advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Sunday, April 27, 2014

Art.14 of constitution - admissions to Medical colleges , PG and Dental - Bulletin issued only Karnataka origin eligible to apply - challenged - Apex court held that In the result, we allow the writ petitions, declare sub-clause (a) of clause 2.1 of the two Information Bulletins for post graduate medical and dental courses for PGET-2014 as ultra-vires Article 14 of the Constitution and null and void. = Vishal Goyal & Ors. … Petitioners Versus State of Karnataka & Ors. … Respondents = 2014 ( April.Part ) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41466

       Art.14 of constitution - admissions to Medical colleges , PG and Dental - Bulletin issued only Karnataka origin eligible to apply - challenged -  Apex court held that In the result, we allow the writ petitions, declare sub-clause (a)  of clause 2.1 of the two Information Bulletins for post  graduate  medical  and dental courses for PGET-2014 as ultra-vires Article 14 of  the  Constitution and null and void.  = 
The case of the petitioners is  that  by
virtue of sub-clause (a) of clause 2.1 of  the  two  Information  Bulletins,
they are debarred from appearing in the Entrance  Tests  for  admissions  to
MD/MS/Medical Post Graduate Diploma Courses,  2014  or  to  MDS/Dental  Post
Graduate Diploma Courses, 2014 in the State of Karnataka  even  though  they
have studied MBBS/BDS in institutions  in  the  State  of  Karnataka.   They
have, therefore,  challenged  sub-clause  (a)  of  clause  2.1  of  the  two
Information Bulletins, as ultra vires Article  14  of  the  Constitution  as
interpreted by this Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain and Others v. Union  of  India
and Others [(1984) 3 SCC 654].  They also  contend  that  in  the  aforesaid
case of Dr. Pradeep Jain  (supra),  this  Court  has  held  that  a  certain
percentage  of  seats  must  be  reserved  on  the  basis  of  institutional
preference to enable students who have  passed  MBBS  or  BDS  courses  from
medical or dental colleges in the State of Karnataka  to  get  admission  to
Post Graduate medical or dental courses in the medical  or  dental  colleges
of the State of Karnataka.  The petitioners  have,  therefore,  prayed  that
sub-clause (a) of clause 2.1 of the two Information  Bulletins  be  declared
as ultra vires the Constitution and  appropriate  writs  and  directions  be
issued to the respondents to permit the petitioners to  participate  in  the
admission process of MD/MS/MDS and other Post Graduate  medical  and  dental
courses in the State of Karnataka.=
  In Magan Mehrotra v. Union of India (supra) and Saurabh Chaudri v. Union  of
India (supra) also, this Court  has  approved  the  aforesaid  view  in  Dr.
Pradeep Jain’s Case that excellence  cannot  be  compromised  by  any  other
consideration for the purpose of admission to postgraduate  medical  courses
such as MD/MS and  the  like  because  that  would  be  detrimental  to  the
interests  of  the  nation  and  will  affect  the  right  to  equality   of
opportunity under Article 14 of the Constitution.

10.   Mr. Mariarputham is right that in Saurabh Chaudri v.  Union  of  India
(supra), this Court has held that   institutional preference  can  be  given
by a State, but in the aforesaid decision of Saurabh Chaudri,  it  has  also
been held that decision of the State to give  institutional  preference  can
be invalidated by the Court in the event it is shown that  the  decision  of
the State is ultra vires the right to  equality  under  Article  14  of  the
Constitution.  When we examine sub-clause (a)  of  clause  2.1  of  the  two
Information  Bulletins,  we  find  that  the  expression  “A  candidate   of
Karnataka Origin” who only is eligible to appear for Entrance Test has  been
so defined as to exclude a candidate who has  studied  MBBS  or  BDS  in  an
institution in the State of Karnataka but who does  not  satisfy  the  other
requirements of sub-clause (a) of clause 2.1  of  the  Information  Bulletin
for PGET-2014.  Thus, the institutional preference sought  to  be  given  by
sub-clause (a) of clause 2.1 of the Information Bulletin  for  PGET-2014  is
clearly contrary to the judgment of this Court in Dr.  Pradeep  Jain’s  case
(supra).  To quote from paragraph 22 of the judgment in Dr.  Pradeep  Jain’s
case:


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


Sub-clause (a) of clause 2.1 of  the  two  Information  Bulletins  does  not
actually give institutional preference to students who have passed  MBBS  or
BDS from Colleges or Universities in the State of Karnataka, but makes  some
of them ineligible to take the Entrance Test for admission to Post  Graduate
Medical  or  Dental  courses  in  the  State  of  Karnataka  to  which   the
Information Bulletins apply.

11.   We now come to the  argument  of  Mr.  Mariarputham  that  the  scheme
formulated by this Court in Dr. Dinesh Kumar and  Others  v.  Motilal  Nehru
Medical College, Allahabad and Others (supra) pursuant to  the  judgment  in
Dr. Pradeep Jain’s case (supra) is confined to medical and  dental  colleges
or institutions run by the Union  of  India  or  a  State  Government  or  a
Municipal or other local authority and does not  apply  to  private  medical
and dental colleges or institutions.  Paragraph (1) of the scheme  on  which
Mr. Mariarputham relied on is extracted hereinbelow:


           “(1) In the first  place,  the  Scheme  has  necessarily  to  be
           confined to medical colleges or institutions run by the Union of
           India or a State  Government  or  a  municipal  or  other  local
           authority.  It cannot  apply  to  private  medical  colleges  or
           institutions unless they are instrumentality or  agency  of  the
           State or opt to join the Scheme by making 15  per  cent  of  the
           total number of seats for the MBBS/BDS course and 25 per cent of
           the  total  number  of  seats  for  the  post-graduate   course,
           available for admission on  the  basis  of  All  India  Entrance
           Examination.  Those medical colleges or  institutions  which  we
           have already excepted from the operation of the  judgment  dated
           June 22, 1984 will continue to remain outside the scope  of  the
           Scheme.”

This Court has, thus, said in the aforesaid  paragraph  (1)  of  the  scheme
that the scheme cannot apply to  private  medical  and  dental  colleges  or
institutions unless they are instrumentalities or agencies of the  State  or
opt to join the scheme.  The reason for this is  that  private  medical  and
dental colleges or institutions not being State or its instrumentalities  or
its agencies were not subject to the equality clauses in Article 14  of  the
Constitution, but the moment some seats in the private  medical  and  dental
colleges or institutions come to the State quota, which have  to  be  filled
up by the State or its instrumentality or its agency which  are  subject  to
the equality clauses in Article 14 of the Constitution, the principles  laid
down by this Court in Dr. Pradeep  Jain’s  case  (supra)  will  have  to  be
followed while granting admissions to the seats allotted to the State  Quota
in post graduate medical and dental courses even in private colleges.

12.   In the result, we allow the writ petitions, declare sub-clause (a)  of
clause 2.1 of the two Information Bulletins for post  graduate  medical  and
dental courses for PGET-2014 as ultra-vires Article 14 of  the  Constitution
and null and void.   The  respondent  will  now  publish  fresh  Information
Bulletins and do the admissions to the  post  graduate  medical  and  dental
courses in the Government colleges  as  well  as  the  State  quota  of  the
private colleges in accordance with the law by the end of June, 2014 on  the
basis of the results of the Entrance Test already held.  We also order  that
the general time schedule for counselling and admissions  to  post  graduate
Medical Courses in our order dated 14.03.2014 in Dr. Fraz Naseem &  Ors.  v.
Union of India will not apply to such admissions in the State  of  Karnataka
for the academic year 2014-2015.  Similarly, the general time  schedule  for
counselling and admissions for post graduate dental courses will  not  apply
to such admissions in the State of Karnataka.  The parties shall bear  their
own costs.

2014 ( April.Part ) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41466
A.K. PATNAIK, FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
                                                     'REPORTABLE'

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                         CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

                    WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 48 OF 2014


Vishal Goyal & Ors.                                … Petitioners

                                   Versus

State of Karnataka & Ors.                             … Respondents


                                    WITH

                    WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 70 OF 2014,
                    WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 72 OF 2014,
                    WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 75 OF 2014,
                    WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 65 OF 2014,
                    WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 92 OF 2014,
                    WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.156 OF 2014,
                    WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 83 OF 2014,
                    WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 87 OF 2014
                                     AND
                    WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.196 OF 2014





                               J U D G M E N T



A.K. PATNAIK, J.
      This batch of writ petitions under  Article  32  of  the  Constitution
relates to admissions in Post Graduate Medical Dental courses in  Government
medical and dental colleges as  well  as  in  the  State  Quota  in  private
medical and dental colleges in the State of Karnataka.

2.    The petitioners claim that they were selected on the basis  of  common
entrance tests conducted by the CBSE or by  the  authorities  of  the  State
Government or by the association of private medical and dental  colleges  in
the State of Karnataka and admitted into the MBBS/BDS courses  in  different
Government or private medical  and  dental  colleges  and  after  completing
their MBBS/BDS courses were keen to get admitted into Post Graduate  medical
or dental courses in the year 2014.

3.    The National Board of Examinations issued  two  Information  Bulletins
for Post Graduate Entrance  Test,  2014  (for  short  ‘the  PGET-2014’)  for
admissions to the State Quota seats in  Karnataka  Government  Colleges  and
Institutions   and   Karnataka   Government   Quota   seats    in    private
colleges/institutions/deemed  universities.   One  Bulletin  contained   all
information for admission to MD/MS/Medical  Post  Graduate  Diploma  Courses
(Medical) and the other contained all information for  admission  to  MDS/PG
Diploma Courses (Dental).  Clause 2  of  these  Information  Bulletins  lays
down the criteria for PGET-2014.  Clause 2.1 of these Information  Bulletins
for  PGET-2014  provides  that  no  candidate  shall  be   admitted   to   a
professional educational institution  unless  the  candidate  possesses  the
qualifications or eligibility to appear for  the  entrance  test  stipulated
thereunder.  The said clause 2.1 of the two Information Bulletins, which  is
identically  worded  for  admissions  to  Post  Graduate  Medical  and  Post
Graduate Dental Courses, is extracted hereinbelow:
      2.1. No candidate shall be  admitted  to  a  professional  educational
      institution   unless   the   candidate   possesses    the    following
      qualifications or eligibility to appear for the Entrance test namely:


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


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


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


             Documents to be produced, namely:


             1) SSLC or 10th Standard Marks Card;


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


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


             4) Qualifying degree certificate and all phases marks card;


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


             6) MCI/DCI State Council Registration Certificate.


             7)  Attempt  Certificate  issued  by  the  concerned   college
             Principal.


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


             Documents to be produced, namely:


             1) SSLC or 10th Standard Marks Card;


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


             3) Qualifying degree certificate and all phases marks card;


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


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


             6) (a) A study certificate for either  of  the  parent  having
             studied for at least 10 years in Karnataka from  the  Head  of
             the  educational  institution  where   he/she   had   studied.
             Further, school study certificates should be countersigned  by
             the concerned Block Educational Officer (BEO)/ Deputy Director
             of Public Instructions (DDPI)  COMPULSORILY  in  the  proforma
             prescribed (Annexure-III);


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


             7) MCI/DCI State Council Registration Certificate


             8) Attempt Certificate issued by the concerned Principal.


4.    It will be clear from sub-clause (a) of clause 2.1 of the  Information
Bulletins extracted above that to be eligible to  appear  for  the  Entrance
Test, a candidate must be of “Karnataka Origin”.  The Explanation under sub-
clause (a) of clause 2.1 of the Information Bulletins gives the  meaning  of
“A candidate of Karnataka Origin”.  The case of the petitioners is  that  by
virtue of sub-clause (a) of clause 2.1 of  the  two  Information  Bulletins,
they are debarred from appearing in the Entrance  Tests  for  admissions  to
MD/MS/Medical Post Graduate Diploma Courses,  2014  or  to  MDS/Dental  Post
Graduate Diploma Courses, 2014 in the State of Karnataka  even  though  they
have studied MBBS/BDS in institutions  in  the  State  of  Karnataka.   They
have, therefore,  challenged  sub-clause  (a)  of  clause  2.1  of  the  two
Information Bulletins, as ultra vires Article  14  of  the  Constitution  as
interpreted by this Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain and Others v. Union  of  India
and Others [(1984) 3 SCC 654].  They also  contend  that  in  the  aforesaid
case of Dr. Pradeep Jain  (supra),  this  Court  has  held  that  a  certain
percentage  of  seats  must  be  reserved  on  the  basis  of  institutional
preference to enable students who have  passed  MBBS  or  BDS  courses  from
medical or dental colleges in the State of Karnataka  to  get  admission  to
Post Graduate medical or dental courses in the medical  or  dental  colleges
of the State of Karnataka.  The petitioners  have,  therefore,  prayed  that
sub-clause (a) of clause 2.1 of the two Information  Bulletins  be  declared
as ultra vires the Constitution and  appropriate  writs  and  directions  be
issued to the respondents to permit the petitioners to  participate  in  the
admission process of MD/MS/MDS and other Post Graduate  medical  and  dental
courses in the State of Karnataka.

5.    Soon after the writ petitions were filed and moved, this Court  passed
orders permitting the petitioners to take the Entrance  Test  for  admission
to Post Graduate medical and  dental  courses  in  the  State  of  Karnataka
conducted by the National Board of Examinations and  pursuant  to  the  said
orders the petitioners have also been permitted to take the Entrance Test.
6.    Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted  that  the  judgment  of
this Court in Dr. Pradeep  Jain’s  case  (supra)  still  holds  good.   They
referred to the decision of this Court in Magan Mehrotra v. Union  of  India
[(2003) 11 SCC 186], Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India [(2003) 11  SCC  146]
and Nikhil Himthani v. State of Uttarakhand & Others [(2013)  10  SCC  237],
in which this Court has reiterated the principles laid down in  Dr.  Pradeep
Jain’s case (supra).  They submitted that  this  Court,  should,  therefore,
strike down sub-clause (a) of clause 2.1 of the  two  Information  Bulletins
as  ultra  vires  the  Constitution  and  direct  the  respondents  to  give
institutional preference in accordance of the  judgment  in  Pradeep  Jain’s
case.

7.    In reply to the contentions of the petitioners, Mr.  A.  Mariarputham,
learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Karnataka, relied  on  the
statements of objections filed on behalf of  the  State  of  Karnataka.   He
submitted  that  Article  371J  of  the  Constitution  is  titled   ‘Special
Provisions with respect to State of Karnataka’  and  Clause  (2)  read  with
Clause (1) sub-clause (C) of this Article provides that  the  Governor  may,
by order make reservation of  a  proportion  of  seats  in  educational  and
vocational training  institutions  in  the  Hyderabad-Karnataka  region  for
students who belong to that region by birth or by  domicile.   He  submitted
that the State of Karnataka has, therefore, fixed  institutional  preference
quota of 50% and this was constitutionally permissible as per  the  judgment
of this Court in Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India (supra).

8.    Mr. Mariarputham next submitted that pursuant to the judgment of  this
Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain’s case (supra), a scheme has  been  formulated  by
this Court in Dr. Dinesh Kumar and Others v. Motilal Nehru Medical  College,
Allahabad and Others [(1986) 3 SCC 727] and a reading  of  the  said  scheme
would  show  that  it  applies  to  only  medical  and  dental  colleges  or
institutions run by the Union of India or a State Government or a  Municipal
and other local authority.  He submitted that the judgments  of  this  Court
in Dr. Pradeep Jain’s case  (supra)  and  in  Dinesh  Kumar  and  Others  v.
Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad and Others (supra),  therefore,  do
not apply to private medical and dental college in the State  of  Karnataka.
He explained that the State of Karnataka has also a quota of  seats  in  the
private medical and dental colleges in the State of Karnataka and the  seats
for Post Graduate medical and dental courses that fall in  the  State  quota
can be filled up by the State from among the candidates of Karnataka  Origin
as provided  in  sub-clause  (a)  of  clause  2.1  of  the  two  Information
Bulletins.

9.    We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the  parties
and we find that the basis of the judgment of  this  Court  in  Dr.  Pradeep
Jain’s case (supra) is Article 14 of the Constitution  which  guarantees  to
every person equality before the law and equal protection of the  laws.   As
explained by this court in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the judgment   in  Nikhil
Himthani v. State of Uttarakhand & Others (supra):


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


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


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


In Magan Mehrotra v. Union of India (supra) and Saurabh Chaudri v. Union  of
India (supra) also, this Court  has  approved  the  aforesaid  view  in  Dr.
Pradeep Jain’s Case that excellence  cannot  be  compromised  by  any  other
consideration for the purpose of admission to postgraduate  medical  courses
such as MD/MS and  the  like  because  that  would  be  detrimental  to  the
interests  of  the  nation  and  will  affect  the  right  to  equality   of
opportunity under Article 14 of the Constitution.

10.   Mr. Mariarputham is right that in Saurabh Chaudri v.  Union  of  India
(supra), this Court has held that   institutional preference  can  be  given
by a State, but in the aforesaid decision of Saurabh Chaudri,  it  has  also
been held that decision of the State to give  institutional  preference  can
be invalidated by the Court in the event it is shown that  the  decision  of
the State is ultra vires the right to  equality  under  Article  14  of  the
Constitution.  When we examine sub-clause (a)  of  clause  2.1  of  the  two
Information  Bulletins,  we  find  that  the  expression  “A  candidate   of
Karnataka Origin” who only is eligible to appear for Entrance Test has  been
so defined as to exclude a candidate who has  studied  MBBS  or  BDS  in  an
institution in the State of Karnataka but who does  not  satisfy  the  other
requirements of sub-clause (a) of clause 2.1  of  the  Information  Bulletin
for PGET-2014.  Thus, the institutional preference sought  to  be  given  by
sub-clause (a) of clause 2.1 of the Information Bulletin  for  PGET-2014  is
clearly contrary to the judgment of this Court in Dr.  Pradeep  Jain’s  case
(supra).  To quote from paragraph 22 of the judgment in Dr.  Pradeep  Jain’s
case:


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


Sub-clause (a) of clause 2.1 of  the  two  Information  Bulletins  does  not
actually give institutional preference to students who have passed  MBBS  or
BDS from Colleges or Universities in the State of Karnataka, but makes  some
of them ineligible to take the Entrance Test for admission to Post  Graduate
Medical  or  Dental  courses  in  the  State  of  Karnataka  to  which   the
Information Bulletins apply.

11.   We now come to the  argument  of  Mr.  Mariarputham  that  the  scheme
formulated by this Court in Dr. Dinesh Kumar and  Others  v.  Motilal  Nehru
Medical College, Allahabad and Others (supra) pursuant to  the  judgment  in
Dr. Pradeep Jain’s case (supra) is confined to medical and  dental  colleges
or institutions run by the Union  of  India  or  a  State  Government  or  a
Municipal or other local authority and does not  apply  to  private  medical
and dental colleges or institutions.  Paragraph (1) of the scheme  on  which
Mr. Mariarputham relied on is extracted hereinbelow:


           “(1) In the first  place,  the  Scheme  has  necessarily  to  be
           confined to medical colleges or institutions run by the Union of
           India or a State  Government  or  a  municipal  or  other  local
           authority.  It cannot  apply  to  private  medical  colleges  or
           institutions unless they are instrumentality or  agency  of  the
           State or opt to join the Scheme by making 15  per  cent  of  the
           total number of seats for the MBBS/BDS course and 25 per cent of
           the  total  number  of  seats  for  the  post-graduate   course,
           available for admission on  the  basis  of  All  India  Entrance
           Examination.  Those medical colleges or  institutions  which  we
           have already excepted from the operation of the  judgment  dated
           June 22, 1984 will continue to remain outside the scope  of  the
           Scheme.”

This Court has, thus, said in the aforesaid  paragraph  (1)  of  the  scheme
that the scheme cannot apply to  private  medical  and  dental  colleges  or
institutions unless they are instrumentalities or agencies of the  State  or
opt to join the scheme.  The reason for this is  that  private  medical  and
dental colleges or institutions not being State or its instrumentalities  or
its agencies were not subject to the equality clauses in Article 14  of  the
Constitution, but the moment some seats in the private  medical  and  dental
colleges or institutions come to the State quota, which have  to  be  filled
up by the State or its instrumentality or its agency which  are  subject  to
the equality clauses in Article 14 of the Constitution, the principles  laid
down by this Court in Dr. Pradeep  Jain’s  case  (supra)  will  have  to  be
followed while granting admissions to the seats allotted to the State  Quota
in post graduate medical and dental courses even in private colleges.

12.   In the result, we allow the writ petitions, declare sub-clause (a)  of
clause 2.1 of the two Information Bulletins for post  graduate  medical  and
dental courses for PGET-2014 as ultra-vires Article 14 of  the  Constitution
and null and void.   The  respondent  will  now  publish  fresh  Information
Bulletins and do the admissions to the  post  graduate  medical  and  dental
courses in the Government colleges  as  well  as  the  State  quota  of  the
private colleges in accordance with the law by the end of June, 2014 on  the
basis of the results of the Entrance Test already held.  We also order  that
the general time schedule for counselling and admissions  to  post  graduate
Medical Courses in our order dated 14.03.2014 in Dr. Fraz Naseem &  Ors.  v.
Union of India will not apply to such admissions in the State  of  Karnataka
for the academic year 2014-2015.  Similarly, the general time  schedule  for
counselling and admissions for post graduate dental courses will  not  apply
to such admissions in the State of Karnataka.  The parties shall bear  their
own costs.




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






                          …....…………..………………………..J.
                                 (Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla)

New Delhi,
April 24, 2014.

-----------------------
15


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.