VISHAL GOYAL & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

                             [2014] 5 S.C.R. 606


    A                     VISHAL GOYAL & ORS.
                                      v.
                     STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
                    (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 48 of 2014)
                              APRIL 24, 2014
    B
                [A.K. PATNAIK AND FAKKIR MOHAMED
                       IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.]

             Education/Educational Institutions:
    c·
             Medical and Dental Colleges - Post Graduate Entrance
       Test, 2014 - Information Bulletins - Sub-clause (a) of clause
       2. 1 providing that no candidate shall be admitted. to a
       professional educational institution unless the· candidate is of
    0 Kamataka origin - Constitutional validity of - Held: The
       institutional preference sought to be given by sub-clause (a)
       of clause 2.1 of the Information Bulletin for PGET-2014 is
       clearly contrary to the judgment of Supreme Court in *Dr.
       Pradeep Jain's case - The said sub-clause does not actually
    E ·give institutional preference to students who have passed
       MBBS or BDS from Colleges or Universities in the State of.
       Kamataka, but makes some of them ineligible to take the
       Entrance Test for admission to Post Graduate MedicfifOr
       Dental courses in the State of Karnataka to which the
       Information Bulletins apply - Therefore, sub-clause (a) of
r   F clause 2. 1 is ultra-vires Article 14 of the Constitution and null
      .and.void- Respondent is directed to publish fresh Information
       Bulletins and do the admissions to the post graduate medical
       and dental courses in the Government colleges as well as the
       State quota of the private colleges in accordance with the law ·
    G by the end of June, 2014 on the basis of the results of the
       Entrance Test already held.

             The National Board of Examinations issued two
         Information Bulletins for Post Graduate Entrance Test,
    H                                606
     VISHAL GOYAL v.. STATE OF KARNATAKA               607

2014 (PGET-2014) for admissions to the State Quota seats      A
in Karnataka Government Colleges and Institutions and
Karnataka Government Quota seats in private colleges/
institutions/deemed universities. Clause 2 of these
Information Bulletins laid down the criteria for PGET-2014.
Sub-clause (a) of Clause 2.1 provided that no candidate       B
shall be admitted to a professional educational institution
unless the candidate is a citizen of India and is of
Karnataka origin. The case of the petitioners was that by
virtue of sub-clause (a) of clause 2.1, they are debarred
from appeariqg in .the Entrance Tests for admissions to       c
MD/MS/Medical Post Graduate Diploma Courses, 2014 or
                               ·•                 I
to MOS/Dental Post Graduate Diploma Courses, 2014 in
the State of Karnataka even though they have studied
MBBS/BDS in institutions in the State of Karnataka. They,
therefore, challenged sub-clause (a) of clause 2.1 as ultra
                                                              0
vires Article 14 of the Constitution. They also contended
that in the case of Dr. Pradeep Jain, it was held that a
certain percentage of seats must be reserved on the
basis of institutional preference to enable students ·who
have passed MBBS or BOS courses from medical or
dental colleges in the State of Karnataka to get admission    E
to Post Graduate medical or dental courses in the
Medical or Dental Colleges of the State of Karnataka. The
petitioners, therefore, prayed that appropriate writs and
directions be issued tO the respondents to permit the
petitioners to participate in the admission process of MD/    F
MS/MOS and other Post Graduate Medical and Dental
course in the State of Karnataka.

    Allowing the writ petitions, the Court
                                                              G
    HELD: 1. As per sub-clause (a) of clause·2.1 of the two
Information Bulletins, the expression "A 9andidate of
Karnataka Origin" who only is eligible to appear for
Entrance Test has been so defined as to exclude a
candidate who has studied MBBS or BOS in an institution
                                                              H
   608     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 5 S.C.R .

A 'in the State of Karnataka but who does not satisfy the
   other requirements of sub-clause (a)· of clause 2.1 'of the
   Information Bulletin for PGET-2014. Thus, the institutional
   preference sought to be given by sub-clause (a) of clause
   2.1 of the Information Bulletin for PGET-2014 is clearly
B contrary to the judgment of this Court in* Dr. Pradeep Jain's
   case. Sub-clause (a) of clause 2.1 of the two Information
   Bulletins does not actually give institutional preference to
   students who have passed MBBS or BOS from Colleges
   or Universities in the State of Karnataka, but makes some
c of them ineligible to take the Entrance Test for admission
   to Post Graduate Medical or Dental courses in the State
   of Karna.taka to which the Information Bulletins apply.
   [Para 1O] [617-H; 618-A-B, E-F]

      *Dr. Pradeep Jain and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
D (1984) 3 sec 654: 1984 (3) SCR 942· - relied on. '

       3. The contention for the State of Karnataka was that
  the scheme formulated by this Court in **Dr. Dinesh
  Kumar_pursuant to the judgment in *Dr. Pradeep Jain's
E case is confined to medical and dental colleges or
  institutions run by the Union of India or a State
  Government or a Municipal or other local authority and
  does not apply to private medical and dental colleges or
  institutions. The private medical and dental colleges or
F institutions ·not being State or its igstrumentalities or its
  agencies are not subject to the equality clauses in Article
  14 of the Constitution, but the moment some seats in the
  private medical and dental colleges or institutions come
   to the State quota, which have to be filled up by the State
G or its instrumentality or its agency which are subject to
  the equality clauses in Article 14 of the Constitution, the
  principles laid down by this Court in *Dr. Pradeep Jain's
  case will have to be followed while granting admissions
  to the seats allotted to the State Quota in post graduate
H medical and dental courses even in private colleges.
     VISHAL GOYAL v. STATE OF KARNATAKA               609

Sub-clause (a) of clause 2.1 of the two Information A
Bulletins for post graduate medical and dental courses
for PGET-2014 is declared as ultra-vires Article 14 of the
Constitution and null and void. The respondent is
directed to publish fresh Information Bulletins and do the
admissions to the post graduate medical and dental B
courses in the Government colleges as well as the State
quota of the private colleges in accordance ,with the law
!J,y' the end of June, 2014 on the basis of the results of
the Entrance Test already held. The general time schedule
for counselling and admissions to post graduate Medical c
Courses as per order dated 14.03.2014 in Dr. Fraz
Naseem & Ors. would not apply to such admissions in
the State of Karnataka for the academic year 2014-2015.
Similarly, the general time schedule for counselling and
admissions for post graduate. dental courses would not 0
be applicable to such admissions in the State of
Karnataka. [Paras 11, 12] [618-G; 619-D-H; 620-A-C]
     **Dr. Dinesh Kumar and Ors. v. Motilal Nehru Medical
College, Allahabad and Ors. (1986) 3 SCC 727: 1986
(3) SCR 345; Nikhil Himthani v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. E
(2013) 10 sec 237 - relied on.

     Magan Mehrotra v. Union of India (2003) 11 SCC 186;
Saurabh Chaudri v. U[liOn of India (2003) 11 SCC 146: 2003
(5) Suppl. SCR 152 - referred to.                            F
                    Case Law Reference:
    1984 (3) SCR 942           relied on        Para 4
    (2003) 11 sec .186         referred to      Para 6
                                                             G
    2003 (5) Suppl. SCR 152 referred to         Para 6
    2013 (10) sec 237          relied on·       Para 6
    1986 (3) SCR 345           relied on .      Para 8
                                                             H
     610.      . SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 5 S.C.R.


A          CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.
    · 48 of 2014.

             Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

                                     WITH
B
    . W.P.(C) No. 156, 65, 70, 72, 75, 92, 83, 87 & 196 of 2014.

         Amit Kumar, Abha R. Sharma, Naresh Kumar, V.N.
     Raghupathy, Kaushik Poddar, Gaurav Sharma, Dr. Vipin
c    Gupta, K.V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, Utkarsh Sharma, Nishit
     Agrawal, Aura & Co., for the appearing parties.
        ,•

             The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       A.K. PATNAIK, J. 1. This batch of writ petitions under
D Article 32 of the Constitution relates to admissions in Post
  Graduate Medical Dental courses in Governmentmedical and
  dental colleges as well as in the State Quota in private medical
  and dental colleges in the State of Karnataka.

          2. The petitioners claim that they were selected on the
E    basis of common entrance tests conducted by the CBSE or by
     the authorities of the State Government or by the association
     of private medical and dental colleges in the State of Karnataka
     and admitted into the MBBS/BDS courses in differ'ent
     Government or private medical and dental colleges and after
F    completing their MBBS/BDS courses were keen to get admitted
     into Post Graduate medical or dental courses in the year 2014.

        3. The National Board of Examinations issued two
  Information Bulletins for Post Graduate Entrance Test,-2014 (for
G short 'the PGET-2014') for admissions to the· State Qudta:
  seats in Karnataka Government Colleges and Institutions an~·: r·"·
  Karnataka Government Quota seats in private colleges7 '. .
  institu1i0ns/deemed universities. One Bulletin contained alle1r"
  information for admission to Ml)./MS/Medical Post .Grad'uate .
H Diploma Courses (Medical(a.nd the other contained· all:

                                                                          -~
      VISHAL GOYAL v.. STATE OF KARNATAKA
               · [AK. PATNAIK, J.]
                                              .              611


inforrnation for admission to MDS/PG Diplorna Courses                A
(Dental). Clause 2 of these Information Bulletins lays down the
criteria for .PGET-2014. Clause 2.1 of these Information
Bulletins for PGET-2014 provides that no candidate shall be
admitted to a professional educational institution unless the
candidate possesses the qualifications or eligibility to appear      B.
for the entrance test stipulated thereunder. The said clause 2.1
of the two Information Bulletins, which is identically worded for
admissions to Post Graduate Medical and Post Graduate
Dental Courses, is extracted her~inbelow:
                                    ..       .

    2.1. No candidate shall be admitted to a professional            C
    educational institution unless th~ candidate possesses the
    following qualifications or eligibility to appear for the
    Entrance test namely:

            a. He is a citizen of India who is of Karnataka origin   D
            and has studied MBBS/BDS degree in a Medical/
            Dental college situated in Karnataka or outside
            Karnataka, and affiliated to any university
            established by law in India recognized by Medical
            Council of India and Government of India.                E

            Explanation: "A candidate of Karnataka Origin"
            means a candidate found eligible under clause (i)
            or (ii) below, naniely:

            i. A candidate who has studied and passed in one         F
            or more Government recognized, educational
            institutions located·· in the State of Karnataka for a
            minimum period of TEfN academic years as on the
            last date fixed for the submission of application
            form, commencing from 1st standard to MBBS/              G
            BOS and must have appeared and passed either
            SSLC/10th standard or 2nd PUC/12th standard
            examination from Karnataka State. In case of the
            candidate who has taken more than one year to
            pass a class or standard, the years of academic          H
    612   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 5 S.C.R.

A           study is counted as. one year only.

            Documents to be produced, namely:

            (1) SSLC or 10th Standard Marks Card;

B           (2) 2nd PUC of 12th Standard Marks Card of the
            candidate;

            (3) Candidates Study Certificate: A study certificate
            from the Head of educational institution where he
            or she had studied. Further, School Study
c           Certificates should be counter signed by the·
            concerned Block Education Officer (BEO)/Deputy
            Director of Public Instructions (DDPI)
            COMPULSORILY in the proforma prescribed;
D            (4) Qualifying degree certificate and all phases
'
           · marks card;

            (5) Domicile certificate issued by the Tahsildar in
            the prescribed proforma (Annexure-1); and if
E           claiming reservation benefits: Caste/Caste Income
            Certificate issued by Concerned Tahsildar - For
            SC/ST in Form-D, Category-1 in Form-E and 2A,
            2B, 3A and 3B in Form F.

            (6) MCl/DCI State Council Registration Certificate.
F
            (7) Attempt Certificate issued by the concerned
            college Principal.
            ii. The candidate should have studied and passed
            1st and 2nd years Pre-University Examination or
G
            11th and 12th standard examination within the State
            of Karnataka from an Educational Institution run or
            recognized by the State Government or MBBS/
            BOS from a professional educational institution
            located in Karnataka and that either of the parents
H
VISHAL GOYAL v. STATE OF KARNATAKA                  613
          [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
    should have studied in Karnataka for a minimum          A
    period of 10 years.

    Documents to be produced, namely:

    (1) SSLC or 10th Standard Marks Card;
                                                            B
    (2) 2nd PUC of 12th Standard Marks Card of the
    candidate;

    (3) Qualifying degree certificate and all phases
    marks card;
                                                            c
    (4) Domicile certificate issued by the Tahsildar in
    the prescribed proforma (Annexure-1);

   (5) If claiming reservation benefits: Caste/Caste
   Income Certificate issued by Concerned Tahsildar D
   - For SC/ST in Form~D. Category-1 in Form-E and
   2A, 28, 3A and 38 in Form F and

     (6) (a) A study certificate for either of the parent
     having studied for at least 10 years in Karnataka
     from the Head of the educational institution where     E
     he/she had studied. Further, school study
     certificates should be countersigned by the
     concerned Block Educational Officer (BEO)/
     Deputy Director of Public Instructions (DDPI)
   . COMPULSORILY in the proforma prescribed                F
     (Annexure-111);

   (b) The candidates study certificate for having
   studied both 1st and 2nd PUC or 11th & 12th
   Standard in Karnataka issued by the head of the G
   educational institution.

    (7) MCl/DCI State Council Registration Certificate

   (8) Attempt Certificate issued by the concerned
   Principal. .                                             H
    . 614       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 5 S.C.R.


A           4. It will be clear from sub-clause (a) of clause 2.1 of the
    Information Bulletins extracted above that to be eligible to
    appear for the Entrance Test, a candidate must be of
    "Kamataka Origin". The Explanation under sub-clause (a) of
    clause 2: 1 of the Information Bulletins gives the meaning of "A
B candidate of Karnataka Origin". The case ofthe petitioners is
    that by virtue of sub-clause (a) of clause 2.1 of the two
    Information Bulletins, they are debarred from appearing in the
    Entrance Tests for admissions to MD/MS/Medical Post
    Graduate Diploma Courses, 2014 or to MOS/Dental Post
c Graduate Diploma Courses, 2014 in the State of Karnataka
    even though they have studied MBBS/BDS in institutions in the
    State of Karnataka. They have, therefore, challenged sub-
    clause (a) of clause 2.1 of the two Information Bulletins, as ultra
     vires. Article 14 of the Constitution as interpreted by this Court
    in Dr. Pradeep Jain and Others v. Union of India and Others .
0
    [(1984) 3 SCC 654]. They also contend that in the aforesaid
  · case of Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra), this Court has held that a
     certain percentage of seats must be reserved on the basis of
  . institutional preference to enable students who have passed
     MBBS or BOS courses from medical or dental colleges in the
E State of Karnataka to get admission to Post Graduate medical
     or dental courses in the medical or dental colleges of the State
     of Karnataka. The petitioners have, therefore, prayed that sub-
     clause (a) of clause 2.1 of the two Information Bulletins be
     declared as ultra vires the Constitution and appropriate writs
F and directions be issued to the respondents to permit the
     petitioners to participate in the admission process of MD/MS/
     MOS and other Post Graduate medical and dental courses in
     the State of Karnataka.                ,

G          5. Soon after the writpetition~ were filed and moved, this
      Court passed orders permitting the petitioners to take the
      Entrance Test for admission to Post Graduate medical and
      dental courses in the State of Karnataka conducted by the
      National Board of Examinations and pursuant to the said orders
H
      VISHAL GOYAL v. STATE OF KARNATAKA                     615
                [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
the·petitioners have also been permitted to take the Entrance       A
Test.

     6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
judgment of this Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain's case (supra) still
holds good. They referred to the decision of this Court in Magan
                                                                     8
Mehrotra v. Union of India [(2003) 11 SCC 186], Saurabh
Chaudri v. Union of India [(2003) 11 SCC 146] and Nikhil
Himthani v. State of Uttarakhand & Others [(2013) 10 SCC
237], in which this Court has reiterated the principles laid 9own
in Dr. Pradeep Jain's case (supra). They submitted that this
Court, should, therefore, strike ~own sub-clause (a) of clause C
2.1 of thertwo Information Bulletins as ultra vires the Constitution
and direct the respon~ents to give institutional preference in
accordance of' the judgment in Pradeep Jain's case.

     7. In reply to the contentions of the petitioners, Mr. A. D
Mariarputham, learned senior counsel appearing for the State
of Karnataka, relied on the statements of objections filed on
behalf of the State of Karnataka. He submitted that Article 371 J
of the Constitution, is titled 'Special Provisions with respect to
State of Karnataka" and Clause (2) read with Clause (1) sub- E
clause (C) ·Of this Article provides that the Governor may, by
order rpake r.eservation of a proportion of seats in educational ·
and vocational training institutions in the Hyderabad-Karnataka
~egion_ for students who belong to that region by birth or by
domicile ..tie submitted that the State ~f Karnataka has, F
therefore, fixed institutional preference quota of 50% and this
was constitutionally permissible as per the judgment of this
C~urt in Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of lf!dia (supra).

     8. Mr. Mariarputham next submitted that pursuant to the
judgment of this Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain's case (supra), a G
scheme has been formulated by this Court in Dr. Dinesh Kumar
and Others v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad and
 Oih~rs [(1986) 3 sec 727] and a reading of the said scheme
would show that it applies to only medical and dental colleges
or institutions run by the Union of India or a State Government H
    616      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2014] 5 S.C.R.


A   or a Municipal and other local authority. He submitted that the
  . judgments of this Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain's case (supra) and
    in Dinesh Kumar and Others v. Motilal Nehru Medical
     College, Allahabad and Others (supra), therefore, do not apply
    to private medical and dental college in the State of Karnataka.
B He explained that the State of Karnataka has also a quota of
    seats in the private medical and dental colleges in the State of
     Karnataka and the seats for Post Graduate medical and dental
    courses that fall in the State quota can be filled up by the State
    from among the candidates of Karnataka Origin as provided
c in sub-clause (a) of clause 2.1 of the two Information Bulletin's.
         9. We have considered the submissions of learned
 · counsel for the parties and we find that the basis of the.
   judgment of this Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain's case (supra) is
   Article 14 of the Constitution which guarantees to every person
D equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. As
   explained by this court in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the judgment
   in Nikhil Himthani v. State of Uttarakhand & Others (supra): ·

          "12. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees to every
E         person equality before law and equal protection of laws.
          In Jagadish Saran v. Union of India (1980) 2 .sec 768,
          Krishna Iyer, J., writing the judgment on behalf ofthe three
          Judges referring to Article 14 of the Constitution held that
          equality of opportunity for every person in the country·is the
F         constitutional guarantee and therefore merit must be the
          test for selecting candidates, particularly in the higher levels
          of education like postgraduate medical courses, such as
          MD. In the language of Krishna Iyer, J. (SCC pp.778-79,
          para 23)
G                 "23. Flowing from the same stream of equalism is
                . another limitation. The basic medical needs of a
                  region or the preferential push justified for a
                  handicapped group cannot prevail in the same
                  measure all the highest scales of specialty where
H                 the best skill or talent, must be handpicked by
       VISHAL GOYAL v. STATE OF KARNATAKA                       617
                 [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
              .                  .                  .
             selecting according to capability. At the level of A
             PhD, MD, or levels of higher proficiency, where ,
             international measure of talent is made, where
             losing one great scientist or technologist in-the-
             making is a national loss, the considerations we
             have expanded upon a important lose their potency. B
             Here, equality, measured by matching excellence,
             has more meaning and cannot be diluted much
             without grave risk."

      13. Relying· on the aforesaid reasons in Jagadish Saran          C
      v. Union of India, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in
      Pradeep Jain case held excellence cannot be
      comprqmised by any other consideration for the purpose
      of admission to postgraduate medical courses such as
      MD/MS and the like because that would be detrimental to
     :the interests of the nation and therefore reservation based      D
    .on  residential requirement in the State will affect the right
      to equality of opportunity under Article 14 of the
      Constitution ........ ".

     In Magan Mehrotra v. Union of India (supra) and SPurabh           E
Chaudri v. Union of India (supra) also, this Court has approved
the aforesaid view in Dr. Pradeep Jain's Case that excellence
cannot be compromised by any other consideration for the
purpos'e of admission to postgraduate medical courses such
as MD/MS and the like because that would be detrimental to             F
the interests of the nation and will affect the right to equality of
opportunity under Article 14 of the Constitution.

       10 ..Mr. Mariarputham is right that in Sautabh Chaudri v.
 Union· of India (supra), this Court has held that institutional
 preference can be given by a State, but in the aforesaid              G
.decision of Saurabh Chaudri, it has also been held that
 decision of the State to give institutional preference can be
 invalidated by the Court in the event it is shown that the decision
 of the State is ultra vires the right to equality under Article 14
 of the Constitution. When we examine sub-clause (a) of clause         H
    618       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 5 S.C.R.


A 2.1 of the two Information Bulletins, we find that the expression
  "A candidate of Karnataka Origin" who only is eligible to
  appear for Entrance Test has been so defined as to exclu9e a
  candidate who has studied MBBS or BOS in an institution in
  the State of Karnataka but who does not satisfy the other
B requirements of sub-clause (a} of clause 2.1 of the Information
  Bulletin for PGET-2014. Thus, the institutional preference sought
  to be given by sub-clause (a) of clause 2.1 of the Information
  Bulletin for PGET-2014 is clearly contrary to the judgment of this
  Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain's case (supra). To quote from
c paragraph 22 of the judgment in Dr. Pradeep Jain's case:
          "...... a certain percentage of seats may in the present
          circumstances, be reserved on the basis of institutional
          preference in the sense that a student who has passed
          MBBS course from a medical college or university, may
D         be given preference for admission to the postgraduate
          course in the same medical college or·university ..... "

       Sub-clause (a) of clause 2.1 of the two Information Bulletins
  does not actually give institutional preference to students who·
E have passed MBBS or BOS from Colleges or Universities in
  the State of Karnataka, but makes some of them ineligible to
  take the Entrance Test for admission to Post Graduate Medical
  or Dental courses in the State of Karnataka ·to which the
  Information Bulletins apply.
F
          11. We now come to the argument of Mr. Mariarputham
    that the scheme formulated by this Court in Or. Oinesh Kumar
    and Others v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad and
    Others (supra) pursuant to the judgment in Dr. Pradeep Jain's
  case (supra) is confined to medical and dental colleges or·
G institutions run by the Union of India or a State Government or
  a Municipal or other local authority and does not apply to private
  medical and dental colleges or institutions. Paragraph (1) of the
  scheme on which Mr. Mariarputham relied on is extracted
  herein below:
H
      VISHAL GOYAL v. STATE OF KARNATAKA                      619
                [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
    "(1) In the first place, the Scheme has necessarily to be         A
    confined to medical' colleges or institutions run by the Union
    of India or a State Government or a municipal or other local
    authority. It cannot apply to private medical colleges or
    institutions unless they are instrumentality or agency of the
    State or opt to join the Scheme by making 15 per cent of          B
    the total number of seats for the MBBS/BDS course and
    25 per cent of the total number of seats for the post-
    graduate course, available for admission on the basis of
    All India Entrance Examination. Those medical colleges or
    institutions which we have already excepted from the              C
    operation of the judgment dated June 22, 1984 will
    continue to remain outside the scope of the Scheme."

      This Court has, thus, said in the aforesaid paragraph (1)
of the scheme that the scheme cannot apply to private medical
and dental colleges or institutions unless they are                   D
instrumentalities or agencies of the State or opt to join· the
scheme. The reason for this is that private medical and dental
colleges or institutions not being State or its instrumentalities
or its agencies were not subject to the equality clauses in Article
14 of the Constitution, but the moment some seats in the private      E
medical and dental colleges or institutions come to the State
quota, which have to be filled up by the State or its
instrumentality or its agency which are subject to the equality
clauses in Article 14 of the Constitution, the principles laid down
by this Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain's case (supra) will have to         F
be followed while granting admissions to the seats allotted to
the State Quota in post graduate medical and dental courses
even in private colleges_.

     12. In the result, we allow the writ petitions, declare sub-
clause (a) of clause 2.1 of the two Information Bulletins for post    G
graduate medical and dental courses for PGET-2014 as u/tra-
vires Article 14 of the Constitution and null and void. The
respondent will now publish fresh Information Bulletins and do
the admissions to the post graduate medical and dental
                                                                      H
   620       SUPREME COURT REPORTS.              [2014] 5 S.C.R

A courses in the Government colleges as well as the State quota
   of the private colleges in accordance with the law by the end
   of June, 2014 on the basis of the results of the Entrance Test
   already held. We also order that the general time schedule for
  ,counselling and admissions to post graduate Medical Courses
8 in our order dated 14.03.2014 in Dr. Fraz Naseem & Ors. v.
   Union of India will not apply to such admissions in the State
  of Karnataka for the academic year 2014-2015. Similarly, the
  general time schedule for counselling and admissions for post
  graduate dental courses will not apply to such admissions in
C the State of Karnataka. The parties shall bear their own costs.
   Devika Gujral                              Writ Petitions allowed.