RAVI S.DHAVAN, J. - (1.) The first impression which this Court get after concluding the hearing of this case, is that the issues raised in the two writ petitions could have been avoided if those responsible for granting admissions to courses known as super specialities at the medical colleges had not overlooked the decision of the Supreme Court in re Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 1420. Super Specialities is the course for which candidates must have a degree in M.D. or M. S., it is otherwise known as D.M. by the Medical Council of India.
(2.) The admission to these courses is by merit and no other criteria. The Supreme Court even went to the extent of observing that in courses like super specialities there would be no reservation whether institutional or other. The reason being, the Supreme Court laid down, that these were disciplines where only the best and no other reservation could save a seat for a candidate. Thus, before this Court could examine any other matter, parties were made conscious of the constraints upon this Court, and permit the debate on issues on the admission which have been made in the super specialities Courses (Cardiology) at G.S.V.M. Medical College, Kanpur. To be within the confines of the decisions of the Supreme Court.
(3.) The contention of the petitioners in the two writ petitions before this Court is that the admissions made to the aforesaid courses are a total negation to the law as has been laid down by the Supreme Court. The petitioners contend that the Medical College has resorted to institutional reservations by selecting internal candidates first and thereafter considering a solitary external candidate. This, they contend, is illegal. Consequentially, they desire that the admissions as have been made be declared as illegal and, thereafter the Principal of the Medical College, aforesaid, be directed to process the admissions afresh, but strictly in accordance with the criteria laid down by the Supreme Court so that it is in accord with Pradeep Jain's case (AIR 1984 SC 1420) (supra). The defence on behalf of the contesting respondents, that is, those candidates who have procured admissions, and the State respondents is faint.;