Supreme Court Reserves Judgment On Challenge To In-Service Reservation For Doctors In PG-Super Speciality Medical Courses

The bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and Ajay Rastogi was hearing the challenge to the October 7 judgment of the Kerala High Court and the November 9 decision of the Madras High Court, allowing 40% and 50% in-service quota in PG-Super Speciality medical courses also. The High Courts noted that as the Supreme Court five-judge bench has now, in August this year, upheld in-service quota in the Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association case, the authorities are bound to implement it. In the said judgment, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has held that Medical Council of India has no power to make any reservation for in-service candidates in Post Graduate Medical Course in any particular state, and that the power lies with the states.

The following legal propositions have been raised for the consideration of the Supreme Court:

1. Whether the judgement in K Doraisamy and others versus state of Tamil Nadu [2001 (2) SCC 538] covers the issue of quota for in-service candidates in super speciality courses also?

2. Whether the Constitution bench decision in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers' Association approves the ratio laid down in K. Doraisamy?

3. Whether the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations 2000 framed under section 33 of Indian Medical Council Act 1956, which is traceable under Entry 66 List 1, have the power to make any provisions for reservations, more particularly for in-service candidates as done by the concerned states, in exercise of Entry 25 List 3?

4. Whether Regulation 9 of MCA Regulations 2000 affects the legislative competence and authority of the state to make provisions providing for a separate source of entry for in-service candidates in Super Speciality courses? Whether the MCA Post Graduation Regulations 2000 also deal with the Super Speciality courses?

5. Whether prescription of quota relating to in-service candidates can be treated on par with communal reservations and whether the judgement in Dr. Preeti Srivastav v. State of Maharashtra [1999 (7) SCC 120] has dealt with the issue of quota for in-service candidates in Super Speciality courses? And if so, what was the issue before Dr. Preeti Shrivastav?

7. Whether the ratio decidendi of a judgement has to be found only after reading of the entire judgement or the conclusions of the judgement? Whether judgements can be read as a statute?

The bench reserved orders after hearing Senior Advocates Dushyant Dave and Shyam Diwan for petitioners, Senior Counsel C. S. Vaidyanathan for the state of Tamil Nadu , Senior Advocate P. Wilson for the Inservice Doctors who had filed writ petitions in Madras High Court, and after considering the submissions of the Central government and the National Medical Commission.

Similarly, the Madras High Court also noted that the Government of Tamil Nadu has issued a Government Order dated 07.11.2020, requiring, inter alia, that 50% of the Super Specialty seats (DM / M.Ch.) in Government Medical Colleges are allocated to in- service candidates of Tamil Nadu and the remaining 50% seats are allocated to the Government of India / Director General of Health Services from the academic year 2020-2021; and that 50% of the in-service Super Specialty seats would be filled up based on the marks obtained in the NEET-SS ;