Allotting 7.5% Medical Seats For Govt School Students Not Reservation But Institutional Preference : TN Govt Tells Madras High Court

In a plea challenging the constitutionality of the State Act providing horizontal reservation of 7.5 per cent seats in medical colleges for students passing out of government schools, the State Higher Education Department submitted that the impugned Act cannot be treated as 'communal reservation'.In the written submissions to the bench, Senior Counsel P. Wilson contended that the allocation of 7.5 per cent seats for students from Government Schools cannot even be called 'reservation', but only to be construed as creating a source of admission for which the state is empowered under Entry 25, List III of the Constitution's Seventh Schedule.Not Communal ReservationSection 2(c) and Section 2(h) of the impugned Act [Tamil Nadu Admission to Undergraduate Courses in Medicine, Dentistry, Indian Medicine and Homeopathy on a preferential basis to students of Government Schools Act, 2020] only categorise schools into Government Schools and Private Schools. "These two categorizations are separate sources of entry/admissions into the various government seats to be filled up in various Medical institutions in the State. Out of two sources, one such source is the government schools which is given with 7.5% preferential admissions", it is stated therein.The counsel also contended that such categorisation of separate sources of entry/ admission is based on an intelligible differential and relied on Katra Educational Society v. State of Utter Pradesh & Ors. (1966).Further, reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decisions in K. Duraiswamy v. State of Tamilnadu 2001(2) SCC 538 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Gopal D. Tirthani and Ors (2003) 7 SCC 23 to submit that such preferential classification has been approved by the apex court in the case of PG In-Service Candidates.In K. Duraiswamy, the apex court had noted as below:"...That apart, where the scheme envisaged is not by way of a mere reservation but is one of classification of the sources from which admissions have to be accorded, fixation of respective quota for such classified groups, the principles at times applied in construing provisions relating to reservation simpliciter will have no relevance or application. Though the prescription of a quota may involve in a general sense reservation in favour of the particular class or category in whose favour a quota is fixed, the concepts of reservation and fixation of quota drastically differ in their purport and content as well as the object..."Senior Counsel went on to note that both of these decisions have received the nod of the constitutional bench in Tamilnadu Medical Officer Association v. Union of. India, 2021 (6)SCC 568.Horizontal Allotment Is Institutional PreferenceMr P. Wilson then submitted that the 7.5 per cent allotment can be also equated to an institutional preference for which the Government is accorded the discretion as laid down in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association Constitutional Bench judgment.In the above case, the court had noted as below:"Thus, in the exercise of powers under Entry 66 List I, the Union cannot provide for anything with respect to reservation/percentage of reservation and/or even mode of admission within the State quota, which powers are conferred upon the States under Entry 25 of List III. In exercise of powers under Entry 25 List III, the States have power to make provision for mode of admissions, looking to the requirements and/or need in the State concerned....However, considering the plethora of decisions of this Court, referred to hereinabove, this Court has again held that "institutional preference" is permissible and even the introduction of NEET would not affect the "institutional preference". This Court has noted that "institutional preference" up to 50% seats is permissible."Relying on the above judgment, the counsel submitted that government schools can be carved out as a separate institution and granted institutional preference including 7.5 per cent seats.Powers Under Entry 25 List IIIMr Wilson then elaborated on the constitutional powers given to the state as per Entry 25 List III of the Constitution. The power of state to regulate admissions is settled by the case-law of Modern Dental College (2016), he added.In Modern Dental College, the court had noted as follows:"...In fact, the State Government should be the sole entity to lay down the procedure for admission and fee etc. governing the institutions running in that particular state except the centrally funded institutions like IIT, NIT etc. because no one can be a better judge of the requirements and inequalities-in-opportunity of the people of a particular state than that state itself. Only the State legislation can create equal level playing field for the students who are coming out from the State Board and other streams."Justice Kalaiarasan Committee ReportAdditionally, Senior Counsel contended that such classification of sources is within the confines of Justice Kalaiarasan Committee Report. In the...

Allotting 7.5% Medical Seats For Govt School Students Not Reservation But Institutional Preference : TN Govt Tells Madras High Court

Sebin James

Tags