2000 JTR(SC) 1436
2000 AIR(SC) 2766 ; 2000 AIR(SCW) 2766 ; 2000 AIR(SCW) 3013 ; 2000 AllLJ 2443 ; 2000 41 AllLR 41 ; 2000 4 AWC 3024 ; 2000 10 JT 1 ; 2000 6 Scale 228 ; 2000 7 SCC 262 ; 2000 4 SCT 324 ; 2000 5 SLR 250 ; 2000 3 UPLBEC 2291 ; 2000 KHC 1340 ; 2000 6 Supreme 93
2000(6) Supreme 93
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Allahabad High Court)
S. Rajendra Babu, S.N. Phukan & Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ.
State of U.P. & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Vineet Singh & Ors. etc. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4839 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9336 of 2000)
With W.P. (C) No. 380/2000
And
Civil Appeal No. 4840 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9073/2000)
Decided on 1-9-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Subodh Markandeya, M.N. Krishnamani, R.B. Mehrotra, Sr. Advocates, Ms. Chitra Markandaya, Anupam Tyagi, Ms. Feroze Bano, Ms. Deepti Dwivedi, Sanjay Parikh, C.D. Singh, Himanshu Shekhar, Bharat Sangal, Vijay Hansaria, Abhijit Sengupta, Praveen Swarup, Mrs. Rachna Gupta, Dr. I.B. Gaur and Sanjeev Anand, Advocates.
Act Referred :CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.226
(A) The constitutional provision under Article 226 of the Constitution of India empowers the High Court to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose, which jurisdiction was invoked to address the regulatory imbalance in admission policies for postgraduate medical courses. The court applied this inherent power to harmonise state and institutional regulations with the principles of equity and non-discrimination, ensuring that directives issued by statutory and academic authorities do not perpetuate unreasonable barriers for students. The judicial intervention aimed at reconciling the statutory framework governing medical education with the fundamental right to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, thereby enforcing a balanced and non-arbitrary regime for all students irrespective of their migratory status.
(B) The core legal principles include the necessity of providing equal access to postgraduate medical education to students who have migrated from their home states, the requirement to strike a fair balance between local compulsions and the rights of students, and the non-applicability of general directions without individual scrutiny. The decision reaffirms that relief granted to a specific class of students under a recognised principle should not be extended beyond such class, and any modification of precedent must be based on cogent reasoning.
Facts of the case:
The High Court had issued a general direction that all States, Union Territories, and Universities must allow students who had pursued courses outside their home State to participate in entrance examinations for postgraduate medical courses without any preference in selection, based on an earlier decision of this Court. The present appeals challenged the appropriateness of this order, contending that it did not consider whether the students fell within the scope of the earlier decision and imposed relief indiscriminately.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the High Court failed to examine whether the petitioners were students who had qualified MBBS under the 15% All India quota and had migrated to other States, as envisaged in the earlier decision. It noted that the earlier case evolved a principle to protect the interests of a specific class of students who might otherwise be stranded, and that extending relief to all students going out of their home State would be disproportionate.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was justified in issuing a general direction without differentiating between students who fall within the scope of the earlier decision and those who do not, and whether the relief granted was applicable to all students pursuing courses outside their home State.
Ratio Decidendi:
The relief granted by the High Court must be confined strictly to students who had migrated to other States or universities under the 15% All India quota for MBBS and who sought to pursue postgraduate medical education in their home State. The court must examine the specific class of beneficiaries laid down in earlier precedents and ensure that general directions do not encroach upon the rights of other students who do not satisfy the requisite conditions.
Result:
The appeals are partly allowed, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside, and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration in the light of this decision.
(A) The constitutional provision under Article 226 of the Constitution of India empowers the High Court to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose, which jurisdiction was invoked to address the regulatory imbalance in admission policies for postgraduate medical courses. The court applied this inherent power to harmonise state and institutional regulations with the principles of equity and non-discrimination, ensuring that directives issued by statutory and academic authorities do not perpetuate unreasonable barriers for students. The judicial intervention aimed at reconciling the statutory framework governing medical education with the fundamental right to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, thereby enforcing a balanced and non-arbitrary regime for all students irrespective of their migratory status.
(B) The core legal principles include the necessity of providing equal access to postgraduate medical education to students who have migrated from their home states, the requirement to strike a fair balance between local compulsions and the rights of students, and the non-applicability of general directions without individual scrutiny. The decision reaffirms that relief granted to a specific class of students under a recognised principle should not be extended beyond such class, and any modification of precedent must be based on cogent reasoning.
Facts of the case:
The High Court had issued a general direction that all States, Union Territories, and Universities must allow students who had pursued courses outside their home State to participate in entrance examinations for postgraduate medical courses without any preference in selection, based on an earlier decision of this Court. The present appeals challenged the appropriateness of this order, contending that it did not consider whether the students fell within the scope of the earlier decision and imposed relief indiscriminately.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the High Court failed to examine whether the petitioners were students who had qualified MBBS under the 15% All India quota and had migrated to other States, as envisaged in the earlier decision. It noted that the earlier case evolved a principle to protect the interests of a specific class of students who might otherwise be stranded, and that extending relief to all students going out of their home State would be disproportionate.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was justified in issuing a general direction without differentiating between students who fall within the scope of the earlier decision and those who do not, and whether the relief granted was applicable to all students pursuing courses outside their home State.
Ratio Decidendi:
The relief granted by the High Court must be confined strictly to students who had migrated to other States or universities under the 15% All India quota for MBBS and who sought to pursue postgraduate medical education in their home State. The court must examine the specific class of beneficiaries laid down in earlier precedents and ensure that general directions do not encroach upon the rights of other students who do not satisfy the requisite conditions.
Result:
The appeals are partly allowed, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside, and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration in the light of this decision.
JUDGMENT
Rajendra Babu, J.-Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise out of an order made by the High Court directing that the States, Union Territories and Universities should allow students who had passed courses outside their home State to participate in the entrance examination held in their home State irrespective of any kind of preference that may have been adopted for selection of PG Medical Course. In doing so, the High Court has followed the decision of this Court in Dr. Parag Gupta v. University of Delhi & Ors.1, without any detailed consideration of the claims. In Dr. Parag Gupta s case (supra) the controversy before this Court was in relation to students who had qualified for medical degree course got admission under All India quota of 15% and migrated to different States to pursue the course of study and who sought admission into Postgraduate courses and their grievance was that the States or concerned authorities had framed admission rules in such a way that they could neither pursue their studies in the migrated State nor in their home State. In order to set right the imbalance arising thereby, after considering the effect of the decisions in Jagadish Saran (Dr.) v. Union of India2; Pradeep Jain (Dr.) v. Union of India3; Dinesh Kumar (Dr.) (II) v. Motilal Nehru Medical College4; State of Rajasthan v. Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta5; Anant Madaan v. State of Haryana6; D.P. Joshi v. State of M.P.7, and Sanjay Ahlawat v. Maharishi Dayanand University8, this Court evolved a principle which was equitable to all. It was noticed that the different criteria adopted by different States excluded the students who had qualified MBBS under 15% All India quota who migrated to other States from their home State and did not get any opportunity for advancement of their career in their home State as they were debarred for admission on account of either reservation on ground of residential requirement or on the ground of institutional preference adopted by the States or Union Territories or Universities. What was observed therein is that taking into consideration the local and regional compulsions a balance had to be struck so that students who had pursued studies in a particular university or State are not invidiously stranded or marooned. The grievance of such students was very limited inasmuch as they constituted not more than 15% all over the country and out of them very few might choose to come back to their home States. The arguments that have been advanced before us are the very arguments considered in that case as to why relief in the manner aforesaid should not be given to them. We also do not find that there is any conflict between Pradeep Jain (Dr.) case (supra) and the present case and the decision in Dr. Parag Gupta s case (supra).
3. The problem felt by the Uttar Pradesh Government or certain other students as modifying the decision in Pradeep Jain (Dr.) s case (supra) is not at all well founded. In fact, what this Court stated in summarising the law on the matter is by culling out the principles from the said decisions and we have not evolved any new principle at all. Based on these principles we have adjusted the equities in respect of students selected under 15% All India quota and who had migrated to other States. If the judgment rendered by us in Dr. Parag Gupta s case (supra) is confined to such students, we do not think the difficulty felt by the appellants in these cases would arise at all.
4. The general direction given by the High Court following the judgment of this Court in Dr. Parag Gupta s case (supra) in respect of all petitioners without examining their cases whether they fell within 15% All India quota and who had been selected under the 15% All India quota and migrated to other States or not would not be appropriate. The order of the High Court, therefore, stands modified by confining its order only to fresh students who were covered by Dr. Parag Gupta s case (supra) that is such of students who had migrated to other States/Universities under 15% All India quota and who were desirous of pursuing study in their home States and not to every student who has gone out of his home State and desires to return to his home State. In respect of such other students the relief granted by the High Court should not apply.
5. The appeals are partly allowed and the order made by the High Court is set aside in each of these cases and matter is remanded for fresh consideration in the light of this order and in accordance with law. The Writ Petition also stands disposed of.
(C.R.)
**************