Linguistic Minority Medical Colleges Bound By NMC's 50% PG-Seat Sharing Rule, Ensures Implementation Of Reservation Policies: Madras HC

Justice Vivek Kumar Singh observed that only when the States and Union Territories had control over some seats, they could implement the reservation policies in its full effect. Thus, the court highlighted that seat sharing was unavoidable and was a sine-qua -non for the implementation of reservation policy.

“The reservation benefits should be given effect to at its full swing. The States/Union Territories cannot implement the social reservations without seats in their hands. The States/Union Territories can effectively implement their reservation policy only for Government quota seats, for which the seat sharing is unavoidable. Thus, seat sharing is sine-qua-non for effective implementation of reservation policy,” the court said.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Sri Venkateshwaraa Medical College Hospital and Research Centre challenging the order of the Director – cum- Nodal Officer (Medical Education), Directorate of Health and Family Welfare Services in Puducherry to directing the college to surrender 50% of the total sanctioned seats in PG course towards Government Quota for the academic year 2024-25.

The petitioner college argued that insistence on seat sharing would amount to nationalisation of the seats. It was also argued that the insistence on seat sharing was based on the 2000 regulation which had been replaced by the 2023 regulations. The college argued that the 2023 Regulation did not contain any specific seat sharing clause and thus the order had to be set aside.

The petitioner college also argued that as per Clause 4.8 of the 2023 Regulation, the reservation of seats was to be based on the applicable laws prevailing in the State/Union Territory. It was argued that in such circumstances, the law applicable would be The Pondicherry Private professional educational Institutions (Provision of reservation, Admission of students and fixation of fees) regulations, 2006 in which reservation was exclusively excluded to the minority educational institutions. It was also argued that all the PG seats in the college had to be considered as All India Management Quota Seats.

The Government counsels and the counsel for the NMC opposed the plea, stressing on the need for common counselling for PG seats and the need to implement reservation policy to its full effect. It was submitted that the petitioner institution was attempting to make profits and the issues raised by the college was illegal and without any valid reason.

The court noted that though the specific seat sharing clause was not present in the 2023 Regulation, the new Regulation provided for extending reservation benefits for the deserving candidates. Thus, the court noted that the laudable purpose of reservation could not be made inoperative and inactive merely due to the absence of specific seat sharing clause.

The court also noted that the provisions of the 2023 Regulation was applicable to all medical colleges and institutions including the linguistic minority institution. Thus, the court held that the 2006 Regulation framed by the State government which excluded the linguistic minority institutions was repugnant to the Central Act and regulations.

"Therefore, the term “Medical Colleges/Institutions” used in clause 4.8 of PGMER includes minority institution, thereby intended to apply the reservation policy for all medical colleges, including the minority medical colleges. The 2006 Regulation framed by Government excluding the Minority Medical Institution from applicability of reservation policy, is directly repugnant to the Central Act and Regulation. If that being so, the provisions of National Medical Commission Act, 2019 and PGMER 2023 Regulations shall have notwithstanding effect over the 2006 Regulation framed by the Government of Puducherry," the court observed.

The court added that if the contention of the petitioner institution was accepted and all the PG seats were treated as Management Quota seats, it would go against the interest of the linguistic minority candidates. The court thus held that the institution was attempting to claim a privilege which was not permissible under the law.

Thus, the court was not in favour of the contentions raised by the petitioner college and dismissed the petition.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Abishek Jenasenan

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. Shubharanjani Ananth, Standing Counsel; Dr.B.Ramaswamy Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry); Mr.J. Kumaran Additional Government Pleader (Puducherry)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 468

Case Title: Sri Venkateshwaraa Medical College Hospital and Research Centre v The National Medical Commission

Case No: W.P.No.27311 of 2024