Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

A Bench of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli, while deciding on the validity of the 20% reservation for in-service candidates for post graduate medical courses in the State of Maharashtra, refused to interfere with the Bombay High Court's order. 

Court opined, that (after from reading of the clause), the vacant or unfilled seats after subsequent rounds of counselling, shall be distributed to candidates belonging to the non in-service category. It is pertinent to note that the High Court earlier had directed the State to consider if the seats can be made available in subsequent rounds of counselling. "It is difficult to accept the petitioners submissions", the Bench stated.

The pertinent issue before the Court was whether the government resolution can be applied to the current academic year of 2022-2023.

Court noting the earlier judgments on the present subject matter, said "that the issue of reservation in post graduate courses came under a cloud, however in diploma courses continue to exist". 

Court in its judgment cited many aspects of the issue, which were pertinent to note, it noted, that "the GR also makes it clear will not make any extra marks, In other words, an in-service candidate who opts for a a seat in the general category will not be granted any weightage of marks. It is for the candidates who seek under 20% quota for in-service candidates".

Court citing the factual matrix and thus the validity of the reservation, stated:

The remote areas have been identified by the government from time to time. On Sep 21, online admissions commenced, the registration window was to open till Sep 27. On Sep 26 State Government issued a Government Resolution, providing for in-service reservation to the extent of 20% seats in post graduate medical degree courses. The officer serving in government hospitals. The rationale for the GR has been given, seats matrix was released, results of first counselling was declared on Oct 1. The appellants instituted an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, significantly there was no challenge to the GR. But the submission was that the reservation could not be made against the 50% quota in government and State run colleges for the current academic year. The High Court, resultantly, dismissed the petition. 

Court further opined, "We have heard Senior Advocate Anand Grover, and Advocate Dharmadhikari for the State, the Court was assisted by Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde and Sudhanshu Chaudhary on behalf of intervening candidates provisionally admitted. Principally, the challenge is 2 fold. It is submitted that the GR providing 20% reservation was issued after the admission process was commenced and hence, can not be altered once the process has commenced. It is being submitted that the govt while providing reservation has not collected any data, that is evident from the fact that out of 1416 seats in PG medical seats in State, 282 were made available, 69 appeared out of which 52 have been considered eligible for admission. It is evident that the 20% reservation to in-service students is disproportionately high as a consequence of which only 52 filled (as the petitioners alleged)". No rules were changed midstream as the provisions of the brochure made it clear. 

While considering the rival submissions, it must be noted at the outset that on Aug 16, 2016 in Uttar Pradesh vs Dinesh Singh Chauhan, it was held that the reservation for in service candidates for PG medical courses is violative of the Regulation 9 of the Medical Council of India. When the matter was referred to a Constitution Bench, in its judgment of Aug 31, 2020, the Bench had held that MCI did not make provisions for State to make separate provisions for in service candidates seeking admission in PG medical courses. 

Case Title: Nipun Tawari And Ors. v. State of Maharashtra And Ors.