K. KANNAN - (1.) I. The subject of challenge The issue involved in this case relates to a challenge to an advertisement notification issued by the Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, the 2nd respondent herein, providing for institutional preference of 50% seats in the general category candidates for admission to MDS and MD/MS/PG Diploma Courses for students, who have passed the qualifying examination from Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar and Punjabi University, Patiala except the Christian Medical/Dental Colleges, Ludhiana. The petitioner's grievance is that he is a student of the Panjab University, Chandigarh and the institutional preference that has been provided to exclude a student from Panjab University, Chandigarh is unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 15. The counsel for the petitioner has another contention, seemingly inconsistent, to project, as if in alternation, that if the institutional preference could be extended by Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot beyond the said University to two other Universities, it ought to be extended to students of Panjab University, Chandigarh, since Chandigarh is the capital of Punjab and there are decisions that hold that there is no difference between the University of Panjab and other universities established in the State of Punjab. II. Basis of contention by petitioner
(2.) THE petitioner has obtained a degree in BDS and is an aspirant to admission to the Post Graduate course. THE grievance of the petitioner as regards the advertisement notification is on the ground that even the institutional preference to the extent to which it has been found admissible by decision of the Supreme Court should be strictly construed, especially for admission to Post Graduate Courses and such institutional preference must, therefore, be understood as only making possible for institutional continuity in pursuit to higher courses in the same institution or University which in this case must be confined only to Baba Farid University and cannot be extended to students of Punjabi University, Patiala and Guru Nanak Dev University at Amritsar. III. Basis of contention by the respondents The contention in defence by the University is that the institutional preference, which is really a permissible exception to right against discrimination on the basis of residence, shall be so construed as that will promote State interest. If there are intelligible differentia that are carved out for identifying certain classes of persons as belonging to certain categories and if that differentia should bear a nexus to what the notification seeks to achieve, which in this case is advancement of a State interest, it must be taken as standing the test of Article 14. The State interest is the benefit which it will obtain by securing to the students who are identified for grant of benefit and indeed a quid pro quo to render services to the people. The State has a right to expect such a service when it provides the finances for establishing the Universities and also extends facilities such as stipend to students undergoing Post Graduate courses. The defence by the respondents is, therefore, that the institutional preference as confined to a University must be understood as even Universities within the same State and Court's intervention will be only to see whether the policy, which has been framed by the State is reasonable and fair and if it stands the test of such reasonableness, the challenge to the same ought to fail. This is particularly in the context of how the University established within the Union Territory of Chandigarh cannot be treated in the same way as any other university in the State of Punjab and the advertisement notification issued by the University that conforms to the notification of the Government of Punjab cannot, therefore, be assailed. IV. Institutional preference: exception to rule against discrimination, as a tool of permissible reservation
(3.) THE respective contentions of the parties are all fully governed by the decisions of the Supreme Court and therefore, the enquiry that is proposed to be undertaken in this judgment is only to see the contours of institutional preference that had been etched out through the pronouncements. THEre is no need for elaborate setting out of details of facts in the petition, for the singular consideration shall be whether a student of Panjab University, Chandigarh could question an institutional preference to admission in a Post Graduate Course from the University established in Punjab, which is confined not merely to that particular University but also includes two other Universities established within the same State. (a) Rationale for institutional preference;