union (Entry 66 List I), medical education is a  

subject in the Concurrent List (Entry 25 List III). Though, Entry 25 of List III  

is subject to Entry 66 of List I, the State is not denuded of its power to  

                                                           1 (2016) 9 SCC 749

                                             3   

legislate on the manner and method of making admissions to post-graduate  

medical courses;  

(iii) The contentions which have been raised in the present batch of petitions  

were not addressed before this Court in Dinesh Singh Chauhan;  

(iv) The judgment in Dinesh Singh Chauhan does not consider three decisions  

of the Constitution Bench in R Chitralekha v State of Mysore2, Kumari  

Chitra Ghosh v Union of India3 and Modern Dental College and  

Research Centre v State of Madhya Pradesh4; and  

(v) There are decisions rendered by Benches of an equal strength as in Dinesh  

Singh Chauhan.  

3 While making a reference to a larger Bench, the referring order observed  

that it would be “appropriate that even the interim relief should be considered by  

the larger Bench”. Accordingly, on the directions of the learned Chief Justice, the  

proceedings have been placed before the Constitution Bench to consider the  

question of interim relief.   

4 We have heard Mr Arvind Datar and Mr K V Vishwanathan, learned Senior  

Counsel for the petitioners, Mr Aman Lekhi, learned Additional Solicitor General  

and Mr A K Sinha, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents - Union of India,  

                                                           2 ((1964) 6 SCR 368  3 (1969) 2 SCC 228  4 (2016) 7 SCC 353

                                             4   

Mr Vikas Singh learned Senior Counsel for the MCI and Mr V Giri, learned Senior  

Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu.     

5 In Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association v Union of India5, the  

following reliefs have been sought :  

“(a) Declare by issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other  

suitable writ/order/direction that Regulation 9 of the Post-

Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 (more  

particularly, Regulation 9(iv) and 9(vii), does not take away the  

power of the States under Entry 25, List III to provide for a  

separate source of entry for in-service candidates seeking  

admission to Degree Courses;  

(b) Alternatively, if Regulation 9 of the Post Graduate Medical  

Regulations,  2000 is understood to not allow for States to  

provide for a separate source of entry for in-service candidates  

seeking admission to Degree Courses, declare by issuance of  

a writ of mandamus or any other suitable writ/order/direction,  

Regulation 9 (more particularly, Regulations 9(iv) and 9 (vii) as  

being arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and  

Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and also ultra vires the  

provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956;”    

6 The interim prayer is that this Court should stay the operation of Regulation  

9 of the Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations 2000, to the extent that it  

is deemed to prohibit the states from providing a separate source of entry to in-

service candidates seeking admission to post-graduate degree courses. A  

direction has been sought permitting the State of Tamil Nadu to implement its  

                                                           5 WP (C) No. 196 of 2018

                                             5   

policy of providing for a separate source of entry to in-service candidates for  

admissions to post-graduate degree courses for academic year 2018-2019.  

7 Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submit that  

since 1989, the State of Tamil Nadu has had a policy of providing a separate  

source of entry to in-service candidates to the extent of 50 per cent of the state’s  

seats in degree courses. Further, since 2007 the State of Tamil Nadu has, by a  

government order, provided a preferential weightage to those in-service  

candidates who have served in rural, hilly and difficult areas. This policy has been  

adopted to ensure the provision of adequate healthcare facilities in government  

hospitals particularly in rural, hilly and difficult locations. In this backdrop, the  

following submissions have been urged :  

(i) Though, Entry 25 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution  

(“education, including..medical education..”) is subject to the provisions of  

Entry 66 of State List I (“coordination and determination of standards in  

institutions for higher education”), the state is not denuded of its power to  

determine the manner or method for making admissions to post-graduate  

medical courses;  

(ii) The relationship between Entry 66 of List I and Entry 25 of List III has been  

considered by three Constitution Bench decisions of this Court in                           

R Chitralekha, Kumari Chitra Ghosh and Modern Dental College (supra);

                                             6   

(iii) In its decisions in K Duraisamy v State of Tamil Nadu6, AIIMS Students’  

Union v AIIMS7 and State of M P v Gopal D Tirthani8, this Court has upheld  

the right of the State Governments to set apart a definite percentage of seats  

at the post-graduate level in degree and diploma courses with a separate  

source of entry for a defined classes of persons. The exercise of such a power  

has been held to be valid so long as it is based on a legitimate classification;  

(iv)  The classification between in-service doctors in government and others is  

reasonable and has a nexus with the object of ensuring adequate and  

affordable healthcare facilities in the public sector; and  

(v)  The interpretation placed on Regulation 9 in Dinesh Singh Chauhan that  

reservation for in-service candidates in post-graduate degree courses is not  

permissible since it has been provided only for diploma courses under  

Regulation 9(VII) requires reconsideration for the following reasons :  

(a)  There is no express or implied bar in Regulation 9, prohibiting the State  

under Entry 25 of List III from providing a separate channel of entry to  

in-service candidates. On the contrary, the grant of preference to in-

service candidates is perceived to be a laudable object by virtue of the  

proviso to Regulations 9(IV) and 9(VII);  

(b)  An implied inclusion cannot be inferred in regard to the states providing  

reservations for in-service candidates in degree courses merely on the  

basis that Regulation 9(VII) provides a reservation for diploma courses;  

                                                           6 (2001) 2 SCC 538  7 (2002) 1 SCC 428  8 (2003) 7 SCC 83

                                             7   

(c) While holding that Regulation 9 is a complete code in itself, the decision  

in Dinesh Singh Chauhan has not appropriately dealt with the  

decisions in Sudhir N v State of Kerala9 and Gopal D Tirthani (supra);  

(d) Providing a separate source of entry for in-service candidates would not  

result in a lowering of standards prescribed by the Medical Council of  

India10 since all eligible candidates would have met the minimum  

qualifying marks in the NEET examination and admissions would take  

place on the inter se merit of in-service candidates; and  

(e) In its decision in Modern Dental College and Research Centre, the  

Constitution Bench has observed that a State being responsible for the  

welfare and development of its residents, it is the prerogative of the  

State to adopt appropriate steps;  

(f) Merely providing a weightage for in-service candidates in degree  

courses will not ensure that an adequate number of in-service  

candidates qualify, having regard to the difficulties faced by such  

candidates while working in difficult conditions.  

Since counselling in the first round has already taken place, it has been  

submitted that interim orders are necessary to ensure that States are  

not precluded from providing a separate source of entry to in-service  

candidates in post-graduate degree courses.  

8 On the other hand, it has been submitted on behalf of the Union of India and  

MCI that Entry 25 of List III is expressly subject to Entry 66 of List I. Hence, the  

authority of the States under Article 246 to legislate on medical education is subject  

                                                           9 (2015) 6 SCC 685  10 The MCI

                                             8   

to the overriding authority of the Union in matters relating to the coordination and  

determination of standards in higher education. Regulation 9 is a complete code  

in itself. Regulation 9(iv) provides an incentive to in-service candidates at the rate  

of 10 per cent of the marks obtained, for each year of service in remote and/or  

difficult areas upto a maximum 30 per cent of the marks obtained in the NEET  

examination. MCI, as an expert policy making authority constituted under central  

legislation, has formulated statutory regulations under which only incentive marks  

can be granted for in-service candidates in post-graduate degree admissions to  

medical courses. In the considered view of the Union government and MCI, the  

grant of reservations or a separate source of entry for in-service candidates would  

directly impinge on the authority of MCI to coordinate and determine standards of  

medical education.  The decision in Dinesh Singh Chauhan specifically construes  

the provisions of the Regulation 9 as amended in 2012. The grant of any interim  

relief at this stage cannot be contemplated so long as the three judge Bench  

decision holds the field. Prescribing a separate source of entry for in-service  

degree candidates would, in the submission of the MCI, directly result in a lowering  

of standards in medical education. Merit would be compromised and the  

prescription of criteria under Entry 66 of List I would be a casualty.   

9 Rule 9, as amended on 15 February 2012, reads as follows :  

“9. Procedure for selection of candidate for postgraduate courses  

shall be as follows.—

                                             9   

(I) There shall be a single eligibility-cum-entrance examination,  

namely, “National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for admission to  

Postgraduate Medical Courses” in each academic year. The  

superintendence, direction and control of National Eligibility-

cum-Entrance Test shall vest with National Board of  

Examinations under overall supervision of the Ministry of Health  

& Family Welfare, Government of India.  

(II) 3% seats of the annual sanctioned intake capacity shall be filled  

up by candidates with locomotory disability of lower limbs  

between 50% to 70%:  

Provided that in case any seat in this 3% quota remains  

unfilled on account of unavailability of candidates with  

locomotory disability of lower limbs between 50% to 70%  

then any such unfilled seat in this 3% quota shall be filled  

up by persons with locomotory disability of lower limbs  

between 40% to 50% before they are included in the  

annual sanctioned seats for general category  

candidates:  

Provided further that this entire exercise shall be  

completed by each medical college/institution as per the  

statutory time schedule for admissions.  

(III) In order to be eligible for admission to any postgraduate course  

in a particular academic year, it shall be necessary for a  

candidate to obtain minimum of marks at 50th percentile in  

“National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test for Postgraduate  

courses” held for the said academic year. However, in respect  

of candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the  

Scheduled Tribes, the Other Backward Classes, the minimum  

marks shall be at 40th percentile. In respect of candidates as  

provided in clause (II) above with locomotory disability of lower  

limbs, the minimum marks shall be at 45th percentile. The  

percentile shall be determined on the basis of highest marks  

secured in the all-India common merit list in “National Eligibility-

cum-Entrance Test” for postgraduate courses:  

Provided when sufficient number of candidates in the respective  

categories fail to secure minimum marks as prescribed in  

National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test held for any academic  

year for admission to postgraduate courses, the Central  

Government in consultation with the Medical Council of India  

may at its discretion lower the minimum marks required for  

admission to postgraduate course for candidates belonging to  

respective categories and marks so lowered by the Central  

Government shall be applicable for the said academic year only.  

(IV) The reservation of seats in medical colleges/institutions for  

respective categories shall be as per applicable laws prevailing

                                             10   

in States/Union Territories. An all-India merit list as well as  

State-wise merit list of the eligible candidates shall be prepared  

on the basis of the marks obtained in National Eligibility-cum-

Entrance Test and candidates shall be admitted to postgraduate  

courses from the said merit lists only:  

Provided that in determining the merit of candidates who are in  

service of Government/public authority, weightage in the marks  

may be given by the Government/competent authority as an  

incentive at the rate of 10% of the marks obtained for each year  

of service in remote and/or difficult areas up to the maximum of  

30% of the marks obtained in National Eligibility-cum-Entrance  

Test, the remote and difficult areas shall be as defined by the  

State Government/competent authority from time to time.  

(V) No candidate who has failed to obtain the minimum eligibility  

marks as prescribed in clause (II) above shall be admitted to  

any postgraduate courses in the said academic year.  

(VI) In non-governmental medical colleges/institutions, 50% (fifty  

per cent) of the total seats shall be filled by the State  

Government or the Authority appointed by them, and the  

remaining 50% (fifty per cent) of the seats shall be filled by the  

medical colleges/institutions concerned on the basis of the merit  

list prepared as per the marks obtained in National Eligibility-

cum-Entrance Test.  

(VII) 50% of the seats in postgraduate diploma courses shall  

be reserved for medical officers in the government service, who  

have served for at least three years in remote and/or difficult  

areas. After acquiring the PG diploma, the medical officers shall  

serve for two more years in remote and/or difficult areas as  

defined by State Government/competent authority from time to  

time.  

(VIII) The Universities and other authorities concerned shall  

organise admission process in such a way that teaching in  

postgraduate courses starts by 2nd May and by 1st August for  

super specialty courses each year. For this purpose, they shall  

follow the time schedule indicated in Appendix III.  

(IX) There shall be no admission of students in respect of any  

academic session beyond 31st May for postgraduate courses  

and 30th September for super specialty courses under any  

circumstances. The Universities shall not register any student  

admitted beyond the said date.  

(X) The Medical Council of India may direct, that any student  

identified as having obtained admission after the last date for  

closure of admission be discharged from the course of study, or  

any medical qualification granted to such a student shall not be  

a recognized qualification for the purpose of the Indian Medical

                                             11   

Council Act, 1956. The institution which grants admission to any  

student after the last date specified for the same shall also be  

liable to face such action as may be prescribed by MCI including  

surrender of seats equivalent to the extent of such admission  

made from its sanctioned intake capacity for the succeeding  

academic year.”                               (Id at pages 764-766)  

Entry 66 of List I provides thus :  

“66. Coordination and determination of standards in institutions  

for higher education or research and scientific and technical  

institutions.”  

Entry 25 of List III provides thus :   

“25. Education, including technical education, medical education and  

universities, subject to the provisions of Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of  

List I; vocational and technical training of labour.”   

10 In Modern Dental College and Research Centre (supra), a Constitution  

Bench of this Court held that the expression “coordination and determination of  

standards” means laying down standards. Hence, when it comes to prescribing the  

standards for institutions of higher learning, the exclusive domain is given to the  

Union. Dr Justice A K Sikri speaking for the Constitution Bench held thus :   

“102. Most educational activities, including admissions, have two  

aspects: the first deals with the adoption and setting up the  

minimum standards of education. The objective in prescribing  

minimum standards is to provide a benchmark of the calibre and  

quality of education being imparted by various educational  

institutions in the entire country. Additionally, the coordination of

                                             12   

the standards of education determined nationwide is ancillary to  

the very determination of standards. Realising the vast diversity  

of the nation wherein levels of education fluctuated from lack of  

even basic primary education, to institutions of high excellence, it  

was thought desirable to determine and prescribe basic minimum  

standards of education at various levels, particularly at the level  

of research institutions, higher education and technical education  

institutions. As such, while balancing the needs of States to impart  

education as per the needs and requirements of local and regional  

levels, it was essential to lay down a uniform minimum standard  

for the nation. Consequently, the Constitution-makers provided for  

List I Entry 66 with the objective of maintaining uniform standards  

of education in fields of research, higher education and technical  

education.”                                                   (id at page 430)  

Implementing the standards of education determined by Parliament and regulating  

the complete activity of education entails the application of the standards so  

determined. The balance between Entry 66 of List I and Entry 25 of List III has  

been drawn succinctly, on a review of the earlier Constitution Bench decisions,  

thus :  

“104…In Gujarat University [Gujarat University v. Krishna  

Ranganath Mudholkar, AIR 1963 SC 703 : 1963 Supp (1) SCR  

112] , a Bench of five Judges examined the scope of List II  

Entry 11 (which is now List III Entry 25) with reference to List I  

Entry 66. It was held that the power of the State to legislate in  

respect of education to the extent it is entrusted to Parliament,  

is deemed to be restricted. Coordination and determination of  

standards was in the purview of List I and power of the State  

was subject to power of the Union on the said subject. It was  

held that the two entries overlapped to some extent and to the  

extent of overlapping the power conferred by List I Entry 66  

must prevail over power of the State. Validity of a State  

legislation depends upon whether it prejudicially affects  

“coordination or determination of standards”, even in absence  

of a Union legislation. In R. Chitralekha v. State of Mysore [R.  

Chitralekha v. State of Mysore, AIR 1964 SC 1823 : (1964) 6

                                             13   

SCR 368] , the same issue was again considered. It was  

observed that if the impact of the State law is heavy or  

devastating as to wipe out or abridge the Central field, it may  

be struck down. In State of T.N. v. Adhiyaman Educational &  

Research Institute [State of T.N. v. Adhiyaman Educational &  

Research Institute, (1995) 4 SCC 104 : 1 SCEC 682] , it was  

observed that to the extent that State legislation is in conflict  

with the Central legislation under Entry 25, it would be void and  

inoperative. To the same effect is the view taken in Preeti  

Srivastava [Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P., (1999) 7 SCC  

120 : 1 SCEC 742] and State of Maharashtra v. Sant  

Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidyalaya [State of  

Maharashtra v. Sant Dnyaneshwar Shikshan Shastra  

Mahavidyalaya, (2006) 9 SCC 1 : 5 SCEC 637] . Though the  

view taken in State of M.P. v. Nivedita Jain [State of  

M.P. v. Nivedita Jain, (1981) 4 SCC 296] and Ajay Kumar  

Singh v. State of Bihar[Ajay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar,  

(1994) 4 SCC 401] to the effect that admission standards  

covered by List I Entry 66 could apply only post admissions  

was overruled in Preeti Srivastava [Preeti Srivastava v. State  

of M.P., (1999) 7 SCC 120 : 1 SCEC 742] , it was not held that  

the entire gamut of admissions was covered by List I as  

wrongly assumed in Bharati Vidyapeeth [Bharati  

Vidyapeeth v. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 11 SCC 755 : 2  

SCEC 535] .                                              (Id at page 431)  

The Constitution Bench held that while Entry 25 of List III is subject to Entry 66 of  

List I, the entire gamut of admissions is not excluded from the purview of the  

statutes. However, the “exercise of any power under List III Entry 25 has to be  

subject to a Central law referable to Entry 25”.  

11 The provisions of Regulation 9 have been construed by the three judge  

Bench decision in Dinesh Singh Chauhan (supra). The decision, it must be  

emphasised, has construed the amended provisions of Regulation 9. Regulation

                                             14   

9 is held it to be a self-contained code regarding the procedure to be followed for  

admissions to medical courses. In that context, it has been held :   

“24. By now, it is well established that Regulation 9 is a self-

contained code regarding the procedure to be followed for  

admissions to medical courses. It is also well established that the  

State has no authority to enact any law much less by executive  

instructions that may undermine the procedure for admission to  

postgraduate medical courses enunciated by the Central  

legislation and regulations framed thereunder, being a subject  

falling within Schedule VII List I Entry 66 of the Constitution  

(see Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P. [Preeti Srivastava v. State  

of M.P., (1999) 7 SCC 120 : 1 SCEC 742] ). The procedure for  

selection of candidates for the postgraduate degree courses is  

one such area on which the Central legislation and regulations  

must prevail.”                                          (Id at page 766)  

The above statement of the law in Dinesh Singh Chauhan is consistent with the  

principles which have been reaffirmed by the Constitution Bench in Modern Dental  

College and Research Centre. The referring order notes that the decision in  

Modern Dental College and Research Centre was published in the reports after  

the decision in Dinesh Singh Chauhan. In our view, the fundamental basis of the  

three judge Bench decision is in accord with the principles which have been laid  

down by the Constitution Bench.   

12 While interpreting Regulation 9(IV), Dinesh Singh Chauhan holds that the  

reservations referred to in the opening sentence are obviously constitutional  

reservations for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and the socially and

                                             15   

educationally backward classes of citizens and not those for in-service candidates.  

Explaining the proviso to Rule 9 (IV) it has been held :   

“25.4…This provision, however, contains a proviso. It  

predicates that in determining the merit of candidates who are  

in service of the Government or a public authority, weightage  

in the marks may be given by the Government/competent  

authority as an incentive @ 10% of the marks obtained for each  

year of service in specified remote or difficult areas of the State  

up to the maximum of 30% of the marks obtained in NEET.  

This provision even if read liberally does not provide for  

reservation for in-service candidates, but only of giving a  

weightage in the form of incentive marks as specified to the  

class of in-service candidates (who have served in notified  

remote and difficult areas in the State).”     (Id at page 767)  

This interpretation of the proviso plainly follows the natural and ordinary meaning  

of the words used. The proviso to Rule 9(IV) does not contemplate a reservation  

for in-service candidates in post-graduate courses but the grant of incentive marks.  

Dinesh Singh Chauhan has categorically rejected the submission that there is no  

express prohibition on reservations for in-service candidates and hence it would  

be permissible for the State Governments to provide them :  

“27…As there is no express provision prohibiting reservation  

to in-service candidates in respect of admission to  

postgraduate “degree” courses, it was contended that  

providing for such reservation by the State Government is not  

impermissible in law. Further, there are precedents of this  

Court to suggest that such arrangement is permissible as a  

separate channel of admission for in-service candidates. This  

argument does not commend to us. In the first place, the  

decisions pressed into service have considered the provisions  

regarding admission process governed by the regulations in  

force at the relevant time. The admission process in the  

present case is governed by the regulations which have come  

into force from the academic year 2013-2014. This Regulation

                                             16   

is a self-contained code. There is nothing in this Regulation to  

even remotely indicate that a separate channel for admission  

to in-service candidates must be provided, at least in respect  

of postgraduate “degree” courses. In contradistinction,  

however, 50% seats are earmarked for the postgraduate  

“diploma” courses for in-service candidates, as is discernible  

from clause (VII). If the regulation intended a similar separate  

channel for in-service candidates even in respect of  

postgraduate “degree” courses, that position would have been  

made clear in Regulation 9 itself.”         (Id at pages 767-768)  

13 The judgment has noticed that in framing Regulation 9, reservations have  

been provided for in-service candidates of the government in diploma seats.  

Where the delegate of the legislature intended to provide reservations, a specific  

provision has been made, as in Regulation 9(VII). On the other hand, for post-

graduate degree seats, there is only a prescription of incentive marks in Regulation  

9(IV). Noticing that these regulations have been framed by an expert body, it has  

been held thus :   

“35. As aforesaid, the Regulations have been framed by an  expert body based on past experience and including the  necessity to reckon the services and experience gained by the  in-service candidates in notified remote and difficult areas in  the State. The proviso prescribes the measure for giving  incentive marks to in-service candidates who have worked in  notified remote and difficult areas in the State. That can be  termed as a qualitative factor for determining their merit. Even  the quantitative factor to reckon merit of the eligible in-service  candidates is spelt out in the proviso. It envisages giving of  incentive marks @ 10% of the marks obtained for each year of  service in remote and/or difficult areas up to 30% of the marks  obtained in NEET. It is an objective method of linking the  incentive marks to the marks obtained in NEET by the  candidate.”                                           (Id at page 772)  

                                             17   

It may be noted that in arriving at this conclusion, the court has taken due note of  

the decision of the Constitution Bench in Dr Preeti Srivastava v State of M P11   

as well as of the decisions in Tirthani, AIIMS Students’ Union and Sudhir N  

(supra) among other decisions.   

14 The decision in Dinesh Singh Chauhan holds the field. It is based on a  

construction of Regulation 9(IV) which, at least at the present stage, cannot be  

brushed aside. The principle which has been adopted in that decision is consistent  

with the primacy which is attributed by the Constitution to Entry 66 of List I. This is  

the clear intendment of the words “subject to” in Entry 25 of List III. The grant of  

any interim relief at the present stage would amount to a mandatory final order  

which cannot be countenanced. MCI has, as an expert body, proceeded on a  

principled basis. Any attempt at this stage to read into Regulation 9(IV), a separate  

source of entry or a reservation for in-service candidates in degree courses would  

impinge upon Entry 66 of List I and the exercise of regulatory powers under the  

central statute.   

15 For these reasons, we are unable to accede to the prayer for interim relief  

which has been urged on behalf of the petitioners. Interim relief is accordingly  

refused. We, however, clarify that the counselling which takes place shall  

                                                           11(1999) 7 SCC 120

                                             18   

ultimately abide by the result of the reference. I.A. No 33686 of 2018 is disposed  

of accordingly.                       

       …........................................... CJI                                                                       [DIPAK MISRA]     

....................................................J                     [A K SIKRI]        

 ....................................................J                     [A M KHANWILKAR]          

  .....................................................J                    [D Y CHANDRACHUD]        

......................................................J                    [ASHOK BHUSHAN]      

New Delhi;  April 24, 2018.