FACULTY ASSOCIATION OF AIIMSversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

                      [2014] 14 S.C.R. 1634


A               FACULTY ASSOCIATION OF AllMS
                                 v.
                     UNION OF INDIA &ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 4500 of 2002)
B
                          JULY18,2013
      [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI, SURINDER SINGH. NIJJAR,
            RANJAN GOGOi, M. Y. EQBALAND
                                 ,.
                 VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.]
C       Constitution of India - Arts. 15, 16 and 335.-
  Reservation - In speciality and super-speciality faculty posts
  in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences-Applicability-
  Held: In view of the observations made by Nine Judge Bench
  in Indira Sawhney case, rule of reservation is not applicable
D to speciality and super-speciality level - The very concept
                 .                       '
  of reservation implies mediocrity - All India Institute of
  Medical Sciences Act, 1956.
       The question for consideration in the present
E appeals was whether policy of reservation was
  inapplicable to speciality and super-speciality faculty
  posts in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences.
                                      '
       Disposing of the appeals, the Court
       · 1. The main issue raised regarding reservation at
F the super-specialty level has already been considered
  in *Indra Sawhney's case by a Nine~Judge Bench of this
  Court. Having regard to such decision, the c.ourt is not
  inclined to take any view other,than the view expressed
  by the Nine-Judge Bench on the issue. There could be
G no compromise with merit at the super specialty stage.
  [Para 17][1648-C-E             ·                    ·
        2. In *Indra Sawhney's case, it was observed that
  while the relevance and significance of merit at the stage
H of initial recruitment cannot be ignored, it cannot ·also
                               1634
   FACULTY ASSOCIATION OF AllMS v. UNION OF INDIA         1635


 be ignored that the same idea of reservation implies A
 selection of a less meritorious person. It was also
 observed that at the same time such a price would have
 to be paid if the constitutional promise of social justice
 was to be redeemed. However, after making such
 suggestions, a note of caution was introduced in the B
 light of Article 15 of the Constitution. A distinction was,
 however, made with regard to the provisions of Article
 16 and it was held that Article 335 would be relevant and
 it would not be permissible not to prescribe any minimum
 standard at all. Of course, the said observation was made c
 in the context of admission to medical colleges.
 [Para 18][1649-B·D]
      3. The Nine.Judge Bench while discussing the
 provisions of Article 335 also observed that there were
 certain services and posts where either on account of D
 the nature of duties attached to them or the level in the
 hierarchy at which they stood, merit alone counts. In
 such situations, it cannot be advised to provide for
 reservations. The position was made even more clear
 when the Court observed that they were of the opinion E
 that in certain services in respect of certain posts,
 application of rule of reservation may not be advisable
 with regard to various technical posts including posts
 in super specialty in medicine, engineering and other
 scientific and technical posts. [Para 18)[1649-F-H; F
 1650-A]                                          .
        4. Even though it has been suggested that such
  an observation taken by the Nine-Judges Bench was not
· binding, being obiter in nature, this Court cannot take a G
  different view. The very concept of reservation implies
  mediocrity. [Para 19)[1650-B]
      *Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India and Ors. (1992)
     ·Supp. (3) sec 215-followed.
                                                           H
1636        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 14 S.C.R.

 A         Jagdish Saran & Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors.
           (1980) 2 SCR 831; Dr Pradeep Jain etc. vs.
           Union of India and Ors. etc. (1984) 3 SCR 942;
           Dr Preeti Srivastava vs. ·state of M.P (1999) 7
           sec 120: 1999 (1) suppl. scR 249;
 B         Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad-
           Deccan vs. Vazir Sultan and Sons 1959 Supp (2)
           SCR 375; State of MP vs. Nivedita Jain (1981) 4
           SCC 296: 1982 (1) SCR 759 - relied on.
           Dr Faza/ Ghafoor vs. Union of India and Ors.
 c         (1988) Supp. SCC 794; Saurabh Chaudri and
           Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. (2003) 11 SCC
           146: 2003 (5) Suppl. SCR 152; TM.A. Pai
           Foundation vs. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC
           481: 2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587; Nagaraj and
 D         Others vs. Union of India and Others (2006) 8 SCC
           212: 2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 336; E. V. Chinnaiah
           vs. State of AP and Others (2005) 1 SCC 394:
           2004 (5) Suppl. SCR 972 - referred to.
                   Case Law Reference:
 E
       (1988) Supp. sec 794      referred to         Para 9
       2003 (5) Suppl. SCR 152 referred to           Para 11
       2002 (3) Suppl. SCR 587 referred to           Para 12
 F     1959 S.upp (2) SCR 375    relied on           Para 12
       2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 336 referred to           Para 13
       2004 (5) Suppl. SCR 972 referred to           Para 13
       1999 (1) Suppl. SCR 249 relied on             Para 17
 G
       (1992) Supp. (3) SCC 215 followed             Para 17
       (1980) 2 SCR 831          relied on           Para 17
       (1984) 3 SCR 942          relied on           Para 17

 H     1982 (1) SCR 759            relied on         Para 18
   FACULTY ASSOCIATION OF Al IMS v. UNION OF INDIA                1637


      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.              A
 4500 of 2002.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 26.11.2001 of the
 High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in C. W. P. No. 4223 of 1994,
                             WITH                                 B
      C. A. No. 5119 of 2002
       Mohan Prasaran, SG, Sidharth Luthra, ASG, P. P. Rao,
 Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, Mukul Gupta, A. Mariaputham, Sr. Advs., R.
 K. Gupta, S. K. Gupta, M. K. Singh, Shekhar Kumar, A. Subba C
 Rao, D. L. Chidanand, N. Meyyappan, Ms. Supriya Juneja,
 Ms.Anjali Chauhan, Rishab Kaushik, Ms. Sushma Suri, Dr. M.
 P. Raju, Ms. Mary Scaria, James P. Thomas, (Dr.) Satya
 Prakash Sharma, Mehmood Pracha, Gaurav Yadav, Sumit
 Babbar, Naresh Kumar, Advs., with them for the appearing D
 parties.                                             '
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
        ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI. 1. When Special Leave Petition
  (Civil) No. 2106 of 2002,filed by the Faculty Association of
  AllMS, was taken up for consideration, notice thereupon was. E
  issued by a Bench of Two-Judges and it was stipulated that
  any appointment to be made, after the order was passed in·
  accordance with the reservation policy, would only be tentative
  in nature until further orders. When the Appeal was taken up
  for hearing on 20th February, 2003, 13long with Civil Appeal F ·
· No. 5119 of 2002, considering the important nature of the issues
  involved for determination in the said cases, as also the
  recurring nature of the problem, it was thought appropriate that
  the matters be heard by a larger Bench. Thereafter, on 12th
  February, 2004, a Bench of Three-Judges headed by the Chief G
  Justice was of the view that the matters involved substantial
  questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution and
  were required to be heard by a Bench of Five-Judges. It is
  pursuant to such direction that the matter appeared before the
  Bench of Five-Judges on several occasions and ultimately they H ·
1638         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 14 S.C.R.


 A     were listed before a Bench of Five- Judges on 2nd July, 2013.
         2. Although the matter is now before a Bench of five
   Judges, the terms of reference are not very clear. From what
   we. have been able to gather from the pleadings and the
   judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, the question
 B to.be considered is whether reservation was inapplicable to
   specialty and super- specialty faculty posts in the All India
   Institute of Medical Sciences, hereinafter referred to as
   "AllMS". Faced with the decisions of this Court in the case of
   Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India & Ors. [(1992) Supp. (3)
 C SCC 215]; Jagdish Saran & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
   [(1980) 2 SCR 831]; and Dr. Pradeep Jain etc. Vs. Union of
   India & Ors. etc. [(1984) 3 SCR 942], wherein reservation in
   admission to specialty and super- specialty courses was
   disallowed, the Division Bench of the High Court confined itself
 D to the limited issue, namely, whether reservation policy was
   inapplicable for making appointments to the entry level faculty
   post of Assistant Professor and to super specialty posts and
   also whether the resolutions adopted by AllMS on 11.1.1983
   and 27.5.1994 were liable to be struck down.
 E
         3. Appearing for the Petitione(, Mr. P.P. Rao, learned .
   $enior Advocate, firstly referred to the statement of objects
   and reasons of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act,
   1956, which provides as follows:
 F          "For improving professional competence 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
 G          country. Similarly, for the promotion of medical research
            it is necessary that the country should attain self-
            sufficiency in post-graduate medical education. These
            objectives are hardly capable of realisation unless
            facilities of a very high order for both undergraduate and
 H
  FACULTY ASSOCIATION OF AllMS v. UNION OF INDIA                        1639
             [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]

     post-graduate medical education and research are                   A
     provided by a 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 Institute will develop patterns of
     teaching in under-graduate and post-graduate medical               B
     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          c
     various aspects. The Institute will have the power to grant
     medical degrees, diplomas and other academic
     distinctions which would be recognised medical degrees
     for the purpose of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1933."
     4. Mr. Rao also referred to Section 5 of the Act which             D
declared the institute to be an institution of national importance.
As po1nted out by Mr. Rao, Section 13 of the Act is in line with
the objects for which the institute was created and Section 14
deals with the functions of the institute relating to the academic
aspects of the institutes's functions as a teaching institute.          E
      5. Mr. Rao submitted that the question had earlier been
gone into and considered in Indra Sawhney's case (supra),,
wherein while considering the question of reservation the Bench
also took into consideration the provisions of Article 335 of
                                                                F
the Constitution regarding the claims of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes to services and posts. Referring to the
concurring Judgment of Jeevan Reddy, J., learned counsel
referred to Paragraphs 838 and 839 in particular and the
observations made therein. Since Paragraph 838 places in
focus the view of the Nine-Judge Bench, the same is extracted G
herein below:
      "838. While on Article 335, we are of the opinion that
      there are certain services and positions where either o.n
                                                                        H
1640      . SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014) 14 S.C.R.


 A·        account of the nature of duties attached to them or the
           level (in the hierarchy) at which they obtain, merit as
           explained hereinabove, alone counts. In such situations,
           it may not be advisable to provide for reservations. For
           example, technical posts in research and development
 B         organisations/departments/ institutions, in specialities and
           super- specialities in medicine, engineering and other
           such courses in physical sciences and mathematics, in
           defence services and in the establishments connected
           therewith. Similarly, in the case of posts at the higher
 c         echelons e.g., Professors (in Education), Pilots in Indian
           Airlines and Air India, Scientists anct Technicians in
                             .
           would not be advisable."
                                       ..
           nuclear and space application, provision for reservation
                                                               ·
           6. In fact, both in Paragraphs 838 and 839, white
 D specifying areas, where it may not be advisable to put
     reservation, the learned Judge has included posts in research
     and development organisations/ departments/institutions, in
     specialties and super-specialties in medicine. The same
     observation is repeated in Paragraph 839, wherein, .
 E · categorically it was held that the Bench was of the opinion that
     in certain services and in respect of certain posts, application
     of the rule of reservation may not be advisable and once again
     included as the fourth item - posts in super- specialties in
     medicine, engineering and other scientific and technical
 F subjects. Mr. Rao submitted that as far as medicine is
     concerned "super-specialty" means "post doctoral courses".
           7. Mr. Rao submitted that in the instant case, reservation·
     was being provided for up to the doctoral stage, but at the
   · stage of recruitment for a post doctoral cour.ses and research
 G at the initial stage of candidates were required to sit for a written
     examination and those who are successful, were, thereafter,
     recruited in the different disciplines of teaching. Mr. Rao
     submitted that the problem begins at that stage when posts
     are thereafter, reserved in respect of different courses. Mr. Rao
 H
  FACULTY ASSOCIATION OF AllMS v. UNION OF INDIA                   1641
             [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]

submitted that once a candidate qualified for recruitment in A
the different posts of faculty beginning from the post of Assistant
Pr9fessor onward, there was no further logic in thereafter
reserving posts for candidates from the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes and OBC communities. Mr. Rao submitted
that at that level of super-specialty, the question of reservation . B
ought not to arise as was observed by the Nirie-Judge Bench
in Indra Sawhney's case (supra).
       8. Mr. Rao submitted that while Article 16(4) empowers
the State in makirig provisions for reservation of appointments
or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in· C
the opinion of the State, was not adequately represented in
the services under the State, the same would have to be read
and understood in the manner indicated in Indra Sawhney's
case (supra). The learned Senior counsel submitted ttiat
although definite directions have not been given in Paragraphs D
838 and 839 of the judgment in Indra Sawhney's case (supra),
the observations made therein were guidelines for the
Government and institutions, such asAllMS, to follow, in order
to provide the best candidates available with the opportunity
of going in for super-specialties which entail higher degree of E
skill and where no compromise in quality and expertise could
be entertained.                                            •..
       9. In support of his aforesaid submissions, Mr. Rao also
referred to the decision of a Three-Judge Bench in Dr. F
Jagadish Saran & Ors. Vs. Union of India [(1980) 2 SCC 768],
wherein in.Paragraphs 21, 22 and 23, Krishna Iyer, J., writing
the judgment, spoke about reservation and what he referred
as wholesale banishment of proven ability to open up, hopefully,
some dalit talent, total sacrifice of excellence at the altar of
equalisation -when the Constitution mandates for every one G
equality before and equal protection of the law - may be fatal
folly, self-defeating educational technology and anti- national
if made a routine rule of State Policy. His Lordship further
obs.erved that a fair preference, a reasonablereservation, a H
    1642        SUPREM!i COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 14S.C.R.


     A just adjustment of the prior needs and real potential of the weak
       with the partial recognition of the. presence of competitive merit
       - such is the dynamics of social justice with animates the three
       egalitarian articles of the Constitution. The learned Judge goes
       on to observe in Paragraph 23 that flowing from the same
     B stream of equalism is another limitation. The basic medical
       needs of a region or the preferential push justified for a
       handicapped group cannot prevail in the sanie measure at
       the highest scales of specialty where the best skill or talent,
       must be handpicked by selecting according to capability. The
     c learned Judge went on to restrict the Indian Medical Council's
       recommendations whi.ch indicated that students of post-
       graduate courses therein should be selected strictly on merit,
       judged on the basis of academic record in the undergraduate
       course.
     D       10. The next decision referred to by Mr. Rao is a short
       judgment in the case of Dr. Fazal GhafoorVs. Union of India & ·
       Ors. [(1988) Supp. SCC 794]. which was a decision by two
       Judges, whereiri, reliance was placed on the decision of this
       Court in the case of Dr. Pradeep Jain & Ors. Vs. Union of
     E India & Ors. [(1984) 3 SCC 654], wherein, a Three-J.udge
       Bench of this. Court, while considering the question of
       reservation in the light of the aspirations of the citizens of India,
       as contained in the Preamble to the Constitution, observed
       that while reservation was acceptable with regard to the
     F undergraduate course, different considerations will have to
       prevail when it came to the question of reservation based on
       residents' requirement within the State or on institutional
       preference for admission to the post-graduate courses, such
       as MD, MS and the like. Following the decision in Dr~ Jagadish
•    G Saran's case (supra), Their Lordship observed th~t "there we
       cannot allow excellence to be_ compromised by any other
       consideration because that would be detrimental to the interest
       of the nation. Their Lordships also obsetv~d that if equality of
       opportunity for every other person in the country is the
     H
   FACULTY ASSOCIATION OF AllMS v. UNION OF INDIA                   1643
              [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]

constitutional guarantee, merit must be the test when choosing       A
the best.
        11. Mr. Rao lastly referred to the Constitution Bench
  decision of this Court in Dr. Preeti Srivastava Vs. State of M.P.
  [(1999) 7 sec     120]. which was a writ petition heard along
  with several other writ petitions on various aspects of B
  reservation. Mr. Rao pointed out that the Constitution Bench
  also referred to the decision in Dr. Pradeep Jain's case
  (supra) and also Dr. Jagadish Saran's case (supra), referred .
. to hereinbefore, in expressing its concurrence with the views
  expressed therein. In Paragraph 25 of the judgment, Sujata V. C
  Manohar, J., speaking for the Constitution Bench, observed
  that the specialty and super-specialty courses in medicines
  also entriled on-hand experience of treating or operating on
  pateints in the attached teaching hospitals. Those undergoing
  these programmes are expected to occupy posts in the D
  teaching hospitals or discharge duties attached to such posts.
  The elements of Article 335, therefore, colour the selection of
  candidates for these course and the rules framed for this
  p·urpose. Consequently, in Paragraph 26, it was further
  observed that in the premises the special provisions for SC/ E
  ST candidates - whether reservations or lower qualifying
  marks -at the specialty level have to be minimal. There cannot,
  however, be any such special provisions at the level of super-
  specialties. In keeping with its findings the Constitution Bench
  ultimately held that since no relaxation is permissible at the F
  highest levels in the medical institutions, the Petitioners therein
  were right when they contended that the reservations made
  for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates
 for admission to OM and MCH courses, which are super-
  specialty courses, in not consistent with the constitutional G
  mandate under Articles 15(4) and 16(4), and that Regulation
  27 of the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and
  Research, Chandigarh Regulations, 1967, would not apply at
  the levels of admissions to DM and MCH courses.
                                                                      H
1644        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014) 14 S.C.R.


 A          12. Mr. Rao submitted that the He.alth Survey and
      Development Committee, popularly known as the Shore
      Committee, in its report published in 1946 recommended the
      establishment of a national ·medical centre at Delhi, which
      would concentrate on training, well-qu'alified teachers and
   B research workers in order that a steady stream of those could
      be maintained to meet the needs of the rapidly expanding
      health activities throughout the country. It seems that pursuant
      to the said report and after attainment of Independence, the
      Union Ministry of Health proceeded to implement the aforesaid
   c idea resulting in the enactment of the All India Institute of
      Medical Sciences Act, 1956, with the All India Institute
      autonomous institution of Medical of national Sciences as an
      importance and defined its objectives and functions. Various
      other decisions, inclding the decisions in Saurabh Chaudri
 . D and Others Vs. Union of India and Others [(2003) 11SCC146)
      and T.M.A. Pai Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka [(2002) 8
      SCC 481] were referred to by Mr. Rao to urge that the
      observations made in Indra Sawhney's case as well as in
      Preeti Srivastava;s.case were binding, though inthe nature·of
   E observations made in the judgments. Mr. Rao referred to the
      decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax.
      Hyderabad-Deccan. Vs. Vazir Sultan and Sons [1959 Supp
                              a
      (2) SCR 375], wherein Bench of ThreeC:Judges examined
      the doctrine of "obiter dicta" and arrived at a finding that even
   F obiter at times has the force of law declared by the Supreme
      Court under Article 141 of the Constitution. Mr. Rao ended on
      the note that the introduction of the concept of reservation in
      specialty and super-specialty subjects or for ihe appointment
      offaculty in AllMS, would defeat the very purpose for which the
   G institute was established: Mr. Rao also submitted that if
. . . excellence was to be achieved at the level ·Of super- specialty
      disciplines, no compromise could be made in either imparting
      such education or recruiting persons who would im.part such
      education at such level.
 H
  FACULTY ASSOCIATION OF AllMS v. UNION OF INDIA                  1645
             [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]

      13. Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, learned Senior Advocate, who A
appeared in Civil Appeal No. 5119 of 2002, submitted that the
AllMS Act did not empower the Governing Body to impose
reservation at any stage, much less at the stage of super-
specialty. Referring to the affidavit filed by the Director of AllMS,
Dr. Dhawan submitted that the decision of the High Court was B
contrary to the decision of this Court in Indra Sawhney's case
and also in M. Nagaraj and Others Vs. Union of India and
Others [(2006)8 SCC 212] where it was held that there shbuld
be no reservation at the super-specialty stage, and, in any
event, the same would have to be based on quantifiable data.       c
Mr. Rao submitted that proportional representation and not
adequacy, as understood in Indra Sawhney's case or even in
M. Naqaraj's case, has been resorted to in the instant case in
the teeth of the said two cases: While making reference to the
concept of creamy layer, Dr. Dhawan urged that "equality'' does D
not mean that reservation had to be applied in each and every
case to maintain such equality, for example, the creamy layer
concept as was considered by this Court in E.V. Chinnaiah
Vs. State of A.P. and Others [(2005) 1 SCC 394].
       14. Appearing for the Institute, Mr. Mehmood l?racha, E
learned Advocate contended that people from Backward
classes and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
were often discriminated against and even in spite of having
excellent qualities, they were not· provided with sufficient
opportunities to come  . up to the standards,
                                     .         as contemplated F
by the various medical colleges and, in particular, the All India
Institute of Medical Sciences, which is an institution of national
importance. Mr. Pracha urged that although reservation at all
different levels of the Institute had been introduced, for quite         ,
some time, there is no available data to indicate that there G
has been any deterioration in the quality of medical services
beiAg provided in Al IMS. On the other hand, AllMS was one of
the most sought after medical institute, not only for promotion
and research work,· but also for the purpose of medical
                                                                   H
    1646        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 14 S.C.R.


     A  education. Taking a leaf out of Hindu mythology, Mr. Pracha
        drew an analogy from the story of Eklavya and Arjun in the
        Mahabharta. While Arjun belonged to the princely class,
        Eklavya was a tribal boy, who without actual training or
        guidance from any teacher, by his own efforts, excelled in the .
     B art of archery.The famous Dronacharya was Arjun's teacher
        in archery and Eklavya had acquired the skills that he had by
        merely watching Dronacharya guiding Arjun. However, when it
        came to an archery competition, Dronacharya, who was more
        or less certain that, if allowed an opportunity, Eklavya would
     C possibly beat Arjun, requested Eklavya that if he really loved
        and respected him, he should give his right thumb as
        gurudakshina to his master. Eklavya dutifully obeyed the
       .person he had chosen as his master and was thus prevented
        from competing in the competition whichArjun won. Mr. Pracha
     o submitted that simply because Eklavya was a tribal boy he
        was denied the opportunity of competing with Arjun, despite
        his brilliance and excellence. Mr. Pracha submitted that there
        are many more Eklavyas in today's society, who, if not
        suppressed and given a chanc;e, would possibly even outshine
     E those belonging to the higher echelons of Society.
                15. Mr. Pracha strongly supported the concept of
         reservation at all stages, including at the super- specialty stage.
         He urged that at the entry level for recruitment to the faculty
         posts, which were all treated as super-specialty disciplines
     F · after the Post Graduate course, a member of the Backward
         Classes had to sit for an examination with others without any
         separate weightage given for reservation. It is only after having
         passed the written examination along with other candidates,
'        was a member of the Backward Classes appointed in a
     G teaching post on the basis of reservation. Mr. Pracha submitted
         that this was done only with the intention of giving such a
         candidate an .opportunity of reaching the level of his other feUow
         faculty members. Mr. Pracha submitted that a litUe support was
         intended to help people from the Backward communities to
     H
   FACULTY ASSOCIATION OF AllMS v. UNION OF INDIA                       1647
              [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]

make their presence felt in academia, so as to encourage A
others similarly situated. Mr. Pracha also relied on the decision
of this Court in Indra Sawhney's case, in support of his
contention that members of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes were not
adequately represented and for the said-purpose a certain B
amount of reservation was necessary so that they could
compete with others and excel in academics. Strongly
supporting the policy adopted by the Institute, Mr. Pracha
submitted that the Civil Appeal filed by the Faculty of
Association of AllMS was liable to be dismissed.                        c
         16.Appearing for the Union of India, the learned Solicitor
 General repeated the submissions made by Mr. Pratha and
 added that the State had a constitutional duty to empower
 certain sections of society who needed help to uplift themselves
 from their particular situations. The learned Solicitor General        D
 submitted thatArticle 46 of the Constitution, though a Directive
 Principle, was in the nature of a guideline for good governance
 to the Government of the day. The said Article was intended to
 help the depressed classes, who otherwise had little
 opportunity of raising their standards. Faced with the question        E
 as to when initially the Central Government had opposed the
 doctrine of reservation on the ground of excellence in education,
 why was it necessary in 1972 to take a different stand and
  come out in support of reservation, even in super-specialty
 courses, the learned Solicitor General urged that the policy            F
 was based not on the question of adequacy, but as a measure
 of empowerment for the Backward Classes. While referring
 to the decision in M, Nagarai's case, which has been referred
 to by the other learned counsel, the learned Solicitor General
_contended that with t~e intr~duction of Article 16(4A) in the          G
 Constitution, the:,deci~ion arrived. at in M. Nagaraj's case,
 would have to be rea\'.l <;lifferently._He, however, also urged that
 there was no COf)stlt\itioqal prohibition to impose re5ervation,
 if it was felt necessary t9 benefit the Backward Classes, who
                                                                        H
1648         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2014] 14 S.C.R. .


 A     had little or no support to help them improve their lot. Referring
       to the decisions of this Court·in Dr. Jagadish Saran's case
       and Dr. Pradeep Jain's case, which have been referred td
       hereinabove, the learned Solicitor General urged that the
       direction given in Dr. Pradeep Jain's case that reservation
 B     sh~uld not exceed 70%, did not take into considerµtion Article
       16(4A) of the Constitution, while giving such directions.
          17. Although, the matter has been argued at some length,
   the main issue raised regarding reservation at the super-
   specialtylevel has already been considered in Indra
 C Sawhney's case (supra) by a Nine-Judge Bench of this Court.
   Having regard to such decision, we are not inclined to take
   any view other than the view expressed by the Nine-Judge
   Bench on the issue. Apart from the decisions rendered by
   this Court in Dr. Jagadish Saran's case (supra) and Dr.
 D Pradeep Jain's case (supra), the issue also fell for considerate
   in Preeti Srivastava's case (supra) which was also decided
   by a Bench of Five Judges. While in Dr. Jagadish Saran's
   case (supra) and in Dr. Pradeep Jain's case (supra) it was
   categorically held that there could be' no compromise with
 E merit at the super specialty stage, the same sentiments were
   also expressed in Preeti Srivastav~·s case (supra) as well. In
   Preeti Srivastava's case (supra), the Constitution Bench had
   an occasion to consider Regulation 27 of the Post Graduate
   Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh
 F Regulations, 1967, whereby 20% of seats in every course of
   study in the· Institute was to be reserved for candidates
   belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or other
   categories of persons, in accordance with the general rules ·
   of the Central Government promulgated from time to time. The
 G Constitution Bench came to the conclusion that Regulation
   27 could not have any application at the highest level of super
   specialty as this would defeat the very object of imparting the
   best possible training to selected ni"eritorious candidates, who
   could contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the field
 H
  FACULTY ASSOCIATION OF AllMS v. UNION OF INDIA                 1649
             [ALTAMAS KABIR, CJI.]

of medical research and its applications. Their Lordships        A
ultimately went on to hold that there could not be any type of
relaxation at the super specialty level.
      18. In paragraph.836 of the judgment in Indra Sawhney's
case (supra), it was observed that while the relevance and
significance of merit at the stage of Initial recruitment cannot B
be ignored, it cannot also be ignored that the same idea of
reservation implies selection of a less meritorious person. It
was also observed that at to be paid if the same time such a
price would have the constitutional promise of social justice
was to be redeemed. However, after making such suggestions, ·C
a note of caution was introduced in the very next paragraph in
the light of Article 15 of the Constitution. A distinction was,
however, made with regard to the provisions of Article 16 arid
it was held that Article 335 would be relevant and it would not
be permissible not to prescribe any minimum standard at all. D
Of course, the said observation was made in the context of
admission to medical colleges and reference was also made
to the decision in State of M.P. Vs. Nivedita Jain [(1981) 4
sec 296], where admission to medical courses was regulated
by an entrance test. It was held that in the matter of appointment E
of medical officers, the Government or the Public Service
Commission would not be entitled to say that there would not
be minimum qualifying marks for Scheduled Castes/
Scheduled Tribes candidates while prescribing a minimum.for
others. In the very next paragraph, the Nine-Judge Bench while F
discussing the provisions of Article 335 also observed that
there were certain services and posts where either on account
of the nature of duties. attached to them or the level in the
hierarchy at which they stood, merit alone counts. In such
situations, it cannot be advised to provide for reservations. In G ·
the paragraph following, the position was made even more
clear when Their Lordships obse;yed that they were of the
opinion that in certain services in respect of certain posts,
application of rule of reservation may not .be advisable in
                                                                   H
1650         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2014] 14 S.C.R.


 A     regard to various technical posts including posts in super
       specialty in medicine, engineerin·g and other scientific and
       technical posts.
         19. We cannot take a different view, even though it has
   been suggested that such an observation was not binding,
 8 being obiter in nature. We cannot ascribe to such a view since
   the very concept of reservation implies mediocrity and we will
   have to take note of the caution indicated in Indra Sawhney's
   case. While reiterating the views expressed by the Nine-Judge
   Bench in Indra Sawhney's case, we dispose of the two Civil
 C Appeals in the light of the said views, which were also
   expressed in Dr. Jagadish Saran's case, Dr. Pradeep Jain's
   case, Dr. Preeti Srivastava's case. We impress upon the
   Central and State Governments to take appropriate steps in
   accordance with the views expressed in Indra Sawhney's case
 D and in this case, a·s also the other decisions referred to above,
   keeping in mind the provisions of Article 335 of the Constitution.
            20. There will be no order as to costs.

 E Kalpana K. Tripathy.                               Appeals disposed of.