INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATMADRAS
Reservedon:11.07.2017
Deliveredon:14.07.2017
CORAM
THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICEK.RAVICHANDRABAABU
W.P.No.16341/2017&W.M.P.Nos.17665&17666/2017
W.P.Nos.16379&16380/2017&W.M.P.Nos.17690to17695/2017
W.P.No.16449/2017&W.M.P.Nos.17792to17794/2017
W.P.Nos.16503to16509/2017&W.M.P.Nos.17848to17868/2017
W.P.No.16918/2017&W.M.P.Nos.18377to18379/2017
W.P.No.16826/2017&W.M.P.Nos.18271to18273/2017
W.P.No.16983/2017&W.M.P.Nos.18440to18442/2017
W.P.Nos.17018to17020/2017&W.M.P.Nos.18469to18474/2017
W.P.Nos.17021/2017&W.M.P.Nos.18475&18476/2017
W.P.No.17045/2017&W.M.P.Nos.18503to18505/2017
W.P.Nos.17060to17067/2017&W.M.P.Nos.18521to18544/2017
WP.No.16681of2017&WMP.Nos.18057to18059of2017
WP.No.17103of2017&WMPNo.18580of2017
WP.No.17104of2017&WMPNos.18581&18582of2017
WP.Nos.17137,17139to17146&WMPNos.18605,18606&18609to18624of2017
WP.Nos.17147to17149,&17151to17156of2017&WMPNos.18625to18630&18633to18644of2017
WP.No.17184of2017&WMPNos.18671to18673of2017
WP.No.17199of2017&WMPNos.18692to18694of2017
WP.No.17312of2017&WMP.Nos.18813to18815of2017
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
WPNos.17410&17411of2017&WMP.Nos.18920to18923of2017
WPNo.17525of2017&WMP.Nos19015&19016of2017
WP.No.17528of2017&WMP.Nos.19019to19023of2017
WPNo.17533of2017&WMP.Nos.19027&19028of2017
WP.No.17540of2017&WMPNos.19036to19038of2017
WPNos.17545&17546of2017&WMPNos.19045to19048of2017
WPNo.17565of2017&WMPNos.19061&19062of2017
W.P.No.16341of2017
V.S.SaiSachin,
Minorrepresentedbyhisfather
andNaturalGuardian,V.Suresh,
atNo.B3,IIMainRoad,KasturibaiNagar,Adyar,
Chennai–600020. ..Petitioner
Vs.
1.TheStateofTamilnadu,
DepartmentofHealthandFamily
WelfarerepresentedbyitsSecretary,
FortSt.George,
Chennai,TamilNadu.
2.TheSelectionCommittee,
DirectorateofMedicalEducation,
162,PeriyarE.V.R.HighRoad,Kilpauk,
Chennai–600010.
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
3.ThePresident,
MedicalcouncilofIndia,
Pocket14,Phase-I,Sector-8,
NewDelhi.
4.TheRegistrar,
TheTamilNaduDr.M.G.R..MedicalUniversity,
No.69,AnnaSalai,
Chennai-600032....Respondents
PrayerinW.P.No.16341of2017:
WritpetitionfiledunderArticle226oftheConstitutionofIndia,forissuanceofaWrit
ofCertiorarifiedMandamustocallfortherecordsrelatingtotheProspectusfor
MBBS/BDSadmission2017-18onthefileoffirstandsecondrespondentspertaining
to admission to MBBS/BDS Courses in TamilNadu Government Colleges,
GovernmentSeats in Self-financing MedicalColleges affiliated to the fourth
respondentUniversityand seats in Rajah Muthiah MedicalCollege (Annamalai
University)andquashthatdecisionmadeinthealternateclauseofclause-IV(19)of
theProspectusforMBBS/BDSadmission2017-18thatoutoftheStateQuotaseas
inGovernmentMedicalCollegesandGovernmentQuotainselfFinancingPrivate
MedicalColleges,85percentofseatsshallbeearmarkedtothestudentswhohave
studiedintheTamilNaduStateBoardonlywithrest15percentwillbereservedfor
studentsfrom CBSEandotherboardssofarasitrelatestothepetitionerand
consequentlydirectthefirstandsecondrespondentstoconsiderthepetitioner
againstallavailableseatsin MBBS and BDS coursesoffered in Collegesand
EducationInstitutionswithintheStateofTamilNadufortheacademicYear2017-
2018.
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
ForPetitioner
inW.P.16341/2017:Mr.Om Prakash,SeniorCounsel
forMs.S.Rajalakshmi
ForPetitioner
inW.Ps.16379
and16380/2017:Mrs.HemaMuralikrishnan
ForPetitioner
inW.P.16449/2017:Mr.E.K.Kumaresan
forMr.M.Guruprasad
ForPetitioner
inW.Ps.16503
to16509/2017:Mrs.HemaMuralikrishnan
ForPetitioner
inW.P.16918/2017:Mr.Amalaraj
ForPetitioner
inW.P.16826&
16983/2017 :Mr.V.Srikanth
ForPetitioner
inW.Ps.17018
to17021
&17545&17546/2017:Mr.K.Sellathurai
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
ForPetitioner
inW.P.17045/2017:Mr.V.Karthikeyan
ForPetitioner
inW.Ps.17060
to17067/2017:Mr.T.Gowthaman
ForPetitioner
inW.P.16681/2017:Mr.RahulBalaji
ForPetitioner
inW.Ps.17103
&17104/2017:Mr.BharathaChakravarthyfor
M/s.SaiBharath&Ilan
ForPetitioner
inW.Ps.17137,
17139to17146,
17147to17149
&17151to
17156/2017 :Mr.K.Suresh
ForPetitioner
inW.Ps.17184
and17199/2017 :Mr.A.Muthukumar
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
ForPetitioner
inW.P.17312/2017:Mr.T.Karunakaran
ForPetitioner
inW.Ps.17410
&17411/2017:Mr.AshokMenan
ForPetitioner
inW.Ps.17525
&17565/2017:Mr.ManiSundarGopal
forMr.T.Meikandan
ForPetitioner
inW.P.17528/2017:Mrs.NaliniChidambaram
forMrs.C.Uma
ForPetitioner
inW.P.17533/2017:Mr.AR.L.Sunderasan,SeniorCounsel
forMrs.A.L.Ganthimathi
ForPetitioner
inW.P.17540/2017:Mr.P.S.Raman,Seniorcounsel
forMr.R.Sivaraman
ForRespondents:Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy,
AdvocateGeneral,
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
assistedbyMr.T.N.Rajagopalan&
Mr.P.Kumar,SpecialGovernmentPleaders
forState
Mr.V.P.Raman,
StandingCounsel
forMedicalCouncilofIndia
Mr.P.R.Gopinathan,
StandingCounselfor
TamilnaduDr.M.G.R.Medical
University
Mr.G.Nagarajan,
StandingCounselfor
CentralBoardofSchoolEducation.
COM M ONORDER
W.P.No.16341 of2017 isfiled challenging ClauseIV(19)oftheProspectusof
MBBS/BDSadmission2017-18,reserving85% ofseatsforthestudentsofTamil
NaduStateBoard,leavingtherest15%tothestudentsofCBSEandotherBoards.All
otherwritpetitionsarefiledchallengingG.O.Ms.No.233dated22.06.2017issuedby
theHealthandFamilyWelfare(MCA-1)Department,GovernmentofTamilNadu,
makingsuchreservation.
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
2.Thepetitionersarestudentswho passedtheHigherSecondaryExamination
throughCentralBoardofSecondaryEducation.Thesestudentsareaspiringtoget
admissiontotheM.B.B.S./B.D.S.Coursein2017-2018Session.Allthesepetitioners
arestatedtohavebeenqualifiedintheNationalEligibilitycum EntranceTest(NEET).
3.ThroughtheimpugnedG.O.,theStateofTamilNadudirectedtheAdditional
DirectorofMedicalEducation/Secretary,SelectionCommitteetoallocate85%ofthe
seatstothestudentswhohavestudiedinTamilNaduStateBoardand15%ofthe
seatstothestudentswhohavestudiedinCBSEandotherBoardsforadmissionto
MBBS/BDScoursesfor2017-2018sessionaftersurrendering15%oftheseatstoAll
IndiaQuota,inGovernmentMedicalCollegesandGovernmentQuotaseatsinSelf
Financing Private MedicalColleges including the seats to be surrendered to
GovernmentbyRajahMuthiahMedicalandDentalCollege,AnnamalaiUniversity,
Chidambaram.
4.Beforegoingintothemeritsofthematteritistobestatedthatoneofthewrit
petitionershereinnamelyMrs.KaaviyaaNakkiran(Minorrepresentedbyherfather
Mr.R.Nakkiran and others filed a WritPetition(C)No.491 of2017 before the
HonourableSupremeCourtofIndiachallengingtheverysameGovernmentOrder.It
isseenthattheHonourableSupremecourt,byorderdated07.07.2017disposedof
thesaidWritPetitionbypassingthefollowingorder:
“Learned counselforthepartiesareagreed,thatthesame
controversy,as has been raised in the instantpetition,is
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
pendingconsiderationbeforetheMadrasHighCourtwherein
pleadingsarecomplete.
2.Inview oftheabove,wedeclinetointerfereonthecause
raised bythe petitioners.We,however,grantlibertyto the
petitionerseithertofileafreshpetitionbeforetheMadrasHigh
Court,oralternativelytointerveneinthepetitionpendingbefore
theMadrasHighCourt.
3.Withtheaboveobservation,theinstantpetitionisdisposedof.
4.Keepinginviewoftheurgencyofthematter,werequestthe
High Courtto expedite the disposalofthe matterpending
beforeit.
Thus,from theaboveorderpassedbytheHonourableSupremecourtitisevident
thatthereisnoimpedimentforthisCourttoentertainandconsiderthesewrit
petitionsonmerits.LearnedAdvocateGeneralappearingfortherespondentsalso
concededtosuchposition.
5.Thepetitionersraisedthefollowingquestionsforconsideration.
a)WhethertheStateofTamilNadu,bywayofanexecutiveorder,canoverridethe
legislationoccupyingthefieldandorderspassedbytheApexCourttothateffect.
b)WhethertheimpugnedG.O.violatesArticle14oftheConstitutionofIndia,thereby
makingdiscriminationbetweenthestudentsofStateBoardandCentralBoard,
especially,whenthequalifyingexaminationtotheadmissiontoM.B.B.S./B.D.S.
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
Courseviz.,NEETiscommontoall.
6.Thus,thecruxofthegrievanceofthesepetitionersisthattheStateGovernment
cannotmaketheimpugnedreservationtherebyallottingonly15%ofthetotalseats
totheC.B.S.E.andotherBoardstudents,eventhoughtheyarequalifiedintheNEET
andentitledtocompeteequallywithothers.Inotherwords,itisthecontentionofthe
petitionersthatwhenthequalifyingexaminationforadmissiontotheM.B.B.S./B.D.S.
Course is only NEET and notthe marks obtained in the respective Board
Examinations,theStatecannotmakedistinctionbetweenthestudentsofState
BoardandCentralBoard,sincebothofthem areequallyplacedinsofarasthe
qualifyingexamination,namelyNEET,isconcerned.Therefore,itiscontendedby
them thattheimpugnedreservationdeniedtheirreasonableopportunitytocompete
foradmissioninrespectofalltheseats,eventhoughtheyareotherwisequalifiedin
theirNEET.Suchdiscrimination,accordingtothepetitioners,isinviolationofArticle
14oftheConstitutionofIndia.Inotherwords,thecruxofthecontentionofthe
petitionersisthattherecannotbereservation,amountingtodiscrimination,among
equals.
7.Onbehalfofthepetitioners,thelearnedseniorcounselsMrs.NaliniChidamaram,
Mr.P.S.Raman,Mr.AR.L.SundaresanandMr.Om Prakashandthelearnedcounsels,
Mrs.HemaMuralikrishnan,Mr.Gowthaman,Mr.BharathaCharavarthy,Mr.K.Suresh
Mr.RahulBalaji,Mr.Kumaresan,Mr.ManisundarGopal,arguedbeforethisCourtby
raising variouspointsand relying on variousCase Laws,which are discussed
hereunder.
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
8.Thecontentionsofallthelearnedcounselsappearingforthepetitionersare
summarisedasfollows:
Thebasisofmethodofselection,bywayoftheimpugnedreservation,isbasedon
uncertainproposition.WhattheStateisnotableto achieve,so farbywayof
legislation,cannotsoughttobeachievedthroughtheexecutiveorder.Intheplaceof
legislation,theGovernmentwantstoexerciseitsexecutivepower.WhenSection10-
DoftheIndianMedicalCouncilAct,1956hasalreadyoccupiedthefieldmandatinga
uniform entranceexaminationtoAllMedicalInstitutionatundergraduateleveland
postgraduatelevel,theexecutiveorderissuedbytheStateGovernmentcannot
overridethesaidCentrallegislation.ThereisnonexusbetweentheimpugnedG.O.
and theobjectsoughtto beachieved.On theotherhand,theimpugned G.O.
indirectlyseekstodefeattheobjectsoughttobeachievedthroughNEET.Thereis
norationaleinissuingtheimpugnedG.O.TheStateGovernmentistryingtotreatthe
equalsasunequalsbymakingthisimpugnedreservation.Thereservationwithin
reservationisbad.AlreadytheStatehasmadereservationforsociallyweaker
sectionlikeScheduleCasteandScheduleTribecommunitystudents.However,by
virtueoftheimpugnedG.O.,eventhosestudentsbelongingtoScheduleCasteand
ScheduleTribeundergonetheCentralBoardCourseareinfactpreventedfrom
competingwithallseats.NEETisintroducedforevaluatingequaltest.Byissuingthe
impugned G.O.,the State Governmentis trying to give preference to lesser
meritoriousstudentsofStateBoardthereby,themeritisgivenagoby.Therefore,it
defeatsthepurposeofNEET.AfterconductingtheNEETexaminationandallowing
thestudentstotakepartinthoseexamination,theStateGovernmentcannotchange
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
thegamepoleafterthegameisstarted.PreparationforNEETistotallydifferentwith
separatesyllabus.BothStateandCentralBoardstudentsaretotakethesame
examinationandtherefore,theycannotbetreatedwithdiscriminationlaterunderthe
guiseofpresentimpugnedreservation.WhentheMCInotificationdated21.12.2010
stipulatesthequalifyingexaminationasNEETandsuchnotificationwasupheldby
theSupremeCourt,theStateGovernmentcannotmaketheselectionbymakingthis
impugned reservation,thereby,diluting theobjectofNEET.Admittedly,theBill
passedbytheTamilNaduGovernmenttodoawaywithNEET,insofarasthisStateis
concerned,isstillpendingforgettingtheassentofthePresidentofIndiaand
therefore,whattheStateGovernmentisnotabletoachievetillthisdatebywayof
legislation,cannotbeachievedbypassingtheimpugnedorder.Whenthestudentsof
theCentralBoardarealsothedomicileofthisState,theycannotbegivenstep-
motherlytreatmentbymakingtheimpugnedreservation.Whenthesestudentstook
theiracademicexaminationunderCBSEandqualifyingexaminationunderNEET,
theyweregiventounderstandthatonlytheNEETexaminationwillbetakenassole
criteriaforselectiontoMBBS/BDScourse.Therefore,theirlegitimateexpectation
cannotbedefeatednow bytheimpugnedG.O.TheimpugnedG.O.waspassed
basedontheproposalreceivedfrom theAdditionalDirectorofMedicalEducation/
SecretarySelectionCommittee.Admittedly,thesaidproposalitselfwasmadeon
22.06.2017,onthesamedayonwhichtheimpugnedG.O.alsocametobepassed.
Therefore,itisevidentthattheimpugnedG.O.waspassedwithoutapplicationof
mind,moreparticularly,withoutconductingacabinetmeeting.Thepolicydecision
alreadytakenbytheGovernmentbyenactingthelegislation,namely,TamilNadu
AdmissiontoMBBS/BDSCourse,2017,isstillpendingforgettingassentfrom the
PresidentofIndiaunderArticle254(2)oftheConstitutionofIndiaandtherefore,the
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
StateGovernmentisnotentitledtomaketheimpugnedG.O.bywayofanexecutive
orderandimplementsuchpolicydecision.On04.11.2011itself,thesyllabusisgiven
forNEETandtherefore,theStateGovernmentcannotcontendthatthestudentsof
theStateBoardarenothavingsufficienttimetoequipthemselvesforNEET.The
CBSEhasgotnothingtodowiththepreparationofsyllabusforNEET,excepttothe
extentofconductingsuchNEETexaminationalone.Therefore,itcannotbesaidthat
thestudentsofCBSEareinmoreadvantageousposition.OnlybywayofState
legislationanequallevelplayingfieldcanbecreatedandnotbyanexecutiveorder
passedunderArticle162oftheConstitutionofIndia.Thepowerconferredunder
Article 162 can onlyco-existwith law and notto be exercised independently
unmindfulofthelawwhichisalreadyoccupyingthefield.TheExecutiveAuthorityof
theStateGovernmentisoverridingthelawmadebytheParliament.
9.Mr.P.R.RamanlearnedcounselappearingfortheIndianMedicalCouncilsupported
thecaseofthepetitionersandarguedasfollows:
The exemption granted during 2016-2017 academic yearfrom taking NEET
examinationwasinrespectoftheonlystudentswhoweresoughttobeadmitted
underGovernmentquota.InsofarastheManagementquotaforthesaidacademic
yearisconcerned,NEETexaminationwasfollowed.TheverysameStateBoard
studentstookNEET examination during 2016-2017 and competed with Central
Boardstudentsforgettingadmissionundermanagementquota.Thereasonsgiven
bytheStateGovernmenttoopposetheNEET,whileintroducingthepresentBill,
namely,TamilNaduAdmissiontoMBBS/BDSCourseBill2017andtoissuethe
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
impugnedorderareoneandthesame.Suchreasoningsarenotacceptedbythe
ApexCourtwhileupholdingtheNEET.Thelegislationnowsoughttobebroughtinis
alsopendingforgettingassentfrom thePresidentofIndiaandtherefore,asondate,
theStateGovernmentisnotentitledtobringtheimpugnedreservationbystatingthe
verysamereasons.AllotherStateshaveacceptedNEETandarefollowingthesame.
ThesyllabusforNEETispreparedbyMCIandalreadyputupinthedomainin2011
itself.Therefore,enoughtimewasavailablefortheStateBoardstudentstoprepare
themselves.BytheimpugnedG.O,twomeritlistsaresoughttobepreparedbythe
StateGovernmentwhichisimpermissible.
10.Thefollowingarethecaselawsreliedoninsupportoftheabovecontentions:-
(i)AIR1968SC1012(MinorP.RajendranV.StateofMadrasandothers)
(ii)(1984)4SCC296(SuneelJatleyandothersV.StateofHaryana&Others).
(iii)(2016)7SCC487(SankalpCharitableTrustandAnotherV.UnionofIndiaand
Others)
(iv)ThedecisionoftheGujaratHighCourtatAhmedabadmadeinSpecialCivil
ApplicationNo.5749of2017(NilayParagJoshi&10othersV.StateofGujarat&47
others)
(v)1992(2)LawWeekly155(AssociationofPrivateSchoolsAffiliatedtotheCentral
BoardofSecondaryEducationrep.ByitsPresidentV.Venkatachalam andAnotherV.
StateofTamilnadu,rep.BySecretarytoGovernmentandothers)
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
(vi)(1980)2SCC768(Dr.JagadishSaranandOthersV.UnionofIndia)
(vii)(1984)3SCC654(Dr.PradeepJainandOthersV.UnionofIndiaandothers)
(viii)2002(4)CTC449(M.Aarthi(Minor)rep.Byhermotherandnaturalguardian
Mrs.M.Renukaand2othersV.ThestateofTamilnadurep.BySecretaryto
Government,Chennai–9and11others)
(ix)ThedecisionoftheDivisionBenchofthisCourtmadeinW.A.No.2624of2001
etc.,(ManupatraManu/TN/007/2002)(S.MuthuSenthilandOthersVs.Stateof
Tamilnadu,EducationDepartment,Chennaiandothers)
(x)(2016)9SCC749(StateofUttarpradeshandothersV.DineshSinghChauhan)
(xi)(1990)1I.L.R.PunjabandHaryana282(N.K.BatraandOthersV.Kurukshetra
Universityandothers)
11.Therespondents1&2filedtheircounter,wherein,itisstatedasfollows:-
TheStateisempoweredtolaydownpolicytoprotectitsstudentsforadmission
undertheStateGovernmentSeatsforMBBS/BDSCourse.Theentranceexamination
foradmissiontoProfessionalEducationalInstitutionscreatedmorehardshiptothe
studentcommunity,especiallyintheruralareaandthestudentswhocouldnot
affordtoenrollthemselvesincoachingclasses.TheissueofNationalEligibility-cum-
EntranceTest(NEET)aroseinitiallyaftertheMedicalCouncilofIndiadecidedto
introduceaCommonEntranceExaminationforalltheUnderGraduateandPost
GraduateMedicalCourses,byissuingnotificationsunderitsRegulationsintheyear
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
2010.From that time itself,the Government of TamilNadu is repeatedly
emphasizingthattheintroductionofNEETisadirectinfringementontherightsof
the State.Though,the MCInotification forconducting NEET examination was
quashedbytheHon'bleSupremeCourt,initsorderdated18.07.2013,however,later,
pursuanttothereviewpetitionfiledbytheGovernmentofIndia,theHon'bleSupreme
Courtintheorderdated11.04.2016allowedthereview petitionandre-calledthe
earlierorderdated18.07.2013anddecidedtohearthecaseafresh.TheBenchto
takeupthecaseafreshisyettobeconstituted.However,inthePublicInterest
LitigationfiledbyoneSankalpCharitableTrustseekingforintroductionofNEET
from 2016-2017,theHon'bleSupremeCourtpassedanorderon09.05.2016tothe
effectthatalladmissionstoMBBS/BDSCoursesshouldbeonlythroughNEET.The
admissionforMBBS/BDSCourseuptotheyear2016-2017hasbeenmadesolelyon
thebasisofmarksobtainedinHigherSecondaryExaminationintheTamilNadu
StateBoard,CBSEandotherBoards.Now,theGovernmentofIndiahaveissuedthe
IndianMedicalCouncil(Amendment)Act,2016andDentists(Amendment)Act,2016
by inserting a new Section i.e.Section 10(D)mandating common entrance
examinationforUnderGraduateandPostGraduateCourseswithanexemptionto
Statesfrom NationalEligibilitycum EntranceTest(NEET)onlyfortheacademicyear
2016-2017 for MBBS/BDS admissions in Government MedicalColleges and
GovernmentQuotaseatsinPrivateMedicalColleges.However,from theacademic
year2017-2018,NEEThasbecomemandatoryforallMedical/DentalCoursesboth
inUnderGraduate/PostGraduateCourses.ToprotectthepolicydecisionofTamil
Naduforadmissionofstudentsbasedon+2examinationmarksinrelevantsubjects,
TamilNaduAdmissiontoMBBSandBDSCoursesBill,2017wasintroducedand
unanimouslypassedintheTamilNaduLegislativeAssemblyon01.02.2017.TheBill
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
isawaitingfortheAssentofHisExcellencyThePresidentofIndia.NEETplaces
studentsfrom theStateBoardatatotaldisadvantagevis-a-visCBSEstudents,asthe
syllabus,methodologyandthecontentoftheStateBoardandtheexamination
patternarequitedifferent.TheaccessibilitytotheCBSEschoolsisnotpossibletoall
thestudentsintheState.Comparingwiththenumbers,theCBSEandotherBoards
studentsareverymeagrethantheStateBoardStudents.ThesyllabusfortheNEET
examinationisinthepatternofCBSE.Now,aspertheNEET,ifnosourcereservation
isdone,outofthetop300seats,only76willgotothestudentsfrom StateBoardi.e.
28% while72% willgotothestudentsfrom CBSE/otherBoards.Brightstudents
from theStateBoardwillthus,bedeniedoftheopportunitytostudyinMadras
MedicalCollege,StanleyMedicalCollege,KilpaukMedicalCollegeetc.,Article14
forbids class legislation,butdoes notforbids classification which rests upon
reasonablegroundsofdistinction.ThestudentsstudiedintheStateBoardandthe
studentsstudiedintheCBSEBoardarenotequals.Hence,unequalscannotbe
treatedasequalsaspertheArticle14oftheConstitutionofIndia.TheGovernment
ofTamilNaduisstillexpectingthattheGovernmentofIndiawillgettheAssentof
HisExcellencyThePresidentofIndiaontheBilloftheGovernmentofTamilNadu.
Untilthen,theGovernmentofTamilNaduhastoobeytherulesinforce.Atthesame
time,theGovernmentofTamilNaduishavingthepowertoallocatetheseats
betweenthestudentsstudiedinStateBoardsyllabusandthestudentsstudiedin
CBSEandotherBoardssyllabus.
12.Therespondents1and2alsofiledadditionalcounteraffidavitdated13.07.2017
afterthematterwasreserved'fororders'.Inthesaidadditionalcounter,apartfrom
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
reiteratingthecontentionsalreadyraisedintheoriginalcounteraffidavit,itisstated
furtherasfollows:
Therewere2279studentsfrom theStateBoardand39studentsfrom theCBSEand
otherBoardsadmittedintheMBBSCoursefortheyear2016-17intheGovernment
MedicalColleges.AspertheNEET,nosourcereservationisdone,outofthetop300
seatsonly76willgotostudentsfrom StateBoardi.e.,28% while72% willgoto
studentsfrom CBSE/otherBoards.Hence,unequalscannotbetreatedasequalsas
perArticle14oftheConstitution.Itisfurtherstatedthatinordertomaintainequality
beforelaw,theimpugnedG.O.cametobepassed.TheGovernmentiswellawareof
theinterestofthestudentsoftheStateBoardandotherBoardsandplantoissue
commonmeritlistcombiningofstudentsstudiedinvariousboardswithaparameter
ofNEETmarkonly.Allotmentonlywillbemadecompartmentwisei.e.,85%ofseats
willbeallottedtostudentsstudiedinStateboardand15% ofseatstostudents
studied in CBSE and other Boards. The rule of reservation of 69% for
BC/MBC/BC(M)/SC/ST/SCAetc.,willbefollowedforboththecandidatesforState
BoardstudentsandCBSEandotherBoardstudents.Hence,thereisnodeviationin
theruleofreservationenactedwhileallottingtheseatstothecandidates.
13.Mr.R.Muthukumarasamy,learned Advocate Generalappearing forthe State
submittedasfollows:
TheStateofTamilNaduisagainstconductingtheentranceexaminationfrom the
verybeginning.AlreadyaBillviz.,"TamilNaduAdmissiontoMBBSandBDSCourses
Bill,2017"(T.N.L.A.BillNo.7of2017)waspassedunanimouslyintheTamilNadu
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
LegislativeAssemblyon01.02.2017andtheBillisawaitingfortheAssentofHis
ExcellencyThePresidentofIndia.Upto2016-2017,onlyacademicmarksinthe
HigherSecondarySchoolweretreatedasqualificationtotheadmissionintothe
MBBS/BDSCourses.Intheyear2016-2017NEETexaminationisexcludedinrespect
ofstudentssoughttobeadmittedundertheStateQuota.IftheBillhasnotassented
bythePresidentofIndia,theStatehastocertainlyfollowSection10(D)oftheIndian
MedicalCouncilAct.EvennowNEETwillbethesolecriteriaforadmissionintothe
MBBS/BDSCoursesandwhattheimpugnedGovernmentOrderproposesisonly
makingreservationamongthestudentsonapro-ratebasis,basedonthestatistics
ofthetotalstrengthofstudentswhohavetakenpartintheStateBoardandCentral
BoardExamination.TheimpugnedGovernmentOrderwasnotpassedbasedonthe
AdditionalDirector'sproposalalone.Ontheotherhand,theGovernmentwantedto
examinetheissueandgetthereportonthataspectandaccordingly,passedthe
impugnedGovernmentOrder.NEETsyllabusisbasedonCBSEstandard.Therefore,
theStateiscreatingonlydifferentsourcessincethereisin-equalityamongthe
studentsofStateandCentralBoard.Thecompetencyforissuingtheimpugned
GovernmentOrderistraceableunderArticle162oftheConstitutionofIndiaand
therefore,basedonsuchpowertheStateistryingtomakeclassificationamongthe
studentswithinitsState.Itisonlycreatinglevelplayingfieldamongthestudents.
Therefore,itcannotbetreatedasdiscriminationandconsequently,thereisno
violationofArticle14oftheConstitutionofIndia.Reasonableclassificationis
alwayspermissible.Here,wholesomereservationisnotmadeandtherefore,the
petitionersarenotjustifiedincontendingotherwise.Inordertoproducerealequality,
theStatehaspassedtheimpugnedGovernmentOrderwhichcannotbefaulted.As
perthereservationmadethroughtheimpugnedGovernmentOrder,outoftotal4350
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
seats,theStateBoardstudentswillget2867seatsandotherBoardStudentswillget
520seats.Therefore,thepetitionerscannothaveanygrievance.Thecaselaws
relied on by the learned counselappearing forthe petitioners are factually
distinguishable.Ontheotherhand,theobservationmadebytheApexCourtinthe
ModelDentalCollegecasereportedin2016Volume7SCC353isfavouringthe
Government.
14.Onthesideoftherespondents,followingcaselawsarecited:-
(i)(2016)7SCC353(ModernDentalCollegeandResearchCentreandOthersV.
StateofMadhyaPradeshandOthers)
(ii)1970AIR35(ChitraGhoshandAnotherV.UnionofIndiaandothers)
(iii)(1980)2SCC768(Dr.JagadishSaranandOthersV.UnionofIndia)
15.Heardthelearnedcounselsappearingoneitherside.Ihavegivenmycareful
considerationtotheirsubmissionsaswellastherespectivepleadingsandthe
respectivecaselawsreliedonbythem.
16.TheissueinvolvedinthesecasesisastowhethertheimpugnedGovernment
OrderinG.O.Ms.No.233dated22.06.2017issuedbytheHealthandFamilyWelfare
(MCA-1)Department,GovernmentofTamilNadu,andtherelevantimpugnedclause
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
intheprospectusaresustainableintheeyeoflaw.Ihavealreadypointedoutthat
the impugned GovernmentOrdermakes reservation of85% ofthe seats in
MBBS/BDSCoursestotheStateBoardstudentstherebyleaving15%oftheseatsfor
the students from otherBoards such as CBSE etc.,The reasons and the
justificationsstatedintheimpugnedorderformakingsuchreservationaremainly
focussedonthepolicydecisionoftheGovernmenttoprotecttheStateBoard
studentswhosesyllabus,methodologyandpatternofexaminationarestatedtobe
entirelydifferentfrom theCentralBoardofSecondaryEducation.Furtherjustification
statedintheimpugnedorderisthattheGovernmentwantstoensureanequal
opportunitytothestudentsofvariousBoardsandnormalizethesame.
17.ItisfurtherstatedintheimpugnedGovernmentOrderthatitwaspassed,since
NEETisbasisforadmission,toensurethatfairandequalopportunityaregivento
thecandidatesofdifferentBoardsoutofalltheStates,equalseatsinGovernment
MedicalCollegesandGovernmentQuotaseatsinSelfFinancialPrivateMedicaland
DentalColleges.TheAdditionalDirectorofMedicalEducation/Secretary,Selection
Committeeproposedthat85%oftheseatsmaybeearmarkedtothestudentswho
arestudyingintheTamilNaduStateBoardwiththerestavailabletotheother
Boardsonaproratebasis.Itisalsostatedthatmorethan95% ofthestudents
appearedintheStateBoardandnotmorethan5%appearedintheremainingBoards.
AfterextractingtheaboveproposalmadebytheAdditionalDirectorofMedical
Education/Secretary,SelectionCommitteedated 22.06.2017,theGovernmentof
TamilNadutookthedecisiontoacceptsuchproposalandissuedtheimpugned
GovernmentOrderwherein,theconsiderationandexaminationofthesaidproposal
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
arediscussedonlyatthepenultimateparagraph8whichreadsasfollows:
“TheGovernmenthaveexaminedtheproposalofthe
AdditionalDirectorofMedicalEducation/Secretary
SelectionCommitteeatparagraph7aboveanddecided
toacceptthesame.Accordingly,theGovernmenthave
takenapolicydecisionanddirecttheAdditionalDirector
ofMedicalEducation/SecretarySelectionCommitteeto
allocatethe85%oftheseatstostudentswhohave
studiedinTamilNaduStateBoardand15%oftheseats
tothestudentswhohavestudiedinCBSEandother
BoardsforadmissiontotheMBBS/BDScoursefor2017-
2018sessionaftersurrendering15%oftheseatstoAll
IndiaQuota,inGovernmentMedicalCollegesand
GovernmentQuotaseatsinSelfFinancingPrivate
MedicalCollegesincludingtheseatstobesurrenderedto
GovernmentbyRajahMuthiahMedicalandDental
College,AnnamalaiUniversity,Chidambaram.”
18.Itisnotoutofcontexttonotehereatthisjuncture,thatthesaidproposalaswell
astheconsequentialimpugnedGovernmentOrderweremadeononeandthesame
dayi.e.on22.06.2017.AcarefulperusalofthefindingsgivenbytheGovernment
thereinatparagraph8,asextractedsupra,wouldundoubtedlyindicatethatthereis
noapplicationofmindontheproposalmadebytheAdditionalDirectorofMedical
EducationexceptstatingthattheGovernmenthaveexaminedtheproposaland
decidedtoacceptthesame.Curiously,itisalsostatedatparagraph8thatthe
GovernmenthavetakenapolicydecisionanddirectedtheAdditionalDirectorof
MedicalEducation to allocatetheseatsto thestudentsaspertheimpugned
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
reservation.
19.Therefore,itisevidentthatapolicydecision,asprojectedintheimpugned
GovernmentOrder,seems to have been taken based on the proposalofthe
AdditionalDirectoronly,withouttherebeinganydiscussionbytheCabinettothat
effect.Certainly,theAdditionalDirectorisnotcompetenttotakeapolicydecision
andontheotherhand,itistheGovernment,whichiscompetenttodoso.Inthese
cases,theAdditionalDirectorbymakingtheproposalhasrequestedtheGovernment
toconsiderapolicytofacilitatethestudentsfrom allpartsoftheStatetogetan
opportunitytostudymedicineandDentalCourses.Atthisjuncture,itisrelevantto
notethattheStateGovernmenthasalreadytakenapolicydecisiontodoawaywith
ortogetridofNEETbypassingaBillviz.,TamilNaduAdmissiontoMBBS/BDS
Course Bill2017,unanimously.Itis notin dispute thatthe said Billhas not
transformeditselfintoaLegislation,sincetheConstitutionalrequirementofgetting
assentfrom the PresidentofIndia,as required underArticle 254(2)ofthe
ConstitutionofIndia,isyettobecompliedwith.Therefore,whentheverysame
policytakenbytheGovernmentbywayofpassingtheabovesaidBillisstillpending
considerationbeforethePresidentofIndia,thequestionthatwouldarisenowisas
towhethertheGovernmentisentitledtoissuethisimpugnedreservationasamatter
ofpolicydecisionstatingtheverysamereasoning.
20.Ihavealreadypointedoutthattotakeapolicydecisiontheremustbeathorough
discussionoftheissuebytheCabinetanditcannotbetakensimplybasedona
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
reportsubmittedbytheAdditionalDirectorofMedicalEducation.Evenotherwise,
assumingthattheGovernmentisentitledtotakethepresentpolicydecision,stillthis
Courtisnotexcludedorprecludedfrom consideringthevalidityoftheimpugned
GovernmentOrderresultingoutofsuchpolicydecision,ifthenetresultofsuch
GovernmentOrderisviolatingcertainConstitutionalprovisions,moreparticularly,
Article14oftheConstitutionofIndia,orifitworksagainstthelegislationalready
occupyingthefield.
21.Beforeproceedingfurther,letmenarratethebrieffactsandcircumstances
whichledtheGovernmenttotaketheimpugneddecision.
22.ForadmissiontoMBBS/BDSCourseintheStateofTamilNadu,previouslythe
marksobtainedintherespectiveBoardExaminationin+2aretakenasthesole
criteria.TheMedicalCouncilofIndiaamendeditsRegulations2010andissued
Notificationdated21.12.2010,wherebyitismandatedthateligibleforadmissionto
M.B.B.S.Courseinaparticularacademicyearistobeassessedbasedonthemarks
obtainedintheNationalEligibilitycum EntranceTesttoM.B.B.S.Courseandthat
selectionforadmissiontoM.B.B.S.Courseshallbepreparedonthebasisofthe
marks obtained in such NationalEligibilitycum Entrance Testonly.The said
RegulationwaschallengedbeforetheHonourableSupremeCourtofIndia.Though
byanorderdated18.07.2013,thesaidRegulationwasquashedbytheApexCourt,
pursuanttofilingofareviewpetition,thesaidorderdated18.07.2013wasrecalled
and thematterwasdirected to beheard afresh.Thereafter,in orderto bring
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
uniformityamongallthestudents,theGovernmentofIndiaissuedIndianMedical
Council(Amendment)Act,2016andDentists(Amendment)Act,2016,mandating
commonentranceexaminationforUnderGraduateandPostGraduateCourses,
however,bygiving exemption to States from such entrance testonlyforthe
academicyear2016-2017inrespectofadmissioninGovernmentMedicalColleges
andGovernmentQuotaseatsinSelfFinancingPrivateMedicalColleges.Accordingly,
from theacademicyear2017-2018NEEThasbecomemandatoryforallMedical/
DentalcoursesbothinUnderGraduateandPostGraduatelevelinGovernment
MedicalCollegesandGovernmentQuotaseatsinSelfFinancingPrivateMedical
Colleges.Therefore,theadmittedpositionasontodayisthatNEETistheonly
qualifyingexaminationforadmissionintotheMedical/DentalCourses.Inother
words,themarksobtainedintherelevantBoardexaminationofHigherSecondary
Coursedonotmakeanyimpactordifference,excepttotheextentthatinorderto
qualifytowritetheNEET,thestudentsshouldhaveobtained50% ofthemarksin
suchBoardexamination.
23.Nodoubt,theStateGovernmentfrom thebeginninghasopposedtothecommon
entrancetestviz.,NEET.Butthefactremainsthattheyfailedtosucceedbeforethe
ApexCourt,whenthesaidissuewasconsideredanddecidedinSankalpCharitable
Trustcase.Therefore,nowtheStateGovernmenthaspassedarecentBillviz.,Tamil
NaduAdmissiontoMBBS andBDS CoursesBill,2017togetridoftheNEET.
However,asstatedsupra,thesaidBillhasnottransformeditselfintoaLegislation
forwantofPresidentialAssent.Therefore,theStateGovernmentisleftwithnoother
optionexcepttoacceptandmaketheselectiononlyinaccordancewiththemeritsof
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
themarksobtainedinNEETexaminationandnototherwise.
24.Undersuchcircumstances,theimpugnedGovernmentOrderistobetestedon
thetouchstoneofreasonableness,fairness,apartfrom consideringthesameasto
whetheritisarbitrary,discriminatoryandviolatingArticle14oftheConstitutionof
India.ItisalsotobeseenastowhetherthepresentimpugnedGovernmentOrder
indirectlydilutesormakestheobjectofNEET,namelyselectingthemeritorious
candidates,getsdeviated.
25.The strong contention raised bythe State Governmentin supportofthe
impugned G.O.isthatthestudentsfrom theStateBoard havetakendifferent
syllabus,methodologyandpatternofexaminationcomparedwiththestudentsof
CentralBoardofEducation.ItisalsostatedthatStateBoardstudentsmostlyare
from ruralbackground.Idonotunderstandastohow theStateGovernmentis
justifiedinmakingsuchcomparison,especially,whenthequalificationforadmission
intoMBBS/BDScourseisnotbasedonthemarksobtainedbythosestudentsin
differentBoardsandontheotherhand,itisbasedonthemarksobtainedinthe
commonentrancetest,namelyNEET,conductedforallthestudents.Therefore,the
students,afterpassingtheirrespectiveBoardexaminationsandobtaining50%and
moremarkstherein,areassembledtogetherasoneUnittotakepartinthecommon
entrancetest,namelyNEET,inordertoqualifythemselvestogetadmissioninto
MBBS/BDScourses.Whenthequalifyingexaminationisthecommonentrancetest,
namelyNEET,irrespectiveofthefactwhetherthestudentisfrom StateBoardor
CentralBoard,theGovernmentthereafterisnotentitled to maketwo different
classificationsbywayoftheimpugnedreservationamongthestudentswhohave
takenpartintheNEETexamination.Inmyconsideredview,oncetheytakeNEET
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
examination,allsuchstudentsaretobetreatedequalandtherefore,theGovernment
isnotjustifiedinprojectingtheircaseasthoughtheyaredoinglevelplayingfield
among the unequals.Thus the impugned action violates Article 14 ofthe
ConstitutionofIndia.
26.Thereservationbasedonsocialstatusisonethingandthereservationbasedon
institutionwiseisanotherthing.WhatissoughttobedonebytheimpugnedG.O.is
nothingbutaninstitutionalreservation.Onecanunderstandthelogicbehindsuch
reservationifthequalifyingmarksforadmissionintoMBBS/BDScoursearetheone
obtainedintherespectiveBoardexamination.Butitisnotsointhepresentcase,as
thequalifyingexaminationviz.,NEETiscommonforallBoardstudents.Therefore,
theStateisnotjustifiedintreatingtheotherBoardstudents,namelyCBSEetc.
differentlyandcurtailingtheirrighttocompetewiththeotherStateBoardstudentsin
respectofalltheseatsearmarkedunderStatequota.
27.Atthisjuncture,Iwouldliketopointoutapaininganddisturbingfeature.The
caseasprojectedbytheGovernmentbytreatingthestudentsfrom theCBSEBoard
undoubtedlyindicatethemindoftheStateGovernmentthattheywanttolookat
thosestudentsasthoughtheydonotbelongtothisState.Needlesstosaythat
thosestudentsfrom CBSEandotherBoards,apartfrom theStateBoardstudents,
arealsothechildrenofthisStateandtheyhailfrom thisStateonly.Afterall,the
optionwasgiventothem eithertotakeStateBoardorCentralBoardstream for
qualifyingthemselvesintheHigherSecondaryCourse.Whenthechoiceisleftto
thosestudentsandtheirparentstochooseanyoneofsuchstream,therewasno
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
indicationthatthestudentswhoselectCBSEstream willgetmeagrepercentageof
reservation forgetting admission into the professionalcourses.Undersuch
circumstances,iftheGovernmentimposesthepresentrestrictionthattookafter
takingNEET,certainly,itwouldcauseundueandirreparablehardshipto those
studentsapartfrom treatingthem asadifferentclauseofpersons.
28.NeedlesstostatethatMedicalEducationisanimportantfieldwhichisexpected
toproducehighlytalented&meritoriousprofessionals,sincetheyaregoingtodeal
withthelifeofthepeople.AttimestheyarelookedatparwithGod.Therefore,the
selectionofstudentstosuchcoursesmustbebasedonstrictmeritonlyandnot
otherwise.Therecannotbeanycompromiseonmeritsofselectingthestudentsto
suchcourses.AnargumentisadvancedonthesideoftheStateGovernmentas
thoughthemeritoriousstudentswhoobtainedhighermarksintheHigherSecondary
ExaminationintheStateBoardwillbedeniedanopportunitytotakeadmissionin
someimportantcollegesifallthoseseatsareoccupiedbyotherboardstudents.I
am afraidthatthesaidreasoningsoundsnotbetter,whenadmittedlytheStateisnot
entitledtolookintothemarksobtainedintheBoardExaminationandontheother
hand,itisdutyboundtoconsideronlythemarksobtainedintheNEETexamination.
MerelybecausetheCBSEstudentsobtainedmoremarksintheNEET thanthe
studentsofStateBoard,cantheybetreatedwithjealousanddeniedtheirlegitimate
rightto getadmission into the professionalcourses byimposing the present
impugnedreservation,eventhoughtheyaremeritoriousintheNEET?Certainly,itis
impermissible,thattoo,fortheStatetoadoptsuchstep-motherlytreatmenttothose
studentsfrom CBSEBoard.Aretheyaliens?IsittheirsininselectingtheCBSEBoard
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
toqualifythemselvesin+2?
29.Itisnotoutofcontexttomentionatthisjuncturethatforanexample,inasame
family,oneofthechildrenmighthaveoptedtogotoStateBoardandanotherto
CentralBoard.Itdependsuponthechoiceofthestudentandhis/herwish.Stillthey
arefrom thesamefamilyandtheirqualifyingexaminationisalsooneandthesame,
namelyHigherSecondary.Whenbothofthem arecalledupontowriteacommon
entrancetestviz.,NEET toqualifythemselvesforadmissiontotheMBBS/BDS
course,theStatecannotmakeadistinctionthereafterbetweenthesestudents,
merelybecausethesyllabus,methodologyandpatternofexaminationareentirely
differentbetweenthesetwo.
30.ItiswellknownfactthatthesyllabusandpatternofexaminationinCBSEare
moretougherthantheStateBoard.Itisalsoaknownfactthatscoringhighermarks
intheCBSEexaminationsisadifficulttaskwhencomparedtotheStateBoard
Examination,whereobtainingcentpercentmarksinmostofthesubjects,thattoo,
bylargenumberofstudents,iscommon.Therefore,astudentwhohasundergone
CBSEcoursewithsuchdifficultsyllabusandexamination,hastobetreatedequal
withthestudentsofStateBoardexamination.Atanyevent,theyarenottobetreated
with discrimination.Ifsuch studentbecame successfulin the CBSE Board
examinationwithgoodmarksandhasalsoobtainedrequisitemarksintheNEET
examination,he/shecannotbesingledoutmerelybystatingthathe/shewillbefitin
onlyunder15%seatsallottedandnotentitledtocompetefortherestoftheseats.
Suchmeritoriousstudent,ifnotpattedathis/herbackasagentlegestureof
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
appreciation,atleast,shouldnotbehitwiththeknucklesontheirheadbywayofthis
disadvantageousanddiscriminatoryreservation.
31.AnotherreasonstatedinsupportoftheG.O.isthattheStateBoardstudentsare
unabletoequipthemselvestotakepartintheNEETexamination.Itisstatedthat
thereisnosufficienttimeforthem toprepareforsuchexaminationbasedonthe
syllabuspreparedseparately.IdonotthinkthattheinabilityoftheStateBoard
studentstoequipthemselvescanbeajustifiablereasontooverlookthemeritorious
studentsofotherboardstogetadmissionintotheprofessionalcourses.Itisnotin
disputethatthesyllabusofNEETwaspreparedmuchearlierandmadepublicas
earlyasintheyear2010-11.ItisseenthatthesyllabusispreparedbyMedical
CouncilofIndiaandnotbyCBSE.Therefore,itisfortheStateGovernmenttotakeall
stepstoequipthestudentsofStateBoardtocompetewiththeotherstudentsfrom
theotherBoards,byprovidingallfacilitiesandconductingCoachingclassesetc.,all
overtheState.Withoutdoingsometiculously,now theGovernmentcannottake
shelterundertheguiseofpolicydecisionandissuetheimpugnedG.O.,thereby,
undoubtedly,dilutingthemeritsforadmission.
32.MaybetheStateBoardandCBSEBoardaretwodifferentsourcesfortakingthe
HigherSecondaryExamination.Butwhenthequalifyingexaminationforadmission
toMBBS/BDSCourseisonlyacommontest,namelyNEET,conductedforboth
sourcesofstudents,theStateGovernment,cannotonceagaincreatetwosources,
thattooafterconductingNEETexamination,foradmittingthestudentsintheabove
courses,which actin fact,isnothing butindirectlydiluting theveryobjectof
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
conductingtheNEET.Atthisjuncture,itisrelevanttoquotetherelevantclausesin
theNotificationdated21.12.2010issuedbytheMedicalCouncilofIndiawhichholds
thefieldevenasontoday.Itreadsasfollows:-
“6.In ChapterII,clause 5,Sub-clause-5,underthe heading
“ProcedureforselectiontoMBBSCourseshallbeasfollows”
shallbesubstitutedasunder:
“1.Thereshallbeasingleeligibilitycum entranceexamination
namely“NationalEligibility-cum-EntranceTestforadmissionto
MBBS course in each academic year. The overall
superintendencedirectionandcontrolofNationalEligibility-cum
-EntranceTestshallvestwithMedicalCouncilofIndia.However,
MedicalCouncilofIndia with the previous approvalofthe
CentralGovernmentshallselectorganization/s to conduct
Nationaleligibility-cum-Entrancetestforadmission to MBBS
course.
ii.InordertobeeligibilityforadmissiontoMBBScoursefora
particularacademicyear,itshallbenecessaryforacandidateto
obtainminimum of50% (fiftypercent)marksineachpaperof
NationalEligibility-cum-EntranceTestheldforthesaidacademic
year.However,inrespectofcandidatesbelongingtoSchedule
Castes,Schedule Tribes and otherBackward Classes,the
minimum percentagemarksshallbe40%(fortypercent)ineach
paperandinrespectofcandidateswithlocomotorsdisabilityof
lowerlimbs,theminimum percentagemarksshallbe45%(forty
fivepercent)ineachpaperofNationalEligibilitycum Entrance
Test:
providedwhensufficientnumberofcandidatesbelongingto
respective categories failto secure minimum marks as
prescribed in Nationaleligibility cum Entrance Testin any
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
academic yearforadmission to MBBS course,the Central
GovernmentinconsultationwithMedicalCouncilofIndiamay,
at its discretion,lower the minimum marks required for
admission to MBBS course for candidates belonging to
respective categoriesand marksso lowered bythe Central
Governmentshallbeapplicableforthesaidyearonly.
iii.Thereservationofseatsinmedicalcollegesforrespective
categories shallbe as per applicable laws prevailing in
States/Unionterritories.AnallIndiameritlistaswellasstate
wisemeritlistoftheeligiblecandidatesshallbepreparedonthe
basisofthemarksobtainedinNationalEligibilitycum Entrance
TestandcandidatesshallbeadmittedtoMBBScoursefrom the
saidlistsonly.
iv.Nocandidatewhohasfailedtoobtaintheminimum eligibility
marksasprescribedinSubclause(ii)aboveshallbeadmittedto
MBBScourseinthesaidacademicyear.
v.Alladmissions to MBBS course within the respective
categories shallbe based solelyon marks obtained in the
NationalEligibilitycum EntranceTest.”
33.TheGovernmentofIndiathroughitsMinistryofLaw andJusticehasalso
broughtan amendmentto theIndian MedicalCouncil(Amendment)Act,2016,
wherein,afterSection10CoftheIndianMedicalCouncilAct,1956,Section10Dwas
introducedwhichreadsasfollows:
“10D.Thereshallbeconductedauniform entranceexamination
toallmedicaleducationalinstitutionsattheundergraduatelevel
andpost-graduatelevelthroughsuchdesignatedauthorityin
Hindi,Englishandsuchotherlanguagesandinsuchmanneras
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
maybeprescribedandthedesignatedauthorityshallensurethe
conductofuniform entrance examination in the aforesaid
manner:
Providedthatnotwithstandinganyjudgmentororderofany
court,theprovisionsofthissectionshallnotapply,inrelationto
theuniform entranceexaminationattheundergraduatelevelfor
theacademicyear2016-17conductedinaccordancewithany
regulations made underthis Act,in respectofthe State
Governmentseats(whetherinGovernmentMedicalCollegeorin
aprivateMedicalCollege)wheresuchStatehasnotoptedfor
suchexamination.”
34.From theperusaloftheabovesaidRegulationandprovisionoflaw,itisevident
thattherecannotbeanyothercriteriaforselectiontotheM.B.B.S//B.D.S.Course
otherthanthemarksobtainedintheNEET.InthesaidNotificationdated21.12.2010,
theMedicalCouncilofIndiahascategoricallyandspecificallystatedthatthestate
wisemeritlistofeligibilitycandidatesshallbepreparedonthebasisofthemarks
obtainedinNationalEligibilitycum Entrancetestandthatthecandidatesshallbe
admitted to the M.B.B.S.Course from the said listonly.Therefore,the State
Governmentcannotdilutesuchmeritlistoftheeligiblecandidatesbyintroducingthe
impugnedseatreservation.Hencetheimpugnedactionistobeseenasanarbitrary
exerciseofpowerunmindfulofthelegislationalreadyoccupyingthefield.
35.Argumentisadvancedonthesideofthewritpetitionersalsoonthequestionof
competencyoftheStateofTamilNaduinissuingtheimpugnedGovernmentOrder.
ItiscontendedthatthepresentGovernmentOrderisrepugnanttoCentralLawviz.,
IndianMedicalCouncilAct,1956andtherefore,withoutgettingtheassentofthe
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
PresidentofIndia underArticle 254(2)ofthe Constitution ofIndia,the State
GovernmentcannotimplementtheimpugnedGovernmentOrder.Idonotthinkthat
thepetitionersarejustifiedinquestioningthecompetencyinissuingtheimpugned
GovernmentOrderbyexercising thepowerconferred underArticle162 ofthe
ConstitutionofIndia.TheimpugnedGovernmentOrderisnotdirectlydoingaway
withtheNEETorpreventingitsapplicationorenforcement.Ontheotherhand,inthe
impugned order,the Governmentadmits thatNEET alone is the criteria for
admissiontoMBBS/BDScourse.However,whattheywanttoachievebyissuingthe
impugnedOrderistomakelargenumbersofseatsavailabletotheStateBoards
studentsviz.,85%,leavingtheresttootherBoardstudents.Nodoubt,bydoingso,
theStateGovernmentindirectlywantstodilutetheobjectofNEET.But,atthesame
time,while considering the question ofcompetency,Ido notthink thatthe
petitionersarejustifiedonsuchissue,sincetheissuedirectlyinvolvedhereinisthe
reservationafterNEETandnotthevalidityofNEETitself.Atthesametime,itistobe
noted thatallthe orders issued with competency,need notnecessarilybe a
justifiableone.Itdependsuponthefactualaspectsofthematterforwhichsuch
orderisissued.IfthisCourtfindsthatthereisnojustificationinissuingsuchorder,
thecompetencyenjoyedbytheGovernmentalonecannotmaketheorderlegalor
sustainable.Judicialscrutinyisalwaysavailabletotestthecorrectnessorotherwise
ofsuchorder.Ihavealreadypointedoutindetailbygoingintothemeritsofthe
orderandfoundastohowthesameisbadandcannotbesustainedontheground
ofviolationofArticle14oftheConstitutionofIndia,arbitraryexerciseofpowerand
thatitisagainsttheveryobjectofNEET.
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
36.Thelearnedcounselsforthepetitionersreliedonthefollowingcaselaws:-
(i)InthedecisionoftheHonourableSupremeCourtreportedinAIR1968SC1012
(MinorP.RajendranV.StateofMadrasandothers)wherein,amongotherthings,itis
observedasfollows:
“...Inthealternative,itisurgedthatdistrictwisedistributionviolatesArt.
14oftheConstitutionbecauseitdeniesequalitybeforethelaworequal
protectionofthelaws,inasmuchassuchallocationofseatsmayresult
incandidatesofinferiorcalibrebeingselectedinonedistrictwhile
candidatesofsuperiorcalibrecannotbeselectedinanotherdistrict.It
hasnotbeendeniedonbehalfoftheStatethatsuchathingcannot
happen,thoughtherearenostatisticsavailableinthisbehalfbecause
themark-sheetswerealldestroyedaftertheinterviews.Thequestion
whetherdistrictwiseallocationisviolativeofArt.14willdependonwhat
istheobjecttobeachievedinthematterofadmissiontomedical
colleges.Considering the factthatthere is a largernumberof
candidatesthanseatsavailable,selectionhasgottobemade.The
objectofselectioncanonlybetosecurethebestpossiblematerialfor
admission to colleges subject to the provision for socially and
educationallybackwardclasses.Furtherwhetherselectionisfrom the
sociallyandeducationallybackwardclassesorfrom thegeneralpool,
theobjectofselectionmustbetosecurethebestpossibletalentfrom
thetwosources.Ifthatistheobject,itmustnecessarilyfollowthatthat
objectwouldbedefeatedifseatsareallocateddistrictbydistrict.It
cannotbeandhasnotbeendeniedthattheobjectofSelectionisto
securethebestpossibletalentfrom thetwosourcessothatthecountry
mayhavethebestpossibledoctors.Ifthatistheobject,theargument
onbehalfofthepetitioners/appellantisthatthatobjectcannotpossibly
beservedbyallocatingseatsdistrictwise.ItistruethatArt.14doesnot
forbidclassification,buttheclassificationhastobejustifiedonthe
basisofthenexusbetweentheclassificationandtheobjectto be
achieved,even assuming that territorialclassification may be a
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
reasonableclassification.Thefacthoweverthattheclassificationby
itselfisreasonableisnotenoughtosupportitunlessthereisnexus
betweentheclassificationandtheobjecttobeachieved.Therefore,as
theobjecttobeachievedinacaseofthekindwithwhichweare
concerned is to getthe besttalentforadmission to professional
colleges,theallocationofseatsdistrictwisehasnoreasonablerelation
withtheobjecttobeachieved.Ifanything,suchallocationwillresultin
many cases in the objectbeing destroyed,and ifthatis so,the
classification,even if reasonable,would result in discrimination,
inasmuch as betterqualified candidates from one districtmaybe
rejectedwhilelessqualifiedcandidatesfrom otherdistrictsmaybe
admittedfrom eitherofthetwosources.
Letusnowlooktothejustificationwhichhasbeenputforwardonbehalf
oftheStateofMadrasinsupportofthisdistrictwiseallocation.Itissaid
thattherearebettereducationalfacilitiesinMadrascityascomparedto
otherdistrictsoftheStateandThereforeifdistrictwiseselectionisnot
made,candidatesfrom Madrascitywouldhaveanadvantageandwould
securemanymoreseatsthanjustifiedonthebasisofproportionofthe
populationofMadrascitycomparedtothepopulationoftheStateasa
whole. This in our opinion is no justification for districtwise
allocation,which results in discrimination, even assuming that
candidates from Madras citywillgeta largernumberofseats in
proportiontothepopulationoftheState.Thatwouldhappenbecausea
candidatefrom Madrascityisbetter.Iftheobjectistoattractthebest
talent,from thetwosources,districtwiseallocationinthecircumstances
woulddestroythatobject.
(emphasissupplied)
(ii)InthedecisionoftheHonourableSupremeCourtreportedin(1984)4SCC296
(SuneelJatleyandothersV.StateofHaryana&Others)interaliaatParagraphNo.5
andatParagraphNos.6and7,itisobservedasfollows:
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
“5......Therespondentscontendedthatthereservationof25seatsfor
candidatescomingfrom ruralareasisvalidandcanbesustainedunder
Art.14 oftheConstitution.Therefore,thequestion is:whetherthe
classification between the students educated in urban schooland
commonruralschoolsisbasedonanyintelligibledifferentiawhichhasa
rationalnexustotheobjectssoughttobeachieved?
6.Itiswell-settledthatArt.14forbidsclasslegislationbutpermits
reasonableclassificationinthematteroflegislation.Inordertosustain
theclassificationpermissibleunderArt.14,ithastosatisfythetwin
tests:(1)thattheclassificationisfoundedonanintelligibledifferentia
whichdistinguishespersonsorthingsthataregroupedtogetherfrom
othersleftoutofthegroupand(2)thedifferentiamusthavearational
relationtotheobjectsoughttobeachievedbytheimpugnedprovision.
7.Doestheclassificationonthebasisofcandidatescomingfrom rural
areasagainsturbanareainthematterofadmissiontomedicalcollege
satisfythetwintests.Iftheattemptatamplificationoftheclassification
resortedtobytherespondentsisignoredforthetimebeing,thebroad
classificationisthatthestudentscomingfrom ruralareasareclassified
separatelyforthepurposeofadmissiontothemedicalcollege.The
reservationisdescribedintheprospectusas:'Ruralareas-25seats'.If
thematterweretoresthere,itwouldhavebeenunnecessarytowrite
thisjudgmentinview ofthedecisionofthisCourtinStateofU.P.v.
PradeepTandon(1)InthatcasetheStateofU.P.hadmadereservation
foradmissiontomedicalcollegeinfavourofthecandidatesfrom rural,
hillandUttarkhandareasonthegroundthatthepeoplecomingfrom
theseareasbelongedtosociallyandeducationallybackwardclasses.
ThereservationwaschallengedasbeingviolativeofArts.14and15and
not protected by Art. 15(4). The State sought to sustain the
classificationunderArt.15(4)urgingthattheobjectoftheclassification
wastheadvancementoffacilityformedicaleducationforcandidates
comingfrom reservedareasasthepeoplecomingfrom theseareas
belonged to socially and educationally backward classes. This
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
contentionwasacceptedinpartandnegativedinpart.Strikingdown
reservationofcandidatescomingfrom ruralareas,theCourtheldthat
reservationforruralareascannotbesustainedonthegroundthatthe
ruralareasrepresentsociallyandeducationallybackwardclassesof
citizens and the reservation appears to be made forthe majority
populationoftheStateandonthegroundofplaceofbirth.TheCourt
upheldreservationinfavourofcandidatesfrom HillandUttarkhand
areasonthegroundthatreservationwasinfavourofthepeopleinthose
areaswhobelongedtosociallyandeducationallybackwardclassesof
citizens.Distinguishingthecaseofreservationinfavourofcandidates
comingfrom ruralareas,theCourtobservedthatthebackwardness
contemplatedbyArt.15(4)isbothsocialandeducationalbackwardness
ofthecitizens,theaccentbeingonclassesofcitizenssociallyand
educationally backward and therefore,socially and educationally
backwardcitizenscannotbeequatedwithareasasawholesociallyand
educationallybackward.TheCourtconcludedthatsomepeopleinthe
ruralareas maybe educationallybackward,some maybe socially
backwardandtheremaybefewwhoarebothsociallyandeducationally
backwardbutitcannotbesaidthatallcitizensresidinginruralareasare
sociallyand educationallybackward.Accordingly,the reservation in
favour of candidates coming from rural areas was held as
constitutionallyinvalid.Thisreasoningwouldapplymutatismutandisto
thefactsinthepresentcasebecausethereservationisinfavourof
candidatescomingfrom ruralareas.”
(emphasissupplied)
(iii)InthedecisionoftheHonourableSupremeCourtreportedin(2016)7SCC487
(SankalpCharitableTrustandAnotherV.UnionofIndiaandOthers)atParagraph
Nos.11and12,itisobservedasfollows:
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
“11.Itmaybementionedherethatsomelearnedcounselrepresenting
thosewhoarenotpartiestothispetitionhavemadesubmissionsthatin
view oftheJudgmentpassedinChristianMedicalCollege,VelloreV.
UnionofIndia(2014)2SCC305:6SCEC407,itwouldnotbeproperto
holdNEETandthisordershouldnotaffectpendingmatters.
12.Wedonotagreewiththefirstsubmissionforthereasonthatthe
saidjudgmenthasalreadybeenrecalledon11.04.2016(MedicalCouncil
ofIndiaV.ChristianMedicalCollege,Vellore,(2016)4SCC342)and
therefore,theNotificationsdated21.12.2010areinoperationason
today.”
(iv)In the decision ofthe GujaratHigh CourtatAhmedabad in SpecialCivil
ApplicationNo.5749of2017(NilayParagJoshi&10othersV.StateofGujarat&47
others)atParagraphNos.1,2.2,26to29and33,itisobservedasfollows:
“1.TheissueinvolvedinthispetitioniswhethertheStateGovernmentis
justifiedintakingdecisiontograntadmissiononpro-ratadistributionof
seatsonthebasisofschoolboardsinM.B.B.S.,B.D.S.,Coursesin
MedicalColleges and Institutions situated in State ofGujaratafter
introductionofNEET.
2.2.TheStateofGujarathasfollowedapolicyofdistributingseats
betweendifferentBoardsonthebasisofthestrengthofnumberof
schoolsoftherespectiveBoardsbyoffering seatsto thestudents
passingStandardXIIonproratabasis,takingintoconsiderationnumber
ofstudentspassingfrom theGujaratBoard,CBSE,ISCEorIB.
26.Keeping in mind aforesaid decisions rendered by the Hon'ble
SupremeCourtaswellasthisCourt,ifthefactsofthepresentcaseare
examined,itcanbesaidthatitisopenfortheStatetoprescribethe
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
sourcesfrom whichthecandidatesaredeclaredeligibleforapplyingfor
admissiontotheMedicalColleges,onceacommonentrancetesthas
beenprescribedforallthecandidatesonthebasisofwhichselectionis
tobemade,thedecisionforgrantingadmissiononpro-ratabasisfor
StateBoardandotherBoardstudentsisarbitrary.Atthisstage,itis
required to be noted that admission into any professional
institution,meritmustplayanimportantrole.Whileseekingadmissionto
aprofessional,itisnecessarythatmeritoriouscandidatesaenotunfairly
treated orputata disadvantage by preferences shown to less
meritorious.Excellenceinprofessionaleducationwould requirethat
greateremphasisbelaidonthemeritofastudentseekingadmission.
27.Weareoftheviewthatoncethereiscommonmeritlistpreparedfor
thepurposeofgrantofadmissiononthebasisofresultofNEET,the
onlypermissiblereservationisinfavourofstudentswhohavestudiedin
schools situated within the State ofGujaratand therefore,itis
impermissiblefordistributionofseatsonthebasisoftheschoolboard
andtherefore,suchsegregation/distributionofseatsonthebasisof
schoolboardwouldamounttodiscriminatingstudentssolelyonthe
basisoftheirschoolboard.SuchpolicyoftheStatewoulddeprivethe
petitionersfrom beingconsideredforadmissiontoallavailableseatsin
various graduate courses offered by the colleges and educational
institutionsonlyonthegroundthatthepetitionersdidnotpassStandard
XIIfrom aschoolaffiliatedtotheStateBoard.
28.ItiswellsettledthatArticle14oftheConstitutionofIndiadoesnot
forbidclassification,buttheclassificationhastobejustifiedonthe
basisoftheclassification byitselfisreasonableisnotenough to
supportitunlessthereisnexusbetweentheclassificationandthe
objectsoughttobeachieved.Therefore,wheretheobjecttobeachieved
istogetthebesttalentforadmissiontoprofessionalcolleges,the
allocationofseatsonpro-ratabasisasperthepolicyoftherespondent
–Statehasnoreasonablerelationwiththeobjecttobeachieved.
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
29.Thecontentionofthelearnedadvocateappearingfortheprivate
respondentthatCBSEschoolsareinurbanareaswhereas,Gujaratboard
students come from ruralbackground and because ofsubstantial
differenceinthesyllabusoftheGujaratBoardandotherboards,the
policyimpugnedinthepetitionisrequiredtobecontinuedforthisyear.
SuchsubmissionisnotrequiredtobeacceptedastheHon'bleSupreme
CourtinthecaseofSuneelJatleyV.StateofHaryana(supra)hasheld
thatreservationofseatsforruralcandidatesforadmissiontoMBBS/
BDScoursesisinvalid.Thus,aforesaidcontentionisalsonotrequiredto
beaccepted.
33.Inviewofaforesaiddiscussion,weareoftheviewthatrespondent
Stateisnotjustifiedintakingdecisiontocontinueitspolicytogrant
admission on pro-rata distribution ofseatson the basisofschool
boards in MBBS and BDS courses in medicalinstitutions after
introductionofNEET.Thus,weherebydeclarethatforadmissionto
MBBSandBDScoursesincollegeswithintheStateofGujarat,therecan
benodistributionofseatsbetweencandidatesofGujaratBoardand
otherBoardseitherundertheGovernmentResolutions,rulesgoverning
admissiontoprofessionalmedicalcourseafterintroductionofNEET
andtherefore,allthestudentsqualifyingintheXIIBoardExamination
from schoolswithintheStateofGujaratareentitledtobeconsidered
againstallavailableseatsinMBBSandBDScoursesofferedincolleges
andEducationInstitutionswithintheStateofGujarat.Thepetitionis
allowed.Ruleismadeabsolute.”
(emphasissupplied)
(v)InthedecisionoftheDivisionBenchofthisCourtreportedin1992(2)Law
Weekly155 (Association ofPrivate Schools Affiliated to the CentralBoard of
SecondaryEducationrep.ByitsPresidentV.Venkatachalam andAnotherV.Stateof
Tamilnadu,rep.BySecretarytoGovernmentandothers)atParagraphNo.53,itis
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
observedasfollows:
“53.Ifthere is an entrance examination and meritis reckoned in
accordancewith theresultofthatexamination butadmissionsare
restrictedbyallotmentofseatstovarioussources,theequalityruleof
theConstitutionisviolated.Havingreckonedtheirmeritasaresultof
theentranceexaminationiftheyaresoughttobeclassifiedonthebasis
ofthesourcesthroughwhichtheycome,thereiseveryreasonthatthere
canbenonexuswiththeobjectofselectingthebestofthecandidates
forprofessionalcourses.TheSupremeCourthasmadeitclearmore
than once thatanysuch reservation willbe hitbyArt.14 ofthe
Constitution.”
(emphasissupplied)
(vi)InthedecisionoftheHon'bleSupremeCourtreportedin(1980)2SCC 768
(Dr.JagadishSaranandOthersV.UnionofIndia)atParagraphNos.18,33and34
interalia,itisobservedasfollows:
“18.Primafacie,equalmarksmusthaveequalchanceformedical
admissions,asurgedbythepetitioner.Andneitheruniversity-based
favouredtreatmentnorsatyagraha-inducedquotapolicycansurvivethe
egalitarianattack.Torepulsethecharge,equality-orientedgroundsmust
bemadeout.Constitutionalequalityitselfisdynamic,flexible,and
mouldedbythevariablesoflife.Forinstance,ifaregioniseducationally
backwardorwoefullydeficientinmedicalservices,thereoccursserious
educationalandhealth-servicemindedwelfarestate...........”
33.Evensowhatisfundamentalisequality,notclassification.Whatis
basicisequalopportunityforeachaccordingtohisability,no;artificial
compartmentalisationandinstitutionalapartheidisation,usingthemask
ofhandicaps.WecannotcontemplateasconsistentwithArticle14a
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
clannishexclusivism baseduponaparticularuniversity,withoutmore.
Alivetothesemajorpremisesletusexaminethemeritsofthecharge
'admission'discriminationinthepresentcase.....”
34.Thustheconstitutionalprinciplesandlimitationsareclearandthe
normsare belighted bythe precedentsbuttheirapplication to the
specific situation is an exacting task.The burden,when protective
discriminationpromotionalofequalisationispleaded,isontheparty
whoseekstojustifytheexfaciedeviationfrom equality.......”
(vii)InthedecisionofDivisionBenchofthisCourtreportedin2002(4)CTC449
(M.Aarthi(Minor)rep.ByhermotherandnaturalguardianMrs.M.Renukaand2
othersV.ThestateofTamilnadurep.BySecretarytoGovernemnt,Chennai–9and
11others)interaliaatParagraphNo19andatParagraphNo.44,itisobservedas
follows:
“19.The executive power of the State under Article 162 of the
Constitutionisco-extensivewiththelegislativepowerandwhenthefield
oflawisoccupiedbyalegislativeAct,theexerciseofexecutivepoweris
notavailable.ThereisnodisputeabouttheState'spowertoprovide
reservation even by executive orderunderArticle 162 of Indian
Constitution.Butsuchpowercanbeexercisedonlyintheabsenceofa
legislativeAct.Ofcourse,ifanaspectisnotcoveredbythelegislative
Act,thentheexecutivepowercanberesorted.Toputitprecisely,ifthe
powerofreservationisexhaustedunderTamilNaduAct45of1994,
thennopowerexiststoinvoketheexecutivepowerunderArticle162of
theConstitution.....”
“44.TheSupremeCourt,inthecaseofAnilKumarGupta,1995(5)SCC
173reiteratedwhathadbeensaidbythemajorityoftheNineJudge
BenchinthecaseofIndraSawhneywithregardtoArticle16(1)andheld
thesametobeapplicabletoArticle15(1)and(4)aswell.Thewordsof
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
cautionwithregardtocreationofspecialcategoriessetoutinthe
judgmentofmajorityinthecaseofIndraSawhneyare,
“Butatthesametimeonethingisclear.Itisinaveryexceptional
situationgiven– andnotforallsundryreasons– thatanyfurther
reservationsofwhateverkind,shouldbeprovidedunderclause(1).In
suchcases,theStatehastosatisfy,ifcalledupon,thatmakingsucha
provision wasnecessary(in publicinterest)to redressthespecific
situation.Theverypresenceofclause(4)shouldactasadamperupon
thepropensitytocreatefurtherclassesdeservingspecialtreatment.The
reasonforsayingsoisverysimple.Ifreservationsaremadebothunder
clause(4)aswellasunderclause(I),thevacanciesavailableforfree
competitionaswellasreservedcategorieswouldbecorrespondingly
whittleddownandthatisnotareasonablethingtodo”
“TheCourtinAnilkumar'scase,aftersettingoutthesewordsofcaution,
hasheldthat“Thoughthesaidobservationsweremadewithreference
toclauses(1)and(4)ofArticle16,thesameapplywithequalforceto
clauses(1)and(4)ofArticle15aswell”
(viii)InthedecisionofDivisionBenchofthisCourtmadeinW.A.No.2624of2001
etc.,(ManupatraManu/TN/007/2002)(S.MuthuSenthiland OthersVs.Stateof
Tamilnadu,EducationDepartment,Chennaiandothers)interaliaatParagraphNo.13,
itisobservedasfollows:
“13.Fortheforegoingdiscussion,weholdthattheruralreservation
providedatfirstwith15% andthenextendingto25% foradmissionin
professionalcollegesintheStateofTamilnadu,byissuanceofthe
impugnedGovernmentalordersbytheGovernment,hasgotabsolutely
no nexus to the objectto be achieved and there is no intelligible
differentiaeitherandthatthattheGovernmenthasfailedtojustifythe
discriminationandassuchtheyareinvalidbeinginfractiveofArticle14
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
ofIndianConstitutionandareherebysetaside....”
(ix)InthedecisionoftheHon'bleSupremeCourtreportedin(2016)9SCC749(State
ofUttarpradeshandothersV.DineshSinghChauhan)atParagraphNos.24,itis
observedasfollows:
“24.Bynow,itiswellestablishedthatRegulation9isaself–contained
coderegardingtheproceduretobefollowedforadmissionstomedical
courses.ItisalsowellestablishedthattheStatehasnoauthorityto
enactanylawmuchlessbyexecutiveinstructionsthatmayundermine
the procedure for admission to postgraduate medical courses
enunciatedbytheCentrallegislationandregulationsframedthereunder,
being a subjectfalling within Schedule VIIListIEntry 66 ofthe
Constitution(seePreetiSrivastavaV.StateofM.P.5(1999)7SCC120:1
SCEC 742) The procedure for selection of candidates for the
postgraduatedegreecoursesinonesuchareaonwhichtheCentral
legislationandregulationsmustprevail.
(emphasissupplied)
(x)InthedecisionofPunjabandHaryanaHighCourt,reportedin1990(1)I.L.R.
PunjabandHaryana282(N.K.BatraandOthersV.KurukshetraUniversityandOthers)
atParagraphNo.14,itisobservedasfollows:
“14.....Onthestrengthoftheafore-quotation,itwouldbelegitimatefor
ustoholdthatnodiscriminationcanbepractisedbetweenstudents
whopassthe10+2examinationfrom theHaryanaBoardandbetween
studentswhopassthesameexaminationfrom theCentralBoard.This
isnotonlythemandateoftheSupremeCourtbutisthepolicyofthe
Government of India as well,as aforequoted.Because of this
circumstance,letter Annexure r-4 with the return filed by the
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
respondents,beingaletterfrom theAssis-thatEducationalAdviser,
Government of India,Ministry of Human Resource Development
(DepartmentofEducation)tothePrincipalRegionalEngineeringCollege,
Kurukshetra,sayingthattheMinistryhadnoobjectiontotheadoptionof
theprocessofnormalisationofqualifyingmarksindicatedthereonfor
admissiontothe4-yearB.TechDegreeCourse,fortheSession1989-90,
byCollege,palesintoinsignificanceandnotworthyofanycredit.The
lawlaiddownbytheSupremeCourtinputtingatpartthestudentsofthe
HaryanaBoardandtheCentralBoardspecificallyrulingthattheyhave
nottotobediscriminatedintersewaslawnotbasedonthegovernment
policyassubmitted bytheAttorneyGeneralbutwasratheraview
authoritativelyexpressedbefore-handindependently.So,inthefaceof
theauthoritativepronouncementinDr.PradeepJain'scase(supra)any
efforttodisturbequalityexistingbetweenstudentsoftheHaryanaand
theCentralBoardinthematterofthemarksobtainedbythem intheir
respective examinations,would run counterto the decision ofthe
Supreme Courtin the said case,and on thataccountprinciple of
normalisationisillegal,discriminatoryandviolativeofArticles14and15
oftheConstitutionofIndia.Itdeservestobestruckdown.”
(emphasissupplied)
37.Acarefulperusaloftheobservationsmadeinalltheabovecaselawscitedon
behalfofthepetitionerswouldshow thattheyarefullysupportingthecaseofthe
petitionersandtherefore,Iam notreiteratingthelaw laiddowntherein,exceptto
statethatIrespectfullyfollow.
38.ThelearnedAdvocateGeneralappearingfortheStatereliedonthefollowing
decisions:
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
InthedecisionoftheHonourableSupremeCourtreportedin(2016)7SCC 353
(Modern DentalCollege and Research Centre and Others V.State ofMadhya
PradeshandOthers)atParagraphNo.101,106&149,itisobservedasfollows:
“101.Toourmind,Entry66inListIisaspecificentryhavingavery
specificandlimitedscope.Itdealswithcoordinationanddetermination
ofstandardsininstitutionofhighereducationorresearchaswellas
scientific and technicalinstitutions.The words “coordination and
determinationofstandards”wouldmeanlayingdownthesaidstandards.
Thus,whenitcomestoprescribingthestandardsforsuchinstitutionsof
higherlearning,exclusivedomainisgiventotheUnion.However,that
wouldnotincludeconductingofexamination,etc.,andadmissionof
studentstosuchinstitutionsorprescribingthefeeintheseinstitutions
ofhighereducation,etc.,Infact,suchcoordinationanddeterminationof
standards,insofarasmedicaleducationisconcerned,isachievedby
parliamentarylegislationintheform ofIndianMedicalCouncilAct,1956
andbycreatingthestatutorybodylikeMedicalCouncilofIndia(forshort
“MCT”)therein.ThefunctionsthatareassignedtoMCIincludewithinits
sweepdeterminationofstandardsinamedicalinstitutionaswellas
coordinationorstandardsandthatofeducationalinstitutions.Whenit
comestoregulating“education”assuch,whichincludesevenmedical
educationaswellasuniversities(whichareimpartinghighereducation),
thatisprescribedinListIIIEntry25,therebygivingconcurrentpowersto
both Union as wellas States.Itis significantto note thatearlier
education,includinguniversities,wasthesubject-matterofListIIentry
11(Educationincludinguniversities,subjecttotheprovisionsofEntries
63,64,65and66ofListIandEntry25ofListIII”.Thus,powertothis
extentwasgiventotheStateLegislatures.However,thisentrywas
omittedbytheConstitution(Forty-SecondAmendment)Act,1976with
effectfrom 03.07.1977 and atthesametimeListIIEntry25 was
amended(UnamendedEntry25inListIIIIreadas:“Vocationaland
technicaltrainingoflabour”).Education,includinguniversityeducation,
wasthustransferredtotheConcurrentListandintheprocesstechnical
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
andmedicaleducationwasalsoadded.Thus,iftheargumentofthe
appellantsisaccepted,itmayrenderEntry25completelyotiose.When
twoentriesrelatingtoeducation,oneintheUnionListandtheotherin
theConcurrentList,coexist,theyhavetobereadharmoniously.Reading
in this manner,itwould become manifestthatwhen itcomes to
coordinationandlayingdownofstandardsinthehighereducationor
researchandscientificandtechnicalinstitutions,powerrestswiththe
Union/ParliamenttotheexclusionoftheStateLegislatures.However,
otherfacetsofeducation,includingtechnicalandmedicaleducation,as
wellasgovernanceofuniversitiesisconcerned,evenStateLegislatures
aregivenpowerbyvirtueofEntry25.ThefieldcoveredbyListIIIEntry
25iswideenoughandascircumscribedtothelimitedextentofitbeing
subjecttoListIEntries63,64,65and66.
106.Inviewoftheabove,therewasnoviolationofrightofautonomyof
theeducationalinstitutionsinCETbeingconductedbytheStateoran
agencynominatedbytheStateorinfixingfee.TherightofaStatetodo
soissubjecttoaCentrallaw.Oncethenotificationsunderthethe
CentralstatutesforconductingCETcalled“NEET”becomeoperative,it
willbeamatterbetweentheStatesandtheUnion,whichwillhavetobe
sortedoutonthetouchstoneofArticle254oftheConstitution.Weneed
notdilateonthisaspectanyfurther.
....
....
149.Ihave no hesitation in upholding the vires ofthe impugned
legislationwhichempowerstheStateGovernmenttoregulateadmission
processininstitutionsimpartinghighereducationwithintheState.In
fact,theStatebeingresponsibleforwelfareanddevelopmentofthe
peopleoftheState,oughttotakenecessarystepsforwelfareofits
studentcommunity.Thefieldof“highereducation”beingonesuchfield
which directlyaffects the growth and developmentofthe State,it
becomesprerogativeofthestateoftakesuchstepswhichfurtherthe
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
welfareofthepeopleandinparticularpursuinghighereducation.Infact,
the State Governmentshould be the sole entity to lay down the
procedureforadmissionandfee,etc.,governingtheinstitutionsrunning
inthatparticularStateexcepttheCentrallyfundedinstitutionslikeIIT,
NIT,etc.,becausenoonecanbeabetterjudgeoftherequirementsand
inequalitiesinopportunityofthepeopleofaparticularStatethanthat
Stateitself.OnlytheStatelegislationcancreateequallevelplayingfield
forthestudentswhoarecomingoutfrom theStateBoardandother
streams.”
(emphasissupplied)
39.Nodoubt,thelearnedAdvocateGeneralheavilyreliedontheabovesaiddecision
oftheApexCourttoemphasizethatthepresentimpugnedorderissustainableas
Statepowertoissuethesameistracedbyvirtueofentry25.Thereisnodifficultyin
acceptingsuchcontention,providedtheimpugnedproceedingisintheform ofState
Legislation.Admittedly,itisonlyanexecutiveorderpassedbyexercisingpower
underArticle162oftheConstitutionofIndiaandtherefore,thesamecannotbe
equatedandtreatedasaStateLegislation.Neithertheimpugnedordercantakethe
shapeandcharacterofStateLegislation.InfactatparagraphNo.149oftheabove
saidJudgement,itisclearlystatedthatonlyStateLegislationcancreateequallevel
playingfieldforthestudentswhoarecomingoutfrom theStateBoardandother
streams.Inthesecases,admittedly,theattemptmadebytheStatetobringthe
Legislationisstillisintheform ofaBill,whichisyettogettheassentofthe
President.Therefore,Ifind thatthe above decision,instead ofhelping the
respondents,is onlysupporting the case ofthe petitioners forwantofState
Legislationontheissueinvolvedinthesecases.
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
40.HefurtherreliedonthedecisionofHon'bleSupremeCourtreportedin1970AIR
35(ChitraGhoshandAnotherV.UnionofIndiaandothers)whereinamongvarious
things,itisobservedasfollows:
“...Weareunabletoseehow Art.15(1)canbeinvokedinthepresent
case.Therulesdonotdiscriminatebetweenanycitizenongroundsonly
ofreligion,race,caste,sex,placeofbirthoranyofthem.NorisArt29(2)
ofany assistance to the appellants.They are notbeing denied
admissionintotheMedicalcollegeongroundsonlyofreligion,race,
caste,languageoranyofthem.ThisbringsustoArt.14.Itisclaimed
thatmeritshouldbesolecriterionandassoonasotherfactorslike
those mentioned in clause (c)to (h)ofRule 4 are introduced,
discriminationbecomesapparent.AslaiddowninShriRam Krishna
DalmiaV.ShriJusticeS.R.Tendolkarandothers(1),Art.14forbidsclass
legislationitdoesnotforbidreasonableclassification.Inordertopass
thetestofpermissibleclassificationtwoconditionsmustbefulfilled,(i)
thatthe classification is founded on intelligible differentia which
distinguishespersonsorthingsthataregroupedtogetherfrom others
leftoutofthegroupand,(ii)thatthatdifferentiamusthavearational
relationtotheobjectsoughttobeachieved.Thefirstgroupofpersons
forwhom seatshavebeenreservedarethesonsanddaughtersof
residentsofUnionterritoriesotherthanDelhi.Theseareasarewell
known to be comparatively backward and with the exception of
HimachalPradeshtheydonothaveanyMedicalCollegeoftheirwon.It
wasnecessarythatpersonsdesirousofreceivingmedicaleducation
from theseareasshouldbeprovidedsomefacilityfordoingso.As
regardsthesonsanddaughtersofCentralGovernmentservantsposted
inIndianMissionsabroaditisequallywellknownthatduetoexigencies
oftheirservicethesepersonsarefacedwithlotofdifficultiesinthe
matterofeducation.Apartfrom theproblemsoflanguage,itisnoteasy
oralwayspossibletogetadmissionintoinstitutionsimpartingmedial
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
educationinforeigncountries.Thecultural,ColomboPlanandthailand
scholarsaregivenadmissioninmedicalinstitutionsinthiscountryby
reasonofreciprocalarrangementsofeducationalandculturalnature.
RegardingJammu&Kashmirscholarsitmustberememberedthatthe
problemsrelatingtothem areofapeculiarnatureandtheredonotexist
adequatearrangementsformedicaleducationintheStageitselfforits
residents.Theclassificationinallthesecasesisbasedonintelligible
differentia which distinguishes them from the group to which the
appellantsbelong.
ItistheCentralGovernmentwhichbearsthefinancialburdenofrunning
themedicalcollege.Itisforittolaydownthecriteriaforeligibility.From
theverynatureofthingsitisnotpossibletothrowtheadmissionopen
tostudentsfrom alloverthecountry.TheGovernmentcannotbedenied
therighttodecidefrom whatsourcestheadmissionwillbemade.That
essentiallyisaquestionofpolicyanddependsinter-aliaonanoverall
assessmentandsurveyoftherequirementsofresidentsofparticular
territoriesandothercategoriesofPersonsforwhom itisessentialto
providefacilitiesformedicaleducation.Ifthesourcesareproperly
(1)(1959)S.C.R.279 classified whetheronterritorial,geographicalor
otherreasonablebasisitisnotforthecourtstointerferewithsthe
mannerandmethodofmakingtheclassification.Thenextquestionthat
hastobedeterminediswhetherthedifferentiaonwhichclassification
hasbeenmadehasrationalrelationwiththeobjecttobeachieved.The
mainpurposeofadmissiontoamedicalcollegeistoimparteducation
in'thetheoryandpracticeofmedicine.Asnoticedbeforethesources
from whichstudentshavetobedrawnareprimarily–determinedbythe
authorities who maintain and run the institution,e.g.,the Central
Governmentin the presentcase.In MinorP.Rajendran V.State of
Madras(1)ithasbeenstatedthattheobjectofselectionforadmission
istosecurethebestpossiblematerial.Thiscansurelybeachievedby
makingproperrulesinthematterofselectionbuttherecanbenodoubt
thatsuchselectionhastobeconfinedto,thesourcesthatareintended
tosupplythematerial.Ifthesourceshavebeenclassifiedinthemanner
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
doneinthepresentcaseitisdifficulttoseehowthatclassificationhas
norationalnexuswiththeobjectofimpartingmedicaleducationand
alsoofselection,forthepurpose.....”
41.Anotherdecision Hon'ble Supreme Courtreported in (1980)2 SCC 768
(Dr.JagadishSaranandOthersV.UnionofIndia)atParagraphNos.31and32,isalso
reliedonbythelearnedAdvocateGeneral,whereinitisobservedasfollows:
“31.WeagreewiththisapproachandfeelquiteclearlythattheState's
dutyistoproducerealequality,ratheregalitarianjusticeinactuallife.
32.Ifuniversity-wiseclassificationforpost-graduatemedicaleducation
isshowntoberelevantandreasonableandthedifferentiahasanexus
tothelargergoalofequalisationofeducationalopportunitiestheviceof
discriminationmaynotinvalidatetherule.”
42.Idonotthinkthattherespondentscanrelyontheabovesaiddecisionsofthe
ApexCourt,sincethepresentfactsandcircumstancesaretotallydifferentfrom the
onewhichwereprevailingatthetimeofrenderingthosedecisions.Itisnotin
disputethatNEEThasbeenintroducedmuchlaterbyvirtueoftheRegulationsmade
bytheMedicalCouncilofIndiaandalsobyintroducingrelevantprovisionviz.,
Section10-DoftheIndianMedicalCouncilAct,1956,stipulatingthatonlythemerit
intheNEEThastobeconsideredforadmissiontomedicalcourse.Therefore,the
abovedecisionsarealsonothelpingtherespondentsinanymanner.
43.Uponconsideringallthefactsandcircumstancesofthepresentcase,the
argumentsadvancedoneithersideandthecaselawscitedanddiscussedassupra,
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
thereisnodifficultyforthisCourttocometotheconclusionthattheimpugned
reservationamountstodiscriminationamongequalsandthus,itviolatesArticle14
oftheConstitutionofIndia;thatitisanarbitraryexerciseofpower;thatitistotally
unreasonable;that,undertheguiseoflevelplaying,itmakestheequalsunequal;that
ithasnonexusbetweentheobjectsoughttobeachieved;thatitindirectlymeddle
withtheobjectandprocessofNEETandthatitamountstocompromisingonthe
meritsoftheselection.
44.Competencytopassanorderisonethingandentitlementtodosoisanother
thing.Constitutionalcompetencyandjurisdictionalpowertopassanexecutiveorder
shouldalwaysbewithintheboundsoflaw andnotbyover-ridingorside-liningthe
same.WhenNEETisalreadyoccupyingthefield,thepresentattempttodiluteits
object,eitherdirectlyorbyanyindirectmeans,thattoo,bywayofanexecutiveorder,
becomesunlawful.
45.Beforepartingwiththecase,thisCourtwantstoplaceonrecordandmakesit
veryclearthatcertainly,itisnotagainstthepromotionofinterestofthestudents
from ruralbackground,moreparticularly,thosewhoarestudyinginStateBoard.It
haseveryconcernfortheirupliftment.Butwhensuchpromotionandupliftmentof
theirinterestare soughtto be achieved through some unlawfulmeans,more
particularly,attheriskofcausinggravediscriminationamongequals,inthiscase,
insofarasthequalifyingexaminationviz.,NEETisconcerned,thisCourtcannotbea
mutespectator,especially,whenthoseaggrievedequalsknockthedoorofthis
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
templeofjusticeand seekforredressaloftheirgrievance.Numberoflitigant
studentswhoarebeforethisCourtmaybeminimal.Butthatdoesnotmatter.What
thecausetheyhavebroughtinbeforethisCourtisimportant.
46.Thus,thisCourtisofthefirm view thattheimpugnedproceedings,namely
G.O.(Ms)No.233dated22.06.2017andtherelevantClause,namelyClauseIV(19)of
the Prospectus ofMBBS/BDS admission 2017-18,dealing with the impugned
reservationarebadinlaw andthus,theycannotbesustained.Accordingly,allthe
WritPetitionsareallowedandtheimpugnedG.O.(Ms)No.233,HealthandFamily
Welfare(MCA-1)Departmentdated22.06.2017andtheimpugnedClauseIV(19)of
theProspectusofMBBS/BDSadmission2017-18,arequashed.Consequently,the
respondentsaredirectedtoprepareafreshmeritlistandconductthecounselling
accordingly.Itismadeclearthatthisorderisnotconfinedtothewritpetitioners
aloneandontheotherhand,itshallapplytoallthestudentsconcerned.Nocosts.
Consequently,connectedmiscellaneouspetitionsareclosed.
14.07.2017
Speaking/Non-speakingorder
Index:Yes/No
vsi/mk/ssd
Note:Issueordercopytoday(14.07.2017)
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)
K.RAVICHANDRABAABU,J.
Vsi/mk/ssd
Pre-deliveryordermadein
W.P.No.16341/2017etc.batchcase
14.07.2017
Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)