100% Domicile Reservation In PG Medical Seats : Supreme Court Seeks MP Govt Response
The Supreme Court today issued notices to the State of Madhya Pradesh and the Medical Council of India seeking a reply on the validity of 100% reservation made for domicile and residents of M.P. in P.G. Medical Courses of the State. A Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice L. Nageshwar Rao and Justice B.R. Gavai issued the notice on a Special Leave Petition filed by the...
The Supreme Court today issued notices to the State of Madhya Pradesh and the Medical Council of India seeking a reply on the validity of 100% reservation made for domicile and residents of M.P. in P.G. Medical Courses of the State.
A Two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice L. Nageshwar Rao and Justice B.R. Gavai issued the notice on a Special Leave Petition filed by the Private Medical Colleges of the State by the Association of Private Medical Colleges of the State.
The petitioner has challenged the rules on the ground of them being violative of the Fundamental Rights of the Colleges to Admit Students available under Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution of India.
This SLP has been filed against the recent judgement by the MP High Court, disposed of the challenge to the admission rules on the ground that an identical question was pending reference before the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court, and therefore, the High Court had ruled that it would not be appropriate for the High Court to decide the challenge.
[NOTE: The Madhya Pradesh High Court last week disposed of the Writ Petition challenging 100% reservation in Post Graduate Medical seats holding that it is against the propriety to take a view on an issue that has already been referred to a Larger Bench for reconsideration.]
The SLP in question has also challenged the admission rules on the ground that the important branches of P.G. Medical courses are picked by less meritorious candidates than higher ones just on the grounds that they are domiciled and residents of M.P.
The Association was represented through Advocate Mr Siddharth R Gupta and Advocate Migank Prabhakar.
The background of the matter
The State of Madhya Pradesh, in their admission rules for admission to Private Medical and Dental Colleges, have incorporated mandatory Eligibility conditions of being a Domicile of the State of M.P. for admission to PG Medical/Dental Courses.
The said condition stands relaxed in the event of the availability of a candidate who has completed his M.B.B.S. from any Medical college of the State.
Essentially, the seats get unlocked for admission to the students from other States and the All India Merit List only after completion of the first round of counselling from the second round onwards, that too when the first two categories are exhausted.
In this backdrop, the Association of Private Medical Colleges challenged these clauses as ultra vires Article 19(1)(g) as also the Parent Act of M.P. Niji Vyavsayik Shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007, being in excess of the delegation of powers to the rule-making authority by the parent Act.
The Association further challenged the reservation on the ground that they are unpalatable and incompatible with their 'Fundamental Right to admit students of their choice', as the Colleges are forced to provide admission to the State domicile candidates to the important branches of the PG Medical Course (Clinicals).
In this way, the association has argued that the Colleges are being precluded from giving admissions to far more meritorious candidates from the All India Merit List.
Earlier, when the High Court had declined to stay the counselling in the year 2019, the Association had approached the Supreme Court, which had, at the relevant point of time, directed the High Court to decide the matter 'as expeditiously as possible.
The Supreme Court had also found that the matter contained a vital question of law and that its 'resolution cannot brook any delay'.
The Division Bench of the High Court in its final Judgement held that in light of the issue being referred to the larger Bench of Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. Tanvi Behl (supra), the matter must be decided finally and firmly by the Constitutional Bench itself and may not be dealt by the High Court. While disposing of the Writ Petition, the High Court also held that the extent of domicile reservation in PG courses is pending with the Supreme Court and to what extent the said reservation must operate, must be decided there only.
Against this order, the Association has approached the Supreme Court, which issued notices to the State and the Medical Council of India (MCI) on issues raised therein.
Case title - Association of Private Universities Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
Read Order