Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Apply Delhi Govt OBC List In Central Govt Funded Institutions In Delhi

The Supreme Court yesterday dismissed a plea challenging Medical Counselling Committee's notice dated January 10, 2022 which modified OBC reservation criteria with respect to Institutional Preference seats in central institutes.

The matter was heard by a bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, which found no ground to interfere with the impugned notice.

To put briefly, in the said notice, OBC reservation for post graduation against institutional preference seats was restricted to candidates in the central OBC list, which resulted in candidates falling in the Delhi OBC list being excluded from consideration for the reserved seats.

Initially, the MCC notice was assailed before the Delhi High Court, where the petitioner contended that under the brochure issued by Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University on 10.06.2021, and the Information Bulletin issued by the MCC on 03.10.2021, OBC candidates in terms of the list maintained by the GNCT of Delhi, were eligible for admission against the OBC seats in the 50% institutional preference seats, However, MCC changed the 'rules of the game' after the commencement of the counselling.

It was argued that the MCC had no authority in law to deprive the Delhi OBC candidates of their right to be considered under the Delhi OBC quota against the 50% institutional preference seats of GGSIPU. Also, Vardhman Mahavir Medical College (VMMC) and Atal Bihari Vajpayee Institute of Medical Sciences (ABVIMS) being affiliated to GGSIPU, which is a State University, would fall under the category of State institutes and candidates in the Delhi OBC list would, therefore, be entitled to be considered against the institutional preference seats, the petitioner said.

Counsel for MCC, on the other hand, contended that VMMC and ABVIMS were central funded and aided institutes in central government hospitals; in order to bring uniformity in the counselling process, it was decided that the same criteria of adopting the central OBC list (as was being followed in other central institutes) should be adopted. It was further submitted that the admissions on the basis of the Delhi OBC list would amount to reservation on the basis of the domicile of the candidates, which was not permissible.

After hearing the parties, a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, saying: "In my view, this position that in all Central Institutions, admissions against seats reserved for the OBC was meant to be only for those in the Central OBC list was, therefore, crystal clear to everyone right from the beginning. Moreover, all the candidates were also well aware that in all central institutes including the VMMC & SJH, ABVIMS & RML, ESIC, BASAIDARAPUR, it was only the central OBC list which was being followed for Under Graduate courses from NEET-PG 2020 itself. At the same time, it cannot be denied that FAQ no. 50 as initially notified on 03.10.2021, and thereafter, on 10.01.2022 sought to convey otherwise."

Assailing the order, Delhi OBC candidate(s) approached the Supreme Court. Notice was issued on the petition by a bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice Surya Kant in April, 2022.

Senior Advocate K Parmeswar, on behalf of the petitioner, argued that GGSIPU follows dictate of NCT of Delhi, and being a state-run university, Delhi policy applied to it, until the MCC circular excluding Delhi OBCs took over. "If the interpretation is upheld, Delhi OBCs who are not mentioned in the Central list of OBCs are out of even the teachers' course", the senior counsel claimed.

In the alternative, Parmeswar beseeched the Court to allow Delhi OBC candidates "to run parallelly" with those of the Central list. However, Justice Gavai expressed that later, candidates from other states may also ask for similar relief.

The judge also posed to Parmeswar, "Delhi govt says that their policy is only for the colleges run by them. Can Delhi govt impose its policy on a 100% centrally funded institution?"

Justice Viswanathan, on the other hand, noted: "If funding comes from a particular government, that government can on a valid classification create sources for admission. In this case, a reservation on the ground that it is a valid classification under the central government, and merely because they don't fall within the definition of 'Centrally Governed Institutions', it will not preclude...we have been shown documents after documents where Delhi government's reservation cannot apply unless it's a Delhi government institution."

"Article 14, source of funding can create a source of admission, as long as classification is valid...Merely because a central government funded institution is located in a place, why should the local reservation list apply?" the judge further remarked.

Ultimately, the petition was dismissed.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati appeared for the respondent(s).

Case Title: Amandeep v. Medical Counselling Committee & Ors., Diary No. 9755/2022