NEET-PG Admissions : Supreme Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging MCC Restricting OBC Reservation For Institutional Preference Seats To Central OBC List

The SLP which was preferred by candidates falling in the Delhi OBC list was listed before the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant.

Advocate Shivendra Singh appeared for the petitioners.

In the impugned notice, OBC reservation for PG against institutional preference seats was only restricted to candidates in the central OBC list which consequently resulted in the candidates falling in the Delhi OBC list being excluded from consideration of the reserved seats.

Case Before The Delhi High Court

Before the Delhi High Court, the petitioners had 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 Govt. of NCT of Delhi, were eligible for admission against the OBC seats in the 50% institutional preference seats.

The impugned notification was challenged on the ground that MCC has changed the 'rules of the game' after the commencement of the counselling and that too, just before when the candidates were required to fill their choices on 13.01.2022.

To substantiate his contention, counsel had placed reliance on the judgements in Ankita Chaudhary v. GGSIPU 2016 SCC OnLine Del 3025, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and others. V. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve and others (2001) 10 SCC 51, K. Manjusree v. State of A.P. and Ors." (2008) 3 SCC 512 and on "Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi" (2008) 7 SCC 11.

It was further challenged on the ground that medical colleges in question, i.e., VMMC and ABVIMS, were not central educational institutions within the meaning of section 2 (d) of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admissions) Act, 2007 ('CEI Act') and, therefore, 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. In this regards, he argued that VMMC and ABVIMS being affiliated to the GGSIPU, which is a State University, would, therefore, 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.

Counsel in this regard had relied on the judgements in Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister, State of Maharashtra" (2021) 8 SCC 1, Ram Awtar Manda& Ors v. Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University & Ors 2013 SCC OnLine Del 2368 and V. Anto v. Union of India and another 2009 SCC.

Opposing the contentions raised by the petitioner, counsel for MCC had contended that MCC was conducting counselling for approximately 27 central institutes, wherein the central list of OBC (non-creamy layer) was followed. It was also counsel's contention that VMMC and ABVIMS were central funded and aided institutes in central government hospitals and therefore, 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.

Counsel for MCC had further submitted that the admissions on the basis of the Delhi OBC list would necessarily amount to reservation on the basis of the domicile of the candidates, which was not permissible in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain v Union of India 1984 (3) SCC 654 followed by the decision in Nikhil Himtahni v. State of Uttrakhand & Ors.. Counsel further argued that even though the issue as to whether resident/domicile based reservation was permissible had been referred to a larger bench in Dr. Tanvi Behl v. Shrey Goel and Ors. 2020 13 SCC 675 but the legal position, as on date, was that no such reservation was permissible.

The bench of Justice Rekha Palli however while dismissing the petition with regards to the contention that VMMC and ABVIMS being affiliated to the GGSIPU, which was a State University said,

"Upon a perusal of the aforesaid, it is evident that the CEI Act merely provides for a mandatory reservation in the central educational institutes and does not in any manner envisage interference with the constitutional power of the Central Government to make reservations for admissions to any institute. The answer therefore, to the question hereinabove has to be a clear 'NO'. Merely because institutes such as VMMC and ABVIMS do not fall under the ambit the term 'central educational institutions' as defined in 2 (d) cannot imply that the central government does not have the power to provide for reservations in these institutes. Similarly, it cannot be said that the central government does not have the power to prescribe that only the central OBC list would be applicable in these institutes."

While upholding the notification the Court said, " 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."

Case Title: Amandeep v Medical Counselling Committee| Diary No. 9755 of 2022