MAGAN MEHROTRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-2002-12-123
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
December 17,2002
Magan Mehrotra
Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
PRADEEP JAIN MISS REITA NIRANKARI MEENAKSHI ALKA AGGARWAL SHALINI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]DINESH KUMAR II VS. MOTILAL NEHRU MEDICAL COLLEGE ALLAHABAD [REFERRED TO]
PARAG GUPTA VS. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. VINEET SINGH [REFERRED TO]
PRACHI ALMEIDA VS. DEAN GOA MEDICAL COLLEGE [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
RONALD JAGDISH THAKOR VS. GUJARAT UNIVERSITY [LAWS(GJH)-2010-5-176] [REFERRED TO]DHIRAJ UDAYRAO BORSE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2019-7-299] [REFERRED TO]
VIPUL GUPTADR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2004-5-202] [REFERRED TO]
DR. SANDEEP S/O. SADASHIVRAO KANSURKAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2015-10-82] [REFERRED TO]
VEENA VADINI TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTE VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2023-4-133] [REFERRED TO]
KOLASANI SAI YASHWANTH REDDY VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2015-9-103] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ KUMAR VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2013-9-8] [REFERRED TO]
DR. DEEKSHA KALRA VS. GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY [LAWS(DLH)-2017-4-24] [REFERRED TO]
SWAYAMPRAKASH PANDE VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2009-4-139] [REFERRED TO]
CHETAN GOYAL VS. GOVERNMENT OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2009-4-140] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY SINGH VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2006-4-65] [REFERRED TO]
JAYA KHICHARIA VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2006-4-27] [REFERRED TO]
DEVENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2011-4-63] [REFERRED TO]
VISHAL GOYAL VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(SC)-2014-4-69] [REFERRED TO]
MASTER BALACHANDAR KRISHNAN VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2020-9-642] [REFERRED TO]
MITTHAT AND ORS. VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-4-53] [REFERRED TO]
JITENDRA GUPTA & ORS VS. STATE OF U P THRU PRIN SECY MED EDUCATION & ANR [LAWS(ALL)-2019-4-7] [REFERRED TO]
SAKET PRAKASH VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2015-1-58] [REFERRED TO]
NITHIN T S VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2012-2-87] [REFERRED TO]
RAJDEEP GHOSH VS. STATE OF ASSAM & ORS [LAWS(SC)-2018-8-32] [REFERRED TO]
ALL INDIA ANNA DRAVIDA MUNNETRA KAZHAGAM VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2020-7-221] [REFERRED TO]
DR. SREYAS SHARMA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-4-66] [REFERRED TO]
ADITI MANGALBHAI PATEL VS. GUJARAT UNIVERISTY [LAWS(GJH)-2009-4-144] [REFERRED TO]
U.P. UNAIDED MEDICAL COLLEGES WELFARE ASSOCIATION,BAREILLY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2016-9-335] [REFERRED TO]
DR. BRIJENDER AND ORS. VS. DR. MANISHA MODI AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2011-6-45] [REFERRED TO]
P B KARUNAKAR AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(APH)-2018-2-10] [REFERRED TO]
ADAM KHAN VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2022-3-13] [REFERRED TO]
SANVAR MAL KANTVA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2011-4-7] [REFERRED TO]
M MOHAMMED SULAIMAN VS. DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION [LAWS(KER)-2006-3-19] [REFERRED TO]
SANDEEP AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2015-10-94] [REFERRED TO]
NEHA SHARMA VS. RAJ UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES [LAWS(RAJ)-2009-4-27] [REFERRED TO]
SUCHETA KUMARI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2007-2-148] [REFERRED TO]
PIYUSH SHARMA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-1-224] [REFERRED]
G.SOMNATH VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2019-9-30] [REFERRED TO]
DR. SAURABH GAUR AND ANR. VS. VICE CHANCELLOR, GURU GOBIND SINGH INDRAPRASTHA UNIVERSITY AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2010-9-357] [REFERRED TO]
TANVI BEHL VS. SHREY GOEL [LAWS(SC)-2019-12-27] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)These petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India were filed because of the Bulletin of Information issued by the University of Delhi for the academic session 2001-02, whereby and whereunder following the judgment of this Court in Parag Gupta (Dr) V/s. University of Delhi it was stipulated that the candidates who have passed MBBS examination in any university other than Delhi University having been allotted the same under 15% quota by the Director General, Health Services would also be eligible if he/she is a permanent resident of the National Capital Territory of Delhi.
(2.)The grievance of the petitioner is that on account of different standards adopted by different States, the students are suffering great hardship and in fact there is no rationale in not allowing the students who might be the residents of one State but who have undertaken their undergraduate study in some other State on being selected through a competitive examination on all-India basis, to get preferential right in obtaining admission in the postgraduate course.
(3.)This Court by a three-Judge Bench considered the question of admission to the medical colleges as well as reservation of seats for residents of the State or students of the same university elaborately in the case of Pradeep Jain (Dr) V/s. Union of India. So far as the admission to the postgraduate course is concerned, the Court held that for admission to the postgraduate courses it would be eminently desirable not to provide for any reservation based on requirement of residence within the State or on institutional preference. Having said so, the Court went on further to hold that having regard to broader considerations of equality of opportunity and institutional continuity in education which has its own importance and value, we would direct that though residence requirement within the State shall not be a ground for reservation in admissions to postgraduate courses, a certain percentage of seats may in the present circumstances be reserved on the basis of institutional preference in the sense that a student who has passed MBBS course from a medical college or university may be given preference for admission to the postgraduate course in the same medical college or university but such reservation on the basis of institutional preference should not in any event exceed 50 per cent of the total number of open seats available for admission to the postgraduate course. We are not concerned with the other observations made in the aforesaid case since in the case in hand we are concerned only with the admission to the postgraduate course. The aforesaid decision unequivocally indicates that even though it would be ideal not to have any reservation either on residence requirement or on institutional preference but the students passing out from their undergraduate study from a university should have some preferential treatment and it is in that context the aforesaid observation has been made. It may be stated that in the aforesaid case before disposing of the matter all States were duly noticed and those who had entered appearance, their contentions were taken into account and finally the matter stood disposed of, as stated above.
(2.)The grievance of the petitioner is that on account of different standards adopted by different States, the students are suffering great hardship and in fact there is no rationale in not allowing the students who might be the residents of one State but who have undertaken their undergraduate study in some other State on being selected through a competitive examination on all-India basis, to get preferential right in obtaining admission in the postgraduate course.
(3.)This Court by a three-Judge Bench considered the question of admission to the medical colleges as well as reservation of seats for residents of the State or students of the same university elaborately in the case of Pradeep Jain (Dr) V/s. Union of India. So far as the admission to the postgraduate course is concerned, the Court held that for admission to the postgraduate courses it would be eminently desirable not to provide for any reservation based on requirement of residence within the State or on institutional preference. Having said so, the Court went on further to hold that having regard to broader considerations of equality of opportunity and institutional continuity in education which has its own importance and value, we would direct that though residence requirement within the State shall not be a ground for reservation in admissions to postgraduate courses, a certain percentage of seats may in the present circumstances be reserved on the basis of institutional preference in the sense that a student who has passed MBBS course from a medical college or university may be given preference for admission to the postgraduate course in the same medical college or university but such reservation on the basis of institutional preference should not in any event exceed 50 per cent of the total number of open seats available for admission to the postgraduate course. We are not concerned with the other observations made in the aforesaid case since in the case in hand we are concerned only with the admission to the postgraduate course. The aforesaid decision unequivocally indicates that even though it would be ideal not to have any reservation either on residence requirement or on institutional preference but the students passing out from their undergraduate study from a university should have some preferential treatment and it is in that context the aforesaid observation has been made. It may be stated that in the aforesaid case before disposing of the matter all States were duly noticed and those who had entered appearance, their contentions were taken into account and finally the matter stood disposed of, as stated above.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.