Supreme Court relief to 7 Meritorious MBBS candidates in MP

New Delhi: Setting aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order, which had earlier refused admission of the meritorious reserved category candidates to the unreserved (UR) category, the Supreme Court recently granted relief to them.

The Apex Court bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan held that compartmentalizing different categories in the horizontal reservation and not allowing meritorious reserved category candidates to migrate to unreserved seats is "totally unsustainable".

Relying on the Supreme Court's order in the case of Saurav Yadav and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, the top court bench noted, "...the methodology adopted by the respondents in compartmentalizing the different categories in the horizontal reservation and restricting the migration of the meritorious reserved category candidates to the unreserved seats is totally unsustainable. In view of the law laid down by this Court, the meritorious candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC, who on their own merit, were entitled to be selected against the UR-GS quota, have been denied the seats against the open seats in the GS quota."

The petitioners challenged the decision of the Department of Medical Education of not allotting MBBS Unreserved (UR) Category Government School (GS) quota seats to the meritorious reserved candidates, who had passed from the Government Schools. They prayed for a direction to the Department to allot the MBBS seats of Unreserved Category Government School quota to them.

On 19th June 2019, the amendment by the State Government to the Madhya Pradesh Education Admission Rules, 2018 was notified. In place of sub-rules (l) and (u) of rule 2 and sub-rule (2) of rule 4, new sub-rules were established that defined "category" and the method to fill vacancies for category-wise reservation was established.

The petitioners appeared in the NEET UG Examination held on 7th May 2023. On 10th May 2023, the State of Madhya Pradesh notified another amendment in the Admission Rules, 2018. Sub-rule (f) and (b) were added to Rule 2 which defined "Government School" and the students who could fall under the category of "Government School Students". A new table in existing clause (b) of Schedule-2 detailing the quantum of reservations was added in which 5% of the total seats were reserved for government school students.

Consequently, the NEET UG results were declared on 13th June 2023. Then on 25th July 2023, an advisory was issued notifying that the Admission Rules, 2018 and the amendment thereto dated 10th May 2023 would apply to the counselling process.

Following this, on 22nd August 2023, the State issued the seat-wise distribution of medical colleges at the end of the 2nd round of counselling. Since several seats remained vacant according to Rule 2 (g) of the Admission Rules, 2018, the vacancies were transferred from one category to other categories. 

Aggrieved by the fact that the vacant seats were going to be released to the unreserved category, the petitioners approached the High Court, praying that the meritorious students of reserved category who studied in the Government Schools must be allotted MBBS seats of unreserved category government school quota before they are released to the open category. These pleas were ultimately dismissed by the Indore and Gwalior Bench of the High Court. 

When these orders were challenged before the Supreme Court, it directed the State to keep seven seats vacant in MBBS seats, so that the petitioners could be accommodated against those seats if their pleas succeeded. 

The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the GS quota was introduced by MP Government on 10th May 2023. However, the procedure followed by the authorities in subclassifying the candidates further into categories as UR-GS, SC-GS, ST-GS, OBC-GS and EWS-GS was totally illegal.

Referring to the Apex Court's order in the case of Saurav Yadav and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, the petitioners' counsel submitted that even in case of horizontal reservation, the candidates from the reserved categories like SC/ST/OBC, if they are entitled to their own merit in the GS quota, they will have to be admitted against the GS quota (UR seats).

He submitted that, on account of the erroneous application of policy, an anomalous situation has arisen wherein, in the UR-GS seats, the persons who are much less meritorious than the appellants, who have secured as low as 214, 150 marks, have secured admission, whereas the appellants, who are much more meritorious than the UR-GS candidates have been deprived the admission.

As per the petitioner's lawyer, on account of erroneous application of the policy, as many as 77 seats classified as UR-GS, were not filled from the GS quota and had to be released to the open pool of the candidates.

It was further submitted that the State, after realizing its mistake, has now carried out an amendment on 2nd July 2024 thereby intending to apply horizontal reservation correctly for this academic year in accordance with the judgment and decision of this Court in the case of Saurav Yadav (supra).

On the other hand, the AAG, appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that, since the reservation in the GS category was horizontal, the State was justified in making a further sub-classification into OBC-GS, ST-GS, SC-GS, URGS, and EWS-GS. He submitted that since it was a case of horizontal reservation, it was not possible to shift the category of vertical reservation like the SC/ST/OBC/EWS to the horizontal category of UR-GS.

While considering the matter, the Supreme Court bench noted that by now, it is a well-settled principle of law that a candidate belonging to any of the vertical reservation categories who on the basis of his own merit is entitled to be selected in the open or general category, will be selected against the general category and his selection would not be counted against the quota reserved for such vertical reservation categories.

However, the Apex Court noted that in the case of Saurav Yadav (supra), the Court for the first time considered the question as to whether the said principle laid down in the case of Indra Sawhney (supra) would also apply to the cases of horizontal reservation. 

In this case, the court had observed that a meritorious reserved category candidate who is entitled to the General category of the said horizontal reservation on his own merit, will have to be allotted a seat from the said General category of the horizontal reservation. Meaning thereby such a candidate cannot be counted in a horizontal seat reserved for the category of vertical reservation like SC/ST.

The top court bench also referred to the concurring observations made by Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and noted,

"It could thus be seen that the learned Judge clearly observed that the horizontal as well as the vertical reservation would not be seen as rigid “slots”, where a candidate's merit, which otherwise entitles her or him to be shown in the open general category, is foreclosed. It was observed that by doing so, it would result in communal reservation, where each social category is confined within the extent of their reservation, thus negating merit. It was observed that the open category is open to all, and the only condition for a candidate to be shown in it is merit, regardless of whether reservation benefit of either type is available to her or him."

This view was reiterated by the Court in the case of Sadhana Singh Dangi and Others v. Pinki Asati and Others. Referring to these judgments, the Court held that the methodology adopted by the authorities in compartmentalizing the different categories in the horizontal reservation and restricting the migration of meritorious reserved category candidates to the unreserved seats was totally unsustainable.

The Court noted that in the present case the cut-off for UR candidates was much less as compared to the cut-off for SC/ST/OBC/EWS candidates. "As such, the respondents ought to have admitted the present appellants against the URGS categories. It is further to be noted that many seats from UR-GS category were required to be transferred to the General category," observed the Court, holding that the appellants were deprived of their legitimate claim of admission against the UR-GS category in the Academic Session 2023-2024.

Noting that the 2023-2024 academic session was already complete, the Court ordered the authorities to accommodate them against the vacant seats. It ordered,

"Undisputedly, the appellants who were meritorious and who could have been admitted against the UR-GS category were denied admission on account of an erroneous application of the methodology in applying the horizontal and vertical reservation. It is also not in dispute that many of the students, who secured much less marks than the appellants, have been admitted against the UR-GS seats. This is totally in contravention of the law laid down by this Court in the cases of Saurav Yadav (supra) and Sadhana Singh Dangi (supra). We therefore find that as held by this Court in the case of S. Krishna Sradha (supra), it will be appropriate to issue directions to the respondents to admit the appellants in the next Academic Session 2024-25 against the UR-GS seats. Vide order dated 12th August 2024, we have already directed 7 seats to be kept vacant in the event the appellants succeed. The appellants can be very well accommodated against the said seats."

Accordingly, the authorities were directed to admit the appellants in the next Academic Session i.e. 2024-2025 for MBBS course against the seats reserved for UR-GS category.

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/supreme-court-order-249225.pdf

Also Read: 5% MBBS, BDS Seats reserved for Govt School Students in Madhya Pradesh