On 20th October 2022, the Supreme Court in a Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli observed that the “Government Resolution dated 26 September 2022, providing for a reservation of 20% for in-service candidates in post graduate medical degree, issued after the commencement of admission process, will be applicable for the current academic year i.e., Year 2022-23. (Nipun Tawari & Ors Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors)
Facts of the Case:
The NEET PG-2022 examination was held on 21 May 2022. On 21 September the schedule for conducting admissions for post graduate medical courses was issued. On the same day Maharashtra govt. issued a brochure for admission. Clause 7.2 indicated that 50% of seats in post graduate diploma courses in medical colleges of the State Government and Municipal Corporations were reserved for in-service candidates of the State Government who had served for at least three years in remote and/or difficult areas. The clause envisages that for in-service reservation, any change made by the government from time to time would apply.
In addition, it was specified that the weightage for in-service candidates would be available in terms of Regulations (9)(IV) and (VII) of the Post Graduate Medical Regulations 2000. Clause 8.17, inter alia, stipulated that while determining the eligibility of in-service candidates, a weightage of marks would be provided as an incentive at the rate of 10% of the marks obtained for each year of service in remote and/or difficult areas with a maximum of 30% marks out of the marks obtained in the exam. On 26 September 2022, the Maharashtra Government issued a Resolution providing for in-service reservation to the extent of 20% seats in post graduate medical degree courses for officers serving in government hospitals.
A writ petition was filed by the appellants before the Bombay HC submitting that the resolution cannot be made applicable for admissions to post graduate medical degree courses for the 50% state quota in Government and Corporation run medical colleges for the current academic year. The same was dismissed giving rise to the present appeal.
Contentions of the Appellants:
The counsel for the appellants submitted that “Government Resolution dated 26 September 2022, providing for a reservation of 20% for in-service candidates, was issued after the admission process had commenced for Academic Year 2022-23, and would hence be inapplicable for that academic year. The underlying principles for admission cannot be altered once the admission process has commenced. The State Government while providing for in-service reservation has not collected any data which is evident from the fact that out of 1416 seats for post graduate medical degree courses in the State of Maharashtra, 282 seats were made available for the in-service quota but only 69 in-service candidates appeared for the NEET-PG held in May 2022 out of which 52 have been considered to be eligible for being granted admission. It is evident that the reservation of 20% is disproportionately high as a consequence of which only 52 out of the 282 seats have been filled up in the first round.” Reliance was placed on the case of Dr Prerit Sharma v. Dr Bilu B S.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The counsel for the respondents submitted that “there was no change in the rules governing admission midstream since the brochure released by the State Government made it abundantly clear that the reservation for in-service candidates would abide by such resolutions as would be issued by the State Government from time to time. This must be considered in the backdrop of the fact that in-service reservation in post-graduate degree courses in government medical colleges was provided in the State of Maharashtra prior to 2017 but was discontinued as a result of the judgment State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dinesh Singh Chauhan. However, the reservation for in-service candidates was restored after the subsequent decision of court in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association v. Union of India. There has been no change of policy midstream and the State Government has aligned the in-service reservation for post graduate degree courses, as provided earlier, save and except for reducing the quantum of reservation from 30% to 20%.”
Whereas, the counsel for the intervening in-service candidates submitted that “admissions have already been granted in the first round of counselling and the students who were admitted have not been impleaded as parties to these proceedings. There was no challenge to the legality and validity of the Government Resolution dated 26 September 2022. Hence the HC was justified in holding that in the absence of a challenge to the validity of the Government Resolution, it was not open to it to read down the provision so as to exclude its applicability for the current academic year.”
Observations and Judgment of the Court:
The hon’ble court observed that “in Maharashtra, there was an in-service quota for post graduate degree courses to the extent of 30% of the total seats. The validity of the in-service reservation in post graduate degree courses came under a cloud in view of the judgment of the three-judge bench in Dinesh Singh Chauhan (supra). However, the reservation for in-service candidates in diploma courses continued to exist since a specific provision in that regard was contained in Regulation 9(VII) of the MCI Regulations 2000.
There was no specific prohibition in the brochure in the matter of reservation for in-service candidates in the present case. On the contrary, Clause 7.2 of the brochure issued by the State of Maharashtra clearly specified that in quota reservations would abide by Government Resolutions as may be issued from time to time. The Government Resolution dated 26 September 2022 is in consonance with the brochure issued by the Government of Maharashtra. Hence, neither of the decisions cited by the appellants is of any assistance to their case.” The cases of Dinesh Singh Chauhan, Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association, Dr. Prerit Sharma, Neil Aurelio Nunes (OBC Reservation) v. Union of India were referred by the court.
The present appeal was dismissed holding that t the judgment of the High Court does not call for interference.
Case: Nipun Tawari & Ors Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors
Citation: Civil Appeal No 7778 OF 2022
Bench: Justice Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli
Date: October 20, 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
