Can Meritorious Reserved Category Candidates be admitted to Open PG Medical Seats? Here's what Supreme Court says

New Delhi: The Supreme Court bench recently stated that the matter related to admission of meritorious reserved category candidates to the open seats in postgraduate medical courses cannot be examined in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) as it would require consideration of various complexities related to the matter.

Former Judge Justice Eswaraiah, filed the PIL as the President of All India Backward Classes Federation seeking a writ of mandamus seeking a declaration that Rule II (vi) and (viii) of the Government Order Ms No. 43 dated 13th March 2013 issued by State of Andhra Pradesh and provisions in the relevant Rules issued by the State of Telangana as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the principles laid down by the Court.

However, the top court bench comprising Justice B R Gavai held that "...the issues involved with regard to the reliefs sought by the petitioner cannot be considered unless the Court considers specific cases of grievances raised by any particular individuals."

"The question involved in the present case would require consideration of various complexities on account of the availability of opportunity to an MRC to slide to any superspecialties or non-availability of such an opportunity and restricting it only to sliding to the same speciality from an open category to a reserved category and the resultant effect thereon on the position of the reservation vis-a-vis the position of the seats available to an open category as against the seats available to a reserved category," it further noted.

Also Read: NMC Challenges Rajasthan HC Order on MBBS Seat Hike, Supreme Court Issues Notice

Even though the Court agreed that the petitioner's concern to maintain the percentage of reservation of seats in medical specialities for the reserved category candidates could be genuine, it opined that unless the specific cases of the candidates arise to be considered by the Apex Court, such an issue could not be decided as an abstract and without hearing other candidates who may be adversely affected by such adjudication.

The petitioner, who appeared in person, stated that Rule II (vii) has been erroneously mentioned and he also stated that the challenge in effect is to clauses (viii) and (ix) of Rule II of the Andhra Pradesh Medical Colleges (Admission into Post Graduate Medical Courses) Rules, 1997 and the pari-materia provisions of the Telangana Medical Colleges (Admission into Post Graduate Medical Courses) Rules, 2017.

He further stated that after the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh into the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, the State of Andhra Pradesh amended the Rules to bring them in conformity with the Court's judgments on the issue. However, he submitted that the State of Telangana had yet to amend the Rules to bring them in conformity with the law laid down by the Court in various judgments.

Relying on the Supreme Court orders in the cases of Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul and Others, Samta Aandolan Samiti and Another v. Union of India and Others, Tripurari Sharan and Another v. Ranjit Kumar Yadav and Others, the petitioner submitted that meritorious reserved candidates who are entitled to be admitted against a reserved seat on their own merits have to be treated as open category candidates for the purpose of reservation so that another reserved category candidate is not deprived of his claim to the admission.

He submitted that due to the Rules, which are continued by the State of Telangana, if a reserved category candidate, who is entitled to get admission in 'A' Category on his own merits, does not accept the same and decides to take admission in 'B' category, where he is entitled to be admitted only against a reserved seat, even in such a case the seat in ‘A’ Category should be filled in by a reserved category candidate. He submitted that if this is not done, there would be a reduction of the reserved category seats.

The Court observed that the Court's judgment in the cases of Ritesh R. Sah (supra) and Samta Aandolan Samiti (supra) relied upon by the petitioner-in-person, pertains to the admission in the MBBS course. 

Further, the bench noted that the law on this issue is very well crystallized by the Constitution Bench judgments of this Court right from the case of Indra Sawhney and Others v. Union of India and Others, where the Court observed, "In this connection it is well to remember that the reservations under Article 16(4) do not operate like a communal reservation. It may well happen that some members belonging to, say, Scheduled Castes get selected in the open competition field on the basis of their own merit; they will not be counted against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes; they will be treated as open competition candidates."

This position was again reiterated by another Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of R.K. Sabharwal and Others v. State of Punjab and Others. Again, the Court reiterated the said position in the case of Union of India and Others v. Virpal Singh Chauhan and Others.

"As such, there should be no difficulty when the issue is with regard to admission in MBBS Course. Insofar as the admission to MBBS Course is concerned, there should be no difficulty inasmuch as the question of taking admission in the speciality does not arise for consideration therein," the bench observed.

"The difficulty would arise only in the methodology to be adopted while admitting the students in the Post Graduate Courses," it further noted.

Noting that the petitioner is the President of All India Backward Classes Federation, the bench observed, "No doubt, that this Court in the case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India and Another7, has diluted the rigid rule of locus standi insofar as approaching this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India or the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is concerned. It has been held by this Court that when a legal wrong or legal injury is caused to a person or to a determinate class of persons by reason of violation of any constitutional or legal right or where any burden is imposed in contravention of any constitutional or legal provisions or without authority of law then such a person or determinate class of persons, who by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position are not in a position to approach the Court for any relief then any member of the public can maintain an application for an appropriate directions, order or writ either under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court or for breach of any fundamental right before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking judicial redress. It has been held that the Court has to innovate new methods and devise new strategies for the purpose of providing access to justice to larger masses of people who are denied their basic human rights or to whom freedom and liberty have no meaning."

However, Court held that the issues involved regarding the reliefs sought by the petitioner cannot be considered unless the Court considers specific cases of grievances raised by any particular individuals.

"No doubt that the concern of the petitioner for maintaining the percentage of reservation of seats in medical specialities for the reserved category candidates could be genuine but, in our considered view, unless the specific cases of the candidates arise for consideration before the Court, such an issue cannot be decided in abstract. Furthermore, such an issue cannot be decided without hearing other candidates who may be adversely affected by any such adjudication," it noted. 

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/supreme-court-order-277928.pdf

Also Read: SC asks States to frame policy on Private Hospitals pricing