Existing User Account
Gift Premium
Subscribe Premium

"Issue Already Stands Referred To SC's Larger Bench": MP High Court Disposes Plea Challenging 100% Reservation In 600 PG Medical Seats

Sparsh Upadhyay

26 Sept 2021 3:33 PM IST

    • Issue Already Stands Referred To SCs Larger Bench: MP High Court Disposes Plea Challenging 100% Reservation In 600 PG Medical Seats

    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 Division Bench of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Vijay K Shukla held so while hearing the plea filed by...

    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 Division Bench of Chief Justice Mohammad Rafiq and Justice Vijay K Shukla held so while hearing the plea filed by the Association of Private Universities and Medical Colleges challenging the 100% reservation made for Domicile candidates from Madhya Pradesh and candidates who had completed MBBS from the Medical Colleges of the State.

    The High Court held that since the two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. Tanvi Behl v. Shrey Goyal and Ors. (2020) 13 SCC 675 had already referred to the issue of Domicile reservation in PG Courses to the Larger Bench, therefore the High Court should not take any view on the same.

    The background

    The State of Madhya Pradesh in their admission rules for admission to Private Medical and Dental Colleges has 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 counseling from the second round onwards, that too when the first two categories are exhausted.
    In this backdrop, the Association of Private Medical Colleges had 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 rulemaking authority by the parent Act.
    The Association had also 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 had sought to argue that the Colleges are being precluded from giving admissions to far more meritorious candidates from the All India Merit List.
    When the High Court declined to stay the counseling 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 in the final Judgement held that it is in the interest of propriety that the issue of Domicile in Post Graduate Courses must be decided by the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in the reference made in the matter of Dr. Tanvi Behl (supra). It held as follows whilst disposing of the Writ Petition finally:
    "Decision of the question whether in view of Section 8 of the Act of 2007, the State Government is empowered to only provide reservation in favour of SC/ST/OBC and further whether the State can identify the source of admission from amongst candidates domiciled in the State of Madhya Pradesh, as a separate class, has to await the answer of reference by the Larger Bench in Dr.Tanvi Behl (supra), in which the Supreme Court after considering the Constitution Bench judgments in Saurabh Chaudari (supra) and D.P. Joshi (supra) and three-judge bench judgment in Pradip Tandon (supra) held that "domicile/residence-based reservation is not impermissible" and that "domicile/residence-based reservation has not been taken as an anathema altogether to these admission processes." The Supreme Court has therein distinguished the judgment in Nikhil Himthani (supra), Vishal Goyal (supra) and Kriti Lakhina (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners and held that "it is dif icult to cull out that domiciles/residence-based reservation is altogether disapproved." It was however held that "the manner of providing such reservation would always remain subject to requirement of rationality and reasonableness." Considering the fact that similar preference on the basis of domicile for admission to PG medical study courses has been given in several other States and in State of Madhya Pradesh also, it has been given quite for some time, propriety demands that the question as to what extent preference on the basis of residence/domicile can be given, having already been referred to the Larger Bench of Supreme Court in Dr.Tanvi Behl (supra), need not be dilated further in the present proceedings, to await the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court when it answers the reference, particularly when the process of admission in the current academic year has already come to an advance stage. In view of reference on the question of law involved in the present matter having already been referred to the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in Dr. Tanvi Behl (supra), this Court does not for the time being deem it appropriate to interfere with the impugned provision. It however goes without saying that the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. Tanvi Behl (supra) on the questions referred to the Larger Bench shall in any case bind the parties herein."

    However, the Court did clarify that the decision of the Supreme Court in Dr. Tanvi Behl (supra) on the questions referred to the Larger Bench shall, in any case, bind the parties herein.

    The Petitioner Association of Private Universities and Medical Colleges was represented through Advocate Mr. Siddharth R Gupta, whilst the State was represented through Advocate Mr. B D S Thakur. 

    Case title - Association of Private Universities, Madhya Pradesh and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others

    Click Here To Download Order/Judgment

    Read Order/Judgment

    Tags
    MP High CourtMadhya Pradesh High CourtSupreme Court100% Reservation In 600 PG Medical CoursesConstitutional ChallengeChief Justice Mohammad RafiqJustice Vijay K Shuklasupreme court larger bench
    Next Story
    X
    sidekick
    x
    IP subscription is detected for  
    Please register yourself for unlimited free access.
    Redirecting to register page...