Page 1 'REPORTABLE'

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 48 OF 2014

Vishal Goyal & Ors. …

Petitioners

Versus

State of Karnataka & Ors. …

Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 70 OF 2014,

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 72 OF 2014,

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 75 OF 2014,

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 65 OF 2014,

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 92 OF 2014,

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.156 OF 2014,

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 83 OF 2014,

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 87 OF 2014

AND

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.196 OF 2014

J U D G M E N T

A.K. PATNAIK, J.

Page 2 This batch of writ petitions under Article 32 of the

Constitution relates to admissions in Post Graduate

Medical Dental courses in Government medical and dental

colleges as well as in the State Quota in private medical

and dental colleges in the State of Karnataka.

2.The petitioners claim that they were selected on the

basis of common entrance tests conducted by the CBSE or

by the authorities of the State Government or by the

association of private medical and dental colleges in the

State of Karnataka and admitted into the MBBS/BDS

courses in different Government or private medical and

dental colleges and after completing their MBBS/BDS

courses were keen to get admitted into Post Graduate

medical or dental courses in the year 2014.

3.The National Board of Examinations issued two

Information Bulletins for Post Graduate Entrance Test,

2014 (for short ‘the PGET-2014’) for admissions to the

State Quota seats in Karnataka Government Colleges and

Institutions and Karnataka Government Quota seats in

private colleges/institutions/deemed universities. One

Bulletin contained all information for admission to

2

Page 3 MD/MS/Medical Post Graduate Diploma Courses (Medical)

and the other contained all information for admission to

MDS/PG Diploma Courses (Dental). Clause 2 of these

Information Bulletins lays down the criteria for PGET-2014.

Clause 2.1 of these Information Bulletins for PGET-2014

provides that no candidate shall be admitted to a

professional educational institution unless the candidate

possesses the qualifications or eligibility to appear for the

entrance test stipulated thereunder. The said clause 2.1

of the two Information Bulletins, which is identically

worded for admissions to Post Graduate Medical and Post

Graduate Dental Courses, is extracted hereinbelow:

2.1. No candidate shall be admitted to a

professional educational institution unless the

candidate possesses the following qualifications or

eligibility to appear for the Entrance test namely:

a. He is a citizen of India who is of

Karnataka origin and has studied MBBS/BDS

degree in a Medical/Dental college situated

in Karnataka or outside Karnataka, and

affiliated to any university established by

law in India recognized by Medical Council

of India and Government of India.

Explanation: “A candidate of Karnataka

Origin” means a candidate found eligible

under clause (i) or (ii) below, namely:

3

Page 4 i. A candidate who has studied and passed

in one or more Government recognized,

educational institutions located in the State

of Karnataka for a minimum period of TEN

academic years as on the last date fixed for

the submission of application form,

commencing from 1st standard to

MBBS/BDS and must have appeared and

passed either SSLC/10th standard or 2nd

PUC/12th standard examination from

Karnataka State. In case of the candidate

who has taken more than one year to pass

a class or standard, the years of academic

study is counted as one year only.

Documents to be produced, namely:

1) SSLC or 10

th

Standard Marks Card;

2) 2nd PUC of 12th Standard Marks Card of

the candidate;

3) Candidates Study Certificate: A study

certificate from the Head of educational

institution where he or she had studied.

Further, School Study Certificates should be

counter signed by the concerned Block

Education Officer (BEO)/Deputy Director of

Public Instructions (DDPI) COMPULSORILY in

the proforma prescribed;

4) Qualifying degree certificate and all

phases marks card;

5) Domicile certificate issued by the

Tahsildar in the prescribed proforma

(Annexure-I); and if claiming reservation

benefits: Caste/Caste Income Certificate

issued by Concerned Tahsildar – For SC/ST

in Form-D, Category-1 in Form-E and 2A,

2B, 3A and 3B in Form F.

4

Page 5 6) MCI/DCI State Council Registration

Certificate.

7) Attempt Certificate issued by the

concerned college Principal.

ii. The candidate should have studied and

passed 1st and 2nd years Pre-University

Examination or 11th and 12th standard

examination within the State of Karnataka

from an Educational Institution run or

recognized by the State Government or

MBBS/BDS from a professional educational

institution located in Karnataka and that

either of the parents should have studied in

Karnataka for a minimum period of 10

years.

Documents to be produced, namely:

1) SSLC or 10th Standard Marks Card;

2) 2nd PUC of 12th Standard Marks Card of

the candidate;

3) Qualifying degree certificate and all

phases marks card;

4) Domicile certificate issued by the

Tahsildar in the prescribed proforma

(Annexure-I);

5) If claiming reservation benefits:

Caste/Caste Income Certificate issued by

Concerned Tahsildar – For SC/ST in Form-D,

Category-1 in Form-E and 2A, 2B, 3A and 3B

in Form F and

6) (a) A study certificate for either of the

parent having studied for at least 10 years

in Karnataka from the Head of the

educational institution where he/she had

5

Page 6 studied. Further, school study certificates

should be countersigned by the concerned

Block Educational Officer (BEO)/ Deputy

Director of Public Instructions (DDPI)

COMPULSORILY in the proforma prescribed

(Annexure-III);

(b) The candidates study certificate for

having studied both 1st and 2nd PUC or

11th & 12th Standard in Karnataka issued

by the head of the educational institution.

7) MCI/DCI State Council Registration

Certificate

8) Attempt Certificate issued by the

concerned Principal.

4.It will be clear from sub-clause (a) of clause 2.1 of the

Information Bulletins extracted above that to be eligible to

appear for the Entrance Test, a candidate must be of

“Karnataka Origin”. The Explanation under sub-clause (a)

of clause 2.1 of the Information Bulletins gives the

meaning of “A candidate of Karnataka Origin”. The case

of the petitioners is that by virtue of sub-clause (a) of

clause 2.1 of the two Information Bulletins, they are

debarred from appearing in the Entrance Tests for

admissions to MD/MS/Medical Post Graduate Diploma

Courses, 2014 or to MDS/Dental Post Graduate Diploma

Courses, 2014 in the State of Karnataka even though they

6

Page 7 have studied MBBS/BDS in institutions in the State of

Karnataka. They have, therefore, challenged sub-clause

(a) of clause 2.1 of the two Information Bulletins, as ultra

vires Article 14 of the Constitution as interpreted by this

Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain and Others v. Union of India and

Others [(1984) 3 SCC 654]. They also contend that in the

aforesaid case of Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra), this Court has

held that a certain percentage of seats must be reserved

on the basis of institutional preference to enable students

who have passed MBBS or BDS courses from medical or

dental colleges in the State of Karnataka to get admission

to Post Graduate medical or dental courses in the medical

or dental colleges of the State of Karnataka. The

petitioners have, therefore, prayed that sub-clause (a) of

clause 2.1 of the two Information Bulletins be declared as

ultra vires the Constitution and appropriate writs and

directions be issued to the respondents to permit the

petitioners to participate in the admission process of

MD/MS/MDS and other Post Graduate medical and dental

courses in the State of Karnataka.

7

Page 8 5.Soon after the writ petitions were filed and moved,

this Court passed orders permitting the petitioners to take

the Entrance Test for admission to Post Graduate medical

and dental courses in the State of Karnataka conducted by

the National Board of Examinations and pursuant to the

said orders the petitioners have also been permitted to

take the Entrance Test.

6.Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

the judgment of this Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain’s case

(supra) still holds good. They referred to the decision of

this Court in Magan Mehrotra v. Union of India [(2003) 11

SCC 186], Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India [(2003) 11

SCC 146] and Nikhil Himthani v. State of Uttarakhand &

Others [(2013) 10 SCC 237], in which this Court has

reiterated the principles laid down in Dr. Pradeep Jain’s

case (supra). They submitted that this Court, should,

therefore, strike down sub-clause (a) of clause 2.1 of the

two Information Bulletins as ultra vires the Constitution

and direct the respondents to give institutional preference

in accordance of the judgment in Pradeep Jain’s case.

8

Page 9 7.In reply to the contentions of the petitioners, Mr. A.

Mariarputham, learned senior counsel appearing for the

State of Karnataka, relied on the statements of objections

filed on behalf of the State of Karnataka. He submitted

that Article 371J of the Constitution is titled ‘Special

Provisions with respect to State of Karnataka’ and Clause

(2) read with Clause (1) sub-clause (C) of this Article

provides that the Governor may, by order make

reservation of a proportion of seats in educational and

vocational training institutions in the Hyderabad-

Karnataka region for students who belong to that region

by birth or by domicile. He submitted that the State of

Karnataka has, therefore, fixed institutional preference

quota of 50% and this was constitutionally permissible as

per the judgment of this Court in Saurabh Chaudri v.

Union of India (supra).

8.Mr. Mariarputham next submitted that pursuant to

the judgment of this Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain’s case

(supra), a scheme has been formulated by this Court in

Dr. Dinesh Kumar and Others v. Motilal Nehru Medical

College, Allahabad and Others [(1986) 3 SCC 727] and a

9

Page 10 reading of the said scheme would show that it applies to

only medical and dental colleges or institutions run by the

Union of India or a State Government or a Municipal and

other local authority. He submitted that the judgments of

this Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain’s case (supra) and in Dinesh

Kumar and Others v. Motilal Nehru Medical College,

Allahabad and Others (supra), therefore, do not apply to

private medical and dental college in the State of

Karnataka. He explained that the State of Karnataka has

also a quota of seats in the private medical and dental

colleges in the State of Karnataka and the seats for Post

Graduate medical and dental courses that fall in the State

quota can be filled up by the State from among the

candidates of Karnataka Origin as provided in sub-clause

(a) of clause 2.1 of the two Information Bulletins.

9.We have considered the submissions of learned

counsel for the parties and we find that the basis of the

judgment of this Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain’s case (supra) is

Article 14 of the Constitution which guarantees to every

person equality before the law and equal protection of the

laws. As explained by this court in paragraphs 12 and 13

10

Page 11 of the judgment in Nikhil Himthani v. State of

Uttarakhand & Others (supra):

“12. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees

to every person equality before law and equal

protection of laws. In Jagadish Saran v. Union

of India (1980) 2 SCC 768, Krishna Iyer, J.,

writing the judgment on behalf of the three

Judges referring to Article 14 of the

Constitution held that equality of opportunity

for every person in the country is the

constitutional guarantee and therefore merit

must be the test for selecting candidates,

particularly in the higher levels of education

like postgraduate medical courses, such as

MD. In the language of Krishna Iyer, J. (SCC

pp.778-79, para 23)

“23. Flowing from the same stream of

equalism is another limitation. The

basic medical needs of a region or the

preferential push justified for a

handicapped group cannot prevail in the

same measure all the highest scales of

specialty where the best skill or talent,

must be handpicked by selecting

according to capability. At the level of

PhD, MD, or levels of higher proficiency,

where international measure of talent is

made, where losing one great scientist

or technologist in-the-making is a

national loss, the considerations we

have expanded upon a important lose

their potency. Here, equality, measured

by matching excellence, has more

meaning and cannot be diluted much

without grave risk.”

13. Relying on the aforesaid reasons in

Jagadish Saran v. Union of India, a three-

11

Page 12 Judge Bench of this Court in Pradeep Jain

case held excellence cannot be compromised

by any other consideration for the purpose of

admission to postgraduate medical courses

such as MD/MS and the like because that

would be detrimental to the interests of the

nation and therefore reservation based on

residential requirement in the State will affect

the right to equality of opportunity under

Article 14 of the Constitution……..”

In Magan Mehrotra v. Union of India (supra) and Saurabh

Chaudri v. Union of India (supra) also, this Court has

approved the aforesaid view in Dr. Pradeep Jain’s Case

that excellence cannot be compromised by any other

consideration for the purpose of admission to

postgraduate medical courses such as MD/MS and the like

because that would be detrimental to the interests of the

nation and will affect the right to equality of opportunity

under Article 14 of the Constitution.

10.Mr. Mariarputham is right that in Saurabh Chaudri v.

Union of India (supra), this Court has held that

institutional preference can be given by a State, but in the

aforesaid decision of Saurabh Chaudri, it has also been

held that decision of the State to give institutional

preference can be invalidated by the Court in the event it

12

Page 13 is shown that the decision of the State is ultra vires the

right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

When we examine sub-clause (a) of clause 2.1 of the two

Information Bulletins, we find that the expression “A

candidate of Karnataka Origin” who only is eligible to

appear for Entrance Test has been so defined as to

exclude a candidate who has studied MBBS or BDS in an

institution in the State of Karnataka but who does not

satisfy the other requirements of sub-clause (a) of clause

2.1 of the Information Bulletin for PGET-2014. Thus, the

institutional preference sought to be given by sub-clause

(a) of clause 2.1 of the Information Bulletin for PGET-2014

is clearly contrary to the judgment of this Court in Dr.

Pradeep Jain’s case (supra). To quote from paragraph 22

of the judgment in Dr. Pradeep Jain’s case:

“…… a certain percentage of seats may

in the present circumstances, be

reserved on the basis of institutional

preference in the sense that a student

who has passed MBBS course from a

medical college or university, may be

given preference for admission to the

postgraduate course in the same

medical college or university…..”

13

Page 14 Sub-clause (a) of clause 2.1 of the two Information

Bulletins does not actually give institutional preference to

students who have passed MBBS or BDS from Colleges or

Universities in the State of Karnataka, but makes some of

them ineligible to take the Entrance Test for admission to

Post Graduate Medical or Dental courses in the State of

Karnataka to which the Information Bulletins apply.

11.We now come to the argument of Mr. Mariarputham

that the scheme formulated by this Court in Dr. Dinesh

Kumar and Others v. Motilal Nehru Medical College,

Allahabad and Others (supra) pursuant to the judgment in

Dr. Pradeep Jain’s case (supra) is confined to medical and

dental colleges or institutions run by the Union of India or

a State Government or a Municipal or other local authority

and does not apply to private medical and dental colleges

or institutions. Paragraph (1) of the scheme on which Mr.

Mariarputham relied on is extracted hereinbelow:

“(1) In the first place, the Scheme has

necessarily to be confined to medical

colleges or institutions run by the Union

of India or a State Government or a

municipal or other local authority. It

cannot apply to private medical colleges

or institutions unless they are

14

Page 15 instrumentality or agency of the State or

opt to join the Scheme by making 15 per

cent of the total number of seats for the

MBBS/BDS course and 25 per cent of the

total number of seats for the post-

graduate course, available for admission

on the basis of All India Entrance

Examination. Those medical colleges or

institutions which we have already

excepted from the operation of the

judgment dated June 22, 1984 will

continue to remain outside the scope of

the Scheme.”

This Court has, thus, said in the aforesaid paragraph (1) of

the scheme that the scheme cannot apply to private

medical and dental colleges or institutions unless they are

instrumentalities or agencies of the State or opt to join the

scheme. The reason for this is that private medical and

dental colleges or institutions not being State or its

instrumentalities or its agencies were not subject to the

equality clauses in Article 14 of the Constitution, but the

moment some seats in the private medical and dental

colleges or institutions come to the State quota, which

have to be filled up by the State or its instrumentality or

its agency which are subject to the equality clauses in

Article 14 of the Constitution, the principles laid down by

this Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain’s case (supra) will have to be

15

Page 16 followed while granting admissions to the seats allotted to

the State Quota in post graduate medical and dental

courses even in private colleges.

12.In the result, we allow the writ petitions, declare sub-

clause (a) of clause 2.1 of the two Information Bulletins for

post graduate medical and dental courses for PGET-2014

as ultra-vires Article 14 of the Constitution and null and

void. The respondent will now publish fresh Information

Bulletins and do the admissions to the post graduate

medical and dental courses in the Government colleges as

well as the State quota of the private colleges in

accordance with the law by the end of June, 2014 on the

basis of the results of the Entrance Test already held. We

also order that the general time schedule for counselling

and admissions to post graduate Medical Courses in our

order dated 14.03.2014 in Dr. Fraz Naseem & Ors. v.

Union of India will not apply to such admissions in the

State of Karnataka for the academic year 2014-2015.

Similarly, the general time schedule for counselling and

admissions for post graduate dental courses will not apply

16

Page 17 to such admissions in the State of Karnataka. The parties

shall bear their own costs.

.....……………..……………………….J.

(A. K. Patnaik)

…....…………..………………………..J.

(Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla)

New Delhi,

April 24, 2014.

17