http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 63

CASE NO.:

Writ Petition (civil) 290 of 1997

PETITIONER:

PREETI SRIVASTAVA (DR.)& ANR.

RESPONDENT:

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/08/1999

BENCH:

A.S.ANAND CJI & S.B.MAJMUDAR & SUJATA V.MANOHAR & K.VENKATASWAMI & V.N.KHARE

JUDGMENT:

JUDGMENT

DELIVERED BY

S.B.MAJMUDAR, J.

SUJATA V.MANOHAR, J.

S.B.Majmudar, J.

Leave granted.

I have carefully gone through the draft judgment

prepared by our esteemed colleague Justice Sujata V.

Manohar. I respectfully agree with some of the conclusions

arrived at therein at pages 61 and 62, namely, conclusion

nos. 1 and 4. However, so far as conclusion nos. 2 and 3

are concerned, I respectfully record my reservations and

partially dissent as noted hereinafter. In my view, the

common entrance examination envisaged under the regulations

framed by the Medical Council of India for Postgraduate

Medical Education does not curtail the power of the State

Authorities, legislative as well as executive, from fixing

suitable minimum qualifying marks differently for general

category candidates and for SCs/STs and OBC candidates as

highlighted in my present judgment.

So far as conclusion no.3 is concerned, with respect,

it is not possible for me to agree with the reasoning and

the final conclusion to which our esteemed colleague Justice

Sujata V. Manohar has reached, namely, that fixing minimum

qualifying marks for passing the entrance test for admission

to postgraduate courses is concerned with the standard of

Postgraduate Medical Education.

I, however, respectfully agree to that part of

conclusion no.3 which states that there cannot be a wide

disparity between the minimum qualifying marks for reserved

category candidates and the minimum qualifying marks for

general category candidates at this level. I also

respectfully agree that there cannot be dilution of minimum

qualifying marks for such reserved category candidates up to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 63

almost a vanishing point. The dilution can be only up to a

reasonable extent with a rock bottom, below which such

dilution would not be permissible as demonstrated

hereinafter in this judgment. In my view, maximum dilution

can be up to 50% of the minimum qualifying marks prescribed

for general category candidates. On that basis if 45%

passing marks are prescribed for general category,

permissible dilution can then go up to 22 and 1/2 % (50% of

45%). Any dilution below this rock bottom would not be

permissible under Article 15(4) of the Constitution of

India.

For reaching the aforesaid conclusions, I have

independently considered the scheme of the relevant

provisions of the Constitution in the light of the various

judgments of this Court as detailed hereinafter :

Entry 66 of List I, Old Entry 11(2) of List II and

Entry 25 of List III:

Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule reads as

under : Co-ordination and determination of standards in

institutions for higher education or research and scientific

and technical institutions.

Old Entry 11 of List II, as earlier existing in the

Constitution of India, read as under :

Education including universities, subject to the

provisions of entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I and entry

25 of List III.

While Entry 25 of List III as now existing in the

Seventh Schedule of the Constitution reads as under :

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.

A conjoint reading of these entries makes it clear

that as per Entry 11 of List II which then existed on the

statute book, all aspects of education, including university

education, were within the exclusive legislative competence

of the State Legislatures subject to Entries 63 to 66 of

List I and the then existing Entry 25 of List III. The then

existing Entry 25 of the Concurrent List conferred power on

the Union Parliament and State Legislature to enact

legislation with respect to vocational and technical

training of labour. Thus, the said Entry 25 of List III had

nothing to do with Medical Education. Any provision

regarding Medical Education, therefore, was thus covered by

Entry 11 of List II subject of course to the exercise of

legislative powers by the Union Legislature as per entries

63 to 66 of List I. In the light of the aforesaid relevant

entries, as they stood then, a Constitution Bench of this

court in The Gujarat University, Ahmedabad vs. Krishna

Ranganath Mudholkar & Ors., 1963 Suppl.(1) SCR 112, speaking

through J.C.Shah, J., for the majority, had to consider

whether the State Legislature could impose an exclusive

medium of instruction Gujarati for the students who had to

study and take examination conducted by the Gujarat

University. It was held that If a legislation imposing a

regional language or Hindi as the exclusive medium of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 63

instruction is likely to result in lowering of standards, it

must necessarily fall within Item 66 of List I and be

excluded to that extent from Item 11 of List II as it then

stood in the Constitution. Medium of instruction was held

to have an important bearing on the effectiveness of

instruction and resultant standards achieved thereby. In

this connection, pertinent observations were made at pages

142 and 143 of the aforesaid Report: If adequate

text-books are not available or competent instructors in the

medium, through which instruction is directed to be

imparted, are not available, or the students are not able to

receive or imbibe instructions through the medium in which

it is imparted, standards must of necessity fall, and

legislation for co-ordination of standards in such matters

would include legislation relating to medium of instruction.

If legislation relating to imposition of an exclusive medium

of instruction in a regional language or in Hindi, having

regard to the absence of text-books and journals, competent

teachers and incapacity of the students to understand the

subjects, is likely to result in the lowering of standards,

that legislation would, in our judgment, necessarily fall

within item 66 of List I and would be deemed to be excluded

to that extent from the amplitude of the power conferred by

item No.11 of List II.

However, after the deletion of Entry 11 from List II

and re-drafting of Entry 25 in the Concurrent List as in the

present form, it becomes clear that all aspects of

education, including admission of students to any

educational course, would be covered by the general entry

regarding education including technical and medical

education etc. as found in the Concurrent List but that

would be subject to the provisions of Entries 63 to 66 of

List I. Therefore, on a conjoint reading of Entry 66 of

List I and Entry 25 of List III, it has to be held that so

long as the Parliament does not occupy the field earmarked

for it under Entry 66 of List I or for that matter by

invoking its concurrent powers as per Entry 25 in the

Concurrent List, the question of admission of students to

any medical course would not remain outside the domain of

the State Legislature. It is not in dispute that up till

now the Parliament, by any legislative exercise either by

separate legislation or by amending the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956 has not legislated about the controlling

of admissions of students to higher medical education

courses in the country. Therefore, the only question

remains whether the Indian Medical Council Act enacted as

per Entry 66 of List I covers this aspect. If it covers the

topic then obviously by the express language of Entry 25 of

List III, the said topic would get excluded from the

legislative field available to the State Legislature even

under Entry 25 of Concurrent List. For answering this

question, we have therefore, to see the width of Entry 66 of

List I. It deals with Co-ordination and determination of

standards in institutions for higher education... A mere

reading of this Entry shows that the legislation which can

be covered by this entry has to deal basically with

Co-ordination and determination of standards in

institutions for higher education. Meaning thereby, the

standards of education at the institutions of higher

education where students are taking education after

admission are to be monitored by such a legislation or in

other words after their enrolment for studying at such

institutions for higher education such students have to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 63

undertake the prescribed course of education evolved with a

view to having uniform and well laid down standards of

higher medical education. It cannot be disputed that

postgraduate teaching in medical education is being imparted

by institutions for higher medical education. But the

question is whether the topic of admission of eligible

candidates/students for taking education in such

institutions has anything to do with co-ordination and

determination of standards in these institutions. Now

standards in the institutions have been prefixed by two

words, namely, co-ordination and determination of such

standards as per Entry 66 of List I. So far as

co-ordination is concerned, it is a topic dealing with

provision of uniform standards of education in different

institutions so that there may not be any hiatus or

dissimilarity regarding imparting of education by these

institutions to the students taking up identical courses of

study for higher medical education in these institutions.

That necessarily has a nexus with the regulations of

standards of education to be imparted to already admitted

students to the concerned courses of higher education. But

so far as the phrase determination of standards in

institutions for higher education is concerned, it

necessarily has to take in its sweep the requirements of

having a proper curriculum of studies and the requisite

intensity of practical training to be imparted to students

attaining such courses. But in order to maintain the fixed

standard of such higher medical education in the

institutions, basic qualification or eligibility for

admission of students for being imparted such education also

would assume importance. Thus, the phrase determination of

standards in institutions for higher education would also

take in its sweep the basic qualifications or eligibility

criteria for admitting students to such courses of

education. It can, therefore, be held that the Indian

Medical Council Act, 1956 enacted under Entry 66 of List I

could legitimately authorise Medical Council of India which

is the apex technical body in the field of medical education

and which is enjoined to provide appropriately qualified

medical practitioners for serving the suffering humanity to

prescribe basic standards of eligibility and qualification

for medical graduates who aspire to join postgraduate

courses for obtaining higher medical degrees by studying in

the institutions imparting such education.

But the next question survives as to whether after

laying down the basic qualifications or eligibility criteria

for admission of graduate medical students to the higher

medical education courses which may uniformly apply all over

India as directed by the Medical Council of India, it can

have further power and authority to control the intake

capacity of these eligible students in a given course

conducted by the institutions for higher postgraduate

medical education. In other words, whether it can control

the admissions of eligible candidates to such higher medical

education courses or lay down any criteria for short-listing

of such eligible candidates when the available seats for

admission to such higher postgraduate medical education

courses are limited and the eligible claimants seeking

admission to such courses are far greater in number? So far

as this question is concerned, it immediately projects the

problem of short- listing of available eligible candidates

competing for admission to the given medical education

course and how such admissions could be controlled by

short-listing a number of eligible candidates out of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 63

larger number of claimants who are also eligible for

admission. In other words, there can be too many eligible

candidates chasing too few available seats. So far as this

question is concerned, it clearly gets covered by Entry 25

of Concurrent List III rather than Entry 66 of List I as the

latter entry would enable, as seen above, the Medical

Council of India only to lay down the standards of

eligibility and basic qualification of graduate medical

students for being admitted to any higher postgraduate

medical course. Having provided for the queue of basically

eligible qualified graduate medical students for admission

to postgraduate medical courses for a given academic year,

the role of Medical Council of India would end at that

stage. Beyond this stage the field is covered by Entry 25

of List III dealing with education which may also cover the

question of controlling admissions and short-listing of the

eligible candidates standing in the queue for being admitted

to a given course of study in institutions depending upon

the limited number of seats available in a given discipline

of study, the number of eligible claimants for it and also

would cover the further question whether any seats should be

reserved for SC,ST and OBCs as permissible to the State

authorities under Article 15(4) of the Constitution of

India. So far as these questions are concerned, it is no

doubt true that Entry 25 of Concurrent List read with

Article 15(4) of the Constitution of India may

simultaneously authorise both the Parliament as well as the

State Legislatures to make necessary provisions in that

behalf. The State can make adequate provisions on the topic

by resorting to its legislative power under Entry 25 of List

III as well as by exercising executive power under Article

162 of the Constitution of India read with entry 25 of List

III. Similarly, the Union Government, through Parliament,

may make adequate provisions regarding the same in exercise

of its legislative powers under Entry 25 of List III. But

so long as the Union Parliament does not exercise its

legislative powers under Entry 25 of List III covering the

topic of short-listing of eligible candidates for admission

to courses of postgraduate medical education, the field

remains wide open for the State authorities to pass suitable

legislations or executive orders in this connection as seen

above. As we have noted earlier, the Union Parliament has

not invoked its power under Entry 25 of List III for

legislating on this topic. Therefore, the field is wide

open for the State Governments to make adequate provisions

regarding controlling admissions to postgraduate colleges

within their territories imparting medical education for

ultimately getting postgraduate degrees. However, I may

mention at this stage that reliance placed by Shri

Chaudhary, learned senior counsel for the State of Madhya

Pradesh on a Constitution bench judgment of this Court in

Tej Kiran Jain & Ors. vs. N.Sanjiva Reddy & Ors., 1970(2)

SCC 272, interpreting the word in in the phrase in

Parliament to mean during the sitting of Parliament and in

the course of the business of Parliament cannot be of any

avail to him while interpreting the phrase determination of

standards in institutions for higher education as found in

Entry 66 of List I. His submission, relying on the

aforesaid decision that directions regarding standards in

institutions mean only those directions of the Medical

Council of India which regulate the actual courses of study

after the students are admitted into the institutions and

cannot cover the situation prior to their admission, meaning

thereby, pre-admission stage for students seeking entry to

the institution of higher education cannot be countenanced.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 63

The reason is obvious. Once it is held that the Medical

Council of India exercising its statutory functions and

powers under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 which

squarely falls within Entry 66 of List I can lay down the

eligibility and basic qualifications of students entitled to

be admitted to such postgraduate courses of study, their

eligibility qualification would naturally project a

consideration which is prior to their actual entry in the

institutions as students for being imparted higher

education. That would obviously be a pre-admission stage.

Therefore, the phrase determination of standards in

institutions does not necessarily mean controlling

standards of education only after the stage of entry of

students in these institutions and necessarily not prior to

the entry point. However, as seen earlier, the real

question is whether determination of standards in

institutions would go beyond the stage of controlling the

eligibility and basic qualification of students for taking

up such courses and would also cover the further question of

short-listing of such eligible students by those running the

institutions in the States. For every academic year, there

will be limited number of seats in postgraduate medical

courses vis-a-vis a larger number of eligible candidates as

per guidelines laid down by the Medical Council of India.

Short-listing of such candidates, therefore, has to be

resorted to. This exercise will depend upon various

imponderables like i) limited number of seats for admission

in a given course vis-a-vis larger number of eligible

candidates seeking admissions and the question of fixation

of their inter se merits so as to lay down rational criteria

for selecting better candidates as compared to candidates

with lesser degree of competence for entry in such courses;

ii) Whether at a given point of time there are adequate

chances and scope for SC,ST and OBC candidates who can

equally be eligible for pursuing of such courses but who on

account of their social or economic backwardness may lag

behind in competition with other general category candidates

who are equally eligible for staking their claims for such

limited number of seats for higher educational studies, iii)

availability of limited infrastructural facilities for

training in institutions for higher medical education in the

State or in the colleges concerned. All these exigencies of

the situations may require State authorities, either

legislatively or by exercise of executive powers, to adopt

rational standards or methods for short-listing eligible

candidates for being admitted to such medical courses from

year to year also keeping in view the requirement of Article

15(4) of the Constitution of India. While dealing with

Entry 25 of List III it has also to be kept in view that the

word education is of wide import. It would necessarily

have in its fold (i) the taught, (ii) the teacher, (iii) the

text and also (iv) training as practical training is

required to be imparted to students pursuing the course of

postgraduate medical education. Who is to be the taught is

determined by Medical Council of India by prescribing the

basic qualifications for admission of the students.

Adequate number of teachers keeping in view teacher taught

ratio is also relevant. Prescribing appropriate courses for

study i.e. curricula is also covered by the term

education. Training to be imparted to the students has a

direct nexus with infrastructural facilities like number of

beds of patients to be attended to by postgraduate medical

students, providing appropriate infrastructure for surgical

training etc. also would form part of education. Role of

Medical Council of India is exclusive in the field of laying

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 63

down of basic qualifications of the taught and also the

requirement of qualified teachers, their numbers and

qualifications, prescribing text and requisite training to

be imparted to students undertaking postgraduate medical

courses. All these provisions quite clearly fall within the

domain of Medical Council of Indias jurisdiction. However,

the only field left open by the Parliament while enacting

the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 under Entry 66 of List

III of Schedule VII is the solitary exercise of short-

listing of eligible taught for being admitted to such

courses. That field can validly be operated upon by the

State authorities so long as Parliament, in its wisdom, does

not step in to block even that solitary field otherwise

remaining open for State authorities to function in that

limited sphere. Infrastructure facilities, therefore, for

giving such practical training to the taught also would be

an important part of medical education. It is of course

true that not only the eligibility of students for admission

to medical courses but also the quality of students seeking

to get medical education especially postgraduate medical

education with a view to turning out efficient medical

practitioners for serving the suffering humanity would all

be covered by the term education. So far as the quality

of admitting students to the courses of higher medical

education i.e. postgraduate medical courses is concerned,

the admission of students may get sub-divided into two

parts; i) basic eligibility or qualification for being

permitted to enter the arena of contest for occupying the

limited number of seats available for pursuing such

education; and ii) the quality of such eligible candidates

for being admitted to such courses. As we have seen

earlier, the first part of exercise for admission can be

covered by the sweep of the parliamentary legislation i.e.

the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 enabling the delegate

of the Parliament namely, Medical Council of India to lay

down proper criteria for that purpose as per regulations

framed by it under Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council

Act. This aspect is clearly covered by Entry 66 of List I

but so far as the second part of admissions of eligible

students is concerned, it clearly remains in the domain of

Entry 25 of List III and it has nothing to do with Entry 66

of List I and as this field is wide open till the Parliament

covers it by any legislation under Entry 25 of List III, the

State can certainly issue executive orders and instructions

or even pass appropriate legislations for controlling and

short-listing the admissions of eligible candidates to such

higher postgraduate medical courses in their institutions or

other institutions imparting such medical education in the

States concerned. A three Judge bench of this Court in Ajay

Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors., 1994(4) SCC

401, has taken the same view on these entries which commands

acceptance. Jeevan Reddy, J., speaking for the three Judge

bench placing reliance on an earlier three Judge bench

judgment of this Court in State of M.P. vs. Nivedita Jain,

1981(4) SCC 296, and agreeing with the view expressed

therein observed in para 22 of the Report as under : The

power to regulate admission to the courses of study in

medicine is traceable to Entry 25 in List III. (Entry 11 in

List II, it may be remembered, was deleted by the 42nd

Amendment to the Constitution and Entry 25 of List III

substituted). The States, which establish and maintain

these institutions have the power to regulate all aspects

and affairs of the institutions except to the extent

provided for by Entries 63 to 66 of List I. Shri Salve

contended that the determination and coordination of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 63

standards of higher education in Entry 66 of List I takes in

all incidental or ancillary matters, that Regulation of

admission to courses of higher education is a matter

incidental to the determination of standards and if so, the

said subject- matter falls outside the field reserved to the

States. He submits that by virtue of Entry 66 List I, which

overrides Entry 25 of List III, the States are denuded of

all and every power to determine and coordinate the

standards of higher education, which must necessarily take

in regulating the admission to these courses. Even if the

Act made by parliament does not regulate the admission to

these courses, the States have no power to provide for the

same for the reason that the said subject-matter falls

outside their purview. Accordingly, it must be held, says

Shri Salve, that the provision made by the State Government

reserving certain percentage of seats under Article 15(4) is

wholly incompetent and outside the purview of the field

reserved to the States under the Constitution. We cannot

agree. While Regulation of admission to these medical

courses may be incidental to the power under Entry 66 List

I, it is integral to the power contained in Entry 25 List

III. The State which has established and is maintaining

these institutions out of public funds must be held to

possess the power to regulate the admission policy

consistent with Article 14. Such power is an integral

component of the power to maintain and administer these

institutions. Be that as it may, since we have held,

agreeing with the holding in Nivedita Jain that Entry 66 in

List I does not take in the selection of candidates or

regulation of admission to institutions of higher education,

the argument of Shri Salve becomes out of place. The States

must be held perfectly competent to provide for such

reservations.

It is also pertinent to note that decision of this

Court in Kumari Nivedita Jain (supra) is approved by a

Constitution bench of nine Judges of this court in Indra

Sawhney vs. Union of India, 1992 Supp. 3 SCC 217 at page

751, to which I will make a detailed reference later on.

II. Role of the Medical Council of India: As noted

earlier, the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 was enacted by

the Union Parliament in exercise of its powers under Entry

66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.

The statement of objects and reasons of the said Act read as

under : The objects of this Bill are to amend the Indian

Medical Council Act, 1933 (Act XXVII of 1933) - (a) to give

representation to licentiate members of the medical

profession, a large number of whom are still practising in

the country; (b) to provide for the registration of the

names of citizens of India who have obtained foreign medical

qualifications which are not at present recognised under the

existing Act; (c) to provide for the temporary recognition

of medical qualifications granted by medical institutions in

countries outside India with which no scheme of reciprocity

exists in cases where the medical practitioners concerned

are attached for the time being to any medical institution

in India for the purpose of teaching or research or for any

charitable object; (d) to provide for the formation of a

Committee of Postgraduate Medical Education for the purpose

of assisting the Medical Council of India to prescribe

standards of postgraduate medical education for the guidance

of Universities and to advise Universities in the matter of

securing uniform standards for postgraduate medical

education throughout India; (e) to provide for the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 63

maintenance of an all-India register by the Medical Council

of India, which will contain the names of all the medical

practitioners possessing recognised medical qualifications.

Amongst others, the object and reason no.(d) clearly

indicated that the Act was to provide for the formation of a

Committee of Postgraduate Medical Education for the purpose

of assisting the Medical Council of India to prescribe

standards of postgraduate medical education for the guidance

of Universities. This necessarily meant conferring power on

Medical Council of India to be the approving body for the

universities for enabling them to prescribe standards of

postgraduate medical education. Naturally that referred to

the courses of study to be prescribed and the types of

practical training to be imparted to the admitted students

for such courses. We may now refer to the relevant

statutory provisions of the Act. Section 10-A empowers the

Central Government to give clearance for establishing

medical colleges at given centres and the statutory

requirements for establishing such colleges. It is the

Medical Council of India which has to recommend in

connection with such proposed scheme for establishing

medical colleges. Sub-section (7) of Section 10-A lays down

the relevant considerations to be kept in view by the

Medical Council of India while making such recommendations

in connection with any scheme proposing to establish a

medical college. They obviously refer to the types of

education to be imparted to admitted students and the basic

requirement of infrastructure for imparting such education

which only would enable the proposed college to be

established. None of these requirements has anything to do

with the controlling of admissions out of qualified and

eligible students who can take such education. Section 11

deals with medical qualifications granted by any University

or medical institution which can be recognised as medical

qualifications for the purpose of the Act. Meaning thereby,

only such qualified persons can be registered as medical

practitioners under the Act. None of the other provisions

of the Act deal with the topic of short-listing of eligible

and otherwise qualified candidates for being admitted to

medical courses either at MBBS level or even at post-

graduate level. As we are concerned with minimum standards

for medical education at postgraduate level, Section 20 of

the Act becomes relevant. It reads as under : 20.

Postgraduate Medical Education Committee for assisting

Council in matters relating to postgraduate medical

education - (1) The Council may prescribe standards of

postgraduate medical education for the guidance of

Universities, and may advise Universities in the matter of

securing uniform standards for postgraduate medical

education throughout India, and for this purpose the Central

Government may constitute from among the members of the

Council a Postgraduate Medical Education Committee

(hereinafter referred to as the Postgraduate Committee).

(2) The Postgraduate Committee shall consist of nine members

all of whom shall be, persons possessing postgraduate

medical qualifications and experience of teaching or

examining postgraduate students of medicine. (3) Six of the

members of the Postgraduate Committee shall be nominated by

the Central Government and the remaining three members shall

be elected by the Council from amongst its members. (4) For

the purpose of considering Postgraduate studies in a

subject, the Postgraduate Committee may co-opt, as and when

necessary, one or more members qualified to assist it in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 63

that subject. (5) The views and recommendations of the

Postgraduate Committee on all matters shall be placed before

the Council; and if the Council does not agree with the

views expressed or the recommendations made by the

Postgraduate Committee on any matter, the Council shall

forward them together with its observations to the Central

Government for decision.

Sub-section (1) of Section 20 while dealing with

prescription of standards of postgraduate medical education

by the Council for the guidance of Universities does not by

itself touch upon the topic of controlling of admission of

eligible medical graduates or short-listing them according

to the exigencies of the situations at a given point of time

by those running medical institutions imparting postgraduate

medical courses in the colleges. Standards of postgraduate

medical education as mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section

20 therefore, would include guidance regarding the minimum

qualifications or eligibility criteria for such students for

admission and after they are admitted having undergone the

process of short-listing at the hands of the State

authorities or authorities running the institutions, how

they are to be trained and educated in such courses, how

practical training has to be given to them and what would be

the course of study, the syllabi and the types of

examination which they have to undertake before they can be

said to have successfully completed postgraduate medical

education in the concerned States. But having seen all

these it has to be kept in view that all that Sub-section

(1) of Section 20 enables the Medical Council of India is to

merely give guidance to the Universities. What is stated to

be guidance can never refer to the quality of a candidate

who is otherwise eligible for admission. None of the

remaining provisions up to Section 32 deal with the question

of controlling of admission by process of short-listing from

amongst eligible and duly qualified candidates seeking

admission to postgraduate medical courses. We then go to

Section 33 which confers power on the Medical Council of

India to make regulations. It provides that the Council

may, with the previous sanction of the Central Government,

make regulations generally to carry out the purposes of this

Act. Therefore, this general power to make regulations has

to be with reference to any of the statutory purposes

indicated in any other provisions of the Act. As none of

the provisions in the Act enables the Medical Council of

India to regulate the admission of eligible candidates to

the available seats for pursuing higher medical studies in

institutions, the general power to make regulations cannot

cover such a topic. So far as the express topics enumerated

in Section 33 on which regulations can be framed are

concerned, the relevant topics for our purpose are found in

clauses (fc) and (j). So far as clause (fc) is concerned,

it deals with the criteria for identifying a student who

has been granted a medical qualification referred to in the

Explanation to sub-section (3) of Section 10B. When we

turn to Section 10B, we find that it deals with those

students who are admitted on the basis of the increase in

its admission capacity without previous permission of the

Central Government. Any medical qualification obtained by

such student will not enable him or her to be treated as

duly medically qualified. The medical qualification is

obviously obtained by the student who has successfully

completed his course of study and obtained the requisite

degree. It is the obtaining of such requisite medical

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 63

degree and qualification that entitles him to get enrolled

as per Section 15 on any State Medical Register so that he

can act as a Registered Medical Practitioner. That

obviously has nothing to do with the admission of students

desirous of obtaining medical degrees after undergoing

requisite educational training at the institutions.

Therefore, no regulation framed under Section 33(fc) can

cover the topic of short-listing of eligible candidates for

admission. Then remains in the filed clause (j) which

provides as under : [(j)the courses and period of study

and of practical training to be undertaken, the subjects of

examination and the standards of proficiency therein to be

obtained, in Universities or medical institutions for grant

of recognised medical qualifications; A mere look at the

said provision shows that regulations under this provision

can be framed by the Medical Council of India for laying

down the courses and period of study and of practical

training to be undertaken, the subjects of examination and

the standard of proficiency therein to be obtained by the

admitted students for obtaining recognised medical

qualifications. They all deal with post- admission

requirements of eligible students in the medical courses

concerned. That has nothing to do with pre-entry stage of

such students eligible for admission. Consequently, any

regulation framed by the Medical Council of India under

Section 33 which seeks to give any guidelines in connection

with the method of admission of such eligible students to

medical courses would obviously remain in the realm of a

mere advise or guidance and can obviously therefore, not

have any binding force qua admitting authorities. It,

therefore, must be held that once the Medical Council of

India has laid down basic requirements of qualifications or

eligibility criteria for a student who has passed his MBBS

examination for being admitted to postgraduate courses for

higher medical education in institutions and once these

basic minimum requirements are complied with by eligible

students seeking such admissions the role of Medical Council

of India comes to an end. As seen earlier, the question of

short-listing falls squarely in the domain of State

authorities as per entry 25 of List III till Parliament

steps in to cover this field. We may now briefly deal with

decisions of this Court rendered from time to time in

connection with this question. A three Judge bench of this

Court in D.N. Chanchala vs. State of Mysore & Ors.etc.,

1971 Supp. SCR 608, speaking through Shelat, J., emphasised

the necessity for a screening test and short-listing of

eligible candidates for being admitted to medical courses in

view of the fact that claimants are many and seats are less.

Dealing with three universities set up in the territories of

the then State of Mysore catering to medical education, the

following relevant observations were made at page 619 of the

Report : The three universities were set up in three

different places presumably for the purpose of catering to

the educational and academic needs of those areas.

Obviously one university for the whole of the State could

neither have been adequate nor feasible to satisfy those

needs. Since it would not be possible to admit all

candidates in the medical colleges run by the Government,

some basis for screening the candidates had to be set up.

There can be no manner of doubt, and it is now fairly well

settled, that the Government, as also other private

agencies, who found such centres for medical training, have

the right to frame rules for admission so long as those

rules are not inconsistent with the university statutes and

regulations and do not suffer from infirmities,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 63

constitutional or otherwise. Similar observations were

made at page 628 of the Report :

On account of paucity of institutions imparting

training in technical studies and the increasing number of

candidates seeking admission therein, there is obviously the

need for classification to enable fair and equitable

distribution of available seats. The very decisions relied

on by counsel for the petitioner implicitly recognise the

need for classification and the power of those who run such

institutions to lay down classification.

A three Judge bench of this Court in State of Madhya

Pradesh & Anr. vs. Kumari Nivedita Jain & Ors., (supra)

had to consider the legality of order passed by the State of

Madhya Pradesh completely relaxing the conditions relating

to the minimum qualifying marks for SC,ST candidates for

admission to medical courses of study on non- availability

of qualified candidates from these categories. Such an

exercise was held permissible under Articles 14 and 15 of

the Constitution of India. A.N. Sen, J., speaking for the

Court in this connection referred to Entry 25 of the

Concurrent List and also the constitutional scheme of Entry

66 of List I and held that: By virtue of the authority

conferred by the Medical Council Act, the Medical Council

may prescribe the eligibility of a candidate who may seek to

get admitted into a Medical College for obtaining recognised

medical qualifications. But as to how the selection has to

be made out of the eligible candidates for admission into

the Medical College necessarily depends on circumstances and

conditions prevailing in particular States and does not come

within the purview of the Council. Regulation I which lays

down the conditions or qualifications for admission into

medical course comes within the competence of the Council

under Section 33 of the Act and is mandatory, whereas

Regulation II which deals with the process or procedure for

selection from amongst eligible candidates for admission is

outside the authority of the Council under Section 33 of the

Act, and is merely in the nature of a recommendation and is

directory in nature. (paras 19 and 21) Entry 25 in List II

is wide enough to include within its ambit the question of

selection of candidates to Medical Colleges and there is

nothing in the Entries 63, 64 and 65 of List I to suggest to

the contrary. (para 22) As there is no legislation covering

the field of selection of candidates for admission to

Medical Colleges, the State Government would, undoubtedly,

be competent to pass executive orders in this regard under

Article 162. (para 24) Thus Regulation II of the Council

which is merely directory and in the nature of a

recommendation has no such statutory force as to render the

Order in question which contravenes the said Regulation

illegal, invalid and unconstitutional. The Order can

therefore be supported under Article 15(4). (paras 22 and

25) The State is entitled to make reservations for the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the matter of

admission to medical and other technical institutions. In

the absence of any law to the contrary, it must also be open

to the Government to impose such conditions as would make

the reservation effective and would benefit the candidates

belonging to these categories for whose benefit and welfare

the reservations have been made. In any particular

situation, taking into consideration the realities and

circumstances prevailing in the State it will be open to the

State to vary and modify the conditions regarding selection

for admission, if such modification or variation becomes

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 63

necessary for achieving the purpose for which reservation

has been made and if there be no law to the contrary. Note

(ii) of Rule 20 of the Rules for admission framed by the

State Government specifically empowers the Government to

grant such relaxation in the minimum qualifying marks to the

extent considered necessary. Such relaxation neither can be

said to be unreasonable, nor constitutes violation of

Article 15(1) and (2) or Article 14 of the Constitution.

The impugned order does not affect any relaxation in the

standard of medical education or curriculum of studies in

Medical Colleges for those candidates after their admission

to the College and the standard of examination and the

curriculum remains the same for all. (paras 26 and 27)

(Emphasis supplied)

The aforesaid observations of the court are well

sustained on the scheme of the relevant entries in VIIth

Schedule to which we have made a reference earlier. As

noticed herein before, this judgment of three member bench

is approved by the Constitution bench in its judgment in

Indra Sawhneys case (supra). It is of course true that

these observations are made with reference to admission to

MBBS course and not to postgraduate medical courses. But on

the constitutional scheme of the relevant entries, the very

same result can follow while regulating admissions to

postgraduate medical courses also. Before parting with

discussion on the topic regarding role of Medical Council of

India, we may also usefully refer to the observations of

Jeevan Reddy, J., in the case of Ajay Kumar Singh & Ors.

vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (supra). Jeevan Reddy, J.,

speaking for the three Judge Bench in para 18 of the Report

on the review and relevant provisions of the Indian Medical

Council Act has made the following pertinent observations in

the said para of the Report at page 415 : A review of the

provisions of the Act clearly shows that among other things,

the Act is concerned with the determination and coordination

of standards of education and training in medical

institutions. Sections 16, 17, 18 and 19 all speak of the

courses of study and examinations to be undergone to obtain

the recognised medical qualification. They do not speak of

admission to such courses. Section 19-A expressly empowers

the council to prescribe the minimum standards of medical

education required for granting undergraduate medical

qualification. So does Section 20 empower the council to

prescribe standards of postgraduate medical education but

for the guidance of universities only. It further says

that the council may also advise universities in the matter

of securing uniform standards for postgraduate medical

education throughout India. (The distinction between the

language of Section 19-A and Section 20 is also a relevant

factor, as would be explained later.) Clause (j) of Section

33 particularises the subjects with respect to which

Regulations can be made by the council. It speaks of the

courses and period of study and the practical training to be

undergone by the students, the subjects of examination which

they must pass and the standards of proficiency they must

attain to obtain the recognised medical qualifications but

it does not speak of admission to such courses of study.

Indeed, none of the sections aforementioned empower the

council to regulate or prescribe qualifications or

conditions for admission to such courses of study. No other

provision in the Act does. It is thus clear that the Act

does not purport to deal with, regulate or provide for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 63

admission to graduate or postgraduate medical courses.

Indeed, insofar as postgraduate courses are concerned, the

power of the Indian Medical Council to prescribe the

minimum standards of medical education is only advisory in

nature and not of a binding character. In such a situation,

it would be rather curious to say that the Regulations made

under the Act are binding upon them. The Regulations made

under the Act cannot also provide for or regulate admission

to postgraduate courses in any event.

In our view, these observations are clearly borne out

from the statutory scheme of the Indian Medical Council Act,

as seen earlier.

III. Role of States for short-listing of admissions

to postgraduate courses:

As seen earlier, so far as the field consisting of the

short- listing of admission out of eligible and duly

qualified medical graduates for being admitted to

postgraduate medical courses in institutions is concerned,

as the Union Parliament has not said anything about the

same, the field is wide open for the State authorities to

regulate such admissions by short-listing the available

candidates keeping in view the concept of reservation of

seats as permitted by Article 15(4) of the Constitution. In

the case of R. Chitralekha & Anr. vs. State of Mysore &

Ors., 1964 (6) SCR 368, a Constitution bench of this Court

while dealing with Entry 66 of List I and Article 15(4) of

the Constitution of India had to consider the question

whether the State Government could prescribe the criteria

for selection of students having minimum qualifications laid

down by the university for admission to medical courses and

whether it would affect the central legislation enacted

under Entry 66 of List I of the Constitution? Answering

this question in favour of the State authorities, it was

observed at page 379 of the Report by Subba Rao, J.,

speaking on behalf of the Constitution bench as under :

If the impact of the State law providing for such

standards on entry 66 of List I is so heavy or devastating

as to wipe out or appreciably abridge the central field, it

may be struck down. But that is a question of fact to be

ascertained in each case. It is not possible to hold that

if a State legislature made a law prescribing a higher

percentage of marks for extra-curricular activities in the

matter of admission to colleges, it would be directly

encroaching on the field covered by entry 66 of List I of

the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. If so, it is not

disputed that the State Government would be within its

rights to prescribe qualifications for admission to colleges

so long as its action does not contravene any other law. It

is then said that the Mysore University Act conferred power

to prescribe rules for admission to Colleges on the

University and the Government cannot exercise that power.

It is true that under s.23 of the Mysore University Act,

1956, the Academic Council shall have the power to prescribe

the conditions for admission of students to the University

and, in exercise of its power, it has prescribed the

percentage of marks which a student shall obtain for getting

admission in medical or engineering colleges. The orders of

the Government do not contravene the minimum qualifications

prescribed by the University; what the Government did was

to appoint a selection committee and prescribe rules for

selection of students who have the minimum qualifications

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 63

prescribed by the University. The Government runs most of

the medical and engineering colleges. Excluding the State

aided colleges for a moment, the position is as follows :

The Colleges run by the Government, having regard to

financial commitments and other relevant considerations, can

only admit a specific number of students to the said

Colleges. They cannot obviously admit all the applicants

who have secured the marks prescribed by the University. It

has necessarily to screen the applicants on some reasonable

basis. The aforesaid orders of the Government only

prescribed criteria for making admissions to Colleges from

among students who secured the minimum qualifying marks

prescribed by the University. Once it is conceded, and it

is not disputed before us, that the State Government can run

medical and engineering colleges, it cannot be denied the

power to admit such qualified students as pass the

reasonable tests laid down by it. This is a power which

every private owner of a College will have, and the

Government which runs its own Colleges cannot be denied that

power.

At page 381 of the same Report, the following

observations are made by the Constitution Bench, speaking

through Subba Rao, J. :

We, therefore, hold that the Government has power to

prescribe a machinery and also the criteria for admission of

qualified students to medical and engineering colleges run

by the Government and, with the consent of the management of

the Government aided colleges, to the said colleges also.

Another decision of the Constitution bench of this

Court was rendered in the case of Chitra Ghosh & Anr. vs.

Union of India & Ors., 1970 (1) SCR 413. Grover, J.,

speaking for the Constitution bench observed at page 418 as

under : It is the Central Government which bears the

financial burden of running the medical college. It is for

it to lay down the criteria for eligibility. From the very

nature of things it is not possible to throw the admission

open to students from all over the country. The Government

cannot be denied the right to decide from what sources the

admission will be made. That essentially is a question of

policy and depends inter-alia on an overall assessment and

survey of the requirements of residents of particular

territories and other categories of persons for whom it is

essential to provide facilities for medical education. If

the sources are properly classified whether on territorial,

geographical or other reasonable basis it is not for the

courts to interfere with the manner and method of making the

classification.

At page 419 of the Report it has been further stated

as under : The next question that has to be determined is

whether the differentia on which classification has been

made has rational relation with the object to be achieved.

The main purpose of admission to a medical college is to

impart education in the theory and practice of medicine. As

noticed before the sources from which students have to be

drawn are primarily determined by the authorities who

maintain and run the institution, e.g., the Central

Government in the present case. In Minor P.Rajendran v.

State of Madras it has been stated that the object of

selection for admission is to secure the best possible

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 63

material. This can surely be achieved by making proper

rules in the matter of selection but there can be no doubt

that such selection has to be confined to the sources that

are intended to supply the material. If the sources have

been classified in the manner done in the present case it is

difficult to see how that classification has no rational

nexus with the object of imparting medical education and

also of selection for the purpose.

In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. vs.

Lavu Narendranath & Ors.etc., 1971(1) SCC 607, a four Judge

bench of this Court had to consider whether the entrance

test prescribed by the Government for short-listing eligible

candidates for being admitted to medical courses in colleges

was legally permissible or not. Upholding the power of the

State Government on the anvil of the Constitution, Mitter,

J., speaking on behalf of the four Judge bench held that :

Merely because the University had made regulations

regarding the admission of students to its degree courses,

it did not mean that any one who had passed the qualifying

examination such as the P.U.C. or H.S.C. was ipso facto to

be entitled to admission to such courses of study. If the

number of candidates applying for such admission far exceeds

the number of seats available the University can have to

make its choice out of the applicants to find out who should

be admitted and if instead of judging the candidates by the

number of marks obtained by them in the qualifying

examination the University thinks fit to prescribe another

test for admission no objection can be taken thereto. What

the University can do in the matter of admissions to the

degree courses can certainly be done by the Government in

the matter of admission to the M.B.B.S. course. 9. In our

view the test prescribed by the Government in no way

militates against the power of Parliament under Entry 66 of

List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The

said entry provides :

Co-ordination and determination of standards in

institutions for higher education or research and scientific

and technical institutions.

The above entry gives Parliament power to make laws

for laying down how standards in an institution for higher

education are to be determined and how they can be co-

ordinated. It has no relation to a test prescribed by a

Government or by a University for selection of a number of

students from out of a large number applying for admission

to a particular course of study even if it be for higher

education in any particular subject.

Similar observations were found in para 15 of the

Report, wherein it was observed that : .The University

Act, as pointed out, merely prescribed a minimum

qualification for entry into the higher courses of study.

There was no regulation to the effect that admission to

higher course of study was guaranteed by the securing of

eligibility. The Executive have a power to make any

regulation which would have the effect of a law so long as

it does not contravene any legislation already covering the

field and the Government order in this case in no way

affected the rights of candidates with regard to eligibility

for admission : the test prescribed was a further hurdle by

way of competition when mere eligibility could not be made

the determining factor.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 63

The aforesaid observations of the four Judge bench, in

our view, correctly bring out the permissible scheme of

short-listing of eligible candidates in the light of the

relevant provisions with which we are concerned. In the

case of Dr. Ambesh Kumar vs. Principal, L.L.R.M.Medical

College, Meerut & Ors., 1986 (Supp) SCC 543, a two Judge

bench of this court had to consider the question whether out

of the eligible candidates qualified for being considered

for admission to medical education imparted in medical

colleges of the State, looking to the limited number of

seats available, the State could resort to the process of

weeding out by laying down further criteria for

short-listing such candidates. Upholding such an exercise

undertaken by the State in the light of the relevant

provisions of the Constitution, B.C.Ray, J., speaking for

the court, made the following observations at pages 544 and

545 of the Report as under : The State Government can in

exercise of its executive power under Article 162 make an

order relating to matters referred to in Entry 25 of the

Concurrent List in the absence of any law made by the State

Legislature. The impugned order made by the State

Government pursuant to its executive powers was valid and it

cannot be assailed on the ground that it is beyond the

competence of the State Government to make such order

provided it does not encroach upon or infringe the power of

the Central Government as well as the Parliament provided in

Entry 66 of List I. The order in question merely specified

a further eligibility qualification for being considered for

selection for admission to the postgraduate courses (degree

and diploma) in the Medical Colleges in the State in

accordance with the criteria laid down by Indian Medical

Council. The number of seats for admission to various

postgraduate courses both degree and diploma in Medical

Colleges is limited and a large number of candidates apply

for admission to these courses of study. In such

circumstances the impugned order cannot be said to be in

conflict with or repugnant to or encroach upon the

Regulations framed under the provisions of Section 33 of the

Indian Medical Council Act. On the other hand by laying

down a further qualification of eligibility it promotes and

furthers the determination of standards in institutions for

higher education.

In this connection, we may also refer to a later

Constitution bench Judgment of this Court in Indra Sawhney &

Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., (supra). As noted

earlier, judgment of this Court in Kumari Nivedita Jains

case (supra) was approved therein. Jeevan Reddy, J.,

speaking on behalf of the Constitution bench, at page 751 of

the Report in para 837 has referred to, with approval, the

observations of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs.

Kumari Nivedita Jain, (Supra) to the effect that admission

to medical courses was regulated by an entrance test for

general candidates, the minimum qualifying marks were 50% in

the aggregate and 33% in each subject. For SC/ST

candidates, however, it was 40% and 30% respectively. The

said deviation was upheld in Kumari Nivedita Jains case

(supra) and the same was also approved by the Constitution

Bench in the aforesaid decision. In this connection, we may

also usefully refer to the relevant observations in the case

of State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. vs. Kumari Nivedita Jain

& Ors. (supra) which got imprimatur of the Constitution

bench of this court in Indra Sawhneys case (supra). At

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 63

page 751 of the Report in Indra Sawhneys case (supra), the

following pertinent observations are found in the majority

judgment wherein Jeevan Reddy, J., in paragraph 837 of the

Report observed as under :

Having said this, we must append a note of

clarification. In some cases arising under Article 15, this

Court has upheld the removal of minimum qualifying marks, in

the case of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates, in

the matter of admission to medical courses. For example, in

State of M.P. v. Nivedita Jain admission to medical course

was regulated by an entrance test (called Pre-Medical Test).

For general candidates, the minimum qualifying marks were

50% in the aggregate and 33% in each subject. For Scheduled

Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates, however, it was 40% and

30% respectively. On finding that Scheduled Caste/Scheduled

Tribe candidates equal to the number of the seats reserved

for them did not qualify on the above standard, the

Government did away with the said minimum standard

altogether. The Governments action was challenged in this

Court but was upheld. Since it was a case under Article 15,

Article 335 had no relevance and was not applied. But in

the case of Article 16, Article 335 would be relevant and

any order on the lines of the order of the Government of

Madhya Pradesh (in Nivedita Jain) would not be permissible,

being inconsistent with the efficiency of administration.

To wit, in the matter of appointment of Medical Officers,

the Government or the Public Service Commission cannot say

that there shall be no minimum qualifying marks for

Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates, while

prescribing a minimum for others. It may be permissible for

the Government to prescribe a reasonably lower standard for

Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Backward Classes -

consistent with the requirements of efficiency of

administration - it would not be permissible not to

prescribe any such minimum standard at all. While

prescribing the lower minimum standard for reserved

category, the nature of duties attached to the post and the

interest of the general public should also be kept in mind.

In para 20 of the Report in the case of State of

Madhya Pradesh & Anr. vs. Kumari Nivedita Jain & Ors.

(supra) the following pertinent observations are found :

Undoubtedly, under Section 33 of the Act, the Council is

empowered to make regulations with the previous sanction of

the Central Government generally to carry out the purposes

of the Act and such regulations may also provide for any of

the matters mentioned in Section 33 of the Act. We have

earlier indicated what are the purposes of this Act.

Sub-sections (j), (k), (l) and (m) of the Act which we have

earlier set out clearly indicate that they have no

application to the process of selection of a student out of

the eligible candidates for admission into the medical

course. Sub- sections (j), (k) and (l) relate to

post-admission stages and the period of study after

admission in Medical Colleges. Sub-section (m) of Section

33 relates to a post-degree stage. Sub-section (n) of

Section 33 which has also been quoted earlier is also of no

assistance as the Act is not concerned with the question of

selection of students out of the eligible candidates for

admission into Medical Colleges. It appears to us that the

observations of this Court in the case of Arti Sapru v.

State of Jammu & Kashmir which we have earlier quoted and

which were relied on by Mr. Phadke, were made on such

consideration, though the question was not very properly

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 63

finally decided in the absence of the Council.

The aforesaid observations are also well borne out

from the scheme of the Indian Medical Council Act to which

we have made a detailed reference earlier. But even apart

from that, once these observations have been approved by a

Constitution Bench of nine learned Judges of this Court,

there is no scope for any further debate on this aspect in

the present proceedings.

We may now refer to a two Judge Bench decision of this

Court in Dr. Sadhna Devi & Ors. vs. State o f U.P. &

Ors., 1997(3) SCC 90. The court was concerned with the

short-listing of eligible candidates who have got basic

qualification for admission to postgraduate medical courses.

Reservation of seats for SC and ST candidates in

postgraduate courses was not challenged but providing zero

percent marks for them for passing the entrance examination

for admission to postgraduate course was questioned before

the Bench. It was held that once minimum qualifying marks

for passing the entrance examination for admission to

postgraduate courses was a pre- requisite, in the absence of

prescription of any minimum qualifying marks for reserved

category of candidates, admitting such students who did not

get any marks at the entrance test amounted to sacrificing

merit and could not be countenanced. In para 21 of the

Report, the following observations are made: In our view,

the Government having laid down a system for holding

admission tests, is not entitled to do away with the

requirement of obtaining the minimum qualifying marks for

the special category candidates. It is open to the

Government to admit candidates belonging to the special

categories even in a case where they obtain lesser marks

than the general candidates provided they have got the

minimum qualifying marks to fill up the reserved quota of

seats for them.

A cursory reading of these observations seems to

indicate that once the minimum qualifying marks are

prescribed for otherwise eligible candidates for

short-listing them for admission to postgraduate courses,

minimum qualifying marks prescribed for general category

candidates and reserved category candidates must be uniform.

But then follows para 22 which relies on the decision of

this court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kumari Nivedita

Jain (supra) wherein prescription of lesser minimum

qualifying marks in the entrance test for SC,ST and Other

Backward Class candidates as compared to the minimum

qualifying marks for general category candidates was

approved. Even in earlier para 18 it is observed that if in

the entrance test special category candidates obtain lesser

marks than general category candidates even then they will

be eligible for admission within their reserved quota.

These observations indicate that for reserved category of

candidates there can be separate minimum qualifying marks.

Thus, on a conjoint reading of observations in paras 18, 21

and 22 of the Report it has to be held that the ratio of the

decision in Sadhna Devis case (supra) is that even for

reserved category candidates there should be some minimum

qualifying marks if not the same as prescribed as bench

marks for general category candidates. Thus, there cannot

be any zero qualifying marks for reserved category

candidates in the entrance test for admission to

postgraduate courses. Hence, this judgment cannot be taken

to have laid down that there cannot be lesser qualifying

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 63

marks for reserved category candidates as compared to the

general category candidates who are otherwise eligible and

qualified for being considered for admission to postgraduate

medical courses. That takes us to the consideration of a

three Judge Bench decision of this Court in Postgraduate

Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh &

Ors., vs. K.L. Narasimhan & Anr., 1997 (6) SCC 283.

Ramaswamy, J., speaking for the Bench had mainly to consider

two questions; 1) whether there can be reservation under

Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution in connection

with only one post in a discipline; and 2) whether

reservation of seats in postgraduate courses was permissible

as per Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution. Both the

aforesaid questions were answered in the affirmative in

favour of the schemes of reservations. So far as the

question of reservation of seats when there is only one post

in the discipline is concerned, decision rendered thereon by

the three Judge Bench is expressly overruled by a

Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Postgraduate

Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh vs.

Faculty Association & Ors., 1998(4) SCC 1. However, so far

as the second question is concerned, in the aforesaid

judgment it was held that there can be reservation of seats

in postgraduate courses as per the mandate of Articles 15(4)

and 16(4). In the present proceedings, there is no dispute

on this score. Hence the said judgment on the second point

is not required to be reconsidered. However, certain

observations are found in para 21 of the report wherein

Ramaswamy, J., has observed that diluting of minimum

qualifying marks in an entrance test for entry into

postgraduate courses for reserved category of candidates

cannot be said to be unauthorised or illegal. It has been

observed that: Equally, a student, admitted on

reservation, is required to pass the same standard

prescribed for speciality or a superspeciality in a subject

or medical science or technology. In that behalf, no

relaxation is given nor sought by the candidates belonging

to reserved categories. What is sought is a facility or

opportunity for admission to the courses, Ph.D., speciality

or superspeciality or high technology by relaxation of a

lesser percentage of marks for initial admission than the

general candidates. For instance, if the general candidate

is required to get 80% as qualifying marks for admission

into speciality or superspeciality, the relaxation for

admission to the reserved candidates is of 10 marks less,

i.e., qualifying marks in his case would be 70%. A doctor

or a technologist has to pass the postgraduation or the

graduation with the same standard as had by general

candidate and has also to possess the same degree of

standard. However, with the facility of possessing even

lesser marks the reserved candidate gets admission.

Now, so far as these observations are concerned, as

the court was not called upon to consider the question

whether prescription of lesser qualifying marks for SC,ST

and other reserved category candidates for admission to

postgraduate or super speciality courses in medicine was

permissible, they are clearly obiter. So far as admission

to super speciality courses are concerned, in the present

reference we are not concerned with the said question,

hence, we need not say anything about the same. However, so

far as admission to postgraduate courses is concerned the

question of providing of lesser qualifying marks for

reserved category candidates for admission to these courses

directly arises for our consideration. Hence, the obiter

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 21 of 63

observations in the aforesaid case on this aspect do require

consideration for their acceptance or otherwise. As per the

scheme of Entry 66 of List I and Entry 25 of List III of the

Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, as discussed

earlier goes, it is not possible to countenance the

submission of Shri Salve, learned senior counsel for the

Medical Council of India and other counsel canvassing the

same view that the question of short-listing of eligible

candidates who were otherwise duly qualified for being

admitted to postgraduate courses in Medicine is not within

the domain of State authorities especially in view of the

fact that the Parliament, in exercise of its legislative

powers under Entry 25 of List III, has still not spoken on

the point nor does the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956

enacted under Entry 66 of List I covers this question.

Hence, while providing for entrance test as an additional

requirement for eligible candidates for being short-listed

in connection with admission to smaller number of seats

available in postgraduate courses, it cannot be said that

the State authorities in exercise of their constitutional

right under Article 15(4) cannot give additional facilities

to reserved category of candidates vis-a-vis their

requirement of getting minimum qualifying marks at such

entrance tests so that seats reserved for them may not

remain unfilled and the reserved category of candidates do

get adequate opportunity to fill them up and get

postgraduate education on the seats reserved for them which

in their turn would not detract from the availability of

remaining seats for general category candidates. Thus, the

observations in para 21 of the aforesaid judgment that there

can be lesser qualifying marks for admission to postgraduate

courses for reserved category of candidates cannot be found

fault with. It is made clear that similar observations for

admission to super speciality courses and the relaxation of

minimum qualifying marks for candidates appearing at the

entrance test for such courses are not being approved by us

as we are not required to consider that aspect of the

matter, as noted earlier. As it will be presently shown,

once reservation of seats in postgraduate courses under

Article 15(4) is accepted then even lesser bench marks being

prescribed for reserved category of candidates in the common

entrance examination which they undertake along with general

category of candidates would in substance make no difference

so far as the un-reserved seats available to general

category of candidates are concerned. In a later three

Judge Bench Judgment of this Court in Medical Council of

India vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., 1998(6) SCC 131, it

was held that in the light of Sections 10-A, 10-B, 10-C,

19-A and 33(fa), (fb), (fc), (j), (k) and (l) of the Indian

Medical Council Act, 1956 fixation of admission capacity in

medical colleges/institutions is the exclusive function of

Medical Council of India and increase in number of

admissions can only be directed by the Central Govt. on the

recommendation of the Medical Council of India. This

function of the Medical Council of India was upheld in the

light of Entries 66 List I and 25 of List III thereof. Now

it becomes at once obvious that providing for number of

seats to be filled up by eligible candidates in any medical

course imparted by medical colleges or medical institutions

will have a direct nexus with coordination and

determination of standards in medical education, as larger

the seats in medical colleges wherein students can be

admitted to MBBS or even higher courses in medicine, larger

infrastructure would be required by way of beds and eligible

and efficient teachers and all other infrastructure for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 22 of 63

imparting proper training to the admitted students. Once

this exercise is clearly within the domain of the Medical

Council of India in the light of the aforesaid statutory

provisions it becomes obvious that Entry 66 of List I of the

Seventh Schedule would hold the field and consequently

States will not be empowered under entry 25 of List III to

legislate on this topic as such an exercise would be subject

to legislation under Entry 66 of List I which would wholly

occupy the field. However, a moot question remains whether

given the permissible intake capacity for admitting students

in any medical college as laid down by the Medical Council

of India can the available intake capacity of students be

regulated at the admission stage when the number of eligible

candidates aspiring to be admitted is larger than the

available intake capacity? This question will remain

outside the domain of the Medical Council of India under the

aforesaid Act. As we have discussed earlier, there being no

parliamentary legislation on this aspect even under entry 25

of List III of the Seventh Schedule, the short-listing of

eligible candidates for being admitted to the available

permitted intake capacity in medical colleges will obviously

remain in the domain of State legislature and State

executive on the combined reading of entry 25 of List III as

well as Article 162 of the Constitution of India. In view

of the aforesaid discussion, it therefore, becomes clear

that once seats in postgraduate medical courses are reserved

for SC, ST and OBC candidates as per Article 15(4) of the

Constitution the question as to how admission to limited

number of general seats and reserved seats are to be

regulated will remain in the domain of the State authorities

running these institutions. They can, therefore,

legitimately resort to the procedure of short-listing of

otherwise eligible candidates. While undertaking this

exercise of short-listing, the state authorities have to see

how best in a given academic year the reserved seats and

general category seats can be filled in by available and

eligible candidates. The question is while undertaking the

task of short-listing of available eligible candidates

vis-a-vis limited number of seats that may be available for

being filled in in a given academic year, uniform qualifying

bench marks for passing the entrance test should be

prescribed for both the general category candidates as well

as reserved category candidates or there can be lesser bench

marks for the latter category of students. If due to

non-availability of reserved category candidates who could

obtain minimum qualifying marks prescribed for all the

examinees whether there can be any legitimate dilution of

minimum qualifying marks for these reserved category of

question. candidates and if so, to what extent is the moot

In the case of M.R. Balaji & Ors. vs. State of Mysore,

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

1963 Supp.(1) SCR 439, a Constitution bench of this court

was concerned with the extent of reservation which could be

legally permissible under Article 15(4) of the Constitution

of India. Gajendragadkar, J., speaking for the Constitution

bench held that reservation of 68% seats in educational

institutions was inconsistent with the concept of special

provision authorised by Article 15(4). It was then observed

as under : Reservation should and must be adopted to

advance the prospects of weaker sections of society, but

while doing so, care should be taken not to exclude

admission to higher educational centres of deserving and

qualified candidates of other communities. Reservations

under Arts.15(4) and 16(4) must be within reasonable limits.

The interests of weaker sections of society, which are a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 23 of 63

first charge on the States and the Centre, have to be

adjusted with the interests of the community as a whole.

Speaking generally and in a broad way, a special provision

should be less than 50%. The actual percentage must depend

upon the relevant prevailing circumstances in each case.

The object of Art.15(4) is to advance the interests of the

society as a whole by looking after the interests of the

weaker elements in society. If a provision under Art.15(4)

ignores the interests of society, that is clearly outside

the scope of Art.15(4). It is extremely unreasonable to

assume that in enacting Art.15(4), Parliament intended to

provide that where the advancement of the backward classes

or the Scheduled Castes and Tribes were concerned, the

fundamental rights of the citizens constituting the rest of

the society were to be completely and absolutely ignored.

Considerations of national interest and the interests of the

community and the society as a whole have already to be kept

in mind.

Thus, even accepting that when seats are reserved for

SC and ST and Other Backward Classes for admission to be

given to such reserved category of eligible candidates in

postgraduate medical courses, the concession or facility

given to them cannot exceed 50% of the facility otherwise

available to members of the general public. Keeping the

aforesaid ratio of the Constitution Bench in view,

therefore, even proceeding on the assumption that 50% of the

available seats in postgraduate medical courses in a given

year may be reserved for SC,ST and OBCs, further concession

that may be given to them by State authorities by diluting

the minimum qualifying marks at the entrance test so that

seats reserved for them may not remain unfilled by the

reserved categories of persons for whom they are meant, the

dilution of such marks cannot exceed 50% of the general

standards of qualifying bench marks laid down for the

general categories of candidates. Otherwise even the said

dilution would become unreasonable and would be hit by

Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution of India. In the

case of Minor P. Rajendran vs. State of Madras & Ors.,

1968 (2) SCR 786, another Constitution bench of this court

had to consider whether district-wise distribution of

reserved seats in medical courses for granting admission to

reserved category of candidates was violative of Article 15

(1) read with Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Answering the question in the affirmative it was observed by

Wanchoo, J., speaking for the Constitution bench at pages

792 and 793 of the Report as under : The object of

selection can only be to secure the best possible material

for admission to colleges subject to the provision for

socially and educationally backward classes. Further

whether selection is from the socially and educationally

backward classes or from the general pool, the object of

selection must be to secure the best possible talent from

the two sources. If that is the object, it must necessarily

follow that that object would be defeated if seats are

allocated district by district. It cannot be and has not

been denied that the object of selection is to secure the

best possible talent from the two sources so that the

country may have the best possible doctors.

Relying on these observations of the Constitution

bench Shri P.P. Rao and Shri Chaudhary, learned senior

counsel appearing for the State of Madhya Pradesh, submitted

that when there is a pool of eligible candidates who have

all passed MBBS examination and are duly qualified and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 24 of 63

eligible to pursue postgraduate medical courses of study,

and if in a given institution there are seats reserved for

them then the selection out of the reserved category

candidates for filling up of these reserved posts can be

done in a selective manner and that would permit reasonable

dilution of the uniform qualifying marks at the entrance

test as required to be obtained by the examinees concerned.

This submission is amply borne out from the aforesaid

observations of the Constitution bench decision of this

court. However, a further question survives as to whether

in diluting the minimum qualifying marks for reserved

category of candidates who are otherwise eligible for being

admitted to postgraduate courses on the seats reserved for

them, whether Article 335 can get attracted. It is of

course true that candidates appointed or admitted to

postgraduate medical course have to work as registrars, some

posts of the registrars are fully paid posts while others

may be stipendary residents posts. However, it is not

possible to accept the contention of learned counsel for the

Special Leave Petitioners that admission to postgraduate

courses would amount to recruitment to any posts. Concept

of recruitment to posts is entirely different from the

concept of admission to the course of study which in its

turn may require the students concerned to take practical

training by functioning as registrars attached to wards

where patients are treated. Even though such students work

as registrars during the course of study as postgraduate

students, they essentially remain students and their working

as registrars would be a part of practical training. They

would all the same remain trainee registrars and not as

directly recruited registrars through any recruitment

process held by the Public Service Commission for filling up

full-fledged medical officers posts. They work as

registrars as a part of postgraduate educational training

only because they are admitted to the course of study as

postgraduate students in concerned disciplines. It is easy

to visualise that calling for applications from open market

by advertisement for appointment of full-fledged medical

officers to be recruited through the process of selection to

be undertaken by Public Service Commission or other

departmental selection committees will stand entirely on a

different footing as compared to the process of admitting

eligible students to postgraduate medical courses of

studies. Thus, keeping in view the nature of working as

trainee registrars by admitted students to postgraduate

medical courses it cannot be said that such admitted

students are recruited to any posts of registrars.

Consequently, Article 335 of the Constitution of India which

has relevance while considering reservation of posts under

Article 16(4) cannot have any direct impact on reservation

of seats in educational institutions as permitted under

Article 15(4). Learned counsel for the petitioners had

invited our attention to a decision of two Judge bench of

this Court in S. Vinod Kumar & Anr. vs. Union of India &

Ors., 1996(6) SCC 580, wherein it was held that while

providing for reservations to posts in the hierarchy by

invoking powers under Article 16(4), making a provision for

lower qualifying marks or lesser level of evaluation for

members of reserved category was impermissible on account of

Article 335 of the Constitution of India. The aforesaid

decision obviously cannot be pressed in service while

considering the question of giving facilities to reserved

category of candidates for being admitted to the seats

reserved for them in educational institutions wherein they

can undertake courses of studies for ultimately obtaining

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 25 of 63

postgraduate degrees in medicine. In the case of Ajay Kumar

Singh & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors.(supra), this aspect

of the matter has been correctly highlighted by Jeevan

Reddy, J., speaking for the court in para 14 of the Report.

It has been held therein that : We see absolutely no

substance in the third submission of Shri Singh. The

argument taxes ones credulity. We are totally unable to

appreciate how can it be said that admission to postgraduate

medical course is a promotional post just because such

candidate must necessarily pass MBBS examination before

becoming eligible for admission to postgraduate medical

course or for the reason that some stipend - it is

immaterial whether Rs.1000 or Rs.3000 p.m. - is paid to

postgraduate students. Admission to such course cannot be

equated to appointment to a post and certainly not to an

appointment by promotion. The argument is accordingly

rejected.

(Emphasis supplied)

It is obvious that only because a person who has

passed MBBS examination and is made eligible for admission

to postgraduate course is paid stipend during the course of

his studies at postgraduate level, he cannot be said to have

been appointed to the post of a registrar. It may be that

he has to work as a trainee registrar during the course of

his study to obtain practical training but that is a part of

the curriculum of studies and not because he is appointed to

the post of the registrar after undergoing selection process

whereunder a person from open market is recruited as a

medical officer and whose recruitment as medical officer

would be subject to rules and regulations and would not

terminate only because his training period is over. In fact

such a full-fledged medical officer has no training period.

He has if at all probation period. In case of a trainee

registrar who has to work as such during the course of his

studies as a postgraduate student on the other hand, his

work as registrar would be co-terminus with his passing the

postgraduate examination as M.D. or M.S./M.D.S. as the

case may be. He is also not liable to be transferred as a

full-fledged registrar, duly appointed as such, is liable to

be transferred due to exigencies of service. Thus, the

working of such students during the course of study as

residents whether on full payment or on stipendary payment

would make no difference and they cannot be said to be

holding any civil post in any hospital as full- fledged

medical officers. Consequently, Article 335 of the

Constitution of India cannot by itself be applied for

regulating the admission of eligible reserved category

students to postgraduate medical courses in the seats

reserved for them under Article 15(4) of the Constitution of

India. The next question that falls for consideration that

even assuming that Article 335 cannot be pressed in service

while considering the question of admission of eligible and

qualified candidates for enabling them to pursue courses of

postgraduate medical studies the guidelines laid down by the

Medical Council of India pursuant to the regulations made

under Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, even

though persuasive in nature and not mandatory, can be

totally by-passed or ignored by the State authorities

concerned with short-listing of candidates for admission to

limited seats available in medical institutions imparting

postgraduate medical education? The answer obviously would

be in the negative. The guidelines laid down by the Medical

Council of India though persuasive have to be kept in view

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 26 of 63

while deciding as to whether the concession or facility to

be given to such reserved category of candidates should

remain within the permissible limits so as not to amount to

arbitrary and unreasonable grant of concessions wiping out

the concept of merit in its entirety. Consequently, it

cannot be said that even though short-listing of eligible

candidates is permissible to the State authorities, while

doing so, the State authorities can completely give a go-by

to the concept of merit and can go to the extent of totally

dispensing with qualifying marks for SC,ST and OBC

candidates and can short-list them for being considered for

admission to reserved categories of seats for them in

postgraduate studies by reducing the qualifying marks to

even zero. That was rightly frowned upon by this court in

Sadhana Devis case (supra) as that would not amount to

short-listing but on the contrary would amount to completely

long listing of such reserved category candidates for the

vacancies which are reserved for them and on which they

would not be entitled to be admitted if they did not qualify

according to even reduced bench marks or qualifying marks

fixed for them. As seen earlier, keeping in view the ratio

of the Constitution bench of this court in M.R. Balajis

case (supra) it must be held that along with the permissible

reservation of 50% of seats for reserved category of

candidates in institutions imparting postgraduate studies,

simultaneously if further concessions by way of facilities

are to be given for such reserved category of candidates so

as to enable them to effectively occupy the seats reserved

for them, such concessions by way of dilution of qualifying

marks to be obtained at the entrance test for the purpose of

short-listing, can also not go beyond the permissible limits

of 50% of the qualifying marks uniformly fixed for other

candidates belonging to general category and who appear at

the same competitive test along with the reserved category

of candidates. It is found from the records of these cases

that qualifying marks at the entrance test for general

category of candidates are fixed at 50%. In fact such is

the general standard of qualifying marks suggested by the

Medical Council of India even at the stage of entrance

examination to MBBS course which is at the gross-root level

of medical education after a student has completed his

secondary education. Thus it would be proper to proceed on

the basis that minimum qualifying marks for clearing the

entrance test by way of short-listing for getting admitted

to postgraduate medical courses uniformly for all candidates

who appear at such examination should be 50% but so far as

reserved category of candidates are concerned who are

otherwise eligible for competing for seats in the

postgraduate medical courses, 50% reduction at the highest

of the general bench marks by way of permissible concession

would enable the State authorities to reduce the qualifying

marks for passing such entrance examination up to 50% of 50%

i.e. 25%. In other words, if qualifying marks for passing

the entrance examination for being admitted to postgraduate

medical courses is 50% for a general category candidate,

then such qualifying marks by way of concession can be

reduced for reserved category candidates to 25% which would

be the maximum permissible limit of reduction or deviation

from the general bench marks. Meaning thereby, that a

reserved category candidate even if gets 25% of the marks at

such a common entrance test he can be considered for being

admitted to the reserved vacancy for which he is otherwise

eligible. But below 25% of bench marks for reserved

category of candidates, no further dilution can be

permitted. In other words, concession or facility for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 27 of 63

reserved category of candidates can remain permissible under

Article 15(4) up to only 50% of bench marks prescribed for

general category candidates. The State cannot reduce the

qualifying marks for a reserved category of candidate below

25% nor can it go up to zero as tried to be suggested by

Shri P.P.Rao, learned senior counsel for the State of Madhya

Pradesh as that would not amount to the process of

short-listing but would in fact amount to long listing or

comprehensive listing of such reserved category of

candidates as seen earlier. Any such attempt to further

dilute the qualifying marks or bench marks for reserved

category of candidates below 25% of the general passing

marks would be violative of the provisions of Article 15(4)

as laid down by the Constitution Bench in M.R.Balajis case

(supra) and would also remain unreasonable and would be hit

by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Within this

sliding scale of percentages between 25% and 50% passing

marks appropriate bench marks for passing the entrance test

examination can be suitably fixed for SC/ST and OBC

candidates as exigencies of the situation may require. But

in no case the qualifying marks for any of these reserved

categories of students can go below 25% of the general

passing marks. Any reserved category candidate who gets

less than 25% of marks at the entrance examination or less

than prescribed reduced percentage of marks for the

concerned category between 50% and 25% of passing marks

cannot be called for counselling and has to be ruled out of

consideration and in that process if any seats reserved for

reserved categories concerned remains unfilled by candidates

belonging to that category it must go to the general

category and can be filled in by the general category

candidate who has already obtained 50% or more marks at the

entrance examination but who could not be accommodated

because of lesser percentage of marks obtained by him qua

other general category candidates in the limited number of

seats available to them in a given institution in

postgraduate studies. As we will presently show even if

minimum passing marks in the entrance test for admission to

postgraduate courses is either reduced to 25% uniformly for

all the candidates or is reduced and diluted only for

reserved category of candidates, the net result would remain

substantially the same. This aspect can be highlighted by

taking an illustration. Suppose there are six seats in a

given postgraduate medical course. Then applying the ratio

of 50% permissible reservation of seats for reserved

category of candidates like SC/ST and OBCs three seats get

reserved, one each for SC,ST and OBC while three seats will

remain available to general category of candidates passing

the common entrance test. On the basis of this illustration

let us take a hypothetical case of 13 eligible candidates

who have passed basic MBBS examination and are duly

qualified to compete for the six seats in a given course of

postgraduate study. These 13 candidates undertake the same

entrance test and all of them as a result of the said test

obtained marks as under : A 75 out of 100, B 70, C(SC) 65,

D 60, E(SC) 55, F51, G50, H(OBC) 48, I 42, J(ST) 40, K35,

L30, M25, N (SC) 21. In the aforesaid illustration C, E and

N are SC candidates, H is OBC and J is a ST candidate. Now

if 50% passing marks are uniformly applied to all of them as

tried to be suggested by learned counsel for the

petitioners, the following picture will emerge : Situation

No.1: Seat numbers 1,2, and 3 are general seats, 4 reserved

for SC, 5 reserved for ST and 6 reserved for OBC. If 50%

passing marks are uniformly applied to seat nos.1,2,3,4,5 &

6 : Seat no.1 will go to A, 2 to B, 3 to C (SC), 4 to E

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 28 of 63

(SC), seat nos.5&6 will not get filled in by the reserved

category candidates as there are no ST or OBC candidates who

have obtained 50% and more marks. These two seats which

remain unfilled will go to D and F general category

candidates who have obtained more than 50% marks, but who

could not be accommodated in the seats available to general

category of candidates as the last candidate in the general

category who got admission though SC, was having 65% marks.

Thus the situation would be the two seats i.e. seat nos. 5

and 6 which are reserved for ST and OBC and were otherwise

not available to general category of candidates would not go

to eligible and qualified ST and OBC candidates namely, H

and J even though they had obtained MBBS degrees and had the

basic qualification and eligibility for being admitted to

the seats reserved for them. That may affect the real

purpose underlying reservation under Article 15(4).

Situation No.2: We may now take the alternative situation

for consideration : If the minimum qualifying marks are

reduced to 25% for all categories of candidates to the

rock-bottom permissible limit including SC/ST and other

reserved category candidates, then the following picture

would emerge : Seat no.1 will go to A, seat no.2 will go to

B, seat no.3 will go to C(SC), seat no.4 which is reserved

for SC candidate will go to E, seat no.5 which is reserved

for ST will go to J, seat no.6 which is reserved for OBC

will go to H. All six seats will be filled up by A,B, C,E,J

& H. Thus even if the minimum passing marks are uniformly

reduced to 25% which is the permissible rock- bottom as seen

earlier the general category candidates will get the same

seats which would have been available to them even if the

minimum qualifying marks for admission would have been

uniformly kept at 50% for all candidates at the entrance

test. But what will happen is, that by reduction of these

qualifying marks to 25% all the reserved category seats 4 to

6 will get filled in by otherwise eligible and qualified

reserved category candidates E,J and H and there will remain

no occasion for making any of such seats available to left

out general category candidates like D and F for whom they

were not meant even otherwise and reservation of seats under

Article 15(4) would get fully fructified.

Situation no.3: Now let us assume that for general

category candidates minimum passing marks at the entrance

test are kept at 50% but for reserved category candidates

the passing marks are reduced to the permissible rock-bottom

limit of 25%. If that happens, the result would remain the

same, namely, as found in situation no.2, i.e. A will be

admitted to seat no.1, B will be admitted to seat no.2, C

(SC) will be admitted to seat no.3, E will be admitted to

seat no.4 reserved for SC, J will be admitted to seat no.5

reserved for ST and H will be admitted to seat no.6 reserved

for OBC. Then the net result would be that because of the

limited deviation of minimum qualifying marks only for

reserved category candidates, E, J & H who would have

otherwise been admitted to reserved category seats even if

there was universal and uniform reduction of qualifying

marks at 25%, will get the same benefit without affecting

the admission of general category candidates. Situation

No.4: As minimum qualifying marks for reserved category of

candidates are kept at 25% and are not reduced below the

same, candidate N who is a SC candidate and who has obtained

only 21% passing marks at the entrance test will be totally

ruled out of consideration, but even if the qualifying marks

are reduced to below the permissible limit of 25%, N will

not get any seat as the seat reserved for such candidates is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 29 of 63

only one being no. 4 in the said course of study and is

already occupied by E who is a more meritorious SC candidate

qua N. Situation No.5: Now let us consider a situation

wherein E a SC candidate, who is entitled to reserved

category seat no.4 and has excluded D who is a general

category candidate who has obtained more marks than him

because of such permissible reservation of a seat for him,

for any reason does not join the course of study and his

seat becomes vacant, then in such a situation, the following

picture may emerge in different categories of cases where

minimum passing marks are fixed differently : i) In case E

is not available and 50% minimum passing marks are fixed for

all categories of candidates then seat no.1 will go to A,

seat no.2 will go to B., seat no.3 will go to C, seat no.4

would not go to N who is the next eligible SC candidate who

has qualified for being admitted but has got less than

passing marks at the entrance test. That seat will remain

unoccupied and will go to the general category candidate D.

Seat no.5 which is reserved for ST person also cannot go to

J as he has got less than the passing marks. Seat no.5 will

therefore, go to F. Seat no.6 reserved for OBC also will

not go to H as he has got only 48% marks, less than the

minimum passing marks. His seat will go to general category

candidates who are in the waiting list and will be offered

to G who has just got the passing marks. Thus in the

absence of availability of E the six seats will go as under

: A,B,C,D,F & G. Thus all the reserved category seats will

remain unfilled by reserved category candidates and will be

added to general category seats. Result will be reservation

under Article 15(4) will totally fail. ii) Now let us take

another category of situation where minimum passing marks

are fixed at 25% for all candidates. In that case even if E

is not available then the first three general category seats

will go to A,B,C and the 4th seat reserved for SC candidate

will remain unfilled as the next available eligible SC

candidate is N who has got less than 25% minimum marks. So

his seat will go to the general category candidate who is in

the waiting list namely, D. While seat no.4 reserved for ST

candidate will go to J and seat no.6 reserved for OBC

candidate will go to H. Therefore, the net result will be

as under : 1 to 6 seats will go to A,B,C,D,J & H. iii) The

same result would follow for general category candidates

even if the minimum passing marks are fixed at 50% and for

the reserved category candidates the minimum qualifying

marks are reduced to 25%. Then the first three seats will

go to A,B,C, and seat no.4 not occupied by E a SC candidate

cannot go to N the next SC candidate who has got less than

25% marks. It will be occupied by D from the general

category candidates. While seat no.5 will go to J a ST

candidate who has more than 25% marks and seat no.6 will go

to H who is a OBC candidate having got 48% marks. Thus the

six seats will go to A,B,C,D,J & H. Thus it is clear that

where the minimum passing marks are uniformly reduced for

all candidates or they are reduced only for backward class

candidates but to the same extent, the result regarding

occupation of these seats by general category candidates and

reserved candidates would remain the same if E does not

occupy the seat available to him as an SC candidate. iv) If

for any reason the minimum qualifying marks for reserved

category candidates are still further reduced to 20% then in

the absence of availability of a SC candidate E, the next SC

candidate N having 21% may get it and occupy the seat

reserved for a SC candidate. In such a situation the

following picture will emerge : 1 to 3 will go to A,B,C;

seat no.4 reserved for SC candidate will go to N and seat

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 30 of 63

no.5 will go to ST candidate J and seat no.6 reserved for

OBC candidate will go to H. Resultantly no seat will be

left for being made available to general category candidate

D and he will get excluded. But as we have seen earlier, if

concession or dilution of minimum qualifying marks at the

entrance test for admission to postgraduate medical courses

is kept within the permissible limit of 50% dilution and can

go down only up to 25% minimum qualifying marks for reserved

category candidates then N in no case would get in to

displace D who is a general category candidate and who had

an opportunity to get in vis-a-vis the seat reserved for SC

candidate as E the eligible SC candidate is not available at

a given point of time. The aforesaid illustration shows

that as C (SC candidate) has got the seat in general

category on his own merit his occupancy is not to be

considered while granting admission to the seat reserved for

SC candidate as held by a Constitution bench decision of

this Court in R.K. Sabharwal & Ors. vs. State of Punjab &

Ors., 1995(2) SCC 745. We may at this stage refer to

decision of a three Judge bench of this court in Dr.

Pradeep Jain & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., 1984(3) SCC

654, wherein in the context of reservation in medical

education courses on the basis of territorial or

institutional preference, Bhagwati, J., speaking for the

court in para 22 of the Report observed as under : But as

far as admissions to postgraduate 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.

There the excellence cannot be compromised by any other

considerations because that would be detrimental to the

interest of the nation. It is of course true that the

aforesaid observations were made not with reference to any

reservations as per Article 15(4). However, while

considering the extent of dilution of minimum passing marks

in the entrance examination for admission of reserved

category candidates to postgraduate medical courses, the

permissible limit below which the concessions available to

reserved category of candidates cannot be permitted to go,

would require serious consideration, otherwise merit would

be totally by-passed and jeopardised. It is also pertinent

to note that in the aforesaid decision the permissible limit

of reservation by way of institutional preference was held

to be only up to 50% of the total available seats. While

dealing with the scope and ambit of reservation under

Article 15(4) in postgraduate courses, which of course is

not in challenge before us, we have also to keep in view,

the observations of the nine Judge bench of this Court in

Indra Sawhneys case (supra). In para 146 of the Report at

page 401 Pandian, J., concurring with the main majority

decision rendered by Jeevan Reddy, J., observed that : The

basic policy of reservation is to off-set the inequality and

remove the manifest imbalance, the victims of which for

bygone generations lag far behind and demand equality by

special preferences and their strategies. Therefore, a

comprehensive methodological approach encompassing

jurisprudential, comparative, historical and anthropological

conditions is necessary. Such considerations raise

controversial issues transcending the routine legal exercise

because certain social groups who are inherently unequal and

who have fallen victims of societal discrimination require

compensatory treatment. Needless to emphasise that equality

in fact or substantive equality involves the necessity of

beneficial treatment in order to attain the result which

establishes an equilibrium between two sections placed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 31 of 63

unequally.

Same learned Judge at pages 402-403 of the Report

considered a passage by Allan P. Sindler in his book Bakke,

Defunis and Minority Admissions (The Quest for Equal

Opportunity) which dealt with a running race between two

persons i.e. one who has his legs shackled and another not.

In such a race between unequals it was found necessary to

remove the inequality between the two runners by giving

compensatory edge to the shackled runner. The learned Judge

also noted the submission of learned counsel for the

petitioners who demonstrably explained that as unwatered

seeds do not germinate, unprotected backward class citizens

will whither away. In the earlier Constitution bench

judgment in M.R.Balaji vs. State of Mysore (supra),

Gajendragadkar, J., at page 467 of the Report, this Court

made the following pertinent observations with reference to

Article 15(4) : When Art.15(4) refers to the special

provision for the advancement of certain classes or

scheduled castes or scheduled tribes, it must not be ignored

that the provision which is authorised to be made is a

special provision; it is not a provision which is exclusive

in character, so that in looking after the advancement of

those classes, the State would be justified in ignoring

altogether the advancement of the rest of the society. It

is because the interests of the society at large would be

served by promoting the advancement of the weaker elements

in the society that Art.15(4) authorises special provision

to be made.

We may also refer to the contention of learned senior

counsel Shri Rajendra Sachar, placing reliance on page 474

of the Report in M.R.Balajis case (supra) to the effect

that the efficiency of administration is of such paramount

importance that it would be unwise and impermissible to make

any reservation at the cost of efficiency of administration

and that it was undoubtedly the effect of Article 335.

Therefore, what is true in regard to Art.15(4) is equally

true in regard to Art.16(4). These observations, strongly

relied upon by Shri Sachar for importing the impact of

Article 335 on the reservations under Article 15(4) cannot

be treated to be of any real assistance to him. The

aforesaid observations were made by the Constitution bench

while considering the reasonableness of reservation of seats

in educational institutions and for highlighting the point

that such reservation of seats should not be more than 50%

and reservation of 68% of seats was not within the

permissible limit of special provision under Article 15(4).

From these observations, it cannot necessarily follow that

admission to such reserved seats can tantamount to

appointments to any posts to which Article 335 would get

directly attracted. While considering the permissible

limits of dilution of minimum passing marks for reserved

category candidates appearing at the entrance test for being

called for counselling for admissions to postgraduate

medical courses, we have to keep in view the salient fact

that different universities examining students for obtaining

MBBS degrees on the basis of the same syllabus may have

different yardsticks and standards of assessment of papers

and, therefore, students passing their MBBS examinations

from different universities cannot ipso facto be treated to

be equally meritorious and consequently the common entrance

test for admission to postgraduate courses cannot be said to

be totally uncalled for. However, because reservation of

seats at postgraduate educational level is countenanced, as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 32 of 63

a logical corollary, to make effective the reservations and

with a view to seeing that the reserved category students do

not get excluded from getting admitted as far as possible,

provision for lesser qualifying marks for reserved category

candidates at the common entrance test cannot be said to be

totally illegal. However, with a view to seeing that

crutches provided to such weaker sections of society do not

cripple them for ever, the dilution of passing marks at the

common entrance test at which such reserved category

candidates appear after obtaining their MBBS degrees from

different universities cannot be totally arbitrary and must

have a permissible rock-bottom limit below which it cannot

go and that is why it is reasonable to hold that when

reservation of seats under Article 15(4) in postgraduate

medical courses cannot exceed 50% as held by the

Constitution bench in M.R. Balajis case (supra) then on

the same line of reasoning additional facilities to be given

to such reserved category candidates for being admitted to

the seats reserved for them in the postgraduate medical

courses also should not exceed the permissible limit of 50%

dilution from the general cut-off marks provided uniformly

for general category of candidates competing for admission

to such limited number of seats at postgraduate level.

While dealing with the question of dilution of minimum

passing marks for reserved category of candidates appearing

at the entrance tests for admission to postgraduate courses

it has to be kept in view that general category students

form a separate class as compared to reserved category

candidates for whom seats are reserved under Article 15(4).

Once that is kept in view, as a logical corollary, it must

follow that to make such reservations effective appropriate

dilution of the minimum cut-off marks for students belonging

to the reserved category would become permissible subject to

the rider that such dilution should not be so unreasonable

as to go out of the beneficial protective umbrella of

Article 15(4) as seen earlier. If that happens it would

squarely get hit by Article 15(1) read with Article 14 of

the Constitution of India. However, within such permissible

limits such dilution for different reserved categories of

candidates who may be given benefit of sliding scales of

reduced passing marks as required by exigencies of situation

would remain legal and valid. In this connection,

observations in the Constitution bench judgment of this

court in Chitra Ghosh & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.

(supra), wherein Grover, J., spoke for the Constitution

bench as to which we have made a detailed reference earlier

are required to be kept in view. To recapitulate, it has

been held that selection of eligible candidates for

admission to medical courses can be made by classifying such

candidates category-wise keeping in view the services from

which they are drawn. The aforesaid decision of the

Constitution bench was directly concerned with the

admissions in medical colleges. It would squarely get

attracted while deciding the present controversy. It is

obvious that if for admission to a medical education course

at gross-root level of MBBS, different rules for selecting

candidates from different sources from which they are to be

drawn are countenanced, then even at the stage of admission

at postgraduate level, the ratio of the aforesaid decision

of the Constitution bench would squarely get attracted and

would permit separate treatment for students drawn from

different sources. It is of course true that in the said

case, the Constitution bench was concerned with the

nominations made by the Central Government on seats reserved

for such nominees. However, that would not whittle down the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 33 of 63

decision of the Constitution bench to the effect that while

imparting education in theory and practice in medical

courses of study, the source from which candidates are drawn

can be a relevant classificatory criterion and there can be

different rules in the matter of selection of candidates

drawn from different sources. It is axiomatic that reserved

category candidates competing for being selected to the

seats reserved for them in postgraduate medical courses as

per the mandate of Article 15(4) of the Constitution have to

compete inter se with their own colleagues from the same

categories and not necessarily have to compete with general

category candidates who form entirely a different class.

Once such classification is countenanced, as a necessary

concomitant, separate provision for reserved category of

candidates forming a separate class for which reservation of

seats in postgraduate medical courses is permitted cannot be

faulted and hence the dilution of minimum qualifying marks

for reserved category of candidates cannot by itself be

treated to be unauthorised or illegal from any view point.

Otherwise the very purpose of reserving seats for such class

of candidates at postgraduate level of medical education

would be denuded on its real content and the purpose of

reservation would fail. The seats reserved for such

category of persons would go unfilled and will swell the

admission of general category of candidates for whom these

seats are not at all meant to be made available, once the

scheme of reservation of seats under Article 15(4) is held

applicable. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the

following conclusions emerge : 1) It is permissible to the

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ

State authorities which are running and/or controlling the

medical institutions in the States concerned to short-list

the eligible and qualified MBBS doctors for being considered

for admission to postgraduate medical courses in these

institutions. For the purpose of such short-listing full

play is available to the State authorities to exercise

legislative or executive power as the field is not occupied

till date by any legislation of the Parliament on this

aspect in exercise of its legislative powers under Entry 25

of List III of the Constitution of India and this topic is

also not covered by any legislation under Entry 66 of List I

of the Constitution. 2) The Indian Medical Council Act and

the regulations framed thereunder do not cover the question

of short-listing of admission of eligible and duly qualified

MBBS doctors who seek admission to different medical

institutions imparting postgraduate education run or

controlled by the States concerned. 3) The regulations and

guidelines given by the Medical Council of India in this

connection, though persuasive and not having any binding

force, cannot be totally ignored by the State authorities

but must be broadly kept in view while undertaking the

exercise of short-listing of eligible candidates for being

admitted to postgraduate medical courses. 4) While

short-listing candidates having basic qualifications of MBBS

for being considered for admission to limited number of

vacancies in postgraduate courses available at the medical

institutions in the Sates, it is permissible for the State

authorities to have common entrance tests and to prescribe

minimum qualifying marks for passing such tests to enable

the examinees who pass such test to be called for

counselling. That would be in addition to the basic

qualification by way of MBBS degree. The performance of the

candidate concerned during the time he or she undertook the

study at MBBS level for ultimately getting the MBBS degree

also would be a relevant consideration for the State

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 34 of 63

authorities to be kept in view. 5) It is equally

permissible for the State authorities while undertaking the

aforesaid exercise of short-listing to fix 50% minimum

qualifying marks at the entrance test for general category

of candidates and to dilute and prescribe lesser percentage

of passing marks for reserved category of candidates as

exigencies of situation may require in a given year but in

no case the minimum qualifying marks as reduced for reserved

category of candidates can go below 25% of passing marks for

such reserved category of candidates. In other words, a

play is available to the State authorities to prescribe

different minimum passing marks for SC/ST and OBC eligible

candidates between 50% and 25% as the prevailing situation

at a given point of time may require. In such categories

for SC, ST & OBC candidates different diluted passing marks

can be prescribed, but this exercise has to be within the

permissible limits of less than 50% & up to minimum 25%

passing marks for each of such reserved categories. No

eligible candidate belonging to reserved category who does

not obtain minimum percent of passing marks as diluted for

such category of candidates by the State authorities can be

considered to be eligible for undertaking postgraduate

medical courses in a given year for which he has offered his

candidature and if any seat reserved for such categories of

candidates remain unfilled due to non-availability of such

eligible reserved category candidate to fill up such seat,

then the said seat would go to general category candidates

and will be available in the order of merit in the light of

marks obtained by such wait-listed general category

candidates having obtained requisite passing marks who

otherwise could not get admitted due to non-availability of

general category seats earlier. The ratio of various

decisions of this court considered herein above will have to

be implemented in the light of the aforesaid conclusions to

which we have reached. The aforesaid practice has to be

followed and should hold the field from year to year so long

as the Parliament does not pass any legislation for

regulating admission to postgraduate medical courses either

by separate legislation or by appropriately amending Indian

Medical Council Act by empowering the Medical Council of

India to prescribe such regulations. The writ petitions and

the civil appeal arising out of the special leave petition

as well as the review petitions would stand disposed of

accordingly in the aforesaid terms and the judgments

rendered by the High Courts will stand modified and the

impugned orders passed by the State authorities will also

stand set aside accordingly. However, the present judgment

will operate purely prospectively and will not affect the

admissions already granted by the concerned authorities in

the postgraduate medical courses prior to the date of this

judgment. In other words, the State authorities will have

to comply with the directions contained in this judgment and

put their house in order for regulating the admissions to

postgraduate medical courses starting hereinafter in the

medical institutions concerned.

____________________________________________________________

Mrs. Sujata V.Manohar, J.

Leave granted in SLP(C) No.12231 of 1997.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 35 of 63

The following issue formulated by this Court at the

commencement of hearing, requires consideration: "The

question is whether apart from providing reservation for

admission to the Post Graduate Courses in Engineering and

Medicine for special category candidates, it is open to the

State to prescribe different admission criteria, in the

sense of prescribing different minimum qualifying marks, for

special category candidates seeking admission under the

reserved category."

"This question certainly requires consideration of the

Constitution Bench as it arises and is likely to arise in a

number of cases in different institutions of the country and

needs to be decided authoritatively keeping in view the

observations made in three different two or three-Judge

Bench judgments". These judgments are Ajay Kumar Singh &

Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. ([1994] 4 SCC 401), Dr.

Sadhna Devi & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. ([1997] 3 SCC

90) and Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education &

Research, Chandigarh & Ors. v. K.L. Narasimhan & Anr.

([1997] 6 SCC 283)

Facts:

The State of Uttar Pradesh has prescribed a Post

Graduate Medical Entrance Examination for admission to Post

Graduate Degree/Diploma courses in medicine. This is in

conformity with the relevant Regulations of the Medical

Council of India. By G.O. dated 11.10.1994, the State

Government fixed a cut-off percentage of 45% marks in the

Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination (PGMEE) for

admission of the general category candidates to the Post

Graduate Courses in Medicine. The cutoff percentage of

marks for the reserved category candidates viz. Scheduled

Castes, Scheduled Tribes etc. was fixed at 35%.

Thereafter, by another G.O. dated 31.8.1995 the State of

Uttar Pradesh completely did away with a cut-off percentage

of marks in respect of the reserved category candidates so

that there were no minimum qualifying marks in the Post

Graduate Medical Entrance Examination prescribed for the

reserved category candidates who were seeking admission to

the Post Graduate Courses.

This G.O. of 31.8.1995 was challenged before this

Court in Writ Petition (C) No.679 of 1995 Dr. Sadhna Devi &

Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. [1997] 3 SCC 90). This

Court, by its judgment dated 19.2.1997, held that while

laying down minimum qualifying marks for admission to the

Post Graduate Courses, it was not open to the Government to

say that there will be no minimum qualifying marks for the

reserved category of candidates. If this is done, merit

will be sacrificed altogether. This Court struck down G.O.

dated 31.8.1995.

After the said decision, the State of U.P. issued

another G.O. dated 2.4.1997 under which the cut-off

percentage of marks for the reserved category candidates was

restored at 35%. However, the State of U.P. moved an

application before this Court, being I.A. No.2 of 1997 Dr.

Sadhna Devi (Supra) in which the State of U.P. (inter alia)

prayed that it should be given the liberty to reduce the

cut-off percentage from 35% to 20% for the reserved category

candidates who appear in the PGMEE for 1997. Without

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 36 of 63

waiting for a decision, by an Ordinance dated 15.6.1997, the

State of U.P. reduced the minimum qualifying marks for the

reserved category candidates appearing in the PGMEE 1997

from 35% to 20%. This Ordinance is challenged in the

present Writ Petition (C) No.300 of 1997. The Ordinance has

now been replaced by the Uttar Pradesh Post Graduate Medical

Education (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled

Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1997. The

petitioners have now amended the said writ petition to

challenge this Act.

For admissions effected in 1998, the State of U.P.

again prescribed a cut-off percentage of 20% marks for the

reserved category candidates. Learned counsel for the State

of U.P. has further stated that for the current year's

admission, i.e. for admission to the P.G.M.E.E. 1999, the

State has introduced a Bill in the Legislative Assembly

prescribing the same cut-off percentage of 20% marks for the

reserved category candidates.

The lower percentage of qualifying marks prescribed

for the scheduled caste, scheduled tribe and backward class

candidates are in conjunction with the following reservation

of seats at the PGMEE:

Scheduled Castes : 21%, Scheduled Tribes : 2%,

Backward Classes : 27% In the State of Madhya Pradesh also

a common entrance examination is held for admission to the

Post Graduate Courses in Medicine. Under the Madhya Pradesh

Medical and Dental Post Graduate Entrance Examination Rules,

1997, certain seats were reserved for the Scheduled Caste,

Scheduled Tribe, BC and in-service candidates. The Rules,

however, did not lay down any minimum qualifying marks for

admission to the Post Graduate Courses either for the

general category or for the reserved category of candidates.

These Rules were challenged by a writ petition before the

Madhya Pradesh High Court. By its judgment which is under

challenge in these proceedings, the Madhya Pradesh High

Court directed the State Government to stipulate minimum

qualifying marks in the PGMEE for all categories of

candidates, including the general category candidates, in

view of the decision of this Court in Dr. Sadhna Devi's

case (supra).

By G.O. dated 7.6.1997 the State of Madhya Pradesh

prescribed the following minimum percentage of qualifying

marks for the reserved category candidates to make them

eligible for counselling and admission to the Post Graduate

Medical Courses:

Scheduled Castes : 20% Scheduled Tribes : 15% Other

Backward Classes : 40%

This Government Order of the State of Madhya Pradesh

is under challenge before us.

We have, therefore, to consider whether for admission

to the Post Graduate Medical Courses, it is permissible to

prescribe a lower minimum percentage of qualifying marks for

the reserved category candidates as compared to the general

category candidates. We do not propose to examine whether

reservations are permissible at the Post Graduate level in

medicine. That issue was not debated before us, and we

express no opinion on it. We need to examine only whether

any special provision in the form of lower qualifying marks

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 37 of 63

in the PGMEE can be prescribed for the reserved category.

The Constitutional Imperative:

The constitutional protection of equality before the

law under Article 14 of the Constitution is one of the basic

tenets of the Constitution. It is a cardinal value which

will govern our policies and actions, particularly policies

for employment and education. Article 15(1) prohibits State

discrimination on the ground (among others) of religion,

race or caste. Article 16(1) prescribes equality of

opportunity for all in matters relating to employment or

appointment to any office under the State. Article 16(2)

prohibits discrimination on the ground (among others) of

religion, race, caste or descent. At the same time, the

Constitution permits preferential treatment for historically

disadvantaged groups in the context of entrenched and

clearly perceived social inequalities. That is why Article

16(4) permits reservation of appointments or posts in favour

of any backward class which is not adequately represented in

the services under the State. Reservation is linked with

adequate representation in the services. Reservation is

thus a dynamic and flexible concept. The departure from the

principle of equality of opportunity has to be constantly

watched. So long as the backward group is not adequately

represented in the services under the State, reservations

should be made. Clearly, reservations have been considered

as a transitory measure that will enable the backward to

enter and be adequately represented in the State services

against the backdrop of prejudice and social discrimination.

But finally, as the social backdrop changes ? and a change

in the social backdrop is one of the constitutional

imperatives, as the backward are able to secure adequate

representation in the services, the reservations will not be

required. Article 335 enters a further caveat. While

considering the claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes for appointments, the maintenance of efficiency of

administration shall be kept in sight.

Article 15(4), which was added by the Constitution

First Amendment of 1951, enables the State to make special

provisions for the advancement, inter alia, of Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes, notwithstanding Articles 15(1)

and 29(2). The wording of Article 15(4) is similar to that

of Article 15(3). Article 15(3) was there from inception.

It enables special provisions being made for women and

children notwithstanding Article 15(1) which imposes the

mandate of non- discrimination on the ground (among others)

of sex. This was envisaged as a method of protective

discrimination. This same protective discrimination was

extended by Article 15(4) to (among others) Scheduled Castes

and Scheduled Tribes. As a result of the combined operation

of these Articles, an array of programmes of compensatory or

protective discrimination have been pursued by the various

States and the Union Government. Marc Galanter, in his

book, "Competing Equalities" has described the

constitutional scheme of compensatory discrimination thus:

"These compensatory discrimination policies entail

systematic departures from norms of equality (such as merit,

evenhandedness, and indifferences of ascriptive

characteristics). These departures are justified in several

ways: First, preferential treatment may be viewed as needed

assurance of personal fairness, a guarantee against the

persistence of discrimination in subtle and indirect forms.

Second, such policies are justified in terms of beneficial

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 38 of 63

results that they will presumably promote: integration, use

of neglected talent, more equitable distribution, etc. With

these two - the anti-discrimination theme and the general

welfare theme - is entwined a notion of historical

restitution or reparation to offset the systematic and

cumulative deprivations suffered by lower castes in the

past. These multiple justifications point to the

complexities of pursuing such a policy and of assessing its

performance." Since every such policy makes a departure from

the equality norm, though in a permissible manner, for the

benefit of the backward, it has to be designed and worked in

a manner conducive to the ultimate building up of an

egalitarian non-discriminating society. That is its final

constitutional justification. Therefore, programmes and

policies of compensatory discrimination under Article 15(4)

have to be designed and pursued to achieve this ultimate

national interest. At the same time, the programmes and

policies cannot be unreasonable or arbitrary, nor can they

be executed in a manner which undermines other vital public

interests or the general good of all. All public polices,

therefore, in this area have to be tested on the anvil of

reasonableness and ultimate public good. In the case of

Article 16(4) the Constitution makers explicitly spelt out

in Article 335 one such public good which cannot be

sacrificed, namely, the necessity of maintaining efficiency

in administration. Article 15(4) also must be used, and

policies under it framed, in a reasonable manner

consistently with the ultimate public interests.

In the case of M.R. Balaji & Ors. v. State of

Mysore ([1963] Suppl. 1 SCR 439 at pages 466-467), a

Constitution Bench of this Court considered this very

question relating to the extent of special provisions which

it would be competent for the State to make, under Article

15(4). This Court accepted the submission that Article

15(4) must be read in the light of Article 46 and that under

it, the educational and economic interests of the weaker

sections of the people can be promoted properly and

liberally, to establish social and economic equality. The

Court said, "No one can dispute the proposition that

political freedom and even fundamental rights can have very

little meaning or significance for the backward classes and

the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes unless the

backwardness and inequality from which they suffer are

immediately redressed".

The Court, however, rejected the argument that the

absence of any limitation on the State's power to make an

adequate special provision under Article 15(4) indicates

that if the problem of backward classes of citizens and

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in any given State is

of such a magnitude that it requires the reservation of all

seats in the higher educational institutions, it would be

open to the State to take that course. This Court said:

"When Article 15(4) refers to the special provisions for the

advancement of certain classes or Scheduled Castes or

Scheduled Tribes, it must not be ignored that the provision

which is authorised to be made is a special provision; it

is not a provision which is exclusive in character so that,

in looking after the advancement of those classes the State

would be justified in ignoring altogether the advancement of

the rest of the society. It is because the interests of the

society at large would be served by promoting the

advancement of the weaker elements in the society that

Article 15(4) authorises special provision to be made. But

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 39 of 63

if a provision which is in the nature of an exception

completely excludes the rest of the society, that clearly is

outside the scope of Article 15(4). It would be extremely

unreasonable to assume that in enacting Article 15(4) the

Parliament intended to provide that where the advancement of

the Backward Classes or the Scheduled Castes and Tribes was

concerned, the fundamental rights of the citizens

constituting the rest of the society were to be completely

and absolutely ignored." This Court struck down a

reservation of 68% made for backward classes for admission

to Medical and Engineering Courses in the university. This

Court further observed, (at page 407) "A special provision

contemplated by Article 15(4), like reservation of posts and

appointments contemplated by Article 16(4), must be within

reasonable limits. The interest of weaker sections of

society which are a first charge on the States and the

Centre have to be adjusted with the interest of the

community as a whole". The Court also said that while

considering the reasonableness of the extent of reservation

one could not lose sight of the fact that the admissions

were to institutes of higher learning and involved

professional and technical colleges. "The demand for

technicians, scientists, doctors, economists, engineers and

experts for the further economic advancement of the country

is so great that it would cause grave prejudice to national

interests if considerations of merit are completely excluded

by wholesale reservation of seats in all technical, medical

or engineering colleges or institutions of that kind." (Page

468) Therefore, consideration of national interest and the

interests of the community or society as a whole cannot be

ignored in determining the reasonableness of a special

provision under Article 15(4).

In the case of Dr. Jagdish Saran & Ors. v. Union of

India ([1980] 2 SCC 768), reservation of 70% of seats for

the local candidates in admissions to the Post Graduate

Medical Courses by the Delhi University was struck down by

this Court. While doing so, Krishna Iyer J. speaking for

the Court spelt out the ambits of Articles 14 and 15. He

said, (at page 778) "But it must be remembered that

exceptions cannot overrule the rule itself by running riot

or by making reservations as a matter of course in every

university and every course. For instance, you cannot

wholly exclude meritorious candidates as that will promote

sub-standard candidates and bring about a fall in medical

competence injurious in the long run to the very

region..........Nor can the very best be rejected from

admission because that will be a national loss and the

interests of no region can be higher than those of the

nation. So, within these limitations without going into

excesses there is room for play of the State's policy

choices." He further observed, "The first caution is that

reservation must be kept in check by the demands of

competence. You cannot extend the shelter of reservation

where minimum qualifications are absent. Similarly, all the

best talent cannot be completely excluded by wholesale

reservation......A fair preference, a reasonable

reservation, a just adjustment of the prior needs and real

potentials of the weak with the partial recognition of the

presence of competitive merit - such is the dynamic of

social justice which animates the three egalitarian articles

of the Constitution."

"Flowing from the same stream of equalism is another

limitation. The basic medical needs of a region or the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 40 of 63

preferential push justified for a handicapped group cannot

prevail in the same measure at the highest scales of

speciality where the best scale or talent must be handpicked

by selecting according to capability. At the level of

P.H.D., M.D. 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 expended upon as important,

lose their potency, where equality measured by matching

excellence has more meaning and cannot be diluted much

without grave risk."

The same reasoning runs through Dr. Pradeep Jain &

Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. ([1984] 3 SCC 654). It

dealt with reservation of seats for the residents of the

State or the students of the same university for admission

to the medical colleges. The Court said, (at page 676)

"Now, the concept of equality under the Constitution is a

dynamic concept. It takes within its sweep every process of

equalisation and protective discrimination. Equality must

not remain mere ideal indentation but it must become a

living reality for the large masses of people............

It is, therefore, necessary to take into account de facto

inequalities which exist in the society and to take

affirmative action by way of giving preference to the

socially and economically disadvantaged persons or

inflicting handicaps on those more advantageously placed in

order to bring about real equality." The Court after

considering institutional and residential preferences for

admission to the M.B.S.S. course, said that different

considerations would prevail in considering such

reservations for admission to the Post Graduate Courses such

as M.D., M.S. and the like. It said, (at page 691) "There

we cannot allow excellence to be compromised by any other

considerations because that would be detrimental to the

interest of the nation." Quoting the observation of Justice

Krishna Iyer in Dr. Jagdish Saran case (supra) the Court

said, "This proposition has far greater importance when we

reach the higher levels of education like Post Graduate

Courses. After all, top technological expertise in any

vital field like medicine is a nation's human asset without

which its advance and development will be stunted. The role

of high grade skill or special talent may be less at the

lesser levels of education, jobs and disciplines of social

inconsequence, but more at the higher levels of

sophisticated skills and strategic employment. To devalue

merit at the summit is to temporise with the country's

development in the vital areas of professional expertise."

(underlining ours)

A similar strand of thought runs through Indra Sawhney

& Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. ([1992] Supp.(3) SCC

217), where a Bench of nine Judges of this Court considered

the nature, amplitude and scope of the constitutional

provisions relating to reservations in the services of the

State. Jeevan Reddy J. speaking for the majority (in

paragraph 836) stated that the very idea of reservation

implies selection of a less meritorious person. At the same

time, we recognise that this much cost has to be paid if the

constitutional promise of social justice is to be redeemed.

We also formally believe that given an opportunity, members

of these classes are bound to overcome their initial

disadvantages and would compete with ? and may in some

cases excel ? members on open competition. Having said

this, the Court went on to add, (in paragraph 838) "We are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 41 of 63

of the opinion that there are certain services and positions

where either on account of nature of duties attached to them

or the level (in the hierarchy) at which they obtain, merit

as explained herein above alone counts. In such situations

it may not be advisable to provide for reservations. For

example, technical posts in research and development

organisations/departments/institutions, in specialities and

super-specialities in medicine, engineering and other such

courses in physical science and mathematics, in defence

services and in the establishments connected therewith."

(underlining ours)

A similar view has been taken in Mohan Bir Singh

Chawla v. Punjab University, Chandigarh & Anr. ([1997] 2

SCC 171) where this Court said that at higher levels of

education it would be dangerous to depreciate merit and

excellence. The higher you go in the ladder of education,

the lesser should be the reservation. In Dr. Sadhna Devi's

case (supra) also this Court has expressed a doubt as to

whether there can be reservations at the Post Graduate level

in Medicine.

We are, however, not directly concerned with the

question of reservations at the Post Graduate level in

Medicine. We are concerned with another special provision

under Article 15(4) made at the stage of admission to the

Post Graduate Medical Courses, namely, providing for lesser

qualifying marks or no qualifying marks for the members of

the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for admission to

the Post Graduate Medical Courses. Any special provision

under Article 15(4) has to balance the importance of having,

at the higher levels of education, students who are

meritorious and who have secured admission on their merit,

as against the social equity of giving compensatory benefit

of admission to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe

candidates who are in a disadvantaged position. The same

reasoning which propelled this Court to underline

reasonableness of a special provision, and the national

interest in giving at the highest level of education, the

few seats at the top of the educational pyramid only on the

basis of merit and excellence, applies equally to a special

provision in the form of lower qualifying marks for the

backward at the highest levels of education.

It is of course, important to provide adequate

educational opportunities for all since it is education

which ultimately shapes life. It is the source of that thin

stream of reason which alone can nurture a nation's full

potential. Moreover, in a democratic society, it is

extremely important that the population is literate and is

able to acquire information that shapes its decisions.

The spread of primary education has to be wide enough

to cover all sections of the society whether forward or

backward. A large percentage of reservations for the

backward would be justified at this level. These are

required in individual as well as national interest. A

university level education upto graduation, also enables the

individual concerned to secure better employment. It is

permissible and necessary at this level to have reasonable

reservations for the backward so that they may also be able

to avail of these opportunities for betterment through

education, to which they may not have access if the college

admissions are entirely by merit as judged by the marks

obtained in the qualifying examination. At the level of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 42 of 63

higher post-graduate university education, however, apart

from the individual self interest of the candidate, or the

national interest in promoting equality, a more important

national interest comes into play. The facilities for

training or education at this level, by their very nature,

are not available in abundance. It is essential in the

national interest that these special facilities are made

available to persons of high calibre possessing the highest

degree of merit so that the nation can shape their

exceptional talent that is capable of contributing to the

progress of human knowledge, creation and utilisation of new

medical, technical or other techniques, extending the

frontiers of knowledge through research work - in fact

everything that gives to a nation excellence and ability to

compete internationally in professional, technical and

research fields.

This Court has repeatedly said that at the level of

superspecialisation there cannot be any reservation because

any dilution of merit at this level would adversely affect

the national goal of having the best possible people at the

highest levels of professional and educational training. At

the level of a super speciality, something more than a mere

professional competence as a doctor is required. A

super-specialist acquires expert knowledge in his speciality

and is expected to possess exceptional competence and skill

in his chosen field, where he may even make an original

contribution in the form of new innovative techniques or new

knowledge to fight diseases. It is in public interest that

we promote these skills. Such high degrees of skill and

expert knowledge in highly specialised areas, however,

cannot be acquired by anyone or everyone. For example,

specialised sophisticated knowledge and skill and ability to

make right choices of treatment in critical medical

conditions and even ability to innovate and device new lines

of treatment in critical situations, requires high levels of

intelligent understanding of medial knowledge or skill and a

high ability to learn from technical literature and from

experience. These high abilities are also required for

absorbing highly specialised knowledge which is being

imparted at this level. It is for this reason that it would

be detrimental to the national interest to have reservations

at this stage. Opportunities for such training are few and

it is in the national interest that these are made available

to those who can profit from them the most viz. the best

brains in the country, irrespective of the class to which

they belong.

At the next below stage of post-graduate education in

medical specialities, similar considerations also prevail

though perhaps to a slightly lesser extent than in the super

specialities. But the element of public interest in having

the most meritorious students at this level of education is

present even at the stage of post-graduate teaching. Those

who have specialised medical knowledge in their chosen

branch are able to treat better and more effectively,

patients who are sent to them for expert diagnosis and

treatment in their specialised field. For a student who

enrols for such speciality courses, an ability to assimilate

and acquire special knowledge is required. Not everyone has

this ability. Of course intelligence and abilities do not

know any frontiers of caste or class or race or sex. They

can be found anywhere, but not in everyone. Therefore,

selection of the right calibre of students is essential in

public interest at the level of specialised post-graduate

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 43 of 63

education. In view of this supervening public interest

which has to be balanced against the social equity of

providing some opportunities to the backward who are not

able to qualify on the basis of marks obtained by them for

post-graduate learning, it is for an expert body such as the

Medical Council of India, to lay down the extent of

reservations, if any, and the lowering of qualifying marks,

if any, consistent with the broader public interest in

having the most competent people for specialised training,

and the competing public interest in securing social justice

and equality. The decision may perhaps, depend upon the

expert body's assessment of the potential of the reserved

category candidates at a certain level of minimum qualifying

marks and whether those who secure admission on the basis of

such marks to post-graduate courses, can be expected to be

trained in two or three years to come up to the standards

expected of those with post-graduate qualifications.

The speciality and super speciality courses in

medicine also entail on-hand experience of treating or

operating on patients in the attached teaching hospitals.

Those undergoing these programmes are expected to occupy

posts in the teaching hospitals or discharge duties attached

to such posts. The elements of Article 335, therefore,

colour the selection of candidates for these courses and the

Rules framed for this purpose.

In the premises the special provisions for SC/ST

candidates whether reservations or lower qualifying marks -

at the speciality level have to be minimal. There cannot,

however, be any such special provisions at the level of

super specialities.

Entrance Examination for post-graduate courses and

qualifying marks:

When a common entrance examination is held for

admission to postgraduate medical courses, it is important

that passing marks or minimum qualifying marks are

prescribed for the examination. It was, however, contended

before us by learned counsel appearing for the State of

Madhya Pradesh that there is no need to prescribe any

minimum qualifying marks in the common entrance examination.

Because all the candidates who appear for the common

entrance examination have passed the M.B.B.S. examination

which is an essential pre-requisite for admission to

postgraduate medical courses. The PGMEE is merely for

screening the eligible candidates.

This argument ignores the reasons underlying the need

for a common entrance examination for post-graduate medical

courses in a State. There may be several universities in a

State which conduct M.B.B.S. courses. The courses of study

may not be uniform. The quality of teaching may not be

uniform. The standard of assessment at the M.B.B.S.

examination also may not be uniform in the different

universities. With the result that in some of the better

universities which apply more strict tests for evaluating

the performance of students, a higher standard of

performance is required for getting the passing marks in the

M.B.B.S. examination. Similarly, a higher standard of

performance may be required for getting higher marks than in

other universities. Some universities may assess the

students liberally with the result that the candidates with

lesser knowledge may be able to secure passing marks in the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 44 of 63

M.B.B.S. examination; while it may also be easier for

candidates to secure marks at the higher level. A common

entrance examination, therefore, provides a uniform

criterion for judging the merit of all candidates who come

from different universities. Obviously, as soon as one

concedes that there can be differing standards of teaching

and evaluation in different universities, one cannot rule

out the possibility that the candidates who have passed the

M.B.B.S. examination from a university which is liberal in

evaluating its students, would not, necessarily, have

passed, had they appeared in an examination where a more

strict evaluation is made. Similarly, candidates who have

obtained very high marks in the M.B.B.S. examination where

evaluation is liberal, would have got lesser marks had they

appeared for the examination of a university where stricter

standards were applied. Therefore, the purpose of such a

common entrance examination is not merely to grade

candidates for selection. The purpose is also to evaluate

all candidates by a common yardstick. One must, therefore,

also take into account the possibility that some of the

candidates who may have passed the M.B.B.S. examination

from more "generous" universities, may not qualify at the

entrance examination where a better and uniform standard for

judging all the candidates from different universities is

applied. In the interest of selecting suitable candidates

for specialised education, it is necessary that the common

entrance examination is of a certain standard and qualifying

marks are prescribed for passing that examination. This

alone will balance the competing equities of having

competent students for specialised education and the need to

provide for some room for the backward even at the stage of

specialised post-graduate education which is one step below

the super specialities.

The submission, therefore, that there need not be any

qualifying marks prescribed for the common entrance

examination has to be rejected. We have, however, to

consider whether different qualifying marks can be

prescribed for the open merit category of candidates and the

reserved category of candidates. Normally passing marks for

any examination have to be uniform for all categories of

candidates. We are, however, informed that at the stage of

admission to the M.B.B.S. course, that is to say, the

initial course in medicine, the Medical Council of India has

permitted the reserved category candidates to be admitted if

they have obtained the qualifying marks of 35% as against

the qualifying marks of 45% for the general category

candidates. It is, therefore, basically for an expert body

like the Medical Council of India to determine whether in

the common entrance examination viz. PGMEE, lower

qualifying marks can be prescribed for the reserved category

of candidates as against the general category of candidates;

and if so, how much lower. There cannot, however, be a big

disparity in the qualifying marks for the reserved category

of candidates and the general category of candidates at the

post-graduate level. This level is only one step below the

apex level of medical training and education where no

reservations are permissible and selections are entirely on

merit. At only one step below this level the disparity in

qualifying marks, if the expert body permits it, must be

minimal. It must be kept at a level where it is possible

for the reserved category candidates to come up to a certain

level of excellence when they qualify in the speciality of

their choice. It is in public interest that they have this

level of excellence.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 45 of 63

In the present case, the disparity of qualifying marks

being 20% for the reserved category and 45% for the general

category is too great a disparity to sustain public interest

at the level of post-graduate medical training and

education. Even for the M.B.B.S. course, the difference in

the qualifying marks between the reserved category and the

general category is smaller, 35% for the reserved category

and 45% for the general category. We see no logic or

rationale for the difference to be larger at the

post-graduate level.

Standard of Education:

A large differentiation in the qualifying marks

between the two groups of students would make it very

difficult to maintain the requisite standard of teaching and

training at the post-graduate level. Any good teaching

institution has to take into account the calibre of its

students and their existing level of knowledge and skills if

it is to teach effectively any higher courses. If there are

a number of students who have noticeably lower skills and

knowledge, standard of education will have to be either

lowered to reach these students, or these students will not

be able to benefit from or assimilate higher levels of

teaching, resulting in frustration and failures. It would

also result in a wastage of opportunities for specialised

training and knowledge which are by their very nature,

limited.

It is, therefore, wrong to say that the standard of

education is not affected by admitting students with low

qualifying marks, or that the standard of education is

affected only by those factors which come into play after

the students are admitted. Nor will passing a common final

examination guarantee a good standard of knowledge. There

is a great deal of difference in the knowledge and skills of

those passing with a high percentage of marks and those

passing with a low percentage of marks. The reserved

category of students who are chosen for higher levels of

university education must be in a position to benefit and

improve their skills and knowledge and bring it to a level

comparable with the general group, so that when they emerge

with specialised knowledge and qualifications, they are able

to function efficiently in public interest. Providing for

20% marks as qualifying marks for the reserved category of

candidates and 45% marks for the general category of

candidates, therefore, is contrary to the mandate of Article

15(4). It is for the Medical Council of India to prescribe

any special qualifying marks for the admission of the

reserved category candidates to the post-graduate medical

courses. However, the difference in the qualifying marks

should be at least the same as for admission to the

under-graduate medical courses, if not less.

Learned senior counsel Mr. Bhaskar P. Gupta for the

intervenors drew our attention to an interesting study done

by R.C. Davidson in relation to the affirmative action and

other special consideration admissions at the University of

California, Davis, School of Medicine. The study graded the

students who were admitted on a scale (MCAC) with a range

from 1 to 15. On this scale, the students who received

special consideration admission had an average score of nine

while the students who were admitted on open merit had an

average of 11. However, when both these groups graduated

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 46 of 63

from medical school both the groups had a high rate of

successful graduation though the general group had a

statistically significant higher rate. The special group

had a graduation rate of 94% while the general group had a

graduation rate of 98%. The study also found that the

differences in the abilities of special consideration

students were more evident in the first and second years of

the curriculum. In the third year also the differences were

visible. However, the two groups had begun to merge in

their achievements; and ultimately by the time the groups

qualified in the final examination, there was a convergence

of academic progress between the special consideration

admission students and the regularly admitted students as

the process of training lengthened. A similar study does

not appear to have been made in our country relating to the

progress of the reserved category candidates in the course

of their studies. But two things are evident even from the

study made by Davidson. The longer the period of training,

the greater the chances of convergence of the two groups.

Secondly, both the groups had an initial high score - more

than halfway up the scale. Also, the initial difference in

their scores was not very large. It was nine as compared to

eleven on a scale of fifteen. Therefore, at a high level of

scoring, the narrower the difference, the greater the

chances of convergence. This study, therefore, will not

help the respondents in the present case because of the

substantial difference in the qualifying marks for admission

prescribed for the reserved category candidates as against

the general category candidates; and the very low level of

qualifying marks prescribed. Thirdly, at the post-graduate

level the course of studies is relatively shorter and the

course is designed to give high quality speciality education

to the qualified doctors to enable them to excel in their

chosen field of speciality. Therefore, unless there is a

proper control at the stage of admission, on the different

categories of the students who are admitted, and unless the

differences are kept to a minimum, such differences will not

disappear in the course of time if the course of study is a

specialised course such as a post-graduate course.

Who should decide the qualifying marks and will it

affect the standard of education:

Learned counsel for the States of Uttar Pradesh and

Madhya Pradesh contend that it is for the States to decide

the qualifying marks which should be prescribed for the

reserved category candidates at the PGMEE. It is a matter

of state policy. The Medical Council of India cannot have

any say in prescribing the qualifying marks for the PGMEE.

The two States have contended that it is the State which

controls admissions to the post-graduate courses in

medicine. It is for the State to decide whether to provide

a common entrance examination or not. This examination may

or may not have any minimum qualifying marks or it may have

different qualifying marks for different categories of

candidates. It is, therefore, not open to any other

authority to interfere with the rules for admission to the

post-graduate medical courses in each State. They have also

contended that a common entrance examination is merely for

the purpose of screening candidates and since all the

candidates have passed the M.B.B.S. examination the

standard is not affected even if no minimum marks are

prescribed for passing the common entrance examination. The

latter argument we have already examined and negatived. The

other contention, however, relating to the power of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 47 of 63

State to control admissions to the post-graduate courses in

medicine requires to be examined.

The legislative competence of the Parliament and the

legislatures of the States to make laws under Article 246 is

regulated by the VIIth Schedule to the Constitution. In the

VIIth Schedule as originally in force, Entry 11 of List-II

gave to the States an exclusive power to legislate on

"Education including universities subject to the provisions

of Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List-I and Entry 25 of

List-III." Entry 11 of List-II was deleted and Entry 25 of

List-III was amended with effect from 3.1.1976 as a result

of the Constitution 42nd Amendment Act of 1976. The present

Entry 25 in the Concurrent List is as follows:

"Entry 25, List III: 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."

Entry 25 is subject, inter alia, to Entry 66 of

List-I. Entry 66 of List-I is as follows:-

"Entry 66, List I: Co-ordination and determination of

standards in institutions for higher education or research

and scientific and technical institutions."

Both the Union as well as the States have the power to

legislate on education including medical education, subject,

inter alia, to Entry 66 of List-I which deals with laying

down standards in institutions for higher education or

research and scientific and technical institutions as also

co-ordination of such standards. A State has, therefore,

the right to control education including medical education

so long as the field is not occupied by any Union

Legislation. Secondly, the State cannot, while controlling

education in the State, impinge on standards in institutions

for higher education. Because this is exclusively within

the purview of the Union Government. Therefore, while

prescribing the criteria for admission to the institutions

for higher education including higher medical education, the

State cannot adversely affect the standards laid down by the

Union of India under Entry 66 of List-I. Secondly, while

considering the cases on the subject it is also necessary to

remember that from 1977 education including, inter alia,

medical and university education, is now in the Concurrent

List so that the Union can legislate on admission criteria

also. If it does so, the State will not be able to

legislate in this field, except as provided in Article 254.

It would not be correct to say that the norms for

admission have no connection with the standard of education,

or that the rules for admission are covered only by Entry 25

of List III. Norms of admission can have a direct impact on

the standards of education. Of course, there can be rules

for admission which are consistent with or do not affect

adversely the standards of education prescribed by the Union

in exercise of powers under Entry 66 of List-I. For

example, a State may, for admission to the post-graduate

medical courses, lay down qualifications in addition to

those prescribed under Entry 66 of List-I. This would be

consistent with promoting higher standards for admission to

the higher educational courses. But any lowering of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 48 of 63

norms laid down can, and do have an adverse effect on the

standards of education in the institutes of higher

education. Standards of education in an institution or

college depend on various factors. Some of these are:

(1) The calibre of the teaching staff; (2) A proper

syllabus designed to achieve a high level of education in

the given span of time; (3) The student-teacher ratio; (4)

The ratio between the students and the hospital beds

available to each student; (5) The calibre of the students

admitted to the institution; (6) Equipment and laboratory

facilities, or hospital facilities for training in the case

of medical colleges; (7) Adequate accommodation for the

college and the attached hospital; and (8) The standard of

examinations held including the manner in which the papers

are set and examined and the clinical performance is judged.

While considering the standards of education in any

college or institution, the calibre of students who are

admitted to that institution or college cannot be ignored.

If the students are of a high calibre, training programmes

can be suitably moulded so that they can receive the maximum

benefit out of a high level of teaching. If the calibre of

the students is poor or they are unable to follow the

instructions being imparted, the standard of teaching

necessarily has to be lowered to make them understand the

course which they have undertaken; and it may not be

possible to reach the levels of education and training which

can be attained with a bright group. Education involves a

continuous interaction between the teachers and the

students. The pace of teaching, the level to which teaching

can rise and the benefit which the students ultimately

receive, depend as much on the calibre of the students as on

the calibre of the teachers and the availability of adequate

infrastructural facilities. That is why a lower

student-teacher ratio has been considered essential at the

levels of higher university education, particularly when the

training to be imparted is highly professional training

requiring individual attention and on-hand training to the

pupils who are already doctors and who are expected to treat

patients in the course of doing their post-graduate courses.

The respondents rely upon some observations in some of

the judgments of this Court in support of their stand that

it is for the State to lay down the rules and norms for

admission; and that these do not have any bearing on the

standard of education. In P. Rajendran v. State of Madras

& Ors. ([1968] 2 SCR 786), a Constitution Bench of this

Court considered the validity under Articles 14 and 15(1),

of district- wise reservations made for seats in the medical

colleges. In that case, the Act in question prescribed

eligibility and qualifications of candidates for admission

to the medical colleges. The Court observed, "So far as

admission is concerned, it has to be made by those who are

in control of the colleges - in this case, the Government.

Because the medical colleges are Government colleges

affiliated to the university. In these circumstances, the

Government was entitled to frame rules for admission to

medical colleges controlled by it, subject to the rules of

the university as to eligibility and qualifications. This

was what was done in these cases and, therefore, the

selection cannot be challenged on the ground that it was not

in accordance with the University Act and the rules framed

thereunder." This Court, therefore, upheld the additional

criteria framed by the State for admission which were not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 49 of 63

inconsistent with the norms for admission laid down by the

University Act. Since these additional qualifications did

not diminish the eligibility norms under the University Act,

this Court upheld the additional criteria laid down by the

state as not affecting the standards laid down by the

University Act. The question of diluting the standards laid

down, did not arise.

The respondents have emphasised the observation that

admission has to be made by those who are in control of the

colleges. But, the question is, on what basis? Admissions

must be made on a basis which is consistent with the

standards laid down by a statute or regulation framed by the

Central Government in the exercise of its powers under Entry

66, List I. At times, in some of the judgments, the words

"eligibility" and "qualification" have been used

interchangeably, and in some cases a distinction has been

made between the two words ? "eligibility" connoting the

minimum criteria for selection that may be laid down by the

University Act or any Central Statute, while

"qualifications" connoting the additional norms laid down by

the colleges or by the State. In every case the minimum

standards as laid down by the Central Statute or under it,

have to be complied with by the State while making

admissions. It may, in addition, lay down other additional

norms for admission or regulate admissions in the exercise

of its powers under Entry 25 List III in a manner not

inconsistent with or in a manner which does not dilute the

criteria so laid down.

In Chitra Ghosh & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

([1970] 1 SCR 413), the Constitution Bench of this Court

considered, inter alia, reservation of nine seats for the

nominees of the Government of India in a Government Medical

College under Article 14 of the Constitution. This Court

upheld the reservation as a reasonable classification under

Article 14 on the ground that the candidates for these seats

had to be drawn from different sources and it would be

difficult to have uniformity in the matter of selection from

amongst them. The background and the course of studies

undertaken by these candidates would be different and

divergent and, therefore, the Central Government was the

appropriate authority which could make a proper selection

out of these categories. The questions before us, did not

arise in that case.

In the State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. Lavu

Narendranath & Ors. etc. ([1971] 3 SCR 699), this Court

considered the validity of a test held by the State

Government for admission to medical colleges in the State of

Andhra Pradesh. The Andhra University Act, 1926 prescribed

the minimum qualification of passing HSC, PUC, I.S.C. etc.

examinations for entry into a higher course of study. The

Act, however, did not make it incumbent upon the Government

to make their selection on the basis of the marks obtained

by the candidates at these qualifying examinations. Since

the seats for the MBBS course were limited, the Government,

which ran the medical colleges, had a right to make a

selection out of the large number of candidates who had

passed the HSC, PUC or other prescribed examinations. For

this purpose the State Government prescribed an entrance

test of its own and also prescribed a minimum 50% of marks

at the qualifying examination of HSC, ISC, PUC etc. for

eligibility to appear at the entrance test. The Court said

that merely because the Government supplemented the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 50 of 63

eligibility rules by a written test in the subjects with

which the candidates were already familiar, there was

nothing unfair in the test prescribed. Nor did the test

militate against the powers of Parliament under Entry 66 of

List-I. Entry 66 List-I is not relatable to a screening

test prescribed by the Government or by a university for

selection of students from out of a large number applying

for admission to a particular course of study.

Therefore, this Court considered the entrance test

held by the State in that case as not violating Entry 66 of

List-I because the statutory provisions of the Andhra

University Act were also complied with and the test was not

inconsistent with those provisions. Secondly, in that case

the Court viewed the test as not in substitution of the HSC,

PUC, ISC or other such examination, but in addition to it,

for the purpose of proper selection from out of a large

number of students who had applied.

This latter observation is relied upon by the State of

Madhya Pradesh in support of its contention that the

additional test which the State may prescribe is only for

better selection. Therefore, it is not necessary to lay

down minimum qualifying marks in the additional test. Lavu

Narendranath (supra), however, does not lay down that it is

permissible not to have minimum qualifying marks in the

entrance test prescribed by the State; nor does it lay down

that every test prescribed by the State must necessarily be

viewed as only for the screening of candidates. On the

facts before it, the Court viewed the test as only a

screening test for proper selection from amongst a large

number of candidates.

On the facts before us, the PGMEE is not just a

screening test. Candidates who have qualified from

different universities and in courses which are not

necessarily identical, have to be assessed on the basis of

their relative merit for the purpose of admission to a

post-graduate course. It is for proper assessment of

relative merit of candidates who have taken different

examinations from different universities in the State that a

uniform entrance test is prescribed. Such a test

necessarily partakes of the character of an eligibility test

as also a screening test. In such a situation, minimum

qualifying marks are necessary. The question of minimum

qualifying marks is not addressed at all in Levu

Narendranath (supra) since it did not arise in that case.

In Dr. Ambesh Kumar v. Principal, L.L.R.M. Medical

College, Meerut and Ors. ([1986] Supp. SCC 543), a State

order prescribed 55% as minimum marks for admission to

post-graduate medical courses. The Court considered the

question whether the State can impose qualifications in

addition to those laid down by the Medical Council of India

and the Regulations framed by the Central Government. The

Court said that any additional or further qualifications

which the State may lay down would not be contrary to Entry

66 of List-I since additional qualifications are not in

conflict with the Central Regulations but are designed to

further the objective of the Central Regulation which is to

promote proper standards. The Court said, (at page 552)

"The State Government by laying down the eligibility

qualification, namely, the obtaining of certain minimum

marks in the M.B.B.S. examination by the candidates has not

in any way encroached upon the Regulations made under the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 51 of 63

Indian Medical Council Act nor does it infringe the central

power provided in the Entry 66 of List-I of the Seventh

Schedule to the Constitution. The order merely provides an

additional eligibility qualification." None of these

judgments lays down that any reduction in the eligibility

criteria would not impinge on the standards covered by Entry

66 of List-I. All these judgments dealt with additional

qualifications ? qualifications in addition to what was

prescribed by the Central Regulations or Statutes.

There are, however, two cases where there are

observations to the contrary. One is the case of the State

of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Kumari Nivedita Jain & Ors.

([1981] 4 SCC 296), a judgment of a Bench of three judges.

In this case the Court dealt with admission to the M.B.B.S.

course in the medical colleges of the State of Madhya

Pradesh. The Rules framed by the State provided for a

minimum of 50% as qualifying marks for the general category

students for admission to the medical colleges of the State.

But for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes the

minimum qualifying marks were prescribed as 40%. Later on,

the minimum qualifying marks for the Scheduled Castes and

the Scheduled Tribes were reduced to 0. The Court observed,

(paragraph 17) "That it was not in dispute and it could not

be disputed that the order in question was in conflict with

the provisions contained in Regulation 2 of the Regulations

framed by the Indian Medical Council." But it held that

Entry 66 of List-I would not apply to the selection of

candidates for admission to the medical colleges because

standards would come in after the students were admitted.

The Court also held that Regulation 2 of the Regulations for

admission to MBBS courses framed by the Indian Medical

Council, was only recommendatory. Hence any relaxation in

the rules of selection made by the State Government was

permissible. We will examine the character of the

Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India a little

later. But we cannot agree with the observations made in

that judgment to the effect that the process of selection of

candidates for admission to a medical college has no real

impact on the standard of medical education; or that the

standard of medical education really comes into the picture

only in the course of studies in the medical colleges or

institutions after the selection and admission of

candidates. For reasons which we have explained earlier,

the criteria for the selection of candidates have an

important bearing on the standard of education which can be

effectively imparted in the medical colleges. We cannot

agree with the proposition that prescribing no minimum

qualifying marks for admission for the Scheduled Castes and

the Scheduled Tribes would not have an impact on the

standard of education in the medical colleges. Of course,

once the minimum standards are laid down by the authority

having the power to do so, any further qualifications laid

down by the State which will lead to the selection of better

students cannot be challenged on the ground that it is

contrary to what has been laid down by the authority

concerned. But the action of the State is valid because it

does not adversely impinge on the standards prescribed by

the appropriate authority. Although this judgment is

referred to in the Constitution Bench judgment of Indra

Sawhney & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (supra) the

question of standards being lowered at the stage of

post-graduate medical admissions was not before the court

for consideration. The court merely said that since Article

16 was not applicable to the facts in Kumari Nivedita Jain's

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 52 of 63

case (supra), Article 335 was not considered there. Fort

post- graduate medical education, where the "students" are

required to discharge duties as doctors in hospitals, some

of the considerations underlying Articles 16 and 335 would

be relevant as hereinafter set out. But that apart, it

cannot be said that the judgment in Nivedita Jain is

approved in all its aspects by Indra Sawhney v. Union of

India.

The other case where a contrary view has been taken is

Ajay Kumar Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. ([1994]

4 SCC 401) decided by a Bench of three Judges. It also

held, following Kumari Nivedita Jain & Ors.(supra) (at page

417) that "Entry 66 in List-I does not take in the selection

of candidates or regulation of admission to institutes of

higher education. Because standards come into the picture

after admissions are made." For reasons stated above we

disagree with these findings.

In this connection, our attention is also drawn to the

emphasis placed in some of the judgments on the fact that

since all the candidates finally appear and pass in the same

examination, standards are maintained. Therefore, rules for

admission do not have any bearing on standards. In Ajay

Kumar Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (supra) this

Court, relying on Kumari Nivedita Jain (supra), said that

everybody has to take the same post-graduate examination to

qualify for a post-graduate degree. Therefore, the

guarantee of quality lies in everybody passing the same

final examination. The quality is guaranteed at the exit

stage. Therefore, at the admission stage, even if students

of lower merit are admitted, this will not cause any

detriment to the standards. There are similar observations

in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research,

Chandigarh & Ors. v. K.L. Narasimhan & Anr. (supra).

This reasoning cannot be accepted. The final pass marks in

an examination indicate that the candidate possesses the

minimum requisite knowledge for passing the examination. A

pass mark is not a guarantee of excellence. There is a

great deal of difference between a person who qualifies with

the minimum passing marks and a person who qualifies with

high marks. If excellence is to be promoted at post-

graduate levels, the candidates qualifying should be able to

secure good marks while qualifying. It may be that if the

final examination standard itself is high, even a candidate

with pass marks would have a reasonable standard.

Basically, there is no single test for determining

standards. It is the result of a sum total of all the

inputs - calibre of students, calibre of teachers, teaching

facilities, hospital facilities, standard of examinations

etc. that will guarantee proper standards at the stage of

exit. We, therefore, disagree with the reasoning and

conclusion in Ajay Kumar Singh & Ors. v. Stage of Bihar &

Ors. (supra) and Post Graduate Institute of Medical

Education & Research, Chandigarh & Ors. v. K.L.

Narasimhan & Anr. (supra).

The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and standards:

Has the Union Government, by Statute or Regulations

laid down the standards at the post-graduate level in

medicine in the exercise of its legislative powers under

Entry 66, List I? the appellants/petitioners rely upon the

Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the Regulations framed

under it. The respondents contend that, in fact, no

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 53 of 63

standards have been laid down by the Medical Council of

India. Also the standards laid down are only directory and

not mandatory.

Now, one of the objects and reasons contained in the

Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying the Indian

Medical Council Act of 1956 is:".................(d) to

provide for the formation of a Committee of Post-Graduate

Medical Education for the purpose of assisting the Medical

Council of India in prescribing standards of post-graduate

medical education for the guidance of universities and to

advice universities in the matter of securing uniform

standards of post-graduate medical education throughout

India." Section 20 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956

deals with post-graduate medical education. The relevant

provisions under Section 20 are as follows:-

"20. Postgraduate medical education committee for

assisting council in matters relating to postgraduate

medical education:-

(1) The Council may prescribe standards of

postgraduate medical education for the guidance of

universities, and advise universities in the matter of

securing uniform standards for postgraduate medical

education throughout India, and for this purpose the Central

government may constitute from among the members of the

council a postgraduate medical education committee

(hereinafter referred to as the postgraduate medical

education committee).

(2).............

(3).............

(4).............

(5) The views and recommendations of the postgraduate

committee on all matters shall be placed before the Council;

and if the Council does not agree with the views expressed

or the recommendations made by the postgraduate committee on

any matter, the Council shall forward them together with its

observations to the Central government for decision."

Section 33 of the Act gives to the Council the power

to make regulations generally to carry out the purposes of

the Act with the previous sanction of the Central

Government. It provides that without prejudice to the

generality of this power such Regulations may provide, under

Section 33(j) for the courses and period of study and of

practical training to be undertaken, the subjects of

examination and the standards of proficiency therein to be

obtained in universities or medical institutions, for grant

of recognised medical qualifications, and under Section

33(l) for the conduct of professional examinations,

qualifications of examiners and the conditions of admission

to such examinations.

Pursuant to its power to frame Regulations the Medical

Council of India has framed Regulations on Post-Graduate

Medical Education which have been approved by the Government

of India under Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act,

1956. These regulations which have been framed on the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 54 of 63

recommendations of the Post-Graduate Medical Education

Committee prescribe in extenso the courses for post-graduate

medical education, the facilities to be provided and the

standards to be maintained. After setting out the various

courses, both degree and diploma, available for

post-graduate medical education, the Regulations contain

certain general provisions/conditions some of which need to

be noted. Condition 4 deals with the student-teacher ratio.

It says:

"The student-teacher ratio should be such that the

number of post-graduate teachers to the number of

post-graduate students admitted per year, be maintained at

one to one.

For the proper training of the post- graduate students

there should be a limit to the number of students admitted

per year. For this purpose every unit should consist of at

least three full time post-graduate teachers and can admit

not more than three students for post- graduate training per

year. If the number of post-graduate teachers in the unit

is more than three then the number of students can be

increased proportionately. For this purpose, one student

should associate with one post- graduate teacher".

Condition 5 says:

"The selection of post-graduates both for degree and

diploma courses should be strictly on the basis of academic

merit."

Condition 6 is as follows:-

"Condition 6: The training of post-graduates for

degree should be of the residency pattern with patient care.

Both the in-service candidates and the stipendaries should

be given similar clinical responsibility .............".

Under the heading "facilities for post-graduate

students" clause (1) provides as follows:-

"Clause (1): There would be two types of post-

graduate students:

(a) Those holding posts in the same Department like

Resident, Registrar, Demonstrator etc. Adequate number of

paid posts should be created for this purpose.

(b) Those receiving stipends. The stipends should

normally be Rupees 300/- per month payable for the duration

of the course."

Under the heading "criteria for the selection of

candidates" Clause (a) is as follows:-

"(a) Students for post-graduate training should be

selected strictly on merit judged on the basis of academic

record in the under-graduate course. All selection for

post-graduate studies should be conducted by the

Universities."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 55 of 63

Under the heading "Evaluation of merit" it is provided

as follows:-

"The Post-graduate Committee was of the opinion that

in order to determine the merit of a candidate for admission

to post-graduate medical courses, (i) his performance at the

M.B.B.S. examinations, (ii) his performance during the

course of internship and housemanship for which a daily

assessment chart be maintained and (iii) the report of the

teachers which is to be submitted periodically may be

considered.

Alternatively the authorities concerned may conduct

competitive entrance examination to determine the merit of a

candidate for admission to post-graduate medical courses."

Under the heading "Methods of training" it is, inter

alia, provided:

".............The in-service training requires the

candidate to be a resident in the campus and should be given

graded responsibility in the management and treatment of

patients entrusted to his care. Adequate number of post of

clinical residents or tutors should be created for this

purpose."

Mr. Salve, learned counsel appearing for the Medical

Council of India has, therefore, rightly submitted that

under the Indian Medical Council Act of 1956 the Indian

Medical Council is empowered to prescribe, inter alia,

standards of post-graduate medical education. In the

exercise of its powers under Section 20 read with Section 33

the Indian Medical Council has framed Regulations which

govern post-graduate medical education. These Regulations,

therefore, are binding and the States cannot, in the

exercise of power under Entry 25 of List-III, make rules and

regulations which are in conflict with or adversely impinge

upon the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India

for post- graduate medical education. Since the standards

laid down are in the exercise of the power conferred under

Entry 66 of List-I, the exercise of that power is

exclusively within the domain of the Union Government. The

power of the States under Entry 25 of List-III is subject to

Entry 66 of List-I.

Secondly, it is not the exclusive power of the State

to frame rules and regulations pertaining to education since

the subject is in the Concurrent List. Therefore, any power

exercised by the State in the area of education under Entry

25 of List-III will also be subject to any existing relevant

provisions made in that connection by the Union Government

subject, of course, to Article 254.

In Ajay Kumar Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.

(supra), this Court examined the powers of the Indian

Medical Council under Section 20 of the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956 and held that the power of the Council to

prescribe standards of post-graduate medical education under

Section 20 are only for the guidance of the universities.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 56 of 63

Since Section 20 also refers to the power of the Council to

advice universities in the matter of securing uniform

standards for post-graduate medical education throughout

India, the Court said that the entire power under Section 20

was purely advisory. Therefore, the power of the Indian

Medical Council to prescribe the minimum standards of

medical education at the post- graduate level was only

advisory in nature and not of a binding character (page

415).

We do not agree with this interpretation put on

Section 20 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. Section

20(1) (set out earlier) is in three parts. The first part

provides that the Council may prescribe standards of

post-graduate medical education for the guidance of

universities. The second part of sub-section(1) says that

the Council may advise universities in the matter of

securing uniform standards for post-graduate medical

education throughout. The last part of sub- section (1)

enables the Central Government to constitute from amongst

the members of the Council, a post-graduate medical

education committee. The first part of sub-section(1)

empowers the Council to prescribe standards of post-graduate

medical education for the guidance of universities.

Therefore, the universities have to be guided by the

standards prescribed by the Medical Council and must shape

their programmes accordingly. The scheme of the Indian

Medical Council Act, 1956 does not give an option to the

universities to follow or not to follow the standards laid

down by the Indian Medical Council. For example, the

medical qualifications granted by a university or a medical

institution have to be recognised under the Indian Medical

Council Act, 1956. Unless the qualifications are so

recognised, the students who qualify will be not be able to

practice. Before granting such recognition, a power is

given to the Medical Council under Section 16 to ask for

information as to the courses of study and examinations.

The universities are bound to furnish the information so

required by the Council. The post-graduate medical

committee is also under Section 17, entitled to appoint

medical inspectors to inspect any medical institution,

college, hospital or other institution where medical

education is given or to attend any examination held by any

university or medical institution before recommending the

medical qualification granted by that university or medical

institution. Under Section 19, if a report of the Committee

is unsatisfactory the Medical Council may withdraw

recognition granted to a medical qualification of any

medical institution or university concerned in the manner

provided in Section 19. Section 19A enables the Council to

prescribe minimum standards of medical education required

for granting recognised medical qualifications other than

post-graduate medical qualifications by the universities or

medical institutions, while Section 20 gives a power to the

Council to prescribe minimum standards of post-graduate

medical education. The universities must necessarily be

guided by the standards prescribed under Section 20(1) if

their degrees or diplomas are to be recognised under the

Medical Council of India Act. We, therefore, disagree with

and overrule the finding given in Ajay Kumar Singh & Ors.

v. State of Bihar & Ors. (supra), to the effect that the

standards of post-graduate medical education prescribed by

the Medical Council of India are merely directory and the

universities are not bound to comply with the standards so

prescribed.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 57 of 63

In State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Kumari Nivedita

Jain & Ors. (supra), the provisions of Indian Medical

Council Act and the regulations framed for under-graduate

medical courses were considered by the Court. The Court

said that while regulation 1 was mandatory, regulation 2 was

only recommendatory and need not be followed. We do not

agree with this line of reasoning for the reasons which we

have set out above.

In the case of Medical Council of India v. State of

Karnataka & Ors. ([1998] 6 SCC 131) a bench of three judges

of this Court has distinguished the observations made in

Kumari Nivedita Jain (supra). It has also disagreed with

Ajay Kumar Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors (supra)

and has come to the conclusion that the Medical Council

Regulations have a statutory force and are mandatory. The

Court was concerned with admissions to the M.B.B.S. course

and the Regulations framed by the Indian Medical Council

relating to admission to the M.B.B.S. course. The Court

took note of the observations in State of Kerala v. Kumari

T.P. Roshana & Anr. ([1979] 1 SCC 572 at page 580) to the

effect that under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, the

Medical Council of India has been set up as an expert body

to control the minimum standards of medical education and to

regulate their observance. It has implicit power to

supervise the qualifications or eligibility standards for

admission into medical institutions. There is, under the

Act an overall vigilance by the Medical Council to prevent

sub-standard entrance qualifications for medical courses.

These observations would apply equally to post-graduate

medical courses. We are in respectful agreement with this

reasoning.

The Regulations governing post-graduate medical

education already referred to earlier, provide for admission

on the basis of merit. The Regulations, however, have not

clearly spelt out whether there can or cannot be, any

reservations for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and/or

backward class candidates at the stage of post-graduate

medical admissions. Whether such a reservation would

impinge on the standards or not would depend upon the manner

in which such reservation is made, and whether the minimum

qualifying marks for the reserved categories are properly

fixed or not. It is for the Medical Council of India to lay

down proper norms in this area and to prescribe whether the

minimum qualifying marks for the admission of students in

the reserved category can be less than the minimum

qualifying marks for the general category students at the

post-graduate level; and if so, to what extent. Even if we

accept the contention of the respondents that for the

reserved category candidates also, their inter se merit is

the criterion for selection, although for the reserved

category of candidates lower minimum qualifying marks are

prescribed, the merit which is envisaged under the Indian

Medical Council Act or its Regulations is comparative merit

for all categories of candidates. For admission to a

post-graduate course in medicine, the merit criterion cannot

be so diluted by the State as to affect the standards of

post-graduate medical education as prescribed under the

Regulations framed by the Indian Medical Council. It is for

the Indian Medical Council to consider whether lower minimum

qualifying marks can be prescribed at the post-graduate

level for the reserved category candidates. We have already

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 58 of 63

opined that the minimum qualifying marks of 20% as compared

to 45% for the general category candidates appear to be too

low. This would make it difficult for the reserved category

candidates to bring their performance on a par with general

category candidates in the course of post-graduate studies

and before they qualify in the post-graduate examination.

It is also necessary in public interest to ensure that the

candidates at the post- graduate level have not just passed

the examination, but they have profited from their studies

in a manner which makes them capable of making their own

contribution, that they are capable of diagnosing difficult

medical conditions with a certain degree of expertise, and

are capable of rendering to the ill, specialised services of

a certain acceptable standard expected of doctors with

specialised training.

The States of U.P. and Madhya Pradesh have contended

that if the minimum qualifying marks are raised in the case

of the reserved category candidates, they will not be able

to fill all the seats which are reserved for them. The

purpose, however, of higher medical education is not to fill

the seats which are available by lowering standards; nor is

the purpose of reservation at the stage of post-graduate

medical education merely to fill the seats with the reserved

category candidates. The purpose of reservation, if

permissible at this level, is to ensure that the reserved

category candidates having the requisite training and

calibre to benefit from post-graduate medical education and

rise to the standards which are expected of persons

possessing post- graduate medical qualification, are not

denied this opportunity by competing with general category

candidates. The general category candidates do not have any

social disabilities which prevent them from giving of their

best. The special opportunity which is provided by

reservation cannot, however, be made available to those who

are substantially below the levels prescribed for the

general category candidates. It will not be possible for

such candidates to fully benefit from the very limited and

specialised post-graduate training opportunities which are

designed to produce high calibre well trained professionals

for the benefit of the public. Article 15(4) and the spirit

of reason which permeates it, do not permit lowering of

minimum qualifying marks at the post-graduate level to 20%

for the reserved category as against 45% for the general

category candidates. It will be for the Medical Council of

India to decide whether such lowering is permissible and if

so to what extent. But in the meanwhile at least the norms

which are prescribed for admission to the M.B.B.S. courses

ought not to be lowered at the post-graduate level. The

lowering of minimum qualifying marks for admission to the

M.B.B.S. courses has been permitted by the Indian Medical

Council upto 35% for the reserved category as against 45%

for the general category. The marks cannot be lowered

further for admission to the post-graduate medical courses,

especially when at the super speciality level it is the

unanimous view of all the judgments of this Court that there

should be no reservations. This would also imply that there

can be no lowering of minimum qualifying marks for any

category of candidates at the level of admission to the

super-specialities courses.

In Mohan Bir Singh Chawla v. Punjab University,

Chandigarh & Anr. (supra) also this Court has taken the

view that the higher you go the less should be the extent of

reservation or weightage and it would be dangerous to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 59 of 63

depreciate merit and excellence at the highest levels. In

S. Vinod Kumar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. ([1996] 6

SCC 580) this Court while considering Articles 16(4) and 335

held that for the purpose of promotion lower qualifying

marks for the reserved category candidates were not

permissible. Dr. Sadhna Devi & Ors. v. State of U.P. &

Ors. (supra) has rightly prescribed minimum qualifying

marks for the common entrance examination for post-graduate

medical courses. The Court left open the question whether

there could be any reservation at the post- graduation level

and to what extent lesser qualifying marks could be

prescribed, assuming the reservations can be made. As we

have said earlier, these are matters essentially of laying

down appropriate standards and hence to be decided by the

Medical Council of India. However, the disparity in the

minimum qualifying marks cannot be substantial.

In Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education &

Research, Chandigarh and Ors. v. K.L. Narasimhan & Anr.

([1997] 6 SCC 283) there are observations to the effect that

the reservation of seats at the post-graduate and doctoral

courses in medicine would not lead to loss of efficiency and

would be permissible under Article 15(4). There are also

observations to the effect that since all appear for the

same final examination, there is no downgrading of

excellence. These observations, in our view, cannot be

accepted for reasons set out earlier. The judgment of the

Court in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education &

Research, Chandigarh and Ors. v. K.L. Narasimhan & Anr.

(supra) in so far as it lays down these propositions is

overruled.

In the premises, we agree with the reasoning and

conclusion in Dr. Sadhna Devi & Ors. v. State of U.P. &

Ors. (supra) and we overrule the reasoning and conclusions

in Ajay Kumar Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.

(supra) and Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education &

Research, Chandigarh and Ors. v. K.L. Narasimhan & Anr.

(supra). To conclude:

1. We have not examined the question whether

reservations are permissible at the post-graduate level of

medical education;

2. A common entrance examination envisaged under the

Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India for

post-graduate medical education requires fixing of minimum

qualifying marks for passing the examination since it is not

a mere screening test.

3. Whether lower minimum qualifying marks for the

reserved category candidates can be prescribed at the

post-graduate level of medical education is a question which

must be decided by the Medical Council of India since it

affects standards of post-graduate medical education. Even

if minimum qualifying marks can be lowered for the reserved

category candidates, there cannot be a wide disparity

between the minimum qualifying marks for the reserved

category candidates and the minimum qualifying marks for the

general category candidates at this level. The percentage

of 20% for the reserved category and 45% for the general

category is not permissible under Article 15(4), the same

being unreasonable at the post-graduate level and contrary

to public interest.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 60 of 63

4. At the level of admission to the super speciality

courses, no special provisions are permissible, they being

contrary to national interest. Merit alone can be the basis

of selection.

In the premises, the impugned Uttar Pradesh Post

Graduate Medical Education (Reservation for Scheduled

Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes) Act,

1997 and G.O. dated 7.6.1997 of the State of Madhya Pradesh

are set aside. However, students who have already taken

admission and are pursuing courses of post-graduate medical

study under the impugned Act/G.O. will not be affected.

Our judgment will have prospective application. Further,

pending consideration of this question by the Medical

Council of India, the two States may follow the norms laid

down by the Medical Council of India for lowering of marks

for admission to the under-graduate M.B.B.S. medical

courses, at the post-graduate level also as a temporary

measure until the norms are laid down. This, however, will

not be treated as our having held that such lowering of

marks will not lead to a lowering of standards at the post-

graduate level of medical education. Standards cannot be

lowered at this level in public interest. This is a matter

to be decided by an expert body such as the Medical Council

of India assisted by its Post- Graduate Medical Education

Committee in accordance with law.

I.A. No.2 in WP(C) No.679 of 1995, Writ Petition

Nos.290 of 1997, 300 of 1997, C.A. No........of 1999

(Arising out of SLP(C) No.12231 of 1997) and Writ Petition

(C) No.350 of 1998 are disposed of accordingly.

Review Petition Nos.2371-72 of 1997 in CA

Nos.3176-77/97

Normally the power to review is used by us sparingly

to correct errors apparent on the face of the record. In

the judgment sought to be reviewed, however, there are

observations which are so widely worded that they may create

mischief or national detriment. We would, therefore, like

to clarify the position regarding admissions to the super

specialities in medicine. In Post Graduate Institute of

Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh and Ors. v. K.L.

Narasimhan & Anr. ([1997] 6 SCC 283), which is the judgment

in question, it was, inter alia, held that there could be

reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes at post-graduate levels or doctoral levels in

medicine and that such reservations would not lead to a loss

of efficiency and are permissible under Article 15(4).

In the group of civil appeals decided by Post Graduate

Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh and

Ors. v. K.L. Narasimhan & Anr. (supra), the appeal of

the present petitioners had challenged an Admission Notice

No.15/90 issued in the Indian Express of 25.11.1990, under

which six seats for the super speciality courses of

D.M./M.C.H. were kept reserved for the Scheduled Caste and

the Scheduled Tribe candidates. The petitioners rightly

contend that at the super speciality level there cannot be

any relaxation in favour of any category of candidates.

Admissions should be entirely on the basis of open merit.

The ambit of special provisions under Article 15(4)

has already been considered by us. While the object of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 61 of 63

Article 15(4) is to advance the equality principle by

providing for protective discrimination in favour of the

weaker sections so that they may become stronger and be able

to compete equally with others more fortunate, one cannot

also ignore the wider interests of society while devising

such special provisions. Undoubtedly, protective

discrimination in favour of the backward, including

scheduled castes and scheduled tribes is as much in the

interest of society as the protected groups. At the same

time, there may be other national interests, 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 have

also to be borne in mind. Special provisions must strike a

reasonable balance between these diverse national interests.

In the case of Dr. Jagdish Saran & Ors. v. Union of

India (supra) 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. There are

similar observations in Dr. Pradeep Jain & Ors. v. Union

of India & Ors. (supra). Undoubtedly, Dr. Pradeep Jain &

Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (supra) 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.

Jagdish Saran & Ors. v. Union of India (supra) 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

super-speciality 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.

Indra Sawhney & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

(supra) has also observed that in certain positions at the

highest level merit alone counts. In specialities and

super-specialities in medicine, merit alone must prevail and

there should not be any reservation of posts. The

observations in Indra Sawhney & Ors. v. Union of India &

Ors.(supra) were in respect of posts in the specialities and

super-specialities in medicine. Nevertheless, the same

principle applies to seats in the specialities and

super-specialities in medicine. Moreover, study and

training at the level of specialities and super-specialities

in medicine involve discharging the duties attached to

certain specified medical posts in the hospitals attached to

the medical institutions giving education in specialities

and super-specialities. Even where no specific posts are

created or kept for the doctors studying for the

super-specialities or specialities, the work which they are

required to do in the hospitals attached to these

institutions is equivalent to the work done by the occupants

of such posts in that hospital. In this sense also, some of

the considerations under Article 16(4) read with Article 335

rub off on admissions of candidates who are given seats for

speciality and super-speciality courses in medicine. Even

otherwise under Article 15(4) the special provisions which

are made at this level of education have to be consistent

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 62 of 63

with the national interest in promoting the highest levels

of efficiency, skill and knowledge amongst the best in the

country so that they can contribute to national progress and

enhance the prestige of the nation. The same view has been

upheld in Dr. Fazal Ghafoor v. Union of India & Ors.

([1988] Supp. SCC 794) and Mohan Bir Singh Chawla v.

Punjab University, Chandigarh, & Anr. ([1997] 2 SCC 171).

The Post-graduate Institute of Medical Education and

Research, Chandigarh, has been set up as an institution of

national importance. The Post-graduate Institute of Medical

Education and Research, Chandigarh Act, 1966, under Section

2 provides that the object of the said institution is to

make the institution one of national importance. Section 12

sets out the objects of the Institute. These are as

follows:-

"Objects of Institute:

The objects of the Institute shall be -

(a) to develop patterns of teaching in under- graduate

and post-graduate medical education in all its branches so

as to demonstrate a high standard of medical education;

(b) to bring together, as far as may be, in one place

educational facilities of the highest order for the training

of personnel in all important branches of health activity;

and

(c) to attain self-sufficiency in post- graduate

medical education to meet the country's needs for

specialists and medical teachers."

Under Section 13 the functions of the Institute

include providing both under-graduate and post-graduate

teaching, inter alia, in medicine as also facilities for

research, conducting experiments in new methods of medical

education both under-graduate and post-graduate, in order to

arrive at satisfactory standards of such education,

prescribe courses and curricula for both under-graduate and

post-graduate study and to establish and maintain one or

more medical colleges equipped to undertake not only

under-graduate but also post-graduate medical education in

the subject.

Under Section 32 of the said Act, the Post-graduate

Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh

Regulations, 1967 have been framed. Regulation 27 provides

for 20% of the seats in every course of study in the

Institute to be reserved for candidates belonging to the

Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or other categories of

persons in accordance with the general orders issued by the

Central Government from time to time. Regulation 27,

however, cannot have any application at the highest level of

super-specialities as this would defeat the very object of

imparting the best possible training to select meritorious

candidates who can contribute to the advancement of

knowledge in the fields of medical research and its

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 63 of 63

applications. Since no relaxation is permissible at the

highest levels in the medical institutions, the petitioners

are right when they contend that the reservations made for

the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe candidates for

admission to D.M. and M.C.H. courses which are

super-speciality courses, is not consistent with the

constitutional mandate under Articles 15(4) and 16(4).

Regulation 27 would not apply at the level of admissions to

D.M. and M.C.H. courses.

We, therefore, hold that the judgment of this Court in

Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research,

Chandigarh and Ors. v. K.L. Narasimhan & Anr. (supra)

cannot be read as holding that any type of relaxation is

permissible at the super-specialities level. The review

petitions are disposed of accordingly.

All the interlocutory applications also stand disposed

of.