Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice A.M Khanwilkar and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari in the case of Dr. Tanvi Behl v Shrey Goel & Ors. has directed the questions relating to the legality and validity of domicile/residence-based reservation for admission to the Post Graduate Medical Courses (MD/MS Courses 2019) in Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh to a larger bench.
By the impugned judgment and order dated 23.04.2019, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh has held invalid the provisions made by the said Medical College in its prospectus, so far relating to the domicile/residence-based reservation as provided in Union Territory Chandigarh Pool; and has struck down the same while directing that all the admissions made on the basis of such invalid reservation in the said Medical College be cancelled and fresh admission process for admission to the PG Medical Courses for the academic year 2019-20 be carried out on the basis of merit obtained by the candidates in National Eligibility-Cum-Entrance Test.
Aggrieved, the candidates whose admission to the PG Medical Courses were to be cancelled as also the Union Territory of Chandigarh and the said Medical College filed the present appeal.
Supreme Court on hearing contention of the appellant framed following questions to be determined by a larger bench-
1. As to whether providing for domicile/residence-based reservation in admission to “PG Medical Courses” within the State Quota is constitutionally invalid and is impermissible?
2. (a) If answer to the first question is in the negative and if domicile/residence-based reservation in admission to “PG Medical Courses” is permissible, what should be the extent and manner of providing such domicile/residence-based reservation for admission to “PG Medical Courses” within the State Quota seats?
(b) Again, if domicile/residence-based reservation in admission to “PG Medical Courses” is permissible, considering that all the admissions are to be based on the merit and rank obtained in NEET, what should be the modality of providing such domicile/residence- based reservation in relation to the State/UT having only one Medical College?
3. If answer to the first question is in the affirmative and if domicile/residence-based reservation in admission to “PG Medical Courses” is impermissible, as to how the State Quota seats, other than the permissible institutional preference seats, are to be filled up?
The matter was placed before Honorable Chief Justice of India for constitution of a Larger Bench.
SC directs the question of domicile/residence based reservation in admission to PG Medical Courses to a Larger Bench
Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice A.M Khanwilkar and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari in the case of Dr. Tanvi Behl v Shrey Goel & Ors. has directed the questions relating to the legality and validity of domicile/residence-based reservation for admission to the Post Graduate Medical Courses (MD/MS Courses 2019) in Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh to a larger bench.
By the impugned judgment and order dated 23.04.2019, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh has held invalid the provisions made by the said Medical College in its prospectus, so far relating to the domicile/residence-based reservation as provided in Union Territory Chandigarh Pool; and has struck down the same while directing that all the admissions made on the basis of such invalid reservation in the said Medical College be cancelled and fresh admission process for admission to the PG Medical Courses for the academic year 2019-20 be carried out on the basis of merit obtained by the candidates in National Eligibility-Cum-Entrance Test.
Aggrieved, the candidates whose admission to the PG Medical Courses were to be cancelled as also the Union Territory of Chandigarh and the said Medical College filed the present appeal.
Supreme Court on hearing contention of the appellant framed following questions to be determined by a larger bench-
1. As to whether providing for domicile/residence-based reservation in admission to “PG Medical Courses” within the State Quota is constitutionally invalid and is impermissible?
2. (a) If answer to the first question is in the negative and if domicile/residence-based reservation in admission to “PG Medical Courses” is permissible, what should be the extent and manner of providing such domicile/residence-based reservation for admission to “PG Medical Courses” within the State Quota seats?
(b) Again, if domicile/residence-based reservation in admission to “PG Medical Courses” is permissible, considering that all the admissions are to be based on the merit and rank obtained in NEET, what should be the modality of providing such domicile/residence- based reservation in relation to the State/UT having only one Medical College?
3. If answer to the first question is in the affirmative and if domicile/residence-based reservation in admission to “PG Medical Courses” is impermissible, as to how the State Quota seats, other than the permissible institutional preference seats, are to be filled up?
The matter was placed before Honorable Chief Justice of India for constitution of a Larger Bench.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com, Click Here
