Supreme Court of India
TAMIL NADU MEDICAL OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2018 INSC 332
- Decided
- 13 April 2018
- Disposal
- Matter referred to larger bench
Holding
The Court held that the petitions raise substantial constitutional questions not addressed in Dinesh Singh Chauhan and must be referred to a larger Bench for consideration.
Summary
The Tamil Nadu Medical Officers’ Association challenged the amendment to Regulation 9(4) and (8) of the Post‑Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, which allowed reservation of 50% of state‑quota seats for in‑service medical officers. The petitioners argued that such reservation exceeded the legislative competence of the State under List I Entry 66 and List III Entry 25 of the Seventh Schedule, and that the earlier Supreme Court decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dinesh Singh Chauhan had not considered these constitutional issues. The Court noted that the earlier judgment had not addressed the legislative‑competence question nor the three Constitution‑Bench precedents cited by the petitioners. Consequently, the Court held that the matter required examination by a larger Bench to resolve the pending constitutional questions. The petitions were therefore ordered to be referred to the Chief Justice of India for consideration by a larger Bench, with interim relief also to be decided by that Bench.
Issues considered
- Whether Regulation 9(4) and (8) of the Post‑Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, providing reservation for in‑service candidates, is constitutionally valid under List I Entry 66 and List III Entry 25 of the Seventh Schedule.
- Whether the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dinesh Singh Chauhan considered the legislative‑competence aspect raised by the petitioners.
- Whether the writ petitions should be referred to a larger Bench for a definitive ruling.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Art. 32, s. Schedule VII List I Entry 66, s. Schedule VII List III Entry 25
- Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
Subjects
reservationmedical educationpost‑graduate medical courseslegislative competenceconstitutional lawList IList IIINEETMedical Council of Indialarger Benchwrit petitionArticle 32
Judgment
[2018] 3 S.C.R. 541 541
TAMIL NADU MEDICAL OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION & ORS. A
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 196 of 2018)
APRIL 13, 2018
B
[KURIAN JOSEPH, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR AND
NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000:
Regulation 9 (IV) and (VII) [after amendment dated 5-4-2018
– Regulation 9(4) and (8)] – Power of State to provide for reservation C
in favour of in-service candidates in respect of 50% of the seats
granted to States for admissions to Post-Graduate Medical Courses
– Further stating that the decision passed in *Dinesh Singh Chauhan
case (wherein s. 9 was the subject matter) was passed without taking
into consideration judgment passed by Constituional Benches on D
the aspect of legislative competence under List I, Entry 66 and List
III, Entry 25 of VII Schedule of the Constitution – Held: The plea
regarding legislative competence was neither raised nor was
considered in Dinesh Singh Chauhan case – Constitution Bench
judgments were also not taken into consideration – Therefore, the
petitions require consideration by a larger Bench – Petitions to be E
referred to larger Bench – Constitution of India – Art. 32; Schedule
VII List I, Entry 66; List III, Entry 25 – Education/Educational
Institutions.
*State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Dinesh Singh
Chauhan (2016) 9 SCC 749 : [2016] 6 SCR 571; F
R. Chitralekha and Another v. State of Mysore and
Others [1964] 6 SCR 368; Kumari Chitra Ghosh and
Another v. Union of India and Others (1969) 2 SCC
228 : [1970] 1 SCR 413; Gujarat University and
Another v. Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar and Others G
[1963] Suppl. 1 SCR 112 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2016] 6 SCR 571 referred to Para 5
[1964] 6 SCR 368 referred to Para 6
H
541
542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 3 S.C.R.
A [1970] 1 SCR 413 referred to Para 61
[1963] Suppl. 1 SCR 112 referred to Para 11
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
196 of 2018.
B Under Article 32 of the Constitution of the India
WITH
Writ Petition (C) Nos. 252, 295 and 293 of 2018.
Mukul Rohatgi, Arvind Datar, K. V. Vishwanathan, Vikas Singh,
R. Venkatramani, Ajit Kumar Sinha, V. Giri, Sr. Advs., Ajay Bhargava,
C
Ms. Vanita Bhargava, Ms. Saman Ahasn, Aayush Jain, Kunal Vajani,
Ankur Ved Tuli (For Ms/. Khaitan & Co.), Gaurav Sharma, Dhawal
Mohan, Amandeep Kaur, Prateek Bhatia, Abhishek, Shresty Banerjee,
Ms. Mansi Sharma, Jose Abraham, M. P. Srivignesh, Yashraj Bundela,
Sreenath S., Sarad Kumar Singhania, Dr. Nilesh Sharma, Gurmeet Singh
D Makker, K. V. Vijaykumar, Ms. Maitreyee Mishra, K. V. Ram Kumar,
G. Prakash, Jishnu M. L., Mrs. Priyanka Prakash, Mrs. Beena Prakash,
Vijay Shankar V. L., Advs. for the appearing parties.
The following Order of the Court was delivered
ORDER
E
1. Issue notice in the fresh writ petitions.
2. Standing Counsel for the concerned States, Union of India and
Medical Council of India appear and accept notice for the respective
parties.
F 3. In these writ petitions, Regulation 9(IV) and (VII), after
amendment dated 05.04.2018 – Regulation 9(4) and (8) of the Post
Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, as framed by the Medical
Council of India, are under challenge.
4. To get a comprehensive idea, Regulation 9, to the extent relevant
G up to sub-regulation (8), reads as follows:-
“9. Procedure for selection of candidate for Postgraduate
courses shall be as follows:-
(1) There shall be a uniform entrance examination to all medical
educational institutions at the Postgraduate level namely
H
TAMIL NADU MEDICAL OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION & ORS. v. 543
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
‘National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test’ for admission to A
postgraduate courses in each academic year and shall be
conducted under the overall supervision of the Ministry of
Health & Family Welfare, Government of India.
(2) The “designated authority” to conduct the ‘National
Eligibility - cum-Entrance Test’ shall be the National Board B
of Examination or any other body/organization so designated
by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government
of India.
(3) In order to be eligible for admission to Postgraduate Course
for an academic year, it shall be necessary for a candidate C
to obtain minimum of marks at 50th percentile in the
‘National Eligibility-Cum-Entrance Test for Postgraduate
courses’ held for the said academic year. However, in
respect of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes, the
minimum marks shall be at 40th percentile. In respect of D
candidates with benchmark disabilities specified under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the minimum
marks shall be at 45th percentile for General Category and
40th percentile for SC/ST/OBC. The percentile shall be
determined on the basis of highest marks secured in the All E
India Common merit list in National Eligibility-cum-Entrance
Test for Postgraduate courses.
Provided when sufficient number of candidates in the
respective categories fail to secure minimum marks as
prescribed in National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test held F
for any academic year for admission to Postgraduate
Courses, the Central Government in consultation with
Medical Council of India may at its discretion lower the
minimum marks required for admission to Post Graduate
Course for candidates belonging to respective categories
and marks so lowered by the Central Government shall be G
applicable for the academic year only.
(4) The reservation of seats in Medical Colleges/institutions for
respective categories shall be as per applicable laws
prevailing in States/Union Territories. An all India merit list
H
544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 3 S.C.R.
A as well as State-wise merit list of the eligible candidates
shall be prepared on the basis of the marks obtained in
National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test and candidates shall
be admitted to Postgraduate Courses from the said merit
lists only.
B Provided that in determining the merit of candidates who
are in service of government/public authority, weightage in
the marks may be given by the Government/Competent
Authority as an incentive upto 10% of the marks obtained
for each year of service in remote and/or difficult areas or
Rural areas upto maximum of 30% of the marks obtained
C in National Eligibility-cum Entrance Test. The remote and/
or difficult areas or Rural areas shall be as notified by State
Government/Competent authority from time to time.”
(5) 5% seats of annual sanctioned intake capacity shall be
filled up by persons with benchmark disabilities in
D accordance with the provisions of the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities Act, 2016, based on the merit list of National
Eligibility-Cum-Entrance Test for admission to Postgraduate
Medical Courses.
In order to be eligible for admission to Postgraduate Course
E for an academic year, it shall be necessary for a candidate
to obtain minimum of marks at 50thpercentile in the
‘National Eligibility-Cum-Entrance Test for Postgraduate
courses’ held for the said academic year. However, in
respect of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes,
F Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes, the
minimum marks shall be at 40th percentile. In respect of
candidates with benchmark disabilities specified under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the minimum
marks shall be at 45th percentile for General Category and
40th percentile for SC/ST/OBC.
G
(6) No candidate who has failed to obtain the minimum eligibility
marks as prescribed in Sub-Clause (3) above shall be
admitted to any Postgraduate courses in the said academic
year.
H
TAMIL NADU MEDICAL OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION & ORS. v. 545
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(7) In non-Governmental medical colleges/institutions, 50% (Fifty A
Percent) of the total seats shall be filled by State Government
or the Authority appointed by them, and the remaining 50%
(Fifty Percent) of the seats shall be filled by the concerned
medical colleges/institutions on the basis of the merit list
prepared as per the marks obtained in National Eligibility-
B
cum-Entrance Test.”
(8) 50% of the seats in Postgraduate Diploma Courses shall be
reserved for Medical Officers in the Government service,
who have served for at least three years in remote and /or
difficult areas and / or Rural areas. After acquiring the
Postgraduate Diploma, the Medical Officers shall serve for C
two more years in remote and /or difficult areas and / or
Rural areas as defined by State Government/Competent
authority from time to time. …”
5. This was subject matter of a Three-Judge Bench decision of
this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Dinesh Singh Chauhan, D
reported in (2016) 9 SCC 749. There have been some minor amendments
thereafter in Regulation 9. The relevant consideration of Regulation 9
(4) in Dinesh Singh Chauhan (supra) is at paragraphs 24 to 27, which
read as follows:-
“24. By now, it is well established that Regulation 9 is a self- E
contained code regarding the procedure to be followed for
admissions to medical courses. It is also well established that the
State has no authority to enact any law much less by executive
instructions that may undermine the procedure for admission to
postgraduate medical courses enunciated by the Central legislation F
and regulations framed thereunder, being a subject falling within
Schedule VII List I Entry 66 of the Constitution (see Preeti
Srivastava v. State of M.P.5). The procedure for selection of
candidates for the postgraduate degree courses is one such area
on which the Central legislation and regulations must prevail.
G
25. Thus, we must first ascertain whether Regulation 9, as
applicable to the case on hand, envisages reservation of seats for
in-service medical officers generally for admission to postgraduate
“degree” courses. Regulation 9 is a composite provision prescribing
H
546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 3 S.C.R.
A procedure for selection of candidates—both for postgraduate
“degree” as well as postgraduate “diploma” courses:
25.1. Clause (I) of Regulation 9 mandates that there shall be
a single National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (hereinafter
referred to as “NEET”) to be conducted by the designated
B authority.
25.2. Clause (II) provides for three per cent seats of the annual
sanctioned intake capacity to be earmarked for candidates with
locomotory disability of lower limbs. We are not concerned with
this provision.
C 25.3. Clause (III) provides for eligibility for admission to any
postgraduate course in a particular academic year.
25.4. Clause (IV) is the relevant provision. It provides for
reservation of seats in medical colleges/institutions for reserved
categories as per applicable laws prevailing in States/Union
D Territories. The reservation referred to in the opening part of this
clause is, obviously, with reference to reservation as per the
constitutional scheme (for the Scheduled Caste, the Scheduled
Tribe or the Other Backward Class candidates); and not for the
in-service candidates or medical officers in service. It further
E stipulates that all-India merit list as well as State-wise merit list of
the eligible candidates shall be prepared on the basis of the marks
obtained in NEET and the admission to postgraduate courses in
the State concerned shall be as per the merit list only. Thus, it is a
provision mandating admission of candidates strictly as per the
merit list of eligible candidates for the respective medical courses
F in the State. This provision, however, contains a proviso. It
predicates that in determining the merit of candidates who are in
service of the Government or a public authority, weightage in the
marks may be given by the Government/competent authority as
an incentive @ 10% of the marks obtained for each year of service
G in specified remote or difficult areas of the State up to the
maximum of 30% of the marks obtained in NEET. This provision
even if read liberally does not provide for reservation for in-service
candidates, but only of giving a weightage in the form of incentive
marks as specified to the class of in-service candidates (who have
served in notified remote and difficult areas in the State).
H
TAMIL NADU MEDICAL OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION & ORS. v. 547
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
26. From the plain language of this proviso, it is amply clear A
that it does not envisage reservation for in-service candidates in
respect of postgraduate “degree” courses with which we are
presently concerned. This proviso postulates giving weightage of
marks to “specified in-service candidates” who have worked in
notified remote and/or difficult areas in the State—both for
B
postgraduate “degree” courses as also for postgraduate “diploma”
courses. Further, the weightage of marks so allotted is required to
be reckoned while preparing the merit list of candidates.
27. Thus understood, the Central enactment and the regulations
framed thereunder do not provide for reservation for in-service
candidates in postgraduate “degree” courses. As there is no C
express provision prohibiting reservation to in-service candidates
in respect of admission to postgraduate “degree” courses, it was
contended that providing for such reservation by the State
Government is not impermissible in law. Further, there are
precedents of this Court to suggest that such arrangement is D
permissible as a separate channel of admission for in-service
candidates. This argument does not commend to us. In the first
place, the decisions pressed into service have considered the
provisions regarding admission process governed by the regulations
in force at the relevant time. The admission process in the present
case is governed by the regulations which have come into force E
from the academic year 2013-2014. This Regulation is a self-
contained code. There is nothing in this Regulation to even remotely
indicate that a separate channel for admission to in-service
candidates must be provided, at least in respect of postgraduate
“degree” courses. In contradistinction, however, 50% seats are F
earmarked for the postgraduate “diploma” courses for in-service
candidates, as is discernible from clause (VII). If the regulation
intended a similar separate channel for in-service candidates even
in respect of postgraduate “degree” courses, that position would
have been made clear in Regulation 9 itself. In absence thereof, it
must be presumed that a separate channel for in-service candidates G
is not permissible for admission to postgraduate “degree” courses.
Thus, the State Government, in law, had no authority to issue a
Government Order such as dated 28-2-2014, to provide to the
contrary. Hence, the High Court was fully justified in setting aside
H
548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 3 S.C.R.
A the said government order being contrary to the mandate of
Regulation 9 of the 2000 Regulations, as applicable from the
academic year 2013-2014.”
6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners have vehemently
contended that at least three Constitution Bench decisions of this Court,
B namely, R. Chitralekha and Another v. State of Mysore and Others,
reported in (1964) 6 SCR 368, Kumari Chitra Ghosh and Another v.
Union of India and Others, reported in (1969) 2 SCC 228 and Modern
Dental College and Research Centre and Others v. State of Madhya
Pradesh and Others, reported in (2016) 7 SCC 353, have not been
considered in Dinesh Singh Chauhan (supra), on the aspect of the
C legislative competence under List I, Entry 66 and List III, Entry 25 of
the Seventh Schedule. List I Entry 66, reads as follows:-
“66. Co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions
for higher education or research and scientific and technical
institutions.”
D
7. Entry 25 of List III, reads as follows:-
“25. Education, including technical education, medical education
and universities, subject to the provisions of entries 63, 64, 65 and
66 of List I; vocational and technical training of labour.”
E 8. The main dispute pertains to the claim made by the State for
reservation in favour of the in-service candidates in respect of 50% of
the seats granted to the States, since 50% of the seats, in any case are
set apart for All-India category.
9. It is the main contention of the petitioners that while “the
F coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher
education” is within the exclusive domain of the Union, medical education
under Entry 25, List III, though made subject to Entry 66 of List I, being
an Entry in the Concurrent List, the State is not denuded of its power to
legislate on the manner and method for admissions to Post Graduate
Medical Courses.
G
10. It is submitted that though Regulation 9(4) provides for 10%
incentive for every year of service in remote/difficult/rural areas up to a
maximum of 30% of the score, the provision will not enure to the benefit
of the in-service candidates. It is pointed out that the States have been
following, for several reasons and for several years, the pattern of
H
TAMIL NADU MEDICAL OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATION & ORS. v. 549
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
reservation in respect of 50% of State Quota for the in-service candidates. A
It is submitted that even in that 50%, the list can be prepared by providing
the incentive for the service in difficult, rural or remote areas. It is also
pointed out that the Regulations also have considered the power of the
State to provide for reservation. This can be seen from Regulation 9(8)
which provides for reservation of 50% of the seats in Post Graduate
B
Diploma Courses for medical officers in Government service in the State
who have served for at least three years in remote and difficult areas
with a further condition of minimum continued service of two years in
such areas. It is also the contention of the petitioners that if there can be
such a reservation in the case of Post Graduate Diploma Courses, there
is no justification for denying such a reservation in case of the Post C
Graduate Degree Courses.
11. On behalf of the Union of India and the Medical Council of
India, it is pointed out that once an Entry is provided under List I, it is the
exclusive domain of the Union and even if the Union has not legislated
exhaustively in respect of that Entry, the State cannot legislate on that D
subject. Our reference has been invited to the decision of this Court in
Gujarat University and Another v. Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar and
Others, reported in (1963) Suppl. 1 SCR 112. In any case, it is pointed
out that all the contentions raised by the petitioners have been considered
in Dinesh Singh Chauhan (supra) and, therefore, the writ petitions are
only to be dismissed. E
12. Having heard the learned senior counsel appearing on both
the sides extensively, we are of the view that Dinesh Singh Chauhan
(supra), has not considered the legislative Entries in respect of the
contentions we have noted above. Apparently, it appears no such
contentions were raised before the Court. Same is the situation with F
regard to the non-reference with respect to the three Constitution Bench
decisions we have referred to above. As far as Modern Dental (supra)
is concerned, perhaps the judgment had not been published by the time
the judgment in Dinesh Singh Chauhan (supra) was rendered.
13. The petitioners have raised several other contentions and G
invited our reference to the judgments by Benches of equal strength as
in Dinesh Singh Chauhan (supra).
14. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that these
writ petitions require consideration by a larger Bench.
H
550 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 3 S.C.R.
A 15. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners have
strenuously pressed for an interim order since the counseling has either
commenced or in some States it is only about to commence. Having
regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we feel it is
appropriate that even the interim relief should be considered by the larger
Bench.
B
16. Accordingly, place the matters before the Hon’ble the Chief
Justice of India for consideration by a larger Bench, emergently.
17. The petitioners are free to make a mention on Monday, the
16th April, 2018 before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India.
C
Kalpana K. Tripathy Matters referred to Larger Bench.
D
E
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "reservation"Sign in to search