Holding

Institutional reservation of 33% of AIIMS postgraduate seats, in the absence of any relevant justification, is unconstitutional and must be struck down.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the AIIMS policy of reserving 33% of postgraduate seats for its own in‑house graduates and a further 50% discipline‑wise reservation, which resulted in lower‑merit candidates being allocated coveted "creamy" specialties over higher‑scoring open‑category candidates. The Court held that such institutional reservation, lacking any evidentiary justification and amounting to a "super‑reservation", violated Article 14 of the Constitution. It distinguished between permissible "source of entry" preferences and unconstitutional reservations, emphasizing that merit must not be sacrificed at higher levels of education. The Court struck down the 33% institutional reservation as ultra vires and directed a limited 25% preference for AIIMS graduates, subject to a uniform 50% cut‑off and other safeguards. The judgment also affirmed that any future scheme must be framed by an expert committee and operate prospectively.

Issues considered

Whether the AIIMS policy of reserving 33% of postgraduate seats for in‑house candidates and a further 50% discipline‑wise reservation constitutes constitutional reservation.
Whether institutional continuity can justify such reservation under Articles 14, 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution.
Whether the policy amounts to a "source of entry" rather than reservation and is therefore subject to a different constitutional test.
Validity of the 65th percentile method and the minimum qualifying marks.
Appropriate relief and prospective directions to be issued.

Legislation cited

All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956s. 13, s. 14, s. 23, s. 5
Constitution of Indias. 14, s. 15(4), s. 16(4)

Subjects

reservationinstitutional reservationAIIMSpost‑graduate medical admissionArticle 14meritequalitysuper‑reservationsource of entryconstitutional lawmedical education

Judgment

A.l.l.M.S. STUDENTS UNION A
v.
A.1.1.M.S. AND ORS.

AUGUST 24, 2001

[DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ., R.C. LAHOTI AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] B

Constitution of India-Articles 14, 15 (4) and 16 (4).

Reservation-All India Institute of Medical Sciences-Post Graduate
Medical Courses-Admission-In-house candidates-Institutional reservation C
based bn rationale of continuity-113 seats reserved for in-house candidates-
Subsequent reservation of 50% seats disciplinewise subject to an overall 33%
reservation-Justification of-Held, reservation of seats for institutional
candidates is in fact super reservation and not a mere source of entry-
Institutional reservation in the absence of any relevant evidence in justification D
thereof is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14-Thus, ultravires the
constitution and struck down-Proposals of the Academic Committee modified
and directions issued with prospective effect-Education-All India Institute
of medical Sciences, Act, 1956.

'Reservation' and 'Source of Entry' difference between, explained E
All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Conducts entrance
examination for admission to Post Graduate courses of studies twice in a year.
The prospectus declared that only candidates who had secured 65th percentile
or higher marks in entrance examination were entitled for admission to Post
Graduate courses and selection shall be on merits. However, I/3rd of the seats F
were reserved for in-house candidates of the institute. Besides this, a
subsequent reservation of 50% seats discipline-wise subject to a overall 33%
quota was reserved for in-house candidates. Three candidates who were
Medical Graduates from Colleges/Universities other than AJIMS appeared
for the common entrance test and had secured ranks IO, 12 and 89 G
respectively. They were not given seats of their choice in creamy disciplines.
However, the in-house candidates who had secured less marks and ranked
beyond the open category candidates were allotted seats in such disciplines.
Aggrieved, the open category candidates filed writ petitions for striking down
the policy of reservation in favour of in-house candidates as unconstitutional
H
79
80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A and for fresh allocation of seats. High Court struck down the 33% reservation
in favour of in-house candidates both at the entry level as also discipline-wise.
Hence the present appeals by AIIMS students Union and the Institute.

On behalf of the appellants it was contented that what has been provided
for the Institute's candidates was not a 'reservation' in the sense in which it
B was understood in Constitution but what has been provided for was merely
a source of entry or a channel for admission the validity whereof was not ....
required to be tested on the principles having relevance for Articles 15 and
16 of the Constitution; that reservation, ifthat be so, in favour of the students
who graduated from the Institute, was justified while seeking admission to
C post-graduate courses of study on the well accepted principle of institutional
continuity; that the appropriation of 33% of the total post-graduate seats
exclusively for the Institute's candidates does not harm the general or open
category candidates and if this protection was withdrawn, the Institute's
candidates who had proved their all India excellence while seeking admission
in undergraduate level would be thrown once again to swim into deep waters
D of all India quota.

Disposing of the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1. Reservation based on institutional continuity in the absence
of any relevant evidence in justification thereof is unconstitutional and
E violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and has therefore to be struck down.
The impugned reservation, obnoxious to merit, fails to satisfy the twin test
under Article 14. (112-G(

1.2. Institutional reservation is not supported by the Constitution or
constitutional principles. A certain degree of preference for students of the
F same institution intending to prosecute further studies therein is permissible
on grounds of convenience, suitability and familiarity with an educational
environment. Such preference has to be reasonable and not excessive. The
preference has to be prescribed without making an excessive or substantial
departure from the rule of merit and equality. Such marginal Institutional
G preference is tolerable at post-graduation level but is rendered intolerable at
still higher levels such as that of super-speciality. In the case of institutions of
national significance such as AIIMS additional considerations against
promoting reservation or preference of any kind destructive of merit become
relevant. One can understand a reasonable reservation or preference being
provided for at the initial stage of medical education, i.e., under-graduate level
H while seeking entry into the institute. It cannot be forgotten that the medical
A.1.1.M.S. STUDENTS UNION v. A.1.1.M.S. 81
graduates of AIIMS are not 'sons of the soil'. They are drawn from all over A
the country. They have no moorings in Delhi. They are neither backward nor
weaker sections of the society by any standards-social, economic, regional or
physical. They were chosen for entry into the Institute because of their having
displayed and demonstrated excellence at all-India level competition where
thousands participate but only a mere 40 or so are chosen. Their achieving
an all-India merit and entry in the premier institution of national importance B
... should not bring in a brooding sense of complacence in them. They have to
continue to strive for achieving still higher scales of excellence. Else there
would be no justification for their continuance in a premier Institution like
AIIMS. In AIIMS where the best of facilities are available for learning with
best of teachers, best of medical services, sophistication, research facilities and C
infrastructure, the best entrants selected from the length and breadth of the
country must come out as best of all-India graduates. The only reason which
logically follows from the material available on record is that being assured
of allotment of post-graduation seats in the same institution, the Zeal for
preserving excellence is lost [110-G-H; 111-A-G]
D
1.3. One who justifies reservation must place on record adequate
material, enough, to satisfy an objective mind judicially trained, to sustain
the reservation, its extent and qualifying parameters. In the instant case, no
material has been placed on record to show that Institute graduates, if asked
to face all-India competition while seeking PG seats, would get none or face
feeble opportunities because of the policies of other universities. The way merit E
has been made a martyr by institutional reservation policy AIIMS, the high
hopes on which rests the foundation of AIIMS are belied. No sound and
sensible mind can accept scorers of 15-20% being declared as passed, crossing
over the queue and arraigning themselves above scorers of 60-70% and that
too to sit in a course where they will declared qualified to fight with dreaded p
and complicated threats to human life. Reserving 33% seats for institutional
candidates was in effect 100% reservation for subjects. Coupled with 50%
reservation in allocation of specialities not exceeding over-all 33'Yo reservation
integrated with 65 percentile-is a conceited gimmick and accentuated politics
of pampering students, weak in merit but mighty in strength. Having taken
a common entrance test, there is no intelligible differentia which distinguisheS G
the institutional candidates from other; and there is no nexus sought to be
achieved with the objects of AIIMS by such reservation. [112-A, C-G]

K. Duraisamy an.d Anr. etc. etc. v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., JT
(2001) 2 SC 48, distinguished.
H
82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001 j SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A Kumari Chitra Ghosh and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., 119691 2 SCC
228; The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. v. U.S. V. Balaram and Ors., 119721
I SCC 660; A. Peeriakaruppan v. State of Tamilnadu and Ors., 1197111 SCC
38; MR. Balaji and Ors. v. State of Mysore and Ors., 119631Supp.1SCR439;
Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, 1198413 SCC 654; Dr. Jagdish Saran and
B Ors. v. Union of India, 11980] 2 SCC 768; Municipal Corporation of Greater
Bombay and Ors. v. Thukral Anajali, 1198912 SCC 249; P.K. Goel and Ors. v.
U.P. Medical Council and Ors., 1199213 SCC 232; State ofMP. v. Nivedita Jain,
[1981) 4 SCC 296; Dr. Sadhna Devi and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., 11999]
3 SCC 90; Mohan Bir Singh Chawla v. Panjab University, Chandigarh and Anr.,
11997) 2 SCC 171; Dr. Preeti SrivastavaandAnr. v. State ofMP. and Ors., 119971
C 7 SCC 120; State a/Tamil Nadu v. TDhilipkumar and Ors., 1199515Scale67
and D.N. Chanchala v. The State of Mysore and Ors., 119711 2 SCC 293, relied
on.

2. Reservation is guided by consideration of ensuring allotment of a
privilege or quota to, or conferral of state largesse on, a defined class or
D category of limited persons dispensing with the need of competition with
another defined class of persons or remaining persons. Beneficiary of
reservation is necessarily a minor or smaller group of persons which
deservedly stands in need of protection or push up because of historical,
geographical, economic, social, physical or similar such other handicaps.
E Persons consisting in reserved category are found to be an under-privileged
class who cannot be treated on par with a larger and more privileged class
of persons and shall be denied social justice and equality unless protected and
encouraged. Sources of recruitment or entry are carved out for the purpose
of achieving a defined proportion of intermingling at the target or destination
between two or more categories of such persons who though similarly situated
F or belonging to one class to begin with, have stood divided into two or more
categories by fortuitous circumstances and unless allowed entry from two
separate sources one would exclude or block the other. No one of the two
classes can be said to be weaker than the other. The factor impelling provision
of different or separate sources of entry may not provide justification for
G reservation. Two sources of entry ensure an equal distribution between two
segments of one society. The emphasis in reservation is on the subjects; the
emphasis in providing sources of entry is on the subject matter. Reservation
is protective discrimination; provision for sources of entry is aimed at securing
equal or proportionate distribution. The characteristics of the two may to some
extent be overlapping yet the distinction is perceptible though fine. In the
H instant case the division of seats between two classes coupled with two level
A.1.1.M.S. STUDENTS UNION v. A.l.l.M.S. 83
reservation and unique percentile method has been so carved out, as if tailor- A
made, as is resulting into a reservation which ensures allotment to the extent
100% of PG seats followed by guaranteed placement in the choicest of creamy
disciplines to the candidates belonging to one category (i.e. lnstitute's in-house
candidates) without regard to their competitive merit. This is not a reservation
but a super-reservation and certainly not a source of entry. B
(97-G, H; 98-A-C; 99-A)

3. When protective discrimination for promotion of equalization is
pleaded, the burden is on the party who seeks to justify the ex facie deviation
from equality. The basic rule is equality of opportunity for every person in
the country which is a constitutional guarantee. A candidate who gets more C
marks than another is entitled to preference for admission. Merit must be
the test when choosing the best, according to this rule of equal chance for
equal marks. This proposition has greater importance when we reach the
higher levels of education like post-graduate courses. Reservation, as an
exception, may be justified subject to discharging the burden of proving
justification in favour of the class which must be educationally handicapped- D
the reservation geared up to getting over the handicap. The rationale of
reservation in the case of medical students must be removal of regional or
class inadequacy or like disadvantage. Even there the quantum of reservation
should not be excessive or societally injurious. The higher the level of the
speciality the lesser the role of reservation. (105-E-G) E
4. The decision of Academic Committee of AIIMS tolrecommend a 25%
quota disciplinewise out of the total post-graduate seats for AIIMS under-
graduates; a uniform minimum cut-off of 50% marks in the competitive
entrance test as a condition of eligibility for all candidates; 75% compulsory
attendance during the course shall be made mandatory for AIIMS students F
cannot be endorsed in its entirety and for all times. Yet for the present, and
until a better alternative is found out, it is not proper to strike down the
proposal of the Academic Committee in its entirety and can be sustained with
some modifications. The following direction will meet the ends of justice :
(115-C, D; 116-A, BJ
G
(1) The Institutional reservation for AIJMS candidates is declared ultra
vires the Constitution and, hence, is struck down. [116-C(

(2) By way of institutional preference the institutional candidates, i.e.,
those who have graduated from the institute shall be preferred for admission
against 25% seats available to open category candidates and not 25% seats H
84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A disciplinewise out of the total post-graduate seats for AIIMS undergraduates
as suggested by the Academic Committee. [116-DJ

(3) An uniform minimum cut-off of 50% marks in the competitive
entrance test as a condition of eligibility for all candidates may be adopted
subject to further rider (i) that the last student to qualify for admission as
B AIIMS graduate cannot be one who has secured marks at the common
entrance P.G. test less than the one secured by any other candidate belonging
to a reserved category enjoying constitutional protection such as SC, ST, etc.,
and (ii) that the margin of difference between the qualifying marks for
lnstitute's candidate shall not be too wide with the one for general category
C candidate. [116-E, Fl

(4) Any seat left vacant out of the preferential seats for AIIMS
graduates consequent upon the abovesaid directions, shall be diverted to and
made available for open general category candidates. [116-Gf

(5) The preference for institute candidates to the extent of 25% as
D abovesaid shall remain confined to admission in P.G. course of study. Their
shall be no further reservation in the matter of allotment of seats disciplinewise
which allotment shall be made solely on the basis of merit out of a common
list drawn up pursuant to the result of common entrance examination placing
the selected candidates strictly as per their ranking. [116-H; 117-Af

E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7366 of I 996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 28.2.96 of the Delhi High Court
in C.W.P. No. 274 of 1996.
WITH
F (C.A. No. 7367/1996)

R.N. Trivedi, Additional Solicitor General, Rakesh Dwivedi, U.N.
Bachawat, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, T.Raja (NP), S.R. Hegde, Satya Mitra, Sushil
Kumar Jain, S.D. Sharma, Alok Bachawat, A.P.Dhamija, A.P. Chhabra, L.P.
Sing, Shyam Moorjhani, M.K.D. Namboodri (NP), S.R. Bhat, Naveen R.
G Nath and Mukul Gupta for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R.C. LAHOTI, J. Delhi, the National Capital of the country is also the
seat of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, better known as 'AIIMS',
H an autonomous premier institution of national importance.
A.1.1.M.S. STUDENTS UNION v. A.1.1.M.S. [R.C. LAHOTI, J.] 85
AJIMS-'an institution of excellence for excellence' : A
The Health Survey and Development Committee, popularly known as
the Bhore Committee, in its report published in 1946 recommended the
establishment of a national medical centre at Delhi which will concentrate on
training well qualified teachers and research workers in order that a steady
stream of these could be maintained to meet the needs of the rapidly expanding B
health activities throughout the country. After the attainment of independence,
the Union Ministry of Health proceeded to implement the challenging idea.
A munificent grant of one million pounds by the Government of New Zealand
through the Colombo Plan helped to translate the idea into a reality. An Act
of Parliament in 1956 established the All India Institute of Medical Sciences
(AIIMS) as an autonomous institution of national importance and defined its
c
objectives and functions. [see - Prospectus Postgraduate Courses, January
1996].

The All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956 (hereinafter the
Act, for short) sets out the Statement of Objects and Reasons as under :- D
"For improving professional sompetence among medical practitioners,
it is necessary to place a high standard of medical education, both
post-graduate and under-graduate, before all medical colleges and
other allied institutions in the country. Similarly, for the promotion of
medical research it is necessary that the country should attain self- E
sufficiency in post-graduate medical education. These objectives are
hardly capable of realisation unless facilities of a very high order for
both under-graduate and post-graduate medical education and research
are provided by !) central authority in one place. The Bill seeks to
achieve these ends by the establishment in New Delhi of an institution
under the name of the all-India Institute of Medical Sciences. The F
Institute will develop patterns of teaching in under-graduate and post-
graduate medical education in all its branches so as to demonstrate a
high standard of medical education to all medical colleges and other
allied institutions, will provide facilities of a high order for training
of personnel in all important branches of health activities and also for
medical research in its various aspects. The Institute will have the G
power to grant medical degrees, diplomas and other academic
distinctions which would be recognised medical degress for the
purpose of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1933".

A reference to a few provisions of the Act is apposite. Section 5 declares
that the Institute shall be an institution of national importance. Section 13 H
86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A specifies the objects of the institute as under:
(a) to develop patterns of teaching in under-graduate and post-
graduate medical education in all its branches so as to demonstrate
a high standard of medical education to all medical colleges and
other allied institutions in India;
B (b) to bring together in one place educational facilities of the highest
order for the training of personnel in all important branches of
health activity; and
(c) to attain self-sufficiency in post-graduate medical education."
C With a view to promote the abovesaid objects, the functions of the
Institute are specified in Section 14 which include amongst others establishment
of one or more medical colleges, a dental college, a nursing college and
several other institutions. The Institute is not only to produce graduates and
post-graduates of outstanding excellence, it is also to train teachers who in
their turn would impart instructions in the different medical colleges in India.
D To achieve the objects and discharging the functions, the Institute is
empowered to hold examinations and grant degrees, diplomas and other
academic distinctions and titles of under-graduate and post-graduate level.
Section 23 opens with a non-obstante clause giving the provision an over-
riding effect on the provisions of Indian Medical Council Act, 1933 and
E declares that the medical degrees and diplomas granted by the Institute shall
be recognised medical qualifications for the purpose of that Act, thereby
entitling the holders to the same privileges as those attached to the equivalent
awards from the recognised Universities of India.

In the field of postgraduate education the most important function of
F the Institute is to provide opportunities for training teachers for medical
colleges in the country in an atmosphere of research and enquiry. The
postgraduate students are exposed to the newer methods of teaching and
given opportunities to actively participate in teaching exercises. The other
important objectives of the Institute are to bring together in one place
educational facilities of the highest order for the training of personnel in all
G the important branches of health activity and to attain self-sufficiency in
postgraduate medical education. The educational principles and practices being
adopted are those which are best suited to the needs of the nation. [See -
Prospectus, Postgraduate Courses, July 2000].

The claim made by the Institute in its prospectus released from time to
H time is not so truthful as it professes to be, is a judicial finding arrived at, in
A.I.I.M.S. STUDENTS UNION v. A.1.1.M.S. [R.C. LAHOTI, J.) 87

the judgment under appeal by a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi A
presided over by the Chief Justice.

The controversy - an exposure into reality :

Three meritorious students aspiring for achieving excellence in the field
of medical sciences by availing opportunity of receiving instructions and B
cloing research in the premier medical institution of the nation in the year
1996, knocked the doors of Delhi High Court by filing a writ petition and
complaining that the system, as devised by the Institute, of reservations and
blocking the seats in the process of allocation through counselling was resulting
in sacrificing merit and prestigious post-graduation seats in creamy disciplines
being usurped by such candidates who were far far below in merit compared C
with the petitioners. The Delhi High Court dug deep into the relevant records
of the Institute and penetrated its searching eyes into correspondence
exchanged between the Central Government and the Institute. All this exercise
led the Delhi High Court into finding itself 'stunned to see', to borrow the
expression employed by the learned Chief Justice of Delhi High Court and D
'havoc being played with the laudable aims and objectives' on which the
premier Institute of Medical Sciences was founded and was intended to achieve.

On 3.12.1995 an all-India entrance examination for admission to post-
graduate courses in ABMS was held. Any medical graduate who had secured
a minimum of 55% marks in MBBS examination was eligible to participate E
in the entrance examination. The three writ-petitioners who were medical
graduates having qualified from colleges/universities other than AIIMS
participated in the examination.

The exact number of seats available for graduate and post-graduate
seats in the Institute by reference to the time when they were made available F
initially at the commencement of these courses of study cannot be ascertained
from the record as it stands. For our purpose it would suffice to notice that
in the year 1958 the Institute made provision for 40 seats for graduation and
120 seats for post-graduation. We are told that though the number of seats
for graduation remains almost the same however the number of seats for G
post-graduation in different disciplines taken together has been increased to
132 some time in the year 1975.

The writ petitioners had sought for admission in postgraduate courses
for January session. The Institute conducts examinations for admission to
postgraduate courses of study twice in a year for its two sessions commencing H
88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A respectively in January and July each year. The prospectus issued in September
1995 declared that the selection shall be on merits. However, I/3rd of the
seats were reserved for in-house candidates of the Institute. Two separate
merit lists were to be prepared for the two categories. Each candidate was to
be permitted to opt for two specialities/courses ofM.D./M.S. and the allocation
was to be through counselling subject to availability of seats. Not only 33%
B of the available P.G. seats were reserved for the Institute's in-house candidates
to begin with, there was yet another level of reservation for the in-house
candidates of AIIMS. Such subsequent reservation provided for reservation
in favour of in-house candidates, of 50% seats discipline-wise, subject to an
overall reservation of 33%. At the counselling, the lnstitute's in-house
C candidate's were given a priority by being called first in point of time and
they having been allotted seats in P.G. disciplines, the general category
candidates - the name denoting the category of students other than in-house
candidates of AIIMS-were then called and allocated the seats left over by
the in-house candidates.

D The result of the common entrance examination was declared on 8.1.1996
for JOO seats. The writ-petitioners nos. I to 3 secured ranks JO, 12 and 89
respectively. The total number of seats available for allocation in January
1996 was 83. The reservation of seats, according to the prospectus, was as
follows :

E (I) Scheduled Castes 15%
(2) Scheduled Tribes 7.5%
(3) Quota for Rural/BW/FM of AIIMS (those who 33%
served in rural area or belong to backward area or
have worked in Family Welfare programmes)
F
(4) MBBS students from AIIMS 33%
(5) Balance for open category 39.5%
The prospectus also declared that only such candidates as have secured
65th percentile or higher marks in the entrance examination shall be eligible
G for admission to postgraduate courses. The SC/ST/RBF candidates of AIIMS
will be considered for the Institute graduates quota and open general category
if they had secured marks corresponding to the 65th percentile or higher in
postgraduate entrance examination. The corresponding cut-off marks for
reserved quota of SC/ST/RBF candidates shall be 60th percentile or higher
in the entrance examination. The department!discipline-wise reservation was
H set out in the scheme of allocation as follows :-
A.I.I.M.S. STUDENTS UNION v. A.1.1.M.S. (R.C. LAHOTI, J.] 89
"The seats shall be allocated on the basis of merit by a process of A
counselling. Not more than 50% seats in any department/discipline
will be reserved for AIIMS graduates subject to the overall reservation
of33% of all Post Graduate seats. A 7-year roster of seats in different
departments/disciplines is prepared for allocation of seats".

The scheme contained a tabular statement described as session-wise B
allocation of seats for the year 1996 for reserved categories (SC, ST and
Rural) at AIIMS PG Entrance Examination. How these reserved seats were
distributed, it would suffice to demonstrate by setting out reservation in one
of the disciplines only, by way of example. The reservation of seats made in
the discipline of Obstetrics & Gynaecology was as under:- C
Obst. & Gyn : Jan. Seats July Seats Total

4 2 6

S.C. S.T. AIIMS Open General
D
Jan. July Jan. July Jan. July Jan. July

2

Thus for the January 1996 session the seats were four out of which two
would go to SC and ST candidates and two would go to AllMS students. No E
seat was thus left available for the open general category in January session
and out of the two seats available in July only one could be allocated to open
general category candidate.

The writ-petitioners before the High Court sought for striking down the
policy of reservation in favour of institutional candidates as unconstitutional F
and fresh allocation of seats consequent thereupon.

The three writ-petitioners before the High Court had impleaded only
the Institute as respondent. During the course of hearing the High Court felt
the necessity of impleading the Medical Council of India and the Central G
Government also as parties before it and that was done. All India Institute of
Medical Sciences Students Union sought for intervention at the hearing which
was allowed.

It is not necessary to set out in details the pleadings of the parties and
the several issues of law arising therefrom in very many details. It would H
,_

90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A suffice to state that the Institute, the Central Government and the Students
Union all offered a vehement opposition to the reliefs sought for by the writ-
petitioners on grounds more or less common to each other. Further it would
serve our purpose to briefly sum up the facts found and the findings on issues
of facts and law arrived at by the High Court so as to highlight the core of
B controversy around which the learned counsel for the parties have made their
submissions before us.

Issues before, and Findings arrived at by, the High Court :

The High Court keeping in view the pleadings of the parties and the
C submissions made by the learned counsel for different parties appearing before
it framed the following points for consideration and decision:

(I) Does AIIMS have a special status as per the AIIMS Act, 1956
and can the reservation of 33% for All MS students introduced in
1978 be justified on the basis of principles applicable for a
Universitywise quota?
0
(2) Whether, in law, the principle of institutional continuity is no
longer acceptable because of the judgments of the Supreme Court
in Thukral Anja/i's case, [1989] 2 SCC 249 and in P.K. Gor:l's
case, ( 1992) 3 sec 232 ?
E (3) (a) Whether alternatively, even if it is permissible to have
institutional quota, the 33% quota for MBBS students in P.G.
Courses in a national Institute like the AllMS, which is expected
to be premier institute in medical education, teaching and research
is on facts not permissible.

F (b) Whether, alternatively, the events which have transpired from
1978 when the 33% quota was first introduced till it was
withdrawn on 24.10.1994 and was reintroduced on I7.12.1994
have shown considerable deterioration in AllMS standards so as
to justify withdrawal of the 33% quota?
G (4) In any event, is discipline/department wise quota as per the
scheme of 17th January I 996 valid dnd is it contrary to the
judgement of the Delhi High Court in Dr. Sandeep Tak v. AIIMS
(C.W. 2347/95) dated 11.9.1995?
(5) Is the counselling procedure of 17th January 1996 valid, if it is
H based on discipline-wise reservation for AIIMS students (other
A.1.1.M.S. STUDENTS UNION v. A.1.1.M.S. [R.C. LAHOTI, J.] 91
than SC/ST students)? A
(6) Whether the 65 percentile method is valid?

(7) What is the relief to be granted in the writ petition?

It will be useful to precis the detailed findings arrived at by the High
Court, which we do as under : B
Point Nos. I & 2 : The Institution based preference on which is founded
33% reservation of postgraduate seats in favour of AIIMS students has no
justification on the principle of institutional continuity or on the principle of
regional requirement. Neither it can be said that the candidates falling in this
category belong to a particular region nor are they going to settle down in C
Delhi. This Court has not recognised the principle of institutional continuity
as providing reasonable basis justifying carving out of a category for the
purpose of reservation nor does it help in achieving the aims and objectives
with which this premier institution of the country was established rather it is
counter-productive to the laudable object of achieving excellence in the field D
of medical sciences and health services of the nation. After the decision of
this Court in the case of Dr. Pradeep Jain etc. etc. v. Union of India and Ors.
[1984] 3 sec 654 there are 2000 seats available throughout the country
against which the AIIMS students can also compete. Thus there is no
justification left after the year 1984 for continuing this category of reservation
created in the year 1978. E
The High Court found out the manner in which the 33% reservation in
favour of AIIMS students both at the level of the entrance and then at the
level of disciplinewise allocation of seats was actually working up to date.
For that purpose the High Court analysed the statistics of five years, i.e., July,
1992 to January, 1996 (both inclusive) and prepared the following table : F

TABLE

Session % A II MS SC ST Open General

July'92 Lowest 31.5. 36.00 47.0
G
20.66

Jan.'93 Lowest 14.7 28.16 31.5 42.6

July'93 Lowest 22.16 36.16 31.33 49.50

Jan.'94 Lowest 24.33 40.50 38.33 54.67 H
92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A July'94 Lowest 19.83 31.50 31.50 50.0

Jan.'95 Lowest 31.33 41.1 31.66 47.33

July 95 Lowest 38.00 22.6 37.17 46.33

Jan.'96 Lowest 46.167 46.167 45.500 61.333
B
(33% + Percentile 65%)

The statistics so tabulised led to the following inferences being drawn
by the High Court :-
c (i) That AllMS students who had secured marks as low as 14% or
19% or 22% in the entrance examination got admission to PG
courses while scheduled castes or scheduled tribes candidates
could not secure admission in their 15% or 7% quota in PG
course in spite of having obtained marks far higher than the in-
D house candidates of the Institute.

(ii) The figure of 33% reservation for in-house candidates was
statistically so arrived at as to secure I 00% reservation for AIIMS
students. There were about 40 AIIMS candidates. The PG seats
being 120, 33% thereof worked out to be 40; meaning thereby
E all the 40 AIIMS graduates were 100% assured of PG seats.

Point No. 3 : In spite of facility of having instructions and conducting
research in lhe premier institution of the country, the reservation in favour of
AllMS in-house candidates was resulting into complacence and deterioration
of standards. During the period July 1992 to July 1995 the AIIMS in-house
F candidates could hardly secure notable place amongst the first 100 meritorious
candidates. These were the number of AIIMS graduates securing a place
amongst the fitst I 00 in the order of merit at the entrance examination for PG
courses :-

Number of candidates from AIIMS in first JOO ranks
G
I. July 1992 3

2. Jan.'93 14

3. July, 1993
H
A.1.1.M.S. STUDENTS UNION v. A.1.1.M.S. (R.C. LAHOTI, J.) 93
4. Jan. 1994 4 A
5. July, 1994 2

6. Jan. 1995 7

7. July, 1995 3 B
The above is a bare spectacle. And yet the seats in creamy discipline
were being appropriated by the AIIMS in-house candidates. This deterioration
in academic standards was contributed .by the students as well as the teachers.
Because of the students being assured of a seat in PG course of study, they
were not working hard and the teachers too were not putting in their best C
while imparting instructions. The reservation was thus proving to be counter-
productive.

The High Court found that the reservation of 33% PG seats in favour
of AIIMS in-house candidates was not an objective policy decision arrived
at on considerations of public good. In the year 1978 this reservation was D
introduced on account of demand made by the students' union which was
resorting to agitation and dhamas. The Central Government found such
reservation not in public interest and hence it was withdrawn on 24. I0.1994.
The withdrawal sparked off once again agitations and dhamas by the members
of the Union and the Central Government had to kneel down before the E
students within two months of the withdrawal resulting into the reservation
being restored on 17.12.1994. The reservation in favour of AIIMS candidates
was, thus, not a decision taken with objectivity and by due applfcation of
mind to all relevant facts but only under pressure of agitating AllMS Students
Union.
F
Point Nos. 4 & 5 : The High Court prepared a chart and set out the
same in its judgment showing disciplinewise allotment of seats from July
1992 to July 1995, also showing the percentage of marks and rank in the
merit secured by the AIIMS in-house candidates who could succeed in securing
allocation of seats mostly in creamy disciplines compared with the percentage G
of marks and the high ranks secured by open general category candidates and
yet either denied a seat or allocated a seat in lesser important disciplines. We
need not burden this judgment by reproducing the long table running into
pages set out in the judgment of the High Court. We would just highlight the
deductions drawn by the High Court, culled out from its judgment, and
briefly set out as under:- H
94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A (i) The petitioner no. 1, having secured rank 10 and marks 68.667%,
had opted for M.D. Obstetrics and Gynaecology and MD Physiology while
petitioner no. 2 having got rank 12 with 66.667% marks had opted for MS
Orthopaedics and M.D. Medicines. At the counselling none of the two got
the seat of his choice. At the same time AIIMS students with marks 52% and
46.167% respectively and rank beyond 450 and 900 respectively got PG
B seats in such disciplines. At another allocation a general category candidate
having secured 75.67% marks and the top rank, i.e., the first was denied a
discipline of his choice.

(ii) All the creamy discipline such as Obstetrics and Gynaecology,
C Medicines, Orthopaedics and Opthalomology were being appropriated by the
AIIMS in-house candidates though lower in merit while the meritorious open
general candidates were either being denied a seat or were being pushed to
the 'left-over' disciplines. Such reservation was working "havoc" and was
"indeed a very sorry state of affairs".

D Point 6 : The percentile method along with 33% quota and 50% quota
disciplinewise subject to an overall 33% quota for AIIMS students was
arbitrary and unreasonable. In January 1996 session, an AlIMS student with
46.167 marks got admission; that being the lowest mark for the AlIMS students
who got admission in PG course. At the same time, an SC candidate with
46.167 marks got admission that was also the lowest mark among SC
E candidates who secured admission. Candidates with as low as 52%, 48%,
48.333% and 46.167% from AlIMS got admission and also got the creamy
disciplines such as Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Medicine and Ophthalomology
while SC students with 52%, 51.333%, 50.167%, 47.833%, 47.167%, 46.667%,
46.500% and 46.167%, 47.833%, 47.167%, 46.667%, 46.500% and 46.667%
F got admission. While SC candidate of 46.167% got Community Medicine,
AIIMS candidate with 46.167% was given the creamy subject of Obstetrics
and Gynaecology. Twelve AIIMS candidates were selected even though they
got less marks than the SC candidate who secured 60.33% marks. Similarly
sixteen AIIMS students got admission to PG courses even though they got
less marks than the ST student who got 62.167%.
G
Under the 65% percentile method, even if we take the 35% candidates
who are at the top of the merit list, the AlIMS students are able to get in even
though their marks are less than or comparable to marks of SC/ST students.
Further, there being no minimum qualifying marks, in the top 35% even if
H the lowest is quite a low mark, yet he would get in. That is not what is
A.1.1.M.S. STUDENTS UNION v. A.1.1.M.S. [R.C. LAHOTI, J.] 95
expected of an Institute like AIIMS. For the above reasons, the High Court A
was of the view that the percentile system does not also assure an equitable,
fair or reasonable result.

Point 7 : In view of the findings arrived at, the High Court struck
down 33% quota carved out in favour of the AIIMS in-house candidates both
at the entry level as also disciplinewise. However, the High ·Court made B
incidental directions excluding rigorous application of its decision to the
January 1996 session so as not to prejudice the career of such AIIMS students
who had already got in. The High Court also made it clear that the reservation
in favour of SC, ST students being constitutional, as also the reservation in
favour of rural/backward/family welfare students, were left untouched as C
they were not under challenge.

Appeals and Points for Decision :

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of Delhi High Court, AIIMS Students
Union and the Institute have filed these appeals by special leave. We place D
on record at the very outset that correctness of the factual findings arrived at
by the High Court has not been disputed by any of the parties before us. At
the hearing, though the learned counsel for the appellants have raised several
contentions they can be crystallised into two. Firstly, it is contended that
what has been provided for the institute's' candidates is not a ·reservation' in
the sense in which it is understood in Constitution. The term 'reservation' has E
been loosely employed here; what has been provided for is merely a source
of entry or a channel for admission the validity whereof is not required to be
tested on the principles having relevance for Articles 15 and 16 of the
Constitution. Secondly, it was submitted that reservation, if that be so, in
favour of the students who graduated from the Institute, is justified while F
seeking admission to post-graduate courses of study on the well accepted
principle of institutional continuity. It was submitted that appropriation of
33% of the total post-graduate seats exclusively for the institute's candidates
does not harm the general or open category candidates. If this protection was
withdrawn, the institute's candidates who had proved their all-India excellence
while seeking admission in under-graduate level of study in the Institute, G
shall be thrown once again to swim into deep waters of alHndia- quota
pooled from medical educational institutions of the country and the
requirements of domicile, bonajide residence and institutional reservations
applied by various universities and colleges of the country would create
obstacles in their way and they may sink for good. We will test the validity H
96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A and worth of the submissions so made.

Reservation or only a source of entry :

Placing reliance on K Duraisamy and Anr. etc. etc. v. The State of
Tamil Nadu and Ors., JT (2001) 2 SC 48 it was contended by the learned
B counsel for the appellants that the reservation of 33% post-graduation seats
in favour of AIIMS students is not a reservation and use of the expression
'reservation' in this context is misplaced. In fact, there are two sources of
entry to P.G. courses of study in AIIMS which are: (i) in-house candidates
of AIIMS, and (ii) open-category candidates i.e. students other than from
C AIIMS. The ratio of entry between the two sources is 33:67, that is to say,
for admission as against 33% PG seats there is a competition as amongst the
students who have passed MBBS examination from AIIMS and they get
admission in accordance with the order of merit within their category. The
remaining 67% PG seats are available for open category candidates, that is,
left open for students other than AIIMS and they get admission in the order
D of merit prepared out of the candidates belonging to such open category,
subject to reservations within that category. The learned counsel for the
appellants further submitted that in K Duraisamy's case, this Court has upheld
the legality and permissibility of defining and laying down such two sources
of entry and the principles applicable to constitutional reservations for
scheduled caste, scheduled tribe and backward candidates cannot be applied
E to test the validity of two sources of entry to PG courses of study by treating
one of the sources of entry as reservation in favour of AIIMS candidates. We
are not impressed. K Duraisamy and Anr. 's case was one where limited seats
available for post-graduation were equally divided between in-service
candidates, i.e., doctors already in the employment (of Government and Semi-
F Government bodies) and open category candidates which included all
candidates, other than those falling within the definition of in-service
candidates. This Court held that the State Government had undoubted power,
as a matter of policy, insofar as the admissions to super-speciality and P.G.
Diploma/Degree/M.D.S. courses are concerned to devise scheme or pattern
of two sources of entry based upon a broad classification into two categories,
G i.e. in-service candidates and non-service or private candidates with each one
of them allocated exclusively for their own category of candidates 50% of
the seats; the ultimate selection for admission depending upon the inter-se
merit performance amongst their own category of candidates. A candidate
belonging to one category could not move across to the other category and
H seek entry therefrom. The PG seats available for candidates in each of the
A.1.1.M.S. STUDENTS UNION v. A.1.1.M.S. [R.C. LAHOTI, J.) 97

two categories were limited and the aspirants in each category were much A
more than the number of seats allocated to each source of entry. There was
competition amongst the candidates belonging to each category. It is not as
if all the candidates belonging to any of the two categories were completely
assured of availability of seats so as to 1ake away the element of competition
and chances of failure for anyone in its entirety. Such scheme envisaged not
reservation but classification of the sources from which admissions have to B
be accorded. This Court also opined that the meaning, content and purport of
the expression 'reservation' will necessarily depend upon purpose and object
with which it is used. It is to be noted that in K. Duraisamy's case in-service
candidates did not belong to any weaker section of the society nor were one
who deserved or needed to be protected. The candidates in both the categories C
were medical graduates. Some of them had done graduation sometime in the
• past and were either picked up in the government service or had sought for
joining government service because, may be, they could not get a seat in
post-graduation and thereby continue their studies because of shortage of
seats in higher level of studies. On account of their having remained occupied
with their service obligations they became detached or distanced from D
theoretical studies and therefore could not have done "so well as to effectively
compete with fresh medical graduates at the P.G. Entrance Examination.
Permitting in-service candidates to do post-graduation by opening a separate
channel for admittance would enable their continuance in government service
after post-graduation which would enrich health services of the nation. E
Candidates in open category having qualified in post-graduation may not
necessarily feel attracted to public services. Providing two sources of entry
at the post-graduate level in certain proportion between in-service candidates
and otherwise candidates thus achieves the laudable object of making available
better doctors both in public sector and as private practitioners. The object
sought to be achieved is to benefit two segments of the same society by F
enriching both at the end and not so much as to provide protection and
encouragement to one at the entry level.

Reservation is guided by consideration of ensuring allotment of a
privilege or quota to, or conferral of state largesse on, a defined class or G
category of limited persons dispensing with the need of competition with
another defined class of persons or remaining persons. Beneficiary of
reservation is necessarily a minor or smaller group of persons which deservedly
stands in need of protection or push up because of historical, geographical,
economic, social, physical or similar such other handicaps. Persons consisting
in reserved category are found to be an under-privileged class who cannot be H
98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A treated on par with a larger and more privileged class of persons and shall
be denied social justice and equality unless protected and encouraged. Sources
of recruitment or entry are carved out for the purpose of achieving a defined
proportion of intermingling at the target or destination between two or more
categories of such persons who though similarly situated or belonging to one
class to begin with, have stood divided into two or more categories by
B fortuitous circumstances and unless allowed entry from two separate sources
one would exclude or block the other. No one of the two classes can be said
to be weaker than the other. The factor impelling provision of different or
separate sources of entry may not provide justification for reservation. Two
source of entry ensure an equal distribution between two segments of one
C society. The emphasis in reservation is on the subjects; the emphasis in
providing sources of entry is on the subject matter. Reservation is protective
discrimination; provision for sources of entry is aimed at securing equal or •
proportionate distribution. The characteristics of the two may to some extent
be over lapping yet the distinction is perceptible though fine.

D In Kumari Chitra Ghosh and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., [1969]
2 SCC 228, the test laid down for detennining validity of sources of admission
are that the sources are properly classified whether on territorial, geographical
or other reasonable basis and must have a rational nexus with the object of
imparting a particular education and effective selection for the purpose. In
E laying down sources of entry there is no question of any preferential treatment
being accorded to any particular category or class of persons desirous of
receiving medical education over the other.

In our opinion, reliance by the learned counsel for the appellant on the
decision in K. Duraisamy's case (supra) is entirely misconceived inasmuch as
F the questions. which are arising for decision in the case before us are different
and attract applicability of different considerations. Institute's in-house
candidates do not bear any similarity with in-service candidates considered
in K. Duraisamy's case so as to claim analogy with them and have the benefit
of the ratio of K. Duraisamy's case. Secondly, the question whether merit can
be sacrificed to such an extent as to be bidden almost a good-bye resulting
G into candidates too low in merit being preferred to candidates too high in
merit and the margin of difference between the two being too wide, did not
arise for consideration before this Court in K. Duraisamy's case. We are
dealing with a case where the division of seats between two classes coupled
with two level reservation and unique percentile method has been so carved
H out, as if tailor-made, as is resulting into a reservation which ensures allotment
A.1.1.M.S. STUDENTS UNION v. A.1.1.M.S. [R.C. LAHOTI, J.] 99

to the extent of I 00% of PG seats followed by guaranteed placement in the A
choicest of creamy disciplines to the candidates belonging to one category
(i.e. Institute's in-house candidates) without regard to their competitive merit.
This is not a reservation but a super-reservation and certainly not a source of
entry. The first submission of the learned counsel for the appellants therefore
fails.
B
Reservation for institutional continuity at the cost of merit - if sustainable
and how far?

The principle of institutional continuity while seeking admission to
higher levels of study as propounded by the learned counsel for the appellants C
though argued at length does not have much room available for innovative
judicial zeal to play, for the ground already stands almost occupied by set of
precedents, more so when we are dealing with professional or technical courses
of study. It would suffice to have a brief resume thereof noticing the details
wherever necessary.
D
In The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. v. U.S. V Balaram and Ors.,
[1972] I SCC 660 common entrance test was held for admission to the first
year inte'grated MBBS course and no distinction was drawn between Pre-
University course candidates (PUC) and Higher Secondary Course candidates
(HSC), both of whom had to get at least 50% marks to be eligible for
admission. But the discrimination was made only after the entrance test was E
over by denying admission to the PUC candidates who may have got higher
marks than some of the HSC candidates who got admission because of the
40% reservation. This Court held that the State could prescribe the sources
for admission to the medical college but when once a common entrance test
was prescribed for all the candidates on the basis of which selection was to F
be made the rule providing further that 40% of the seats will have to be
reserved for the HSC candidates was arbitrary; firstly, because after a common
test had been prescribed there could not be a valid classification dividing the
participants, and secondly, even assuming that such a classification was valid
it had no reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved, that is,
selecting. best candidates for admission to the medical colleges; and hence it G
was held to be violative of Article 14 and struck down.

In A. Peeriakaruppan v. State ofTamilnadu and Ors., [1971] l SCC 38
unit-wise distribution of seats said to have been adopted for administrative
convenience was struck down as it obstructed achieving the intended object
which was to select the best candidates for being admitted to medical colleges. H
100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A In MR. Ba/aji and Ors. v. State of Mysore and Ors., (1963] Supp.I
SCR 439 what was put in issue was an order of Mysore Government dated
31. 7 .1962 reserving 68% seats in technical institutions for backward classes.
The Constitution Bench of this court held that the order fell foul of the
Constitution as the classification was based solely on considerations of castes,
and secondly, because reservation of 68% was not in consonance of Article
B 15(4) of the Constitution. The Constitution Bench held -"if admission to
professional and technical colleges is unduly liberalised, the quality of our
!l;raduates will suffer. That is not to say that reservation should not be adopted;
reservation should and must be adopted to advance the prospects of the
weaker sections of the society, but in providing for special measures in that
C behalf care should be taken not to exclude admission to higher educational
centres to deserving and qualified candidates of other communities. A special
provision contemplated by Art. 15( 4), like reservation of posts and
appointments contemplated by Art. 16(4), must be within reasonable limits."
The Constitution Bench held that if under the guise of making special
provision, practically all the seats available were to be reserved by the State,
D that clearly would be subverting ~he object of Article 15(4). Speaking generally
and in broad way, '·a special provision should be less than 50%; how much
less than 50% would depend upon the relevant prevailing circumstances in
each case.

E M.R. Balaji's case (supra) dealt with constitutional reservation under
Article 15(4). In Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, (1984] 3 SCC 654, a
3-Judges Bench of this court had an occasion to examine the validity of
reservation based on residence requirement within the State or on institutional
preference. P.N. Bhagwati, J. (as His Lordship then was) during the course
of the judgment held:
F
"...... so far as admissions to post-graduate courses, such as M.S.,
M.D. and the like are concerned, it would be eminently desirable not
to provide for any reservation based on residence requirement within
the State or on institutional preference. But, having regard to broader
considerations of equality of opportunity and institutional continuity
G in education which has its own importance and value, we would
direct that though residence requirement within the State shall not be
a ground for reservation in admissions to post-graduate courses, a
certain percentage of seats may in the present circumstances be
reserved on the basis of institutional preference in the sense that a
H student who has passed MBBS course from a medical college or
A.1.1.M.S. STUDENTS UNION v. A.1.1.M.S. [R.C. LAHOTI, J.] I0I

university, may be given preference for admission to the post-graduate A
course in the same medical college or university but such reservation
on the basis of institutional preference should not in any event exceed
50 percent of the total number of open seats available for admission
to the post-graduate course. This outer limit which we are fixing will
also be subject to revision on the lower side by the Indian Medical B
Council in the same manner as directed by us in the case of admissions
to the MBBS course. But, even in regard to admissions to the post-
graduate course, we would direct that so far as super specialities such
as neuro-surgery and cardiology are concerned, there should be no
reservation at all even on the basis of institutional preference and
admission should be granted purely on merit on all India basis." C
[Underlining by us]

It is thus clear that as far back as in I 984 this court has disapproved
reservations in postgraduate courses on the ground of institutional preference
though justified a reasonable institutional preference being allowed, 'for the D
present', having regard to (i) broader considerations of equality of opportunity;
and (ii) institutional continuity in education.

The facts of Dr. Jagdish Saran and Ors. v. Union of India, [1980] 2
SCC 768 are very near to the present case. Several facts treated as relevant
considerations which persuaded the Court in laying down principles relating E
to such reservation bear a close resemblance to those before us and it will
therefore be relevant to notice the case in somewhat details. The rule for
selection of candidates for post-graduation from amongst medical graduates
until April, I 978 provided for 52% seats of the total available being left open
for a combined merit list of Delhi University and other universities' medical F
graduates while 48% seats were reserved for Delhi University graduates only.
This rule was changed so as to reserve 70% of the seats to Delhi graduates
leaving the remaining 30% open to all including graduates of Delhi. The
petitioner a medical graduate from Madras University took the common
entrance test and secured enough marks to qualify for admission but was
turned down because of inflation in quota, from 48% to 70% plus, for Delhi G
graduates exclusively. The University of Delhi contended that an institutional
quota is not a constitutional anathema because of many universities adopting
the exclusionary or segregative device of de facto monopoly of seats for
higher medical courses to its own alumni which had persuaded Delhi
University to reciprocate with such inflated reservation. The students went on
H
102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A a fast unto death and the Government had to intervene and save the situation
by providing larger reservation. Krishna Iyer, J. speaking for himself and 0.
Chinnappa Reddy, J. placed on record admission of the Attorney General
agreeing that ·hunger strike cannot amend the Constitution' though it may set
in motion changes in the basic law which must withstand scrutiny on
B constitutional anvil. 'All grievance are not constitutional'. The primary
imperative of Articles 14 and 15 is equal opportunity for all across the nation
to attain excellence and this has burning relevance to our times. Vide para 17,
K•ishna Iyer, J. speaking for the majority posed a question to himself-What
if non-Delhi students start a rival starvation exercise? That will lead to testing
the rule of law on the immolative or masochist capabilities of affected groups
C and not on the articles of the Constitution or provisions of the legislation.
'We cannot uphold the Delhi University's reservation strategy merely because
government was faced with student fasts and ministers desired a compromise
formula and the University bodies simply said 'Amen'. The constitutionality
of institutional reservation must be founded on facts of educational life and
the social dynamics of equal opportunity. Political panic does not ipso facto
D make constitutional logic'.
Vide para 17, it was held that reservation for students of a particular
university is not sanctioned either by Article 14 or by Article 15. Delhi
University students, as such, are not an educationally backward class and,
E indeed, institution-wise segregation or reservation has no place in the scheme
of Article 15, although social and educational destitution may be endemic in
some parts of the country where a college or university may be started to
remedy this glaring imbalance and reservation for those alumni for higher
studies may be permissible. Speaking generally, unless there is vital nexus
with equal opportunity, broad validation of university-based reservation cannot
F be built on the vague ground that all other universities are practising it - a
...
fact not fully proved before the court either. University of illegality, even if
the artists of discrimination are universities, cannot convert such praxis into
constitutionality. Nor, indeed, can the painful circumstance that a batch of
medical graduates demonstratively fasted in front of the Health Minister's
G house, ipso facto legalise reservation of seats in their favour.
Krishna Iyer, J. opined that even in the areas where reservation is
constitutionally permissible it should be as an exception and not a rule and
subject to a few rules of caution : (i) that reservation must be kept in check
by the demands of competence. You cannot extend the shelter of reservation
H where minimum qualifications are absent; (ii) all the best talent cannot be
A.1.1.M.S. STUDENTS UNION v. A.1.1.M.S. [R.C. LAHOTI, J.] ] 03

completely excluded by wholesale reservation; (iii) need for protecting and A
·giving a preferential push in the interests of basic medical needs of a region
or a handicapped group cannot prevail at the highest scales of speciality
where the best skill or talent must be handpicked by selecting according to
capability. At the level of Ph.D, M.D. or levels of higher proficiency, w!Jere
international measure of talent is made, losing one great scientist or
technologist in-the-making is a national loss, the considerations prevailing at B
the lower levels of education justifying protective discrimination for 'locals'
and the handicapped group lose their potency and importance. Here equality
measured by matching excellence, has more meaning and cannot be diluted
much without grave risk for pampering local feeling will boomerang; (iv)
backward regions lll\d universities situated miles away from forward cities C
with sophisticated institutions cannot be equated. The former, for equalisation,
need crutches and extra facilities to overcome injustice while the latter already
enjoy all the advantages of the elite and deserve no fresh props. Else there
· will be double injury to claims of equality of the capable candidates coming
from less propitiously circumstanced universities and societies. In conclusion
the majority opinion held that university-wise preferential treatment may be D
consistent with the rule of equality of opportunity where it is calculated to
correct an imbalance or handicap and permit equality in the larger senses.

When protective discrimination for promotion of equalisation is pleaded,
the burden is on the party who seeks to justify the ex facie deviation from E
equality. The basic rule is equality of opportunity for every person in the
country which is a constitutional guarantee. A candidate who gets more marks
than another is entitled to preference for admission. Merit must be the test
when choosing the best, according to this rule of equal chance for equal
marks. This proposition has greater importance when we reach the higher
levels and education like post-graduate courses. Reservation, as an exception, F
may be justified subject to discharging the burden of proving justification in
favour of the class which must be educationally handicapped - the reservation
geared up to getting over the handicap. The rationale of reservation in the
case of medical students must be removal of regional or class inadequacy or
like disadvantage. Even there the quantum of reservation should not be G
excessive or societally injurious. The higher the level of the speciality the
lesser the role of reservation.

Dealing with Delhi, the majority opinion in Dr. Jagdish Saran's case
noted that it being the capital of the country, population therein is drawn
from all over the country because of the vast official, political, parliamentary, H
104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A judicial, educational, commercial and other gravitational pulls. Movements,
transfers and a host of other factors contribute fluidity to Delhi population.
Delhi University is not made up so much by the 'sons of the soil' as in
universities in other places. Delhi is in no sense a educationally or
commercially backward human region, measured against the rest of our
country. Delhi or the Delhi University, regard being had to overall Indian
B conditions is neither backward nor serves through the medical colleges of its
university regional demands of Delhi.

Reservation in Delhi University for Delhites, i.e., Delhi alumni on ground
of educational or economic or regional handicaps was refused to be sustained
C by this Court; however, some measure of reservation on the ground of
'institutional continuity' was given a recognition guided by the consideration
that until the signpost of' no admission for outsiders' is removed from other
universities and some fair percentage of seats in other universities is left for
open competition the Delhi students cannot be made martyrs of the
Constitution. The conclusions drawn up by the majority in Dr. Jagdish Saran's .
D case can be crystallised as under :-
(I) lt is difficult to denounce or renounce the merit criterion when
selection is for post-graduate or post-doctoral courses in specialised
subjects. To sympathise mawkishly with the weaker sections by
selecting sub-standard candidates, is to punish society as a whole
E by denying the prospect of excellence say in hospital service.
Even the poorest, when stricken by critical illness, needs the
attention of super-skilled specialists, not humdrum se~ond-rates.
Relaxation on merit, by overruling equality and quality altogether,
is a social risk where the stage is post-graduate or post-doctoral;
F (2) So long as other universities are out of bounds for Delhi graduates,
discrimination needs to be anti-doted by some percentage of
reservation or other legitimate device;

(3) There is justification for some measure of reservation for
institutional continuity in education. Parents and teachers will
G usually prefer such continuity and it has its own value. But
institutional-wise reservation may become ultra vires if recklessly
resorted to;

(4) Such reservation, that is, one securing 'institutional continuity in
education' must be administered in moderation if it is to be
H constitutional.
A.1.1.M.S. STUDENTS UNION v. A.1.1.M.S. [R.C. LAHOTI, J.) I 05
R.S. Pathak, J. recording his concurring but separate opinion held that A
the issue before the Court did not raise the question of backward classes,
scheduled castes and scheduled tribes nor was there the need for invoking the
test of territorial nexus. The question was one of institutional continuity, that
is, graduates from the medical colleges run by the Delhi university being
favoured for admission to post-graduate classes in Delhi university. His
Lordship opined :- B
"It is not beyond reason that a student who enters a medical college
for his graduate studies and pursues them for the requisite period of
years should prefer on graduation to continue in the same institution
for his post-graduate studies. There is the strong argument of C
convenience, of stability and familiarity with an educational
environment which in different parts of the country is subject to
varying economic imd psychological pressures. But much more than
convenience is involved. There are all the advantages of a continuing
frame of educational experience in the same educational institution.
It must be remembered that it is not an entirely different course of D
studies which is contemplated; it is a specialised and deeper experience
in what has gone before. The student has become familiar with the
teaching techniques and standards of scholarship, and has adjusted
his responses and reactions accordingly. The continuity of studies
ensures a higher degree of competence in the assimilation of E
knowledge and experience. Not infrequently some of the same staff
of Professors and Readers may lecture to the post-graduate classes
also. Over the undergraduate years the teacher has come to understand
the particular needs of the student, where he excels and where he
needs an especial encouragement in the removal of deficiencies. In
my judgment, there is good reason in an educational institution F
extending a certain degree ofpreference to its graduates for admission
to its post-graduate classes. The preference is based on a reasonable
classification and bears a just relationship to the object of the education
provided in the post-graduate classes ............ An institutional
preference of the kind considered here does not offend the G
constitutional guarantee of equality."

[Underlining by us]

The Court by its unanimous verdict struck down the reservation to the
extent of 70% plus, followed by relief to the petitioner before the Court, but
refused to lay down any alternate reservation replacing the invalidated H
106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A reservation for want of requisite material being available on record and left
the same to be formulated by a committee of experts representing constitutional
and medical expertise.

In Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors. v. Thukral
Anjali, [I 989] 2 SCC 249, the impugned rule provided for college-wise
B institutional preference for admission in the M.D. courses. This court agreed
with the High Court which had struck down the rule and observed that unless
there are strong reasons for exclusion of meritorious candidates, any preference
other than in order of merit will not stand the test of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
c In P.K. Goel and Ors. v. UP. Medical Council and Ors., [1992] 3 SCC
232, a combined entrance examination for admission for postgraduate medical
courses for all the seven medical colleges was held by the University of
Lucknow. A merit list was prepared based thereon. However, the University
reserved 75% of total seats available for postgraduate degree/diploma courses
D in an institution, after excluding 25% seats to be filled by open all-India
Entrance Examination, for the institutional candidates. 'Institutional candidate'
was defined as a student who had obtained MBBS/MDS degree of that
University/institution. This court refused to uphold the rule as it resulted in
sacrificing merit and depriving meritorious candidates of getting a speciality
of their choice.
E
In State of M.P. V. Nivedita Jain, [ 198 I] 4 sec 296, the State
Government completely relaxed the condition relating to the minimum
qualifying marks for scheduled caste and scheduled tribe candidates. So was
the case in Dr. Sadhna Devi and Ors. v. State of UP. and Ors., [1997] 3 SCC
90, wherein the State of U.P. had laid down that it will not be necessary for
F
special category candidates, i.e. ST, SC and OBC, to obtain even the minimum
qualifying marks in the admission tests in order to gain admission to the
postgraduate medical courses. On both the occasions this court held that need
for such category candidates to take the admission test to postgraduate medical
courses was rendered an idle formality because they would qualify for
G admission even though they did not secure any marks in the test and candidates
belonging to such categories were sure to get an admission so long as their
quota of seats were not filled up. It was held that merit could not be allowed
to be sacrificed altogether. In Dr. Sadhna Devi this court expressed grave
doubts if the policy of reservation could at all be extended to postgraduate
H level. However, that line of enquiry was not perused further as it did not
A.1.1.M.S. STUDENTS UNION v. A.1.1.M.S. [R.C. LAHOTI, J.] l 07

pertain to the case. Yet, the court made it clear that' the candidates belonging A
even to special categories were required to secure the minimum qualifying
marks in the admission tests in order to gain admission to postgraduate medical
courses and in the event of their failing to do so the vacant seats should be
made available to general category candidates; else it will be a national loss.

In Mohan Bir Singh Chawla v. Panjab University, Chandigarh and B
Anr., [1997] 2 sec· 171, this court having reviewed the judicial opinion
declared the rule-"the higher you go, in any discipline, lesser should be the
reservation-of whatever kind" and added "in the larger interest of the nation,
it is dangerous to depreciate merit and excellence in any field''.

Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Anr. v. State of M.P. and Ors., (1999] 7 SCC C
120, is a landmark decision of recent times delivered by a Constitution Bench.
The principles laid down by the Constitution Bench and so far as relevant for
our purpose are culled out and briefly stated hereunder:

(i) The spread of primary education has to be wide enough to cover
all sections of the society whether forward or backward. A larger
D
percentage of reservations for the backward would be justified at
this level. These are required in individual as well as national
interest;
(ii) At the stage of postgraduate education in medical specialities, the
element of public interest in having the most meritorious students
E
at this level of education demands selection of students of right
caliber. This supervening public interest outweighs the social equity
of providing some opportunities to the backward who are not
able to qualify on the basis of marks obtained by them for
postgraduate learning. However, the extent of reservations and F
the extent of lowering the qualifying marks, consistent with the
broader public interest in having the most competent people for
specialised training, should be left to be determined by a body of
experts (such as the Medical Council of India) - whether
reservation or lower qualifying marks, at such level have to be
minimised. At the same time there cannot be a wide disparity G
between the minimum qualifying marks for reserved category
candidates and the minimum qualifying marks for general category
candidates.
(iii) At the level of superspecialisation there cannot be any reservation
because any dilution of merit at this level would adversely effect H
108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A the national goal of having the best people at the highest levels
of professional and educational stream.

Majmudar, J. recorded his separate opinion partly dissenting with
the majority opinion. However, he agreed that,

(i) there cannot be a wide disparity between the minimum qualifying
B marks for reserved category candidates and for general category
candidates at the speciality level.
(ii) there cannot be dilution of minimum qualifying marks for such
reserved category candidates up to almost a vanishing point. What
would be a reasonable extent? His Lordship held that maximum
c dilution could be up to 50% of the minimum qualifying marks
prescribed for the general category candidates and any dilution
below this rock bottom would not be permissible under Article
15(4) of the Constitution of India.

D Before we leave this topic and move ahead, to be fair to the learned
counsel for the appellants, we may deal with two decisions relied on by them.
State of Tamil Nadu v. T. Dhilipkumar and Ors., (1995] 5 Scale 67, is a brief
decision of this court affirming a judgment of the Madras High Court.
Reservation to the extent of 60% in favour of in-service candidates for seats
in post•graduate !Iledical courses was struck down by the High Court directing
E it to keep it confined to 50%. This court left it to the appellants to appoint
a highly qualified committee to determine from year to year what, in fact, is
the percentage-wise reservation requisite for in-service candidates having
regard to the then prevailing situation and that the percentage of 50% was,
if found appropriate, be reduced accordingly. Question of institutional
reservation was not the one posed before the Court. Needless to say, the court
F was dealing with a case of two sources of entry, though, called reservation,
a situation we have already dealt with hereinabove.

D.N. Chanr:hala v. The State of Mysore and Ors., (1971) 2 SCC 293,
is a case where three universities (with medical colleges) were set up in three
G different places, presumably for the purpose of catering to the educational
and academic needs of those areas. So far as the scheme for selection ad.opted
in the relevant rules was concerned, this court clearly held, vide para 22, that
the scheme did not make it possible for less meritorious students obtaining
admission at the cost of the better candidates. The court noted that a preference
to one attached to one university in its own institutions for post-graduate or
H technical training is not uncommon. However, the preference dealt with by
A.1.1.M.S. STUDENTS UNION v. A.1.1.M.S. (R.C. LAHOTI, J.] ) 09

• the court did not amount to reservation as is the case before us. As a broad A
principle, this court recognised that the Government which bears the financial
burden of running these institutions can lay down criteria for admissions and
to decide the sources from which admissions would be made and hastened to
add, lest its observations be misunderstood,-"provided of course, _such
classification is not arbitrary and has a rational basis and a reasonable
connection with the object of the rules". The test validating classification, we B
have held from the material available on record accepting the factual findings
arrived at by the High Court, is not satisfied in the present case. Further, the
classification resulting into appropriation of seats by way of laying down
sources for selection necessitated by certain over-riding considerations, was
held to be neither excessive nor unreasonable (vide para 23). C
None of the two cases really throws any light on the issues before us
and certainly none runs counter to tpe view we are taking.

Preamble to the Constitution of India secures, as one of its objects,
fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of D
the nation to 'we the people of India'. Reservation unless protected by the
constitution itself, as given to us by the founding fathers and as adopted by
the people oflndia, is sub-version offratenity, unity and integrity and dignity
of the individual. While dealing with Directive Principle of State Policy,
Article 46 is taken note of often by overlooking Articles 41 and 47. Article
41 obliges the State inter alia to make effective provision for securing the E
right to work and right to education. Any reservation in favour of one, to the
extent of reservation, is an inroad on the right of others to work and to learn.
Article 4 7 recognise the improvement of public health as one of the primary
duties of the State. Public health can be improved by having the best of.
doctors, specialists and super specialists. Under-graduate level is a primary or p
basic level of education in medical sciences wherein reservation can be
understood as the fulfilment of societal obligation of the State towards the
weaker segments of the society. Beyond this, a reservation is a reversion or
diversion from the performance of primary duty of the State. Permissible
reservation at the lowest of primary rung is a step in the direction of
assimilating the lesser fortunates in mainstream of society by bringing them G
to the level of others which they cannot achieve unless protectively pushed.
Once that is done the protection needs to be withdrawn in the own interest
of protectees so that they develop strength and feel confident of stepping on
higher rungs on their own legs shedding the crutches. Pushing the protection
of reservation beyond the primary level betrays bigwigs' desire to keep the H
110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A crippled crippled for ever. Rabindra Nath Tagore's vision of a free India •
cannot be complete unless "Knowledge is free" and "tireless striving stretches
its arms towards perfection". Almost a quarter century after the people of
India have given the Constitution unto themselves, a chapter on fundamental
duties came to be incorporated in the Constitution. Fundamental duties, as
B defined in Article SI A, are not made enforceable by a writ of court just as
the fundamental rights are, but it cannot be lost sight of that 'duties' in Part
IVA-Article SIA are prefixed by the same word 'fundamental' which was
prefixed by the founding fathers of the Constitution to 'rights' in Part III.
Every citizen of India is fundamentally obligated to develop the scientific
temper and humanism. He is fundamentally duty bound to strive towards
C excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the
nation constantly rises to higher fevels of endeavour and achievements, State
is, all the citizens placed together and hence though Article SIA does not
expressly cast any fundamental duty on the State, the fact remains that the
duty of every citizen of India is the collective duty of the State. Any
reservation, apart from being sustainable on the constitutional anvil, must
D also be reasonable to be permissible. In assessing the reasonability one of the
factors to be taken into consideration would be-whether the character and
quantum of reservation would stall or accelerate achieving the ultimate goal
of excellence enabling the nation constantly rising to higher levels. In the era
of globalisation, where the nation as a whole has to compete with other
E nations of the world so as to survive, excellence cannot be given an
unreasonable go by and certainly not compromised in its entirety. Fundamental
duties, though not enforceable by a writ of the court, yet provide a valuable
guide and aid to Interpretation of constitutional and legal Issues. In case of
doubt or choice, people's wish as manifested through Artide SIA, can serve
as a guide not only for resolving the issue but also. for constructing or moulding
F the relief to be given by the courts. Constitutional enactment of fundamental
duties, if it has to have any meaning, must be used by courts as a tool to tab,
even a taboo, on State action drifting away from constitutional values.

Conclusion

G The upshot of the above discussion is that institutional reservation is
not supported by the Constitution or constitutional principle. A certain degree
of preference for students of the same Institution Intending to prosecute
further studies therein is permissible on grounds of convenience, suitability
and familiarity with an educational environment. Such preference has to be
H reasonable and not excessive. The preference has to be prescribed without
A.1.1.M.S. STUDENTS UNION v. A.1.1.M.S. [R.C. LAHOTI, J.] 111

making an excessive or substantial departure from the rule of merit and A
equality. It has to be kept within limits. Minimum standards cannot be so
diluted as to become practically non-existent. Such marginal Institutional
preference is tolerable at post-graduation level but is rendered intorable at
still higher levels such as that of super-speciality. In the case of institutions
of national significance such as AIIMS additional considerations against B
promoting reservation or preference of any kind destructive of merit become
relevant. One can understand a reasonable reservation or preference being
provided for at the initial stage of medical education, i.e., under-graduate
level while seeking entry into the institute. It cannot be forgotten that the
medical graduates of AIIMS are not 'sons of the soil'. They are drawn from
all over the country. They have no moorings in Delhi. They are neither C
backward nor weaker sections of the society by any standards-social,
economical, regional or physical. They were choosen for entry into the Institute
because of their having displayed and demonstrated excellence at all-India
level competition where thousands participate but only a mere 40 or so are
choosen. Their achieving an all-India merit and entry in the premier institution
of national importance should not bring in a brooding sense of complacence D
in them. They have to continue to strive for achieving still higher scales of
. excellence. Else there would be no justification for their continuance in a
premier Institution like AIIMS. In AIIMS where the best of facilities are
available for learning with best of teachers, best of medical services,
sophistication, research facilities· and Infrastructure, the best entrants selected E
from the length and breadth of the country must come out as best of all-India
graduates. We fail to understand why those who were assessed to be best in
the country before entering the portals of the Institute fall down to such low
levels as having perceptibly ceased to be best, not reniaining even better,
within a period of a few years spent in the Institute. They trail being even
such candidates as fall in constitutionally reserved categories and yet steal a F
march over them in· claiming creamy disciplines. The only reason which
logically follows from the material available on record is that being assured
of allotment of post-graduation seats in the same institution, the zeal for
preserving excellence is lost. The students lose craving for learning. Those
who impart instructions also feel that their non-seriousness would not make G
any difference for their taughts. If that is so, there is no reason why at the
point of clearing graduation and seeking entry in post-graduation courses of
study they should not give way for those who deserve ·better, and much
better, than them. AIIMS holds and conducts a common entrance examination
for post-graduation wherein graduates of AIIMS and graduates from all over
the country participate and are tested by common standards. The AIIMS H
112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A students trail in the race and yet are declared winners, thanks to the ingenious
reservation in their favour. One who justifies reservation must place on record
adequate material enough, to satisfy an objective mind judicially trained, to
sustain the reservation, its extent and qualifying parameters. In the case at
hand no such material has been placed on record either by the institute or by
the AIIMS Students' Union. The facts found by Delhi High Court, well
B articulated by the learned Chief Justice speaking for the Division Bench of
the High Court of Delhi, visibly demonstrate the arbitrariness and hence
unsustainability of such a reservation. It was an outcome of agitation-generated-
pressure depriving application of mind, reason and objectivity of those who
took the decision. No material has been placed on record to show that Institute
C graduates, if asked to face all-India competition while seeking PG seats,
would get none or face feeble opportunities because of the policies of other
universities. The way merit has been made a martyr by institutional reservation
policy of AIIMS, the high hopes on which rests the foundation of AIIMS are
belied. No sound and sensible mind can accept scorers of 15-20% being
declared as passed, crossing over the queue and arraiging themselves above
D scorers of 60-70% and that too to sit in a course where they will be declared
qualified to fight with dreaded and complicated threats to human life. Will
a less efficient post graduate or specialist doctor be a boon to society? Is the
human life so cheap as to be entrusted to mediocres when meritorious are
available? If the answer is yes, we are cutting at the roots of nation's health
E and depriving right to equality of its meat!ing. We have no hesitation in
holding, and thereby agreeing with the Division Bench of High Court, that
reserving 33% seats for institutional candidates was in effect I00% reservation
for subjects. Coupled with 50% reservation in allocation of specialities not
exceeding over-all 33% reservation integrated with 65 percentile-a complex
method, the actual working whereof even the learned senior counsel for the
F parties frankly confessed their inability in demonstrating before us at the time
of hearing-is a conceited gimmick and accentuated politics of pampering
students, weak in merit but mighty in strength. Such a reservation based on
institutional continuity in the absence of any relevant evidence in justification
thereof is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and
G has therefore to be struck down. The impugned reservation, obnoxious to
merit, fails to satisfy the twin test under Article 14. Having taken a common
entrance test, there is no intelligible differentia which distinguishes the
institutional candidates from others; and there is no nexus sought to be achieved
with the object of AIIMS by such reservation. Can the court sustain and
uphold such reservation? Justice is the earnest and constant will to render
H every man his due. The precepts of the law are these; to live honourably, to
A.1.1.M.S. STUDENTS UNION v. A.1.1.M.S. [R.C. LAHOTI, J.] 113

injure no other man, to render to every man his due' -said Justinian. Giving A
man his due, one of the basics of justice, finds reflected in right to equality.
Mediocracy over meritocracy cuts at the roots of justice and hurts right to
equality. Protective push or prop, by way of reservation or classification must
withstand the test of Article 14. Any over-generous approach to a section of
the beneficiaries if it has the effect of destroying· another's right to education, B
more so, by pushing a mediocre over a meritorious belies the hope of our
Founding Fathers on which they structured the great document of Constitution
and so must fail to the ground. To deprive a man of merit of his due, even
marginally, no rule shall sustain except by the aid of Constitution; one such
situation being when deprivation itself achieves equally subject to satisfying
tests of reason, reasonability and rational nexus with the object underlying C
deprivation.

Suggestion of Academic Committee of A/IMS

As already noted some accommodation to AIIMS graduates within
reasonable bounds and without entirely sacrificing the merit is permissible D
and that too for the present. We say so because no material has been placed
on record before us to justify if AIIMS graduates are placed in such a
disadvantageous position that if left to compete against all-India P.G. seats in
the country, carved out pursuant to the decision of this Court in Dr. Pradeep
Jain's case, they would be in a lurch. Rightly the High Court left the issue
to be resolved by a well-thought of scheme providing for some institutional E
preferences being framed by a committee of experts. We too, at one stage,
after hearing learned counsel for the parties, felt that we shall have to stop
short only at invalidating the rule because the facts are imperfect and 'Judges
should not rush in where specialists fear to tread'-borrow the expression
from Dr. Jagdish Saran's case on 22.2.2001 the learned Additional Solicitor F
General appearing for the Institute informed us that certain suggestions had
come for streamlining the issue involved in these appeals relating to quota
for internal students. He submitted that it would be appropriate for the
Academic Committee of AIIMS to apply its mind to those suggestions in the
light of the law settled by this Court and to consider whether any
constitutionally relevant criteria could be formulated for the future in this G
behalf. We deferred the judgment taking on record the submission and
suggestion so made at the Bar. As the Academic Committee could not meet
within three weeks-the times as originally appointed, the judgment was
further deferred. Then an affidavit dated 11.4.2001 sworn in by the Director
of AIIMS was filed stating that the Academic Committee of the Institute met H
114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A on three different dates to consider the issue in all its aspects, and having
considered alternatives which would ensure fairness to all, the prevailing
situation through the country, the judgment of Delhi High Court under appeal
and the proceedings in this Court-as stated in the affidavit, made a few
recommendations. The 'special features' taken into consideration by the
B Academic Committee included the following:-

(a) Integrated teaching in both-Jn the pre as well as the para clinicals,

(b) Problem based learning included in the teaching schedule.

(c) Small group studies as for example the case studies included in
the teaching schedule.
c
(d) The undergraduate is supposed to work in two scientific study
project during his or her under graduation.

(e) The syllabus which gives a cutting edge to the AIIMS graduates
as it covers the entire spectrum of current medicine together with
D that needed to work at the basic level. This is as opposed to the
pattern being followed elsewhere which often covers only the
bare minimum recommended by the Medical Council of India.

The Academic Committee felt that a degree of assurance of continuing
post-graduate education had to be offered to AIIMS students for the following
E reasons:-

(a) to place them on par with other students who had the benefit of
state and institutional preference as AIIMS students lost both
domiclie and eligibility in their states of origin upon admission to
the institute
F (b) to ensure that the best student5 at the undergraduate level continued
to come to AIIMS after national competition as otherwise the
absence of protection would make the best opt for courses, where
institutional state continuity was assured;
(c) In the interest of the institute developing patterns of education in
G all disciplines of medicine since some specialities were available
only in the institute and not elsewhere and it was desirable that
som.e candidates who had been observed right from inception as
doctors be trained even at the post-graduate stage;
(d) Since a comparison based solely on marks in one-off written
H examination would not accurately reflect the already assessed
A.1.1.M.S. STUDENTS UNION v. A.1.1.M.S. [R.C. LAHOTI, J.] 115
quality of AIIMS undergraduates . A
•
The Academic Committee has been bold enough to admit that some
anomalies had crept in to the selection procedure due to the quota being
implemented without insistence on any minimum qualifying marks as pre-
requisites to eligibility for the AIIMS quota which was also to be reduced
from I/3rd to I/4th of the available seats~ The committee felt that the quota B
be implemented disciplinewise in accordance with the pattern all over India
and also to obviate any challenges on the basis of one speciality being more
in demand than the other in any particular year. The committee therefore
decided:-

( 1) to recommend a 25% quota disciplinewise out of the total post- C
graduate seats for AIIMS under-graduates;
'(2) a uniform minimum cut-off 50% marks in the competitive entrance
test as a condition of eligibility for all candidates;

(3) 75% compulsory attendance during the course shall be made D
mandatory for AIIMS students.

We regret our inability to endorse the abovesaid decision of the
Academic Committee in its entitrety and for all times. What we had expected
was formulation of any constitutionally relevant criteria but what has been
handed down to us is more of a justification for institutional reservation. The E
grounds of justification set out in the affidavit were, generally speaking, not
taken up in the pleadings either before the High Court or before this Court.
The justifications pleaded are not supported by any factual data so as to
enable relationship of relevancy being judicially spelled out between facts
. and reasons. We may quickly test the reasons assigned. For example, as to
reason (a) it is difficult to subscribe to the view that a student coming from F
a place othe_r than Delhi would lose his domicile status merely because he has
come to study in an Institute at Delhi. So also we cannot subscribe to reason

- (b) that meritorious students would come to Institute foregoing admissions in
other better institutions only because they are assured of PG seats. And if that
is the impression that they would assuredly be getting a PG seat inspite of G
their performance stooping down too low then that impression must vanish
and earlier the better it would be. As to reason (c) how much time would it
take for even a fresh entrant in PG to assimilate himself with 'Institute's
developing pattern of education' once he has dedicated himself to his studies
and learning? Accepting the content of reason (d) would be depriving the
entrance examination of its efficacy to make assessment. Without dwelling H
116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A further, for we are not joining any issue with the Academic Committee,
which is entitled to our esteem for its expertise, we record our disagreement
with the Academic Committee. Yet for the present, and until a better alternative
is found out, we do not deem it proper to strike down the proposal of the
Academic Committee of AII MS as incorporated in the affidavit of the Director
B dated 11.4.200 I in its entirely and we are inclined to sustain the same with
some modifications.

The End Result:

The following directions in our opinion will meet the ends of justice:-

c (I) The institutional reservation for AIIMS candidates is declared
ultra vires the Constitution and, hence, is struck down.
(2) By way of institutional preference the institutional caooidates
i.e., those who have graduated from t~e institute shall be preferred
for admission against 25% seats available to open category
D candidates and not 25% seats disciplinewise out of the total post-
graduate seats for AllMS undergraduates as suggested by the
Academic Committee.

(3) An uniform minimum cut-off of 50% marks in the competitive
entrance test as a conditio~ of eligibility for all candidates may
E be adopted subject to further rider (I) that the last student to
qualify for admission as AIIMS graduate cannot be one who has
secured marks at the common entrancP. P.G. testless than the one
secured by any other candidates belonging to a reserved category
enjoying constitutional protection such as SC, ST etc., and (II)
that the margin of difference between the qualifying marks for
F lnstitute's candidates shall not be too wide with the one for general
..
category candidate.

(4) Any seat left vacant out of the preferential seats of AIIMS

G
graduates consequent upon the abovesaid directions, shall be
diverted to and made available for open general category
.candidates.
-
(5) The preference for institute candidates to the extent of 25% as
abovesaid shall remain confined to admission in P.G. course of ·
study. There shall be no further reservation in the matter of
allotment of seats disciplineswise which allotment shall be made
H solely on the basis of merit out of a common list drawn up pursuant
A.l.l.M.S. STUDEJ\lTS UNION v. A.1.1.M.S. [R.C. LAHOTI, J.) 117

to the result of common entrance examination placing the selected A
candidates strictly as per their ranking.

So we drop the curtain on the controversy for the present. Before parting
it is necessary to place on record certain observations by way of classifica:ions
lest our judgment should be misunderstood or misapplied. Our judgment
shall not come in the way of the Academic Committee or any other competent B
body of experts devising a better alternative scheme of admissions to the
post-graduate level of study i~ the Institute which may revise and further
scale down the reservation or preference by giving more weight to merit and
excellence. We have not touched and not dealt with other reservation made
by the Institute and therefore our judgment is not an implied approval of C
other reservations as to which we have grave doubts if they would be
sustainable if challenged and we do not say any more as the present case does
not provide an occasion for testing the validity of other reservations. Further,
this judgment of ours shall not have the effect of invalidating such admissions
as have already been given. The directions made hereinabove shall operate
for future, i.e., today onwards. The appeals are disposed of in terms of the D
directions made hereinabove. No order as to the costs.

S.V.K. Appeals disposed of.