No Reservation For In-Service Candidates In Super Specialty Medical Courses For 2020-21 : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday directed the Directorate General of Health Services to proceed with the counseling for admissions to PG super-specialty medical courses for the academic year 2020-21 without providing reservation for in-service candidates.

The top court clarified that the direction is applicable only to the admissions of the present academic year 2020-21.

"The process for admissions to Super Specialty Medical Courses started on 03.08.2020 and it was made clear to all the competing candidates that there shall be no reservation to Super Specialty Medical Courses....As the admission process is at the final stages, we cannot permit reservation for in-service Doctors for this year", the court observed.

A bench comprising Justices L Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and Ajay Rastogi passed the interim order in the special leave petition and writ petitions filed challenging the directions of the High Courts of Kerala and the Government of Tamil Nadu to give effect to in-service quota for the admissions to super specialty medical courses.

Without expressing anything on the merits of the impugned directions to implement in-service quota, the bench observed :

"We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the validity of GOMS No.462 of 07.11.2020.We direct that the counselling for admission to Super Specialty Medical Courses for the academic year 2020-2021 shall proceed on a date to be fixed by the competent authority without providing for reservations to in-service doctors for the academic year 2020-2021. We reiterate that the above direction would be operative only for the current academic year i.e. 2020-2021".

The petitions have been listed for hearing in February 2021.

On October 7, a division bench of the Kerala High Court directed that the 40 % in-service quota under the Kerala Medical Officers Postgraduate and Service Quota Act, 2008 should be given effect during the counseling for PG-Super Specialty medical seats for the present academic year.

The High Court had relied on the recent constitution bench decision of the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association and Others v. Union of India which upheld the power of of the states to provide in-service quota in medical admissions

On the same date, the State of Tamil Nadu passed a government order to grant 50 % reservation to the doctors in service of the State of Tamil Nadu to super specialty courses.

These directions were challenged by the petitioners before the Supreme Court, who were not in-service doctors.

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?

Case Title : Dr Prerit Sharma versus Dr Bilu BS

Appearances :

For petitioners : Dushyant Dave, Shyam Divan, Senior Advocates

For Union of India : Sanjay Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India

For National Medical Commission : Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate.

For State of Kerala            : Jaideep Gupta, Senior Advocate

For State of Tamil Nadu    : V.Giri, C S Vaidyanathan, Senior Advocates.

For party respondents  : P.Wilson, Senior Advocate and George Varghese Perumpallikuttiyil, Advocate.

Click here to download the order

Read Order