Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently declined to consider a PIL with regard to admission of meritorious reserved category candidates to the open seats in Post Graduate medical seats, saying the issue, which would require consideration of various complexities, cannot be examined unless a specific grievance is raised by any particular individual.

"No doubt that the concern of the petitioner for maintaining the percentage of reservation of seats in medical specialities for the reserved category candidates could be genuine but, in our considered view, unless the specific cases of the candidates arise for consideration before the court, such an issue cannot be decided in abstract. Furthermore, such an issue cannot be decided without hearing other candidates who may be adversely affected by any such adjudication," a bench of Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih said.

The court emphasised that such a question cannot be considered in Public Interest Litigation.    

The plea was filed by Justice V Eswaraiah, a former judge, on behalf of the All India Backward Classes Federation as its president.

Arguing in person, he challenged in effect to clauses (viii) and (ix) of Rule II of the Andhra Pradesh Medical Colleges (Admission into Post Graduate Medical Courses) Rules, 1997 and the pari-materia provisions of the Telangana Medical Colleges (Admission into Post Graduate Medical Courses) Rules, 2017. 

He stated after the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh into the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, the State of Andhra Pradesh had amended the Rules to bring them in conformity with the judgments of the apex court on the issue. He, however, submitted that the State of Telangana is yet to amend the Rules to bring them in conformity with the law laid down by the court in various judgments.

He submitted due to Rules which are continued by the State of Telangana, if a reserved category candidate, who is entitled to get admission in ‘A’ Category on his own merits, does not accept the same and decides to take admission in ‘B’ Category, where he is entitled to be admitted only against a reserved seat, even in such a case the seat in ‘A’ Category should be filled in by a reserved category candidate. He submits that if that is not done, there will be a reduction of the reserved category seats.        

After hearing the petitioner in person and the counsel for the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, the bench pointed out the judgments relied upon by the petitioner in cases of Ritesh R Sah Vs Dr Y L Yamul and Others (1996) and Samta Aandolan Samiti and Another Vs Union of India and Others (2014), were related to admission to MBBS Course.

The court pointed out that the law on this issue is very well crystallized by the Constitution Bench judgments of the court right from the case of Indra Sawhney and Others Vs Union of India and Others (1992) which stated that it is well to remember that the reservations under Article 16(4) do not operate like a communal reservation. It may well happen that some members belonging to, say, Scheduled Castes get selected in the open competition field on the basis of their own merit; they will not be counted against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes; they will be treated as open competition candidates.

This position was again reiterated by another Constitution bench of the court in the case of R K Sabharwal and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others (1995) and Union of India and Others Vs Virpal Singh Chauhan and Others (1995), the bench said.

"As such, there should be no difficulty when the issue is with regard to admission in MBBS Course. Insofar as the admission to MBBS Course is concerned, there should be no difficulty inasmuch as the question of taking admission in the specialty does not arise for consideration therein. The difficulty would arise only in the methodology to be adopted while admitting the students in the Post Graduate Courses," the bench said.

The court noted the petitioner was All India Backward Classes Federation represented through its President, who was a former judge of the high court. 

The bench also noted that the top court in the case of S P Gupta Vs Union of India and Another (1981), had diluted the rigid rule of locus standi insofar as approaching the court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India or the high court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is concerned. 

"However, in the present case it is clear that the issues involved with regard to the reliefs sought by the petitioner cannot be considered unless the court considers specific cases of grievances raised by any particular individuals," the bench said. 

The court opined the question involved in the present case would require consideration of various complexities on account of the availability of opportunity to an MRC (Meritorious Reserved Candidates) to slide to any super specialties or non-availability of such an opportunity and restricting it only to sliding to the same speciality from an open category to a reserved category and the resultant effect thereon on the position of the reservation vis-a-vis the position of the seats available to an open category as against the seats available to a reserved category.

Disposing of the plea, the court clarified whenever any such issue arises for consideration before any of the high courts, the high courts would consider the same on its individual merits, in accordance with law, as laid down by the apex court.

Case Title: Justice V Eswaraiah (Retd) Vs Union of India & Ors