{"id":11286,"date":"1999-08-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-08-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-preeti-srivastavadr-sadhna-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-10-august-1999"},"modified":"2016-03-27T04:47:42","modified_gmt":"2016-03-26T23:17:42","slug":"dr-preeti-srivastavadr-sadhna-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-10-august-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-preeti-srivastavadr-sadhna-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-10-august-1999","title":{"rendered":"Dr.Preeti Srivastava,Dr.Sadhna … vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & … on 10 August, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Dr.Preeti Srivastava,Dr.Sadhna … vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & … on 10 August, 1999<\/div>\n
Author: M S Manohar<\/div>\n
Bench: A.S. Anand, Sujata V.Mahohar, K.Venkataswami, V.N.Khare<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nDR.PREETI SRIVASTAVA,DR.SADHNA DEVI,DR.ASHUTOSH AGRAWAL.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS,STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t10\/08\/1999\n\nBENCH:\nA.S.  Anand, Sujata V.Mahohar, K.Venkataswami, V.N.Khare\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
Mrs.  Sujata V.\t Manohar, J.\n<\/p>\n
Leave granted in SLP(C) No.12231 of 1997.\n<\/p>\n
      The  following  issue formulated by this Court at\t the
\ncommencement  of  hearing,   requires  consideration:\t“The
\nquestion  is  whether apart from providing  reservation\t for
\nadmission  to  the Post Graduate Courses in Engineering\t and
\nMedicine  for special category candidates, it is open to the
\nState  to  prescribe  different admission criteria,  in\t the
\nsense of prescribing different minimum qualifying marks, for
\nspecial\t category  candidates  seeking admission  under\t the
\nreserved category.”\n<\/p>\n
      “This question certainly requires consideration of the
\nConstitution  Bench as it arises and is likely to arise in a
\nnumber of cases in different institutions of the country and
\nneeds  to  be  decided authoritatively keeping in  view\t the
\nobservations  made  in\tthree different two  or\t three-Judge
\nBench  judgments”.   These judgments are Ajay Kumar Singh  &
\nOrs.   v.   State of Bihar & Ors.  ([1994] 4 SCC  401),\t Dr.
\nSadhna Devi & Ors.  v.\tState of U.P.  & Ors.<\/a>  ([1997] 3 SCC\n<\/p>\n
90)  and  Post\tGraduate Institute of  Medical\tEducation  &
\nResearch,  Chandigarh  & Ors.  v.  K.L.\t Narasimhan  &\tAnr.<\/a>
\n([1997] 6 SCC 283)<\/p>\n
      Facts:\n<\/p>\n
      The  State  of  Uttar Pradesh has\t prescribed  a\tPost
\nGraduate  Medical Entrance Examination for admission to Post
\nGraduate  Degree\/Diploma  courses in medicine.\tThis  is  in
\nconformity  with  the  relevant Regulations of\tthe  Medical
\nCouncil\t of  India.   By G.O.  dated 11.10.1994,  the  State
\nGovernment  fixed  a cut-off percentage of 45% marks in\t the
\nPost  Graduate\tMedical\t Entrance  Examination\t(PGMEE)\t for
\nadmission  of  the general category candidates to  the\tPost
\nGraduate  Courses  in  Medicine.  The cutoff  percentage  of
\nmarks  for the reserved category candidates viz.   Scheduled
\nCastes,\t  Scheduled   Tribes  etc.    was  fixed   at\t35%.
\nThereafter,  by\t another G.O.  dated 31.8.1995 the State  of
\nUttar  Pradesh completely did away with a cut-off percentage
\nof  marks in respect of the reserved category candidates  so
\nthat  there  were  no minimum qualifying marks in  the\tPost
\nGraduate  Medical  Entrance Examination prescribed  for\t the
\nreserved  category candidates who were seeking admission  to
\nthe Post Graduate Courses.\n<\/p>\n
      This  G.O.   of 31.8.1995 was challenged\tbefore\tthis
\nCourt in Writ Petition (C) No.679 of 1995 Dr.  Sadhna Devi &
\nOrs.   v.   State of U.P.  & Ors.<\/a>  [1997] 3 SCC\t 90).\tThis
\nCourt,\tby  its\t judgment dated 19.2.1997, held\t that  while
\nlaying\tdown  minimum qualifying marks for admission to\t the
\nPost  Graduate Courses, it was not open to the Government to
\nsay  that there will be no minimum qualifying marks for\t the
\nreserved  category  of candidates.  If this is\tdone,  merit
\nwill  be sacrificed altogether.\t This Court struck down G.O.
\ndated 31.8.1995.\n<\/p>\n
      After  the  said decision, the State of  U.P.   issued
\nanother\t G.O.\tdated  2.4.1997\t  under\t which\tthe  cut-off
\npercentage of marks for the reserved category candidates was
\nrestored  at  35%.   However, the State of  U.P.   moved  an
\napplication  before this Court, being I.A.  No.2 of 1997 Dr.
\nSadhna Devi (Supra) in which the State of U.P.\t(inter alia)
\nprayed\tthat  it should be given the liberty to\t reduce\t the
\ncut-off percentage from 35% to 20% for the reserved category
\ncandidates  who\t appear\t in  the PGMEE\tfor  1997.   Without
\nwaiting for a decision, by an Ordinance dated 15.6.1997, the
\nState  of U.P.\treduced the minimum qualifying marks for the
\nreserved  category  candidates appearing in the\t PGMEE\t1997
\nfrom  35%  to  20%.   This Ordinance is\t challenged  in\t the
\npresent Writ Petition (C) No.300 of 1997.  The Ordinance has
\nnow been replaced by the Uttar Pradesh Post Graduate Medical
\nEducation  (Reservation\t for   Scheduled  Castes,  Scheduled
\nTribes\t and  Other  Backward\tClasses)  Act,\t1997.\t The
\npetitioners  have  now\tamended the said  writ\tpetition  to
\nchallenge this Act.\n<\/p>\n
      For  admissions  effected in 1998, the State  of\tU.P.
\nagain  prescribed a cut-off percentage of 20% marks for\t the
\nreserved category candidates.  Learned counsel for the State
\nof  U.P.   has\tfurther stated that for the  current  year’s
\nadmission,  i.e.  for admission to the P.G.M.E.E.  1999, the
\nState  has  introduced\ta Bill in the  Legislative  Assembly
\nprescribing the same cut-off percentage of 20% marks for the
\nreserved category candidates.\n<\/p>\n
      The  lower  percentage of qualifying marks  prescribed
\nfor  the scheduled caste, scheduled tribe and backward class
\ncandidates are in conjunction with the following reservation
\nof seats at the PGMEE:\n<\/p>\n
      Scheduled\t Castes\t :   21%, Scheduled  Tribes  :\t 2%,
\nBackward  Classes :  27% In the State of Madhya Pradesh also
\na  common entrance examination is held for admission to\t the
\nPost Graduate Courses in Medicine.  Under the Madhya Pradesh
\nMedical and Dental Post Graduate Entrance Examination Rules,
\n1997,  certain seats were reserved for the Scheduled  Caste,
\nScheduled  Tribe, BC and in-service candidates.\t The  Rules,
\nhowever,  did not lay down any minimum qualifying marks\t for
\nadmission  to  the  Post  Graduate Courses  either  for\t the
\ngeneral category or for the reserved category of candidates.
\nThese  Rules  were challenged by a writ petition before\t the
\nMadhya\tPradesh High Court.  By its judgment which is  under
\nchallenge  in  these  proceedings, the Madhya  Pradesh\tHigh
\nCourt  directed\t the State Government to  stipulate  minimum
\nqualifying  marks  in  the  PGMEE   for\t all  categories  of
\ncandidates,  including\tthe general category candidates,  in
\nview  of  the decision of this Court in Dr.   Sadhna  Devi’s
\ncase (supra).\n<\/p>\n
      By  G.O.\t dated 7.6.1997 the State of Madhya  Pradesh
\nprescribed  the\t following minimum percentage of  qualifying
\nmarks  for  the\t reserved category candidates to  make\tthem
\neligible  for counselling and admission to the Post Graduate
\nMedical Courses:\n<\/p>\n
      Scheduled\t Castes :  20% Scheduled Tribes :  15% Other
\nBackward Classes :  40%<\/p>\n
      This  Government Order of the State of Madhya  Pradesh
\nis under challenge before us.\n<\/p>\n
      We  have, therefore, to consider whether for admission
\nto  the Post Graduate Medical Courses, it is permissible  to
\nprescribe a lower minimum percentage of qualifying marks for
\nthe  reserved category candidates as compared to the general
\ncategory  candidates.  We do not propose to examine  whether
\nreservations  are permissible at the Post Graduate level  in
\nmedicine.   That  issue\t was not debated before us,  and  we
\nexpress\t no opinion on it.  We need to examine only  whether
\nany  special provision in the form of lower qualifying marks
\nin the PGMEE can be prescribed for the reserved category.\n<\/p>\n
      The Constitutional Imperative:\n<\/p>\n
      The  constitutional protection of equality before\t the
\nlaw under Article 14 of the Constitution is one of the basic
\ntenets\tof  the Constitution.  It is a cardinal value  which
\nwill  govern our policies and actions, particularly policies
\nfor employment and education.  Article 15(1) prohibits State
\ndiscrimination\ton  the ground (among others)  of  religion,
\nrace  or  caste.   Article   16(1)  prescribes\tequality  of
\nopportunity  for  all in matters relating to  employment  or
\nappointment  to\t any office under the State.  Article  16(2)
\nprohibits  discrimination  on the ground (among\t others)  of
\nreligion,  race,  caste or descent.  At the same  time,\t the
\nConstitution permits preferential treatment for historically
\ndisadvantaged  groups  in  the\tcontext\t of  entrenched\t and
\nclearly\t perceived social inequalities.\t That is why Article
\n16(4) permits reservation of appointments or posts in favour
\nof any backward class which is not adequately represented in
\nthe  services  under the State.\t Reservation is linked\twith
\nadequate  representation  in the services.   Reservation  is
\nthus a dynamic and flexible concept.  The departure from the
\nprinciple  of  equality of opportunity has to be  constantly
\nwatched.   So  long as the backward group is not  adequately
\nrepresented  in\t the services under the State,\treservations
\nshould\tbe made.  Clearly, reservations have been considered
\nas  a  transitory measure that will enable the\tbackward  to
\nenter  and  be adequately represented in the State  services
\nagainst the backdrop of prejudice and social discrimination.
\nBut  finally, as the social backdrop changes ?\tand a change
\nin  the\t social\t backdrop  is\tone  of\t the  constitutional
\nimperatives,  as  the backward are able to  secure  adequate
\nrepresentation in the services, the reservations will not be
\nrequired.   Article  335  enters a  further  caveat.   While
\nconsidering  the  claims of Scheduled Castes  and  Scheduled
\nTribes\tfor  appointments, the maintenance of efficiency  of
\nadministration shall be kept in sight.\n<\/p>\n
      Article  15(4),  which was added by  the\tConstitution
\nFirst  Amendment of 1951, enables the State to make  special
\nprovisions  for\t the advancement, inter alia,  of  Scheduled
\nCastes\tand Scheduled Tribes, notwithstanding Articles 15(1)
\nand  29(2).  The wording of Article 15(4) is similar to that
\nof  Article 15(3).  Article 15(3) was there from  inception.
\nIt  enables  special  provisions being made  for  women\t and
\nchildren  notwithstanding  Article 15(1) which\timposes\t the
\nmandate\t of non- discrimination on the ground (among others)
\nof  sex.   This\t was  envisaged as a  method  of  protective
\ndiscrimination.\t  This\tsame protective\t discrimination\t was
\nextended by Article 15(4) to (among others) Scheduled Castes
\nand Scheduled Tribes.  As a result of the combined operation
\nof these Articles, an array of programmes of compensatory or
\nprotective  discrimination have been pursued by the  various
\nStates\tand  the  Union Government.  Marc Galanter,  in\t his
\nbook,\t “Competing   Equalities”     has   described\t the
\nconstitutional\tscheme of compensatory discrimination  thus:
\n“These\t compensatory\t discrimination\t   policies   entail
\nsystematic departures from norms of equality (such as merit,
\nevenhandedness,\t   and\t   indifferences    of\t  ascriptive
\ncharacteristics).  These departures are justified in several
\nways:  First, preferential treatment may be viewed as needed
\nassurance  of  personal\t fairness, a guarantee\tagainst\t the
\npersistence  of discrimination in subtle and indirect forms.
\nSecond,\t such policies are justified in terms of  beneficial
\nresults that they will presumably promote:  integration, use
\nof neglected talent, more equitable distribution, etc.\tWith
\nthese  two  – the anti-discrimination theme and the  general
\nwelfare\t theme\t–  is  entwined\t  a  notion  of\t  historical
\nrestitution  or\t reparation  to offset\tthe  systematic\t and
\ncumulative  deprivations  suffered  by lower castes  in\t the
\npast.\t These\t multiple  justifications   point   to\t the
\ncomplexities  of pursuing such a policy and of assessing its
\nperformance.” Since every such policy makes a departure from
\nthe  equality norm, though in a permissible manner, for\t the
\nbenefit of the backward, it has to be designed and worked in
\na  manner  conducive  to  the ultimate\tbuilding  up  of  an
\negalitarian  non-discriminating society.  That is its  final
\nconstitutional\tjustification.\t Therefore,  programmes\t and
\npolicies  of compensatory discrimination under Article 15(4)
\nhave  to  be designed and pursued to achieve  this  ultimate
\nnational  interest.   At the same time, the  programmes\t and
\npolicies  cannot be unreasonable or arbitrary, nor can\tthey
\nbe  executed in a manner which undermines other vital public
\ninterests  or the general good of all.\tAll public  polices,
\ntherefore,  in\tthis area have to be tested on the anvil  of
\nreasonableness\tand  ultimate public good.  In the  case  of
\nArticle\t 16(4) the Constitution makers explicitly spelt\t out
\nin  Article  335  one  such  public  good  which  cannot  be
\nsacrificed,  namely, the necessity of maintaining efficiency
\nin  administration.   Article 15(4) also must be  used,\t and
\npolicies   under   it  framed,\tin   a\t reasonable   manner
\nconsistently with the ultimate public interests.\n<\/p>\n
      In  the  case  of M.R.  Balaji & Ors.   v.   State  of
\nMysore<\/a>\t([1963]\t Suppl.\t  1  SCR 439 at\t pages\t466-467),  a
\nConstitution  Bench  of\t this  Court  considered  this\tvery
\nquestion  relating to the extent of special provisions which
\nit  would be competent for the State to make, under  Article
\n15(4).\t This  Court  accepted the submission  that  Article
\n15(4) must be read in the light of Article 46 and that under
\nit,  the  educational and economic interests of\t the  weaker
\nsections  of  the  people  can\t be  promoted  properly\t and
\nliberally,  to establish social and economic equality.\t The
\nCourt  said,  “No  one\tcan  dispute  the  proposition\tthat
\npolitical  freedom and even fundamental rights can have very
\nlittle\tmeaning or significance for the backward classes and
\nthe  Scheduled\tCastes\tand   Scheduled\t Tribes\t unless\t the
\nbackwardness  and  inequality  from which  they\t suffer\t are
\nimmediately redressed”.\n<\/p>\n
      The  Court,  however, rejected the argument  that\t the
\nabsence\t of  any limitation on the State’s power to make  an
\nadequate  special  provision under Article  15(4)  indicates
\nthat  if  the  problem of backward classes of  citizens\t and
\nScheduled  Castes and Scheduled Tribes in any given State is
\nof  such a magnitude that it requires the reservation of all
\nseats  in  the higher educational institutions, it would  be
\nopen  to  the State to take that course.  This\tCourt  said:
\n“When Article 15(4) refers to the special provisions for the
\nadvancement  of\t certain  classes  or  Scheduled  Castes  or
\nScheduled  Tribes, it must not be ignored that the provision
\nwhich  is authorised to be made is a special provision;\t  it
\nis  not a provision which is exclusive in character so that,
\nin  looking after the advancement of those classes the State
\nwould be justified in ignoring altogether the advancement of
\nthe rest of the society.  It is because the interests of the
\nsociety\t  at  large  would  be\t served\t by  promoting\t the
\nadvancement  of\t the  weaker elements in  the  society\tthat
\nArticle\t 15(4) authorises special provision to be made.\t But
\nif  a  provision  which\t is in the nature  of  an  exception
\ncompletely excludes the rest of the society, that clearly is
\noutside\t the scope of Article 15(4).  It would be  extremely
\nunreasonable  to  assume that in enacting Article 15(4)\t the
\nParliament intended to provide that where the advancement of
\nthe  Backward Classes or the Scheduled Castes and Tribes was
\nconcerned,   the   fundamental\trights\t of   the   citizens
\nconstituting  the rest of the society were to be  completely
\nand   absolutely   ignored.”  This   Court  struck  down   a
\nreservation  of 68% made for backward classes for  admission
\nto  Medical and Engineering Courses in the university.\tThis
\nCourt  further observed, (at page 407) “A special  provision
\ncontemplated by Article 15(4), like reservation of posts and
\nappointments  contemplated by Article 16(4), must be  within
\nreasonable  limits.   The  interest of\tweaker\tsections  of
\nsociety\t which\tare  a first charge on the  States  and\t the
\nCentre\thave  to  be  adjusted\twith  the  interest  of\t the
\ncommunity  as  a  whole”.  The Court also  said\t that  while
\nconsidering  the reasonableness of the extent of reservation
\none  could  not lose sight of the fact that  the  admissions
\nwere   to  institutes  of   higher  learning  and   involved
\nprofessional  and  technical  colleges.\t   “The\t demand\t for
\ntechnicians,  scientists, doctors, economists, engineers and
\nexperts\t for the further economic advancement of the country
\nis  so great that it would cause grave prejudice to national
\ninterests if considerations of merit are completely excluded
\nby  wholesale reservation of seats in all technical, medical
\nor engineering colleges or institutions of that kind.” (Page\n<\/p>\n
468)  Therefore, consideration of national interest and\t the
\ninterests  of the community or society as a whole cannot  be
\nignored\t in  determining  the reasonableness  of  a  special
\nprovision under Article 15(4).\n<\/p>\n
      In the case of Dr.  Jagdish Saran & Ors.\tv.  Union of
\nIndia<\/a>  ([1980]\t2 SCC 768), reservation of 70% of seats\t for
\nthe  local  candidates\tin admissions to the  Post  Graduate
\nMedical\t Courses by the Delhi University was struck down  by
\nthis  Court.  While doing so, Krishna Iyer J.  speaking\t for
\nthe  Court  spelt out the ambits of Articles 14 and 15.\t  He
\nsaid,  (at  page  778)\t“But  it  must\tbe  remembered\tthat
\nexceptions  cannot overrule the rule itself by running\triot
\nor  by\tmaking reservations as a matter of course  in  every
\nuniversity  and\t every\tcourse.\t For  instance,\t you  cannot
\nwholly\texclude meritorious candidates as that will  promote
\nsub-standard  candidates  and bring about a fall in  medical
\ncompetence   injurious\tin  the\t long\trun  to\t  the\tvery
\nregion……….Nor  can  the  very best  be  rejected\tfrom
\nadmission  because  that  will be a national  loss  and\t the
\ninterests  of  no  region can be higher than  those  of\t the
\nnation.\t  So,  within these limitations without\t going\tinto
\nexcesses  there\t is  room  for play of\tthe  State’s  policy
\nchoices.”  He  further observed, “The first caution is\tthat
\nreservation  must  be  kept  in\t check\tby  the\t demands  of
\ncompetence.   You  cannot extend the shelter of\t reservation
\nwhere minimum qualifications are absent.  Similarly, all the
\nbest  talent  cannot  be completely  excluded  by  wholesale
\nreservation……A    fair    preference,    a\t  reasonable
\nreservation,  a just adjustment of the prior needs and\treal
\npotentials  of the weak with the partial recognition of\t the
\npresence  of  competitive  merit – such is  the\t dynamic  of
\nsocial justice which animates the three egalitarian articles
\nof the Constitution.”\n<\/p>\n
      “Flowing\tfrom the same stream of equalism is  another
\nlimitation.   The  basic  medical needs of a region  or\t the
\npreferential  push justified for a handicapped group  cannot
\nprevail\t in  the  same\tmeasure at  the\t highest  scales  of
\nspeciality where the best scale or talent must be handpicked
\nby  selecting  according  to capability.  At  the  level  of
\nP.H.D.,\t  M.D.\t or  levels  of\t higher\t proficiency   where
\ninternational  measure\tof talent is made, where losing\t one
\ngreat  scientist or technologist in the making is a national
\nloss, the considerations we have expended upon as important,
\nlose  their  potency,  where equality measured\tby  matching
\nexcellence  has\t more  meaning and cannot  be  diluted\tmuch
\nwithout grave risk.”\n<\/p>\n
      The  same\t reasoning runs through Dr.  Pradeep Jain  &
\nOrs.   v.   Union of India & Ors.  ([1984] 3 SCC  654).\t  It
\ndealt  with  reservation of seats for the residents  of\t the
\nState  or the students of the same university for  admission
\nto  the\t medical  colleges.  The Court said, (at  page\t676)
\n“Now,  the  concept of equality under the Constitution is  a
\ndynamic concept.  It takes within its sweep every process of
\nequalisation  and protective discrimination.  Equality\tmust
\nnot  remain  mere  ideal indentation but it  must  become  a
\nliving\treality\t for the large masses of  people…………
\nIt  is,\t therefore, necessary to take into account de  facto
\ninequalities  which  exist  in\tthe   society  and  to\ttake
\naffirmative  action  by\t way  of giving\t preference  to\t the
\nsocially   and\t economically\tdisadvantaged\tpersons\t  or
\ninflicting  handicaps on those more advantageously placed in
\norder  to  bring  about\t real  equality.”  The\tCourt  after
\nconsidering  institutional  and residential preferences\t for
\nadmission  to  the  M.B.S.S.  course,  said  that  different
\nconsiderations\t would\t prevail    in\t considering\tsuch
\nreservations for admission to the Post Graduate Courses such
\nas  M.D., M.S.\tand the like.  It said, (at page 691) “There
\nwe  cannot  allow excellence to be compromised by any  other
\nconsiderations\tbecause\t that  would be detrimental  to\t the
\ninterest  of the nation.” Quoting the observation of Justice
\nKrishna\t Iyer  in Dr.  Jagdish Saran case (supra) the  Court
\nsaid,  “This proposition has far greater importance when  we
\nreach  the  higher  levels of education like  Post  Graduate
\nCourses.   After  all,\ttop technological expertise  in\t any
\nvital  field like medicine is a nation’s human asset without
\nwhich its advance and development will be stunted.  The role
\nof  high  grade skill or special talent may be less  at\t the
\nlesser\tlevels of education, jobs and disciplines of  social
\ninconsequence,\t but   more   at   the\thigher\t levels\t  of
\nsophisticated  skills and strategic employment.\t To  devalue
\nmerit  at  the\tsummit is to temporise\twith  the  country’s
\ndevelopment  in the vital areas of professional\t expertise.”
\n(underlining ours)<\/p>\n
      A similar strand of thought runs through Indra Sawhney
\n&  Ors.\t  v.   Union of India & Ors.<\/a>  ([1992]  Supp.(3)\t SCC\n<\/p>\n
217),  where a Bench of nine Judges of this Court considered
\nthe  nature,  amplitude\t and  scope  of\t the  constitutional
\nprovisions  relating to reservations in the services of\t the
\nState.\t Jeevan\t Reddy\tJ.  speaking for  the  majority\t (in
\nparagraph  836)\t stated\t that the very idea  of\t reservation
\nimplies selection of a less meritorious person.\t At the same
\ntime, we recognise that this much cost has to be paid if the
\nconstitutional\tpromise of social justice is to be redeemed.
\nWe  also formally believe that given an opportunity, members
\nof  these  classes  are\t bound\tto  overcome  their  initial
\ndisadvantages  and  would  compete with ?  and may  in\tsome
\ncases  excel  ?\t members on open competition.\tHaving\tsaid
\nthis,  the Court went on to add, (in paragraph 838) “We\t are
\nof the opinion that there are certain services and positions
\nwhere either on account of nature of duties attached to them
\nor  the level (in the hierarchy) at which they obtain, merit
\nas  explained herein above alone counts.  In such situations
\nit  may\t not be advisable to provide for reservations.\t For
\nexample,  technical  posts  in\t research  and\t development
\norganisations\/departments\/institutions,\t in specialities and
\nsuper-specialities  in medicine, engineering and other\tsuch
\ncourses\t in  physical  science and mathematics,\t in  defence
\nservices  and  in the establishments  connected\t therewith.”
\n(underlining ours)<\/p>\n
      A\t similar  view\thas been taken in  Mohan  Bir  Singh
\nChawla\tv.  Punjab University, Chandigarh & Anr.<\/a>  ([1997]  2
\nSCC  171)  where  this Court said that at higher  levels  of
\neducation  it  would  be dangerous to depreciate  merit\t and
\nexcellence.   The higher you go in the ladder of  education,
\nthe lesser should be the reservation.  In Dr.  Sadhna Devi’s
\ncase  (supra)  also this Court has expressed a doubt  as  to
\nwhether there can be reservations at the Post Graduate level
\nin Medicine.\n<\/p>\n
      We  are,\thowever,  not directly\tconcerned  with\t the
\nquestion  of  reservations  at the Post\t Graduate  level  in
\nMedicine.   We are concerned with another special  provision
\nunder  Article\t15(4) made at the stage of admission to\t the
\nPost  Graduate Medical Courses, namely, providing for lesser
\nqualifying  marks or no qualifying marks for the members  of
\nthe  Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for admission  to
\nthe  Post  Graduate Medical Courses.  Any special  provision
\nunder Article 15(4) has to balance the importance of having,
\nat  the\t higher\t levels\t of   education,  students  who\t are
\nmeritorious  and who have secured admission on their  merit,
\nas  against the social equity of giving compensatory benefit
\nof  admission  to  the Scheduled Caste and  Scheduled  Tribe
\ncandidates  who\t are in a disadvantaged position.  The\tsame
\nreasoning   which   propelled  this   Court   to   underline
\nreasonableness\tof  a  special provision, and  the  national
\ninterest  in  giving at the highest level of education,\t the
\nfew  seats at the top of the educational pyramid only on the
\nbasis  of merit and excellence, applies equally to a special
\nprovision  in  the  form of lower qualifying marks  for\t the
\nbackward at the highest levels of education.\n<\/p>\n
      It  is  of  course,   important  to  provide  adequate
\neducational  opportunities  for\t all since it  is  education
\nwhich ultimately shapes life.  It is the source of that thin
\nstream\tof  reason which alone can nurture a  nation’s\tfull
\npotential.   Moreover,\tin  a\tdemocratic  society,  it  is
\nextremely  important that the population is literate and  is
\nable to acquire information that shapes its decisions.\n<\/p>\n
      The  spread of primary education has to be wide enough
\nto  cover  all\tsections of the society whether\t forward  or
\nbackward.   A  large  percentage  of  reservations  for\t the
\nbackward  would\t be  justified\tat this\t level.\t  These\t are
\nrequired  in  individual  as well as national  interest.   A
\nuniversity level education upto graduation, also enables the
\nindividual  concerned  to secure better employment.   It  is
\npermissible  and necessary at this level to have  reasonable
\nreservations  for the backward so that they may also be able
\nto  avail  of  these opportunities  for\t betterment  through
\neducation,  to which they may not have access if the college
\nadmissions  are\t entirely  by merit as judged by  the  marks
\nobtained  in  the qualifying examination.  At the  level  of
\nhigher\tpost-graduate  university education, however,  apart
\nfrom  the individual self interest of the candidate, or\t the
\nnational  interest  in promoting equality, a more  important
\nnational  interest  comes  into play.\tThe  facilities\t for
\ntraining  or education at this level, by their very  nature,
\nare  not  available  in abundance.  It is essential  in\t the
\nnational  interest  that these special facilities  are\tmade
\navailable  to persons of high calibre possessing the highest
\ndegree\tof  merit  so  that   the  nation  can\tshape  their
\nexceptional  talent  that is capable of contributing to\t the
\nprogress of human knowledge, creation and utilisation of new
\nmedical,  technical  or\t other\t techniques,  extending\t the
\nfrontiers  of  knowledge  through research work\t –  in\tfact
\neverything  that gives to a nation excellence and ability to
\ncompete\t internationally  in   professional,  technical\t and
\nresearch fields.\n<\/p>\n
      This  Court  has repeatedly said that at the level  of
\nsuperspecialisation  there cannot be any reservation because
\nany  dilution of merit at this level would adversely  affect
\nthe  national goal of having the best possible people at the
\nhighest levels of professional and educational training.  At
\nthe  level of a super speciality, something more than a mere
\nprofessional   competence  as  a   doctor  is  required.   A
\nsuper-specialist acquires expert knowledge in his speciality
\nand  is expected to possess exceptional competence and skill
\nin  his\t chosen\t field, where he may even make\tan  original
\ncontribution in the form of new innovative techniques or new
\nknowledge  to fight diseases.  It is in public interest that
\nwe  promote  these skills.  Such high degrees of  skill\t and
\nexpert\tknowledge  in  highly  specialised  areas,  however,
\ncannot\tbe  acquired  by anyone or everyone.   For  example,
\nspecialised sophisticated knowledge and skill and ability to
\nmake   right  choices  of   treatment  in  critical  medical
\nconditions and even ability to innovate and device new lines
\nof treatment in critical situations, requires high levels of
\nintelligent understanding of medial knowledge or skill and a
\nhigh  ability  to learn from technical literature  and\tfrom
\nexperience.   These  high  abilities are also  required\t for
\nabsorbing  highly  specialised\tknowledge   which  is  being
\nimparted at this level.\t It is for this reason that it would
\nbe detrimental to the national interest to have reservations
\nat  this stage.\t Opportunities for such training are few and
\nit is in the national interest that these are made available
\nto  those  who can profit from them the most viz.  the\tbest
\nbrains\tin  the country, irrespective of the class to  which
\nthey belong.\n<\/p>\n
      At  the next below stage of post-graduate education in
\nmedical\t specialities,\tsimilar considerations also  prevail
\nthough perhaps to a slightly lesser extent than in the super
\nspecialities.\tBut the element of public interest in having
\nthe  most meritorious students at this level of education is
\npresent\t even at the stage of post-graduate teaching.  Those
\nwho  have  specialised\tmedical knowledge  in  their  chosen
\nbranch\tare  able  to  treat better  and  more\teffectively,
\npatients  who  are  sent to them for  expert  diagnosis\t and
\ntreatment  in  their specialised field.\t For a\tstudent\t who
\nenrols for such speciality courses, an ability to assimilate
\nand acquire special knowledge is required.  Not everyone has
\nthis  ability.\tOf course intelligence and abilities do\t not
\nknow  any frontiers of caste or class or race or sex.\tThey
\ncan  be\t found\tanywhere, but not in  everyone.\t  Therefore,
\nselection  of the right calibre of students is essential  in
\npublic\tinterest  at the level of specialised  post-graduate
\neducation.   In\t view  of this supervening  public  interest
\nwhich  has  to\tbe  balanced against the  social  equity  of
\nproviding  some\t opportunities to the backward who  are\t not
\nable  to qualify on the basis of marks obtained by them\t for
\npost-graduate learning, it is for an expert body such as the
\nMedical\t Council  of  India,  to  lay  down  the  extent  of
\nreservations,  if any, and the lowering of qualifying marks,
\nif  any,  consistent  with the broader\tpublic\tinterest  in
\nhaving\tthe most competent people for specialised  training,
\nand the competing public interest in securing social justice
\nand  equality.\t The decision may perhaps, depend  upon\t the
\nexpert\tbody’s\tassessment of the potential of the  reserved
\ncategory candidates at a certain level of minimum qualifying
\nmarks and whether those who secure admission on the basis of
\nsuch  marks to post-graduate courses, can be expected to  be
\ntrained\t in  two or three years to come up to the  standards
\nexpected of those with post-graduate qualifications.\n<\/p>\n
      The  speciality  and  super   speciality\tcourses\t  in
\nmedicine  also\tentail\ton-hand experience  of\ttreating  or
\noperating  on  patients in the attached teaching  hospitals.
\nThose  undergoing  these programmes are expected  to  occupy
\nposts in the teaching hospitals or discharge duties attached
\nto  such  posts.   The elements of Article  335,  therefore,
\ncolour the selection of candidates for these courses and the
\nRules framed for this purpose.\n<\/p>\n
      In  the  premises\t the special  provisions  for  SC\/ST
\ncandidates  whether reservations or lower qualifying marks –
\nat  the speciality level have to be minimal.  There  cannot,
\nhowever,  be  any  such special provisions at the  level  of
\nsuper specialities.\n<\/p>\n
      Entrance\tExamination  for post-graduate\tcourses\t and
\nqualifying marks:\n<\/p>\n
      When  a  common  entrance\t  examination  is  held\t for
\nadmission  to postgraduate medical courses, it is  important
\nthat   passing\tmarks  or   minimum  qualifying\t marks\t are
\nprescribed  for the examination.  It was, however, contended
\nbefore\tus  by\tlearned counsel appearing for the  State  of
\nMadhya\tPradesh\t that  there  is no need  to  prescribe\t any
\nminimum qualifying marks in the common entrance examination.
\nBecause\t all  the  candidates  who  appear  for\t the  common
\nentrance  examination have passed the M.B.B.S.\t examination
\nwhich  is  an  essential   pre-requisite  for  admission  to
\npostgraduate  medical  courses.\t  The PGMEE  is\t merely\t for
\nscreening the eligible candidates.\n<\/p>\n
      This  argument ignores the reasons underlying the need
\nfor  a common entrance examination for post-graduate medical
\ncourses\t in a State.  There may be several universities in a
\nState which conduct M.B.B.S.  courses.\tThe courses of study
\nmay  not  be  uniform.\tThe quality of teaching may  not  be
\nuniform.   The\tstandard  of   assessment  at  the  M.B.B.S.
\nexamination  also  may\tnot  be\t uniform  in  the  different
\nuniversities.\tWith  the result that in some of the  better
\nuniversities  which  apply more strict tests for  evaluating
\nthe   performance   of\tstudents,  a  higher   standard\t  of
\nperformance is required for getting the passing marks in the
\nM.B.B.S.   examination.\t  Similarly,  a higher\tstandard  of
\nperformance may be required for getting higher marks than in
\nother  universities.   Some  universities   may\t assess\t the
\nstudents  liberally with the result that the candidates with
\nlesser\tknowledge may be able to secure passing marks in the
\nM.B.B.S.   examination;\t  while\t it may also be\t easier\t for
\ncandidates  to\tsecure marks at the higher level.  A  common
\nentrance   examination,\t  therefore,   provides\t a   uniform
\ncriterion  for judging the merit of all candidates who\tcome
\nfrom  different\t universities.\t Obviously, as soon  as\t one
\nconcedes  that there can be differing standards of  teaching
\nand  evaluation\t in different universities, one cannot\trule
\nout  the possibility that the candidates who have passed the
\nM.B.B.S.   examination from a university which is liberal in
\nevaluating  its\t students,  would   not,  necessarily,\thave
\npassed,\t had  they appeared in an examination where  a\tmore
\nstrict\tevaluation is made.  Similarly, candidates who\thave
\nobtained  very high marks in the M.B.B.S.  examination where
\nevaluation  is liberal, would have got lesser marks had they
\nappeared  for the examination of a university where stricter
\nstandards  were\t applied.  Therefore, the purpose of such  a
\ncommon\t entrance  examination\tis   not  merely  to   grade
\ncandidates  for selection.  The purpose is also to  evaluate
\nall  candidates by a common yardstick.\tOne must, therefore,
\nalso  take  into  account the possibility that some  of\t the
\ncandidates  who\t may have passed the  M.B.B.S.\t examination
\nfrom  more  “generous” universities, may not qualify at\t the
\nentrance examination where a better and uniform standard for
\njudging\t all  the candidates from different universities  is
\napplied.   In the interest of selecting suitable  candidates
\nfor  specialised education, it is necessary that the  common
\nentrance examination is of a certain standard and qualifying
\nmarks  are  prescribed for passing that\t examination.\tThis
\nalone\twill  balance  the   competing\tequities  of  having
\ncompetent students for specialised education and the need to
\nprovide\t for some room for the backward even at the stage of
\nspecialised  post-graduate education which is one step below
\nthe super specialities.\n<\/p>\n
      The  submission, therefore, that there need not be any
\nqualifying   marks  prescribed\tfor   the  common   entrance
\nexamination  has  to  be  rejected.  We\t have,\thowever,  to
\nconsider   whether  different  qualifying   marks   can\t  be
\nprescribed for the open merit category of candidates and the
\nreserved category of candidates.  Normally passing marks for
\nany  examination  have to be uniform for all  categories  of
\ncandidates.   We are, however, informed that at the stage of
\nadmission  to  the  M.B.B.S.  course, that is  to  say,\t the
\ninitial course in medicine, the Medical Council of India has
\npermitted the reserved category candidates to be admitted if
\nthey  have  obtained the qualifying marks of 35% as  against
\nthe  qualifying\t marks\tof  45%\t for  the  general  category
\ncandidates.   It is, therefore, basically for an expert body
\nlike  the  Medical Council of India to determine whether  in
\nthe   common  entrance\texamination   viz.    PGMEE,   lower
\nqualifying marks can be prescribed for the reserved category
\nof candidates as against the general category of candidates;
\nand  if so, how much lower.  There cannot, however, be a big
\ndisparity  in the qualifying marks for the reserved category
\nof  candidates and the general category of candidates at the
\npost-graduate  level.  This level is only one step below the
\napex  level  of\t medical  training and\teducation  where  no
\nreservations  are permissible and selections are entirely on
\nmerit.\t At only one step below this level the disparity  in
\nqualifying  marks,  if the expert body permits it,  must  be
\nminimal.   It  must be kept at a level where it is  possible
\nfor the reserved category candidates to come up to a certain
\nlevel  of excellence when they qualify in the speciality  of
\ntheir  choice.\tIt is in public interest that they have this
\nlevel of excellence.\n<\/p>\n
      In the present case, the disparity of qualifying marks
\nbeing  20% for the reserved category and 45% for the general
\ncategory is too great a disparity to sustain public interest
\nat   the  level\t of   post-graduate  medical  training\t and
\neducation.  Even for the M.B.B.S.  course, the difference in
\nthe  qualifying marks between the reserved category and\t the
\ngeneral\t category is smaller, 35% for the reserved  category
\nand  45%  for  the  general category.  We see  no  logic  or
\nrationale   for\t the  difference  to   be  larger   at\t the
\npost-graduate level.\n<\/p>\n
      Standard of Education:\n<\/p>\n
      A\t large\tdifferentiation\t in   the  qualifying  marks
\nbetween\t the  two  groups  of students would  make  it\tvery
\ndifficult to maintain the requisite standard of teaching and
\ntraining  at  the  post-graduate level.\t Any  good  teaching
\ninstitution  has  to  take into account the calibre  of\t its
\nstudents and their existing level of knowledge and skills if
\nit is to teach effectively any higher courses.\tIf there are
\na  number  of students who have noticeably lower skills\t and
\nknowledge,  standard  of  education will have to  be  either
\nlowered\t to reach these students, or these students will not
\nbe  able  to  benefit from or assimilate  higher  levels  of
\nteaching,  resulting in frustration and failures.  It  would
\nalso  result  in a wastage of opportunities for\t specialised
\ntraining  and  knowledge  which are by\ttheir  very  nature,
\nlimited.\n<\/p>\n
      It  is,  therefore, wrong to say that the standard  of
\neducation  is  not affected by admitting students  with\t low
\nqualifying  marks,  or\tthat the standard  of  education  is
\naffected  only\tby those factors which come into play  after
\nthe  students are admitted.  Nor will passing a common final
\nexamination  guarantee a good standard of knowledge.   There
\nis a great deal of difference in the knowledge and skills of
\nthose  passing\twith  a high percentage of marks  and  those
\npassing\t with  a  low  percentage of  marks.   The  reserved
\ncategory  of  students who are chosen for higher  levels  of
\nuniversity  education  must be in a position to benefit\t and
\nimprove\t their skills and knowledge and bring it to a  level
\ncomparable  with the general group, so that when they emerge
\nwith specialised knowledge and qualifications, they are able
\nto  function efficiently in public interest.  Providing\t for
\n20%  marks as qualifying marks for the reserved category  of
\ncandidates  and\t 45%  marks  for  the  general\tcategory  of
\ncandidates, therefore, is contrary to the mandate of Article
\n15(4).\t It is for the Medical Council of India to prescribe
\nany  special  qualifying  marks\t for the  admission  of\t the
\nreserved  category  candidates to the post-graduate  medical
\ncourses.   However,  the difference in the qualifying  marks
\nshould\tbe  at\tleast  the  same as  for  admission  to\t the
\nunder-graduate medical courses, if not less.\n<\/p>\n
      Learned  senior counsel Mr.  Bhaskar P.  Gupta for the
\nintervenors  drew our attention to an interesting study done
\nby  R.C.  Davidson in relation to the affirmative action and
\nother  special consideration admissions at the University of
\nCalifornia, Davis, School of Medicine.\tThe study graded the
\nstudents  who  were admitted on a scale (MCAC) with a  range
\nfrom  1\t to  15.  On this scale, the students  who  received
\nspecial consideration admission had an average score of nine
\nwhile  the  students who were admitted on open merit had  an
\naverage\t of  11.  However, when both these groups  graduated
\nfrom  medical  school  both the groups had a  high  rate  of
\nsuccessful  graduation\tthough\tthe   general  group  had  a
\nstatistically  significant  higher rate.  The special  group
\nhad  a graduation rate of 94% while the general group had  a
\ngraduation  rate  of  98%.  The study also  found  that\t the
\ndifferences  in\t the  abilities\t  of  special  consideration
\nstudents  were more evident in the first and second years of
\nthe curriculum.\t In the third year also the differences were
\nvisible.   However,  the  two groups had begun to  merge  in
\ntheir  achievements;  and ultimately by the time the  groups
\nqualified  in the final examination, there was a convergence
\nof  academic  progress\tbetween\t the  special  consideration
\nadmission  students  and the regularly admitted students  as
\nthe  process  of training lengthened.  A similar study\tdoes
\nnot  appear to have been made in our country relating to the
\nprogress  of the reserved category candidates in the  course
\nof  their studies.  But two things are evident even from the
\nstudy  made by Davidson.  The longer the period of training,
\nthe  greater  the chances of convergence of the two  groups.
\nSecondly,  both the groups had an initial high score –\tmore
\nthan  halfway up the scale.  Also, the initial difference in
\ntheir scores was not very large.  It was nine as compared to
\neleven on a scale of fifteen.  Therefore, at a high level of
\nscoring,  the  narrower\t the  difference,  the\tgreater\t the
\nchances\t of  convergence.  This study, therefore,  will\t not
\nhelp  the  respondents\tin the present case because  of\t the
\nsubstantial difference in the qualifying marks for admission
\nprescribed  for the reserved category candidates as  against
\nthe  general category candidates;  and the very low level of
\nqualifying  marks prescribed.  Thirdly, at the post-graduate
\nlevel  the  course of studies is relatively shorter and\t the
\ncourse is designed to give high quality speciality education
\nto  the\t qualified doctors to enable them to excel in  their
\nchosen\tfield  of speciality.  Therefore, unless there is  a
\nproper\tcontrol at the stage of admission, on the  different
\ncategories  of the students who are admitted, and unless the
\ndifferences are kept to a minimum, such differences will not
\ndisappear  in the course of time if the course of study is a
\nspecialised course such as a post-graduate course.\n<\/p>\n
      Who  should  decide the qualifying marks and  will  it
\naffect the standard of education:\n<\/p>\n
      Learned  counsel\tfor the States of Uttar Pradesh\t and
\nMadhya\tPradesh contend that it is for the States to  decide
\nthe  qualifying\t marks\twhich should be prescribed  for\t the
\nreserved  category candidates at the PGMEE.  It is a  matter
\nof  state policy.  The Medical Council of India cannot\thave
\nany  say in prescribing the qualifying marks for the  PGMEE.
\nThe  two  States have contended that it is the\tState  which
\ncontrols   admissions  to  the\t post-graduate\tcourses\t  in
\nmedicine.   It is for the State to decide whether to provide
\na  common entrance examination or not.\tThis examination may
\nor  may not have any minimum qualifying marks or it may have
\ndifferent  qualifying  marks  for  different  categories  of
\ncandidates.   It  is,  therefore,  not\topen  to  any  other
\nauthority  to interfere with the rules for admission to\t the
\npost-graduate medical courses in each State.  They have also
\ncontended  that a common entrance examination is merely\t for
\nthe  purpose  of  screening  candidates and  since  all\t the
\ncandidates  have  passed  the\tM.B.B.S.   examination\t the
\nstandard  is  not  affected  even if no\t minimum  marks\t are
\nprescribed for passing the common entrance examination.\t The
\nlatter argument we have already examined and negatived.\t The
\nother  contention,  however,  relating to the power  of\t the
\nState  to control admissions to the post-graduate courses in
\nmedicine requires to be examined.\n<\/p>\n
      The  legislative competence of the Parliament and\t the
\nlegislatures of the States to make laws under Article 246 is
\nregulated by the VIIth Schedule to the Constitution.  In the
\nVIIth  Schedule as originally in force, Entry 11 of  List-II
\ngave  to  the  States  an exclusive power  to  legislate  on
\n“Education  including universities subject to the provisions
\nof  Entries  63,  64, 65 and 66 of List-I and  Entry  25  of
\nList-III.”  Entry 11 of List-II was deleted and Entry 25  of
\nList-III  was amended with effect from 3.1.1976 as a  result
\nof the Constitution 42nd Amendment Act of 1976.\t The present
\nEntry 25 in the Concurrent List is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
      “Entry  25, List III:  Education, including  technical
\neducation,  medical  education and universities, subject  to
\nthe  provisions\t of  entries 63, 64, 65 and 66\tof  List  I:
\nvocational and technical training of labour.”\n<\/p>\n
      Entry  25\t is  subject,  inter alia, to  Entry  66  of
\nList-I.\t Entry 66 of List-I is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
      “Entry 66, List I:  Co-ordination and determination of
\nstandards  in institutions for higher education or  research
\nand scientific and technical institutions.”\n<\/p>\n
      Both the Union as well as the States have the power to
\nlegislate on education including medical education, subject,
\ninter  alia,  to Entry 66 of List-I which deals with  laying
\ndown  standards\t in  institutions for  higher  education  or
\nresearch  and scientific and technical institutions as\talso
\nco-ordination  of  such standards.  A State has,  therefore,
\nthe  right to control education including medical  education
\nso  long  as  the  field  is   not  occupied  by  any  Union
\nLegislation.   Secondly, the State cannot, while controlling
\neducation in the State, impinge on standards in institutions
\nfor  higher  education.\t Because this is exclusively  within
\nthe  purview  of  the Union  Government.   Therefore,  while
\nprescribing  the criteria for admission to the\tinstitutions
\nfor higher education including higher medical education, the
\nState cannot adversely affect the standards laid down by the
\nUnion  of  India under Entry 66 of List-I.  Secondly,  while
\nconsidering the cases on the subject it is also necessary to
\nremember  that\tfrom 1977 education including,\tinter  alia,
\nmedical\t and university education, is now in the  Concurrent
\nList  so that the Union can legislate on admission  criteria
\nalso.\tIf  it\tdoes  so,  the State will  not\tbe  able  to
\nlegislate in this field, except as provided in Article 254.\n<\/p>\n
      It  would\t not  be correct to say that the  norms\t for
\nadmission have no connection with the standard of education,
\nor that the rules for admission are covered only by Entry 25
\nof List III.  Norms of admission can have a direct impact on
\nthe  standards of education.  Of course, there can be  rules
\nfor  admission\twhich are consistent with or do\t not  affect
\nadversely the standards of education prescribed by the Union
\nin  exercise  of  powers  under Entry  66  of  List-I.\t For
\nexample,  a  State may, for admission to  the  post-graduate
\nmedical\t courses,  lay\tdown qualifications in\taddition  to
\nthose  prescribed  under Entry 66 of List-I.  This would  be
\nconsistent  with promoting higher standards for admission to
\nthe  higher  educational courses.  But any lowering  of\t the
\nnorms  laid  down can, and do have an adverse effect on\t the
\nstandards   of\teducation  in\tthe  institutes\t of   higher
\neducation.   Standards\tof  education in an  institution  or
\ncollege depend on various factors.  Some of these are:\n<\/p>\n
      (1)  The calibre of the teaching staff;  (2) A  proper
\nsyllabus  designed  to achieve a high level of education  in
\nthe given span of time;\t (3) The student-teacher ratio;\t (4)
\nThe  ratio  between  the  students  and\t the  hospital\tbeds
\navailable  to each student;  (5) The calibre of the students
\nadmitted  to the institution;  (6) Equipment and  laboratory
\nfacilities,  or hospital facilities for training in the case
\nof  medical  colleges;\t(7) Adequate accommodation  for\t the
\ncollege\t and the attached hospital;  and (8) The standard of
\nexaminations  held including the manner in which the  papers
\nare set and examined and the clinical performance is judged.\n<\/p>\n
      While  considering  the standards of education in\t any
\ncollege\t or  institution,  the calibre of students  who\t are
\nadmitted  to that institution or college cannot be  ignored.
\nIf  the students are of a high calibre, training  programmes
\ncan be suitably moulded so that they can receive the maximum
\nbenefit\t out of a high level of teaching.  If the calibre of
\nthe  students  is  poor\t or they are unable  to\t follow\t the
\ninstructions  being  imparted,\tthe   standard\tof  teaching
\nnecessarily  has  to be lowered to make them understand\t the
\ncourse\twhich  they  have  undertaken;\tand it\tmay  not  be
\npossible to reach the levels of education and training which
\ncan  be attained with a bright group.  Education involves  a
\ncontinuous   interaction  between  the\t teachers  and\t the
\nstudents.  The pace of teaching, the level to which teaching
\ncan  rise  and\tthe benefit which  the\tstudents  ultimately
\nreceive, depend as much on the calibre of the students as on
\nthe calibre of the teachers and the availability of adequate
\ninfrastructural\t  facilities.\t That  is    why   a   lower
\nstudent-teacher\t ratio has been considered essential at\t the
\nlevels of higher university education, particularly when the
\ntraining  to  be  imparted is highly  professional  training
\nrequiring  individual attention and on-hand training to\t the
\npupils who are already doctors and who are expected to treat
\npatients in the course of doing their post-graduate courses.\n<\/p>\n
      The respondents rely upon some observations in some of
\nthe  judgments of this Court in support of their stand\tthat
\nit  is\tfor  the State to lay down the rules and  norms\t for
\nadmission;   and  that these do not have any bearing on\t the
\nstandard of education.\tIn P.  Rajendran v.  State of Madras
\n&  Ors.<\/a>\t  ([1968] 2 SCR 786), a Constitution Bench  of\tthis
\nCourt  considered the validity under Articles 14 and  15(1),
\nof district- wise reservations made for seats in the medical
\ncolleges.   In\tthat  case, the Act in\tquestion  prescribed
\neligibility  and qualifications of candidates for  admission
\nto  the\t medical colleges.  The Court observed, “So  far  as
\nadmission  is concerned, it has to be made by those who\t are
\nin  control of the colleges – in this case, the\t Government.
\nBecause\t the  medical  colleges\t  are  Government   colleges
\naffiliated  to the university.\tIn these circumstances,\t the
\nGovernment  was\t entitled  to frame rules for  admission  to
\nmedical\t colleges controlled by it, subject to the rules  of
\nthe  university as to eligibility and qualifications.\tThis
\nwas  what  was\tdone  in these\tcases  and,  therefore,\t the
\nselection cannot be challenged on the ground that it was not
\nin  accordance with the University Act and the rules  framed
\nthereunder.”  This  Court, therefore, upheld the  additional
\ncriteria  framed  by the State for admission which were\t not
\ninconsistent  with the norms for admission laid down by\t the
\nUniversity  Act.  Since these additional qualifications\t did
\nnot diminish the eligibility norms under the University Act,
\nthis  Court upheld the additional criteria laid down by\t the
\nstate  as  not\taffecting  the standards laid  down  by\t the
\nUniversity Act.\t The question of diluting the standards laid
\ndown, did not arise.\n<\/p>\n
      The  respondents have emphasised the observation\tthat
\nadmission  has to be made by those who are in control of the
\ncolleges.   But, the question is, on what basis?  Admissions
\nmust  be  made\ton  a basis which  is  consistent  with\t the
\nstandards laid down by a statute or regulation framed by the
\nCentral Government in the exercise of its powers under Entry
\n66,  List I.  At times, in some of the judgments, the  words
\n“eligibility”\tand   “qualification”\t  have\t been\tused
\ninterchangeably,  and  in some cases a distinction has\tbeen
\nmade  between  the two words ?\t“eligibility” connoting\t the
\nminimum\t criteria for selection that may be laid down by the
\nUniversity    Act   or\t  any\t Central   Statute,    while
\n“qualifications” connoting the additional norms laid down by
\nthe  colleges  or by the State.\t In every case\tthe  minimum
\nstandards  as laid down by the Central Statute or under\t it,
\nhave  to  be  complied\twith  by  the  State  while   making
\nadmissions.   It may, in addition, lay down other additional
\nnorms  for admission or regulate admissions in the  exercise
\nof  its\t powers\t under\tEntry 25 List III in  a\t manner\t not
\ninconsistent  with or in a manner which does not dilute\t the
\ncriteria so laid down.\n<\/p>\n
      In  Chitra  Ghosh\t & Anr.\t v.  Union of India  &\tOrs.
\n([1970]\t 1  SCR 413), the Constitution Bench of\t this  Court
\nconsidered,  inter  alia, reservation of nine seats for\t the
\nnominees  of the Government of India in a Government Medical
\nCollege\t under\tArticle 14 of the Constitution.\t This  Court
\nupheld\tthe reservation as a reasonable classification under
\nArticle 14 on the ground that the candidates for these seats
\nhad  to\t be  drawn from different sources and  it  would  be
\ndifficult to have uniformity in the matter of selection from
\namongst\t them.\t The  background and the course\t of  studies
\nundertaken  by\tthese  candidates  would  be  different\t and
\ndivergent  and,\t therefore, the Central Government  was\t the
\nappropriate  authority\twhich could make a proper  selection
\nout  of these categories.  The questions before us, did\t not
\narise in that case.\n<\/p>\n
      In  the  State  of  Andhra Pradesh &  Ors.   v.\tLavu
\nNarendranath  &\t Ors.<\/a>  etc.  ([1971] 3 SCR 699), this  Court
\nconsidered  the\t validity  of  a  test\theld  by  the  State
\nGovernment for admission to medical colleges in the State of
\nAndhra\tPradesh.  The Andhra University Act, 1926 prescribed
\nthe  minimum qualification of passing HSC, PUC, I.S.C.\tetc.
\nexaminations  for entry into a higher course of study.\t The
\nAct,  however, did not make it incumbent upon the Government
\nto  make their selection on the basis of the marks  obtained
\nby  the candidates at these qualifying examinations.   Since
\nthe  seats for the MBBS course were limited, the Government,
\nwhich  ran  the\t medical  colleges, had a right\t to  make  a
\nselection  out\tof  the large number of candidates  who\t had
\npassed\tthe HSC, PUC or other prescribed examinations.\t For
\nthis  purpose  the State Government prescribed\tan  entrance
\ntest  of its own and also prescribed a minimum 50% of  marks
\nat  the\t qualifying examination of HSC, ISC, PUC  etc.\t for
\neligibility  to appear at the entrance test.  The Court said
\nthat   merely  because\tthe   Government  supplemented\t the
\neligibility  rules  by a written test in the  subjects\twith
\nwhich  the  candidates\twere  already  familiar,  there\t was
\nnothing\t unfair\t in the test prescribed.  Nor did  the\ttest
\nmilitate  against the powers of Parliament under Entry 66 of
\nList-I.\t  Entry\t 66 List-I is not relatable to\ta  screening
\ntest  prescribed  by the Government or by a  university\t for
\nselection  of  students from out of a large number  applying
\nfor admission to a particular course of study.\n<\/p>\n
      Therefore,  this\tCourt considered the  entrance\ttest
\nheld  by the State in that case as not violating Entry 66 of
\nList-I\tbecause\t the  statutory\t provisions  of\t the  Andhra
\nUniversity  Act were also complied with and the test was not
\ninconsistent  with those provisions.  Secondly, in that case
\nthe Court viewed the test as not in substitution of the HSC,
\nPUC,  ISC or other such examination, but in addition to\t it,
\nfor  the  purpose  of proper selection from out of  a  large
\nnumber of students who had applied.\n<\/p>\n
      This latter observation is relied upon by the State of
\nMadhya\tPradesh\t in  support  of  its  contention  that\t the
\nadditional  test  which the State may prescribe is only\t for
\nbetter\tselection.   Therefore, it is not necessary  to\t lay
\ndown  minimum qualifying marks in the additional test.\tLavu
\nNarendranath  (supra), however, does not lay down that it is
\npermissible  not  to  have minimum qualifying marks  in\t the
\nentrance test prescribed by the State;\tnor does it lay down
\nthat  every test prescribed by the State must necessarily be
\nviewed\tas  only  for the screening of candidates.   On\t the
\nfacts  before  it,  the\t Court viewed the  test\t as  only  a
\nscreening  test\t for proper selection from amongst  a  large
\nnumber of candidates.\n<\/p>\n
      On  the  facts  before  us, the PGMEE is\tnot  just  a
\nscreening   test.   Candidates\twho   have  qualified\tfrom
\ndifferent   universities  and  in   courses  which  are\t not
\nnecessarily  identical, have to be assessed on the basis  of
\ntheir  relative\t merit\tfor the purpose of  admission  to  a
\npost-graduate  course.\t It  is\t for  proper  assessment  of
\nrelative  merit\t of  candidates\t who  have  taken  different
\nexaminations from different universities in the State that a
\nuniform\t  entrance   test  is\tprescribed.   Such  a\ttest
\nnecessarily partakes of the character of an eligibility test
\nas  also  a  screening test.  In such a\t situation,  minimum
\nqualifying  marks  are necessary.  The question\t of  minimum
\nqualifying   marks  is\tnot  addressed\t at  all   in\tLevu
\nNarendranath (supra) since it did not arise in that case.\n<\/p>\n
      In  Dr.  Ambesh Kumar v.\tPrincipal, L.L.R.M.  Medical
\nCollege,  Meerut and Ors.  ([1986] Supp.  SCC 543), a  State
\norder  prescribed  55%\tas minimum marks  for  admission  to
\npost-graduate  medical\tcourses.  The Court  considered\t the
\nquestion  whether  the\tState can impose  qualifications  in
\naddition  to those laid down by the Medical Council of India
\nand  the Regulations framed by the Central Government.\t The
\nCourt  said  that any additional or  further  qualifications
\nwhich  the State may lay down would not be contrary to Entry
\n66  of\tList-I\tsince additional qualifications are  not  in
\nconflict  with\tthe Central Regulations but are designed  to
\nfurther\t the objective of the Central Regulation which is to
\npromote\t proper\t standards.  The Court said, (at  page\t552)
\n“The  State  Government\t by   laying  down  the\t eligibility
\nqualification,\tnamely,\t the  obtaining of  certain  minimum
\nmarks in the M.B.B.S.  examination by the candidates has not
\nin  any\t way encroached upon the Regulations made under\t the
\nIndian\tMedical Council Act nor does it infringe the central
\npower  provided\t in  the Entry 66 of List-I of\tthe  Seventh
\nSchedule  to the Constitution.\tThe order merely provides an
\nadditional   eligibility  qualification.”   None  of   these
\njudgments  lays\t down that any reduction in the\t eligibility
\ncriteria would not impinge on the standards covered by Entry
\n66  of\tList-I.\t All these judgments dealt  with  additional
\nqualifications\t?   qualifications in addition to  what\t was
\nprescribed by the Central Regulations or Statutes.\n<\/p>\n
      There   are,  however,  two   cases  where  there\t are
\nobservations  to the contrary.\tOne is the case of the State
\nof  Madhya  Pradesh & Anr.  v.\tKumari Nivedita Jain &\tOrs.<\/a>
\n([1981]\t 4 SCC 296), a judgment of a Bench of three  judges.
\nIn  this case the Court dealt with admission to the M.B.B.S.
\ncourse\tin  the\t medical  colleges of the  State  of  Madhya
\nPradesh.   The\tRules  framed by the State  provided  for  a
\nminimum\t of 50% as qualifying marks for the general category
\nstudents for admission to the medical colleges of the State.
\nBut  for  the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes\t the
\nminimum\t qualifying marks were prescribed as 40%.  Later on,
\nthe  minimum  qualifying marks for the Scheduled Castes\t and
\nthe Scheduled Tribes were reduced to 0.\t The Court observed,
\n(paragraph  17) “That it was not in dispute and it could not
\nbe  disputed that the order in question was in conflict with
\nthe  provisions contained in Regulation 2 of the Regulations
\nframed\tby  the\t Indian Medical Council.” But it  held\tthat
\nEntry  66  of  List-I would not apply to  the  selection  of
\ncandidates  for\t admission to the medical  colleges  because
\nstandards  would  come in after the students were  admitted.
\nThe Court also held that Regulation 2 of the Regulations for
\nadmission  to  MBBS  courses framed by\tthe  Indian  Medical
\nCouncil,  was only recommendatory.  Hence any relaxation  in
\nthe  rules  of\tselection made by the State  Government\t was
\npermissible.\tWe  will  examine   the\t character  of\t the
\nRegulations  framed by the Medical Council of India a little
\nlater.\t But  we cannot agree with the observations made  in
\nthat judgment to the effect that the process of selection of
\ncandidates  for\t admission to a medical college has no\treal
\nimpact\ton  the standard of medical education;\tor that\t the
\nstandard  of medical education really comes into the picture
\nonly  in  the course of studies in the medical\tcolleges  or
\ninstitutions   after   the  selection\tand   admission\t  of
\ncandidates.   For  reasons which we have explained  earlier,
\nthe  criteria  for  the\t selection  of\tcandidates  have  an
\nimportant  bearing on the standard of education which can be
\neffectively  imparted  in the medical colleges.\t  We  cannot
\nagree  with  the  proposition that  prescribing\t no  minimum
\nqualifying  marks for admission for the Scheduled Castes and
\nthe  Scheduled\tTribes\twould  not have\t an  impact  on\t the
\nstandard  of education in the medical colleges.\t Of  course,
\nonce  the  minimum standards are laid down by the  authority
\nhaving\tthe power to do so, any further qualifications\tlaid
\ndown by the State which will lead to the selection of better
\nstudents  cannot  be  challenged on the ground\tthat  it  is
\ncontrary  to  what  has\t been laid  down  by  the  authority
\nconcerned.   But the action of the State is valid because it
\ndoes  not  adversely impinge on the standards prescribed  by
\nthe  appropriate  authority.   Although\t  this\tjudgment  is
\nreferred  to  in  the Constitution Bench judgment  of  Indra
\nSawhney\t &  Ors.   v.  Union of India &\t Ors.<\/a>\t(supra)\t the
\nquestion  of  standards\t being\tlowered\t  at  the  stage  of
\npost-graduate  medical\tadmissions was not before the  court
\nfor consideration.  The court merely said that since Article
\n16 was not applicable to the facts in Kumari Nivedita Jain’s
\ncase  (supra),\tArticle 335 was not considered there.\tFort
\npost-  graduate medical education, where the “students”\t are
\nrequired  to discharge duties as doctors in hospitals,\tsome
\nof  the considerations underlying Articles 16 and 335  would
\nbe  relevant  as  hereinafter set out.\tBut that  apart,  it
\ncannot\tbe  said  that\tthe judgment  in  Nivedita  Jain  is
\napproved  in  all its aspects by Indra Sawhney v.  Union  of
\nIndia.\n<\/p>\n
      The other case where a contrary view has been taken is
\nAjay  Kumar Singh & Ors.  v.  State of Bihar & Ors.  ([1994]
\n4  SCC\t401)  decided by a Bench of three Judges.   It\talso
\nheld,  following Kumari Nivedita Jain & Ors.(supra) (at page\n<\/p>\n
417) that “Entry 66 in List-I does not take in the selection
\nof  candidates\tor regulation of admission to institutes  of
\nhigher\teducation.  Because standards come into the  picture
\nafter  admissions  are\tmade.” For reasons stated  above  we
\ndisagree with these findings.\n<\/p>\n
      In this connection, our attention is also drawn to the
\nemphasis  placed  in some of the judgments on the fact\tthat
\nsince all the candidates finally appear and pass in the same
\nexamination, standards are maintained.\tTherefore, rules for
\nadmission  do  not have any bearing on standards.   In\tAjay
\nKumar  Singh & Ors.  v.\t State of Bihar & Ors.\t(supra) this
\nCourt,\trelying\t on Kumari Nivedita Jain (supra), said\tthat
\neverybody  has to take the same post-graduate examination to
\nqualify\t  for  a  post-graduate\t  degree.   Therefore,\t the
\nguarantee  of  quality\tlies in everybody passing  the\tsame
\nfinal  examination.   The quality is guaranteed at the\texit
\nstage.\t Therefore, at the admission stage, even if students
\nof  lower  merit  are  admitted, this  will  not  cause\t any
\ndetriment  to the standards.  There are similar observations
\nin  Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research,
\nChandigarh  &  Ors.  v.\t K.L.  Narasimhan &  Anr.<\/a>   (supra).
\nThis  reasoning cannot be accepted.  The final pass marks in
\nan  examination\t indicate that the candidate  possesses\t the
\nminimum\t requisite knowledge for passing the examination.  A
\npass  mark  is\tnot a guarantee of excellence.\tThere  is  a
\ngreat deal of difference between a person who qualifies with
\nthe  minimum  passing marks and a person who qualifies\twith
\nhigh  marks.   If  excellence  is to be\t promoted  at  post-
\ngraduate levels, the candidates qualifying should be able to
\nsecure\tgood marks while qualifying.  It may be that if\t the
\nfinal  examination standard itself is high, even a candidate
\nwith   pass   marks  would   have  a  reasonable   standard.
\nBasically,   there  is\tno   single  test  for\t determining
\nstandards.   It\t is  the result of a sum total\tof  all\t the
\ninputs\t– calibre of students, calibre of teachers, teaching
\nfacilities,  hospital  facilities, standard of\texaminations
\netc.   that will guarantee proper standards at the stage  of
\nexit.\tWe,  therefore,\t disagree  with\t the  reasoning\t and
\nconclusion  in Ajay Kumar Singh & Ors.\tv.  Stage of Bihar &
\nOrs.   (supra)\tand  Post   Graduate  Institute\t of  Medical
\nEducation   &\tResearch,  Chandigarh  &  Ors.\t  v.\tK.L.
\nNarasimhan & Anr.<\/a>  (supra).\n<\/p>\n
      The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and standards:\n<\/p>\n
      Has  the\tUnion Government, by Statute or\t Regulations
\nlaid  down  the\t standards  at the  post-graduate  level  in
\nmedicine  in  the exercise of its legislative  powers  under
\nEntry  66, List I?  the appellants\/petitioners rely upon the
\nIndian\tMedical Council Act, 1956 and the Regulations framed
\nunder  it.   The  respondents  contend\tthat,  in  fact,  no
\nstandards  have\t been  laid down by the Medical\t Council  of
\nIndia.\t Also the standards laid down are only directory and
\nnot mandatory.\n<\/p>\n
      Now,  one of the objects and reasons contained in\t the
\nStatement  of  Objects and Reasons accompanying\t the  Indian
\nMedical\t Council  Act  of 1956\tis:”……………..(d)  to
\nprovide\t for  the formation of a Committee of  Post-Graduate
\nMedical\t Education for the purpose of assisting the  Medical
\nCouncil\t of India in prescribing standards of  post-graduate
\nmedical\t education  for the guidance of universities and  to
\nadvice\tuniversities  in  the  matter  of  securing  uniform
\nstandards  of  post-graduate  medical  education  throughout
\nIndia.”\t Section 20 of the Indian Medical Council Act,\t1956
\ndeals  with  post-graduate medical education.  The  relevant
\nprovisions under Section 20 are as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
      “20.   Postgraduate  medical education  committee\t for
\nassisting  council  in\tmatters\t  relating  to\tpostgraduate
\nmedical education:-\n<\/p>\n
      (1)   The\t  Council  may\t  prescribe   standards\t  of
\npostgraduate   medical\teducation  for\t the   guidance\t  of
\nuniversities,  and  advise  universities in  the  matter  of
\nsecuring   uniform   standards\t for  postgraduate   medical
\neducation throughout India, and for this purpose the Central
\ngovernment  may\t constitute  from among the members  of\t the
\ncouncil\t  a   postgraduate   medical   education   committee
\n(hereinafter  referred\tto  as\t the  postgraduate   medical
\neducation committee).\n<\/p>\n
      (2)………….\n<\/p>\n
      (3)………….\n<\/p>\n
      (4)………….\n<\/p>\n
      (5)  The views and recommendations of the postgraduate
\ncommittee on all matters shall be placed before the Council;
\nand  if the Council does not agree with the views  expressed
\nor the recommendations made by the postgraduate committee on
\nany matter, the Council shall forward them together with its
\nobservations to the Central government for decision.”\n<\/p>\n
      Section  33 of the Act gives to the Council the  power
\nto  make regulations generally to carry out the purposes  of
\nthe   Act  with\t the  previous\t sanction  of  the   Central
\nGovernment.   It  provides  that without  prejudice  to\t the
\ngenerality of this power such Regulations may provide, under
\nSection\t 33(j)\tfor the courses and period of study  and  of
\npractical  training  to\t be   undertaken,  the\tsubjects  of
\nexamination  and the standards of proficiency therein to  be
\nobtained  in universities or medical institutions, for grant
\nof  recognised\tmedical\t qualifications, and  under  Section
\n33(l)\tfor  the  conduct   of\tprofessional   examinations,
\nqualifications\tof examiners and the conditions of admission
\nto such examinations.\n<\/p>\n
      Pursuant to its power to frame Regulations the Medical
\nCouncil\t of  India has framed Regulations  on  Post-Graduate
\nMedical Education which have been approved by the Government
\nof India under Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act,
\n1956.\tThese  regulations  which have been  framed  on\t the
\nrecommendations\t of  the   Post-Graduate  Medical  Education
\nCommittee prescribe in extenso the courses for post-graduate
\nmedical\t education,  the facilities to be provided  and\t the
\nstandards  to be maintained.  After setting out the  various
\ncourses,   both\t  degree   and\t  diploma,   available\t for
\npost-graduate  medical\teducation, the\tRegulations  contain
\ncertain\t general provisions\/conditions some of which need to
\nbe noted.  Condition 4 deals with the student-teacher ratio.
\nIt says:\n<\/p>\n
      “The  student-teacher  ratio should be such  that\t the
\nnumber\t of   post-graduate  teachers  to  the\t number\t  of
\npost-graduate  students admitted per year, be maintained  at
\none to one.\n<\/p>\n
      For the proper training of the post- graduate students
\nthere  should be a limit to the number of students  admitted
\nper  year.  For this purpose every unit should consist of at
\nleast  three full time post-graduate teachers and can  admit
\nnot more than three students for post- graduate training per
\nyear.\tIf the number of post-graduate teachers in the\tunit
\nis  more  than\tthree  then the number of  students  can  be
\nincreased  proportionately.   For this purpose, one  student
\nshould associate with one post- graduate teacher”.\n<\/p>\n
      Condition 5 says:\n<\/p>\n
      “The  selection of post-graduates both for degree\t and
\ndiploma\t courses should be strictly on the basis of academic
\nmerit.”\n<\/p>\n
      Condition 6 is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
      “Condition  6:   The  training of\t post-graduates\t for
\ndegree should be of the residency pattern with patient care.
\nBoth  the in-service candidates and the stipendaries  should
\nbe given similar clinical responsibility ………….”.\n<\/p>\n
      Under   the  heading   “facilities  for  post-graduate
\nstudents” clause (1) provides as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
      “Clause  (1):   There  would  be two  types  of  post-
\ngraduate students:\n<\/p>\n
      (a)  Those  holding posts in the same Department\tlike
\nResident,  Registrar, Demonstrator etc.\t Adequate number  of
\npaid posts should be created for this purpose.\n<\/p>\n
      (b)  Those  receiving stipends.  The  stipends  should
\nnormally  be Rupees 300\/- per month payable for the duration
\nof the course.”\n<\/p>\n
      Under  the  heading  “criteria for  the  selection  of
\ncandidates” Clause (a) is as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
      “(a)  Students  for post-graduate training  should  be
\nselected  strictly on merit judged on the basis of  academic
\nrecord\tin  the\t under-graduate course.\t All  selection\t for
\npost-graduate\tstudies\t  should  be\tconducted   by\t the
\nUniversities.”\n<\/p>\n
      Under the heading “Evaluation of merit” it is provided
\nas follows:-\n<\/p>\n
      “The  Post-graduate Committee was of the opinion\tthat
\nin order to determine the merit of a candidate for admission
\nto post-graduate medical courses, (i) his performance at the
\nM.B.B.S.   examinations,  (ii)\this performance\t during\t the
\ncourse\tof  internship\tand housemanship for which  a  daily
\nassessment  chart be maintained and (iii) the report of\t the
\nteachers  which\t is  to\t be submitted  periodically  may  be
\nconsidered.\n<\/p>\n
      Alternatively  the  authorities concerned may  conduct
\ncompetitive entrance examination to determine the merit of a
\ncandidate for admission to post-graduate medical courses.”\n<\/p>\n
      Under  the heading “Methods of training” it is,  inter
\nalia, provided:\n<\/p>\n
      “………….The\t in-service  training  requires\t the
\ncandidate to be a resident in the campus and should be given
\ngraded\tresponsibility\tin the management and  treatment  of
\npatients  entrusted to his care.  Adequate number of post of
\nclinical  residents  or\t tutors should be created  for\tthis
\npurpose.”\n<\/p>\n
      Mr.   Salve, learned counsel appearing for the Medical
\nCouncil\t of  India  has, therefore, rightly  submitted\tthat
\nunder  the  Indian  Medical Council Act of 1956\t the  Indian
\nMedical\t Council  is  empowered to  prescribe,\tinter  alia,
\nstandards  of  post-graduate  medical\teducation.   In\t the
\nexercise of its powers under Section 20 read with Section 33
\nthe  Indian  Medical  Council has framed  Regulations  which
\ngovern\tpost-graduate medical education.  These Regulations,
\ntherefore,  are\t binding  and  the  States  cannot,  in\t the
\nexercise of power under Entry 25 of List-III, make rules and
\nregulations  which are in conflict with or adversely impinge
\nupon  the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India
\nfor  post- graduate medical education.\tSince the  standards
\nlaid  down are in the exercise of the power conferred  under
\nEntry\t66  of\tList-I,\t the   exercise\t of  that  power  is
\nexclusively  within the domain of the Union Government.\t The
\npower of the States under Entry 25 of List-III is subject to
\nEntry 66 of List-I.\n<\/p>\n
      Secondly,\t it is not the exclusive power of the  State
\nto frame rules and regulations pertaining to education since
\nthe subject is in the Concurrent List.\tTherefore, any power
\nexercised  by the State in the area of education under Entry
\n25 of List-III will also be subject to any existing relevant
\nprovisions  made in that connection by the Union  Government
\nsubject, of course, to Article 254.\n<\/p>\n
      In  Ajay Kumar Singh & Ors.  v.  State of Bihar & Ors.
\n(supra),  this\tCourt  examined\t the powers  of\t the  Indian
\nMedical\t Council  under\t Section 20 of\tthe  Indian  Medical
\nCouncil\t Act, 1956 and held that the power of the Council to
\nprescribe standards of post-graduate medical education under
\nSection\t 20  are only for the guidance of the  universities.
\nSince  Section 20 also refers to the power of the Council to
\nadvice\tuniversities  in  the  matter  of  securing  uniform
\nstandards  for\tpost-graduate medical  education  throughout
\nIndia, the Court said that the entire power under Section 20
\nwas  purely  advisory.\tTherefore, the power of\t the  Indian
\nMedical\t Council  to  prescribe\t the  minimum  standards  of
\nmedical\t education  at\tthe post- graduate  level  was\tonly
\nadvisory  in  nature  and not of a binding  character  (page\n<\/p>\n
415).\n<\/p>\n
      We  do  not  agree  with this  interpretation  put  on
\nSection 20 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.  Section
\n20(1)  (set out earlier) is in three parts.  The first\tpart
\nprovides  that\tthe  Council   may  prescribe  standards  of
\npost-graduate\tmedical\t education  for\t  the  guidance\t  of
\nuniversities.\tThe second part of sub-section(1) says\tthat
\nthe  Council  may  advise  universities\t in  the  matter  of
\nsecuring   uniform  standards\tfor  post-graduate   medical
\neducation  throughout.\t The last part of sub-\tsection\t (1)
\nenables\t the  Central Government to constitute from  amongst
\nthe   members  of  the\t Council,  a  post-graduate  medical
\neducation  committee.\tThe  first  part  of  sub-section(1)
\nempowers the Council to prescribe standards of post-graduate
\nmedical\t  education  for  the\tguidance  of   universities.
\nTherefore,  the\t universities  have  to\t be  guided  by\t the
\nstandards  prescribed by the Medical Council and must  shape
\ntheir  programmes  accordingly.\t  The scheme of\t the  Indian
\nMedical\t Council  Act, 1956 does not give an option  to\t the
\nuniversities  to follow or not to follow the standards\tlaid
\ndown  by  the  Indian  Medical Council.\t  For  example,\t the
\nmedical\t qualifications granted by a university or a medical
\ninstitution  have to be recognised under the Indian  Medical
\nCouncil\t Act,  1956.   Unless\tthe  qualifications  are  so
\nrecognised,  the students who qualify will be not be able to
\npractice.   Before  granting  such recognition, a  power  is
\ngiven  to  the Medical Council under Section 16 to  ask\t for
\ninformation  as\t to the courses of study  and  examinations.
\nThe  universities  are bound to furnish the  information  so
\nrequired   by  the  Council.\tThe  post-graduate   medical
\ncommittee  is  also  under Section 17, entitled\t to  appoint
\nmedical\t inspectors  to\t inspect  any  medical\tinstitution,
\ncollege,  hospital  or\tother\tinstitution  where   medical
\neducation  is given or to attend any examination held by any
\nuniversity  or\tmedical institution before recommending\t the
\nmedical\t qualification granted by that university or medical
\ninstitution.  Under Section 19, if a report of the Committee
\nis   unsatisfactory  the  Medical   Council   may   withdraw
\nrecognition  granted  to  a  medical  qualification  of\t any
\nmedical\t institution  or university concerned in the  manner
\nprovided  in Section 19.  Section 19A enables the Council to
\nprescribe  minimum  standards of medical education  required
\nfor  granting  recognised medical qualifications other\tthan
\npost-graduate  medical qualifications by the universities or
\nmedical\t institutions, while Section 20 gives a power to the
\nCouncil\t to  prescribe\tminimum standards  of  post-graduate
\nmedical\t education.   The universities must  necessarily  be
\nguided\tby  the standards prescribed under Section 20(1)  if
\ntheir  degrees\tor diplomas are to be recognised  under\t the
\nMedical\t Council of India Act.\tWe, therefore, disagree with
\nand  overrule  the finding given in Ajay Kumar Singh &\tOrs.
\nv.   State of Bihar & Ors.  (supra), to the effect that\t the
\nstandards  of post-graduate medical education prescribed  by
\nthe  Medical  Council of India are merely directory and\t the
\nuniversities  are not bound to comply with the standards  so
\nprescribed.\n<\/p>\n
      In State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.\t v.  Kumari Nivedita
\nJain  &\t Ors.<\/a>\t(supra), the provisions\t of  Indian  Medical
\nCouncil\t Act  and the regulations framed for  under-graduate
\nmedical\t courses  were considered by the Court.\t  The  Court
\nsaid that while regulation 1 was mandatory, regulation 2 was
\nonly  recommendatory  and need not be followed.\t We  do\t not
\nagree  with this line of reasoning for the reasons which  we
\nhave set out above.\n<\/p>\n
      In  the case of Medical Council of India v.  State  of
\nKarnataka & Ors.<\/a>  ([1998] 6 SCC 131) a bench of three judges
\nof  this  Court has distinguished the observations  made  in
\nKumari\tNivedita  Jain (supra).\t It has also disagreed\twith
\nAjay  Kumar  Singh & Ors.  v.  State of Bihar & Ors  (supra)
\nand  has  come\tto the conclusion that the  Medical  Council
\nRegulations  have a statutory force and are mandatory.\t The
\nCourt  was concerned with admissions to the M.B.B.S.  course
\nand  the  Regulations framed by the Indian  Medical  Council
\nrelating  to  admission to the M.B.B.S.\t course.  The  Court
\ntook  note of the observations in State of Kerala v.  Kumari
\nT.P.   Roshana & Anr.<\/a>  ([1979] 1 SCC 572 at page 580) to the
\neffect\tthat under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, the
\nMedical\t Council of India has been set up as an expert\tbody
\nto control the minimum standards of medical education and to
\nregulate  their\t observance.   It   has\t implicit  power  to
\nsupervise  the\tqualifications or eligibility standards\t for
\nadmission  into\t medical institutions.\tThere is, under\t the
\nAct  an overall vigilance by the Medical Council to  prevent
\nsub-standard  entrance\tqualifications for medical  courses.
\nThese  observations  would  apply equally  to  post-graduate
\nmedical\t courses.  We are in respectful agreement with\tthis
\nreasoning.\n<\/p>\n
      The   Regulations\t governing   post-graduate   medical
\neducation already referred to earlier, provide for admission
\non  the basis of merit.\t The Regulations, however, have\t not
\nclearly\t spelt\tout  whether  there can or  cannot  be,\t any
\nreservations  for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes  and\/or
\nbackward  class\t candidates  at the stage  of  post-graduate
\nmedical\t admissions.   Whether\tsuch   a  reservation  would
\nimpinge on the standards or not would depend upon the manner
\nin  which such reservation is made, and whether the  minimum
\nqualifying  marks  for the reserved categories are  properly
\nfixed or not.  It is for the Medical Council of India to lay
\ndown  proper norms in this area and to prescribe whether the
\nminimum\t qualifying  marks for the admission of students  in
\nthe  reserved  category\t can  be   less\t than  the   minimum
\nqualifying  marks  for the general category students at\t the
\npost-graduate level;  and if so, to what extent.  Even if we
\naccept\tthe  contention\t of  the respondents  that  for\t the
\nreserved  category candidates also, their inter se merit  is
\nthe  criterion\tfor  selection, although  for  the  reserved
\ncategory  of  candidates lower minimum qualifying marks\t are
\nprescribed,  the  merit which is envisaged under the  Indian
\nMedical\t Council Act or its Regulations is comparative merit
\nfor  all  categories  of  candidates.  For  admission  to  a
\npost-graduate course in medicine, the merit criterion cannot
\nbe  so\tdiluted by the State as to affect the  standards  of
\npost-graduate  medical\teducation  as prescribed  under\t the
\nRegulations framed by the Indian Medical Council.  It is for
\nthe Indian Medical Council to consider whether lower minimum
\nqualifying  marks  can\tbe prescribed at  the  post-graduate
\nlevel for the reserved category candidates.  We have already
\nopined\tthat the minimum qualifying marks of 20% as compared
\nto  45% for the general category candidates appear to be too
\nlow.  This would make it difficult for the reserved category
\ncandidates  to bring their performance on a par with general
\ncategory  candidates in the course of post-graduate  studies
\nand  before  they qualify in the post-graduate\texamination.
\nIt  is also necessary in public interest to ensure that\t the
\ncandidates  at the post- graduate level have not just passed
\nthe  examination, but they have profited from their  studies
\nin  a  manner which makes them capable of making  their\t own
\ncontribution,  that they are capable of diagnosing difficult
\nmedical\t conditions with a certain degree of expertise,\t and
\nare capable of rendering to the ill, specialised services of
\na  certain  acceptable\tstandard expected  of  doctors\twith
\nspecialised training.\n<\/p>\n
      The  States of U.P.  and Madhya Pradesh have contended
\nthat  if the minimum qualifying marks are raised in the case
\nof  the reserved category candidates, they will not be\table
\nto  fill  all  the seats which are reserved for\t them.\t The
\npurpose, however, of higher medical education is not to fill
\nthe seats which are available by lowering standards;  nor is
\nthe  purpose  of reservation at the stage  of  post-graduate
\nmedical education merely to fill the seats with the reserved
\ncategory  candidates.\tThe  purpose   of  reservation,\t  if
\npermissible  at\t this level, is to ensure that the  reserved
\ncategory  candidates  having  the   requisite  training\t and
\ncalibre\t to benefit from post-graduate medical education and
\nrise  to  the  standards  which\t  are  expected\t of  persons
\npossessing  post-  graduate medical qualification,  are\t not
\ndenied\tthis opportunity by competing with general  category
\ncandidates.  The general category candidates do not have any
\nsocial\tdisabilities which prevent them from giving of their
\nbest.\t The  special  opportunity   which  is\tprovided  by
\nreservation  cannot, however, be made available to those who
\nare  substantially  below  the\tlevels\tprescribed  for\t the
\ngeneral\t category  candidates.\tIt will not be possible\t for
\nsuch  candidates to fully benefit from the very limited\t and
\nspecialised  post-graduate training opportunities which\t are
\ndesigned  to produce high calibre well trained professionals
\nfor the benefit of the public.\tArticle 15(4) and the spirit
\nof  reason  which  permeates it, do not permit\tlowering  of
\nminimum\t qualifying marks at the post-graduate level to\t 20%
\nfor  the  reserved category as against 45% for\tthe  general
\ncategory  candidates.  It will be for the Medical Council of
\nIndia  to decide whether such lowering is permissible and if
\nso  to what extent.  But in the meanwhile at least the norms
\nwhich  are prescribed for admission to the M.B.B.S.  courses
\nought  not  to be lowered at the post-graduate\tlevel.\t The
\nlowering  of  minimum qualifying marks for admission to\t the
\nM.B.B.S.   courses has been permitted by the Indian  Medical
\nCouncil\t upto  35% for the reserved category as against\t 45%
\nfor  the  general  category.  The marks\t cannot\t be  lowered
\nfurther\t for admission to the post-graduate medical courses,
\nespecially  when  at  the super speciality level it  is\t the
\nunanimous view of all the judgments of this Court that there
\nshould be no reservations.  This would also imply that there
\ncan  be\t no  lowering of minimum qualifying  marks  for\t any
\ncategory  of  candidates  at the level of admission  to\t the
\nsuper-specialities courses.\n<\/p>\n
      In  Mohan\t Bir  Singh Chawla  v.\t Punjab\t University,
\nChandigarh  &  Anr.<\/a>  (supra) also this Court has  taken\t the
\nview that the higher you go the less should be the extent of
\nreservation  or\t weightage  and\t it would  be  dangerous  to
\ndepreciate  merit and excellence at the highest levels.\t  In
\nS.  Vinod Kumar & Anr.\tv.  Union of India & Ors.<\/a>  ([1996] 6
\nSCC 580) this Court while considering Articles 16(4) and 335
\nheld  that  for\t the purpose of promotion  lower  qualifying
\nmarks\tfor  the  reserved   category  candidates  were\t not
\npermissible.   Dr.  Sadhna Devi & Ors.\tv.  State of U.P.  &
\nOrs.<\/a>   (supra)\thas  rightly prescribed\t minimum  qualifying
\nmarks  for the common entrance examination for post-graduate
\nmedical\t courses.  The Court left open the question  whether
\nthere could be any reservation at the post- graduation level
\nand  to\t what  extent  lesser\tqualifying  marks  could  be
\nprescribed,  assuming  the reservations can be made.  As  we
\nhave  said earlier, these are matters essentially of  laying
\ndown  appropriate  standards and hence to be decided by\t the
\nMedical\t Council  of India.  However, the disparity  in\t the
\nminimum qualifying marks cannot be substantial.\n<\/p>\n
      In  Post\tGraduate  Institute of Medical\tEducation  &
\nResearch,  Chandigarh and Ors.\tv.  K.L.  Narasimhan &\tAnr.<\/a>
\n([1997] 6 SCC 283) there are observations to the effect that
\nthe  reservation of seats at the post-graduate and  doctoral
\ncourses in medicine would not lead to loss of efficiency and
\nwould  be  permissible under Article 15(4).  There are\talso
\nobservations  to  the effect that since all appear  for\t the
\nsame   final  examination,  there  is  no   downgrading\t  of
\nexcellence.   These  observations,  in our view,  cannot  be
\naccepted  for reasons set out earlier.\tThe judgment of\t the
\nCourt  in  Post\t Graduate Institute of Medical\tEducation  &
\nResearch,  Chandigarh and Ors.\tv.  K.L.  Narasimhan &\tAnr.<\/a>
\n(supra)\t in  so\t far as it lays down these  propositions  is
\noverruled.\n<\/p>\n
      In  the  premises,  we agree with\t the  reasoning\t and
\nconclusion  in Dr.  Sadhna Devi & Ors.\tv.  State of U.P.  &
\nOrs.<\/a>   (supra) and we overrule the reasoning and conclusions
\nin  Ajay  Kumar\t Singh\t& Ors.\tv.  State of  Bihar  &\tOrs.
\n(supra)\t and Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education  &
\nResearch,  Chandigarh and Ors.\tv.  K.L.  Narasimhan &\tAnr.<\/a>
\n(supra).  To conclude:\n<\/p>\n
      1.    We\thave  not   examined  the  question  whether
\nreservations  are permissible at the post-graduate level  of
\nmedical education;\n<\/p>\n
      2.   A common entrance examination envisaged under the
\nRegulations  framed  by\t the Medical Council  of  India\t for
\npost-graduate  medical education requires fixing of  minimum
\nqualifying marks for passing the examination since it is not
\na mere screening test.\n<\/p>\n
      3.   Whether  lower minimum qualifying marks  for\t the
\nreserved  category  candidates\tcan  be\t prescribed  at\t the
\npost-graduate level of medical education is a question which
\nmust  be  decided by the Medical Council of India  since  it
\naffects\t standards of post-graduate medical education.\tEven
\nif  minimum qualifying marks can be lowered for the reserved
\ncategory  candidates,  there  cannot  be  a  wide  disparity
\nbetween\t the  minimum  qualifying  marks  for  the  reserved
\ncategory candidates and the minimum qualifying marks for the
\ngeneral\t category candidates at this level.  The  percentage
\nof  20%\t for the reserved category and 45% for\tthe  general
\ncategory  is  not permissible under Article 15(4), the\tsame
\nbeing  unreasonable at the post-graduate level and  contrary
\nto public interest.\n<\/p>\n
      4.   At the level of admission to the super speciality
\ncourses,  no special provisions are permissible, they  being
\ncontrary to national interest.\tMerit alone can be the basis
\nof selection.\n<\/p>\n
      In  the  premises,  the impugned\tUttar  Pradesh\tPost
\nGraduate   Medical  Education\t(Reservation  for  Scheduled
\nCastes,\t Scheduled  Tribes and other Backward Classes)\tAct,
\n1997 and G.O.  dated 7.6.1997 of the State of Madhya Pradesh
\nare  set  aside.  However, students who have  already  taken
\nadmission  and are pursuing courses of post-graduate medical
\nstudy  under  the impugned Act\/G.O.  will not  be  affected.
\nOur  judgment  will have prospective application.   Further,
\npending\t consideration\tof  this  question  by\tthe  Medical
\nCouncil\t of India, the two States may follow the norms\tlaid
\ndown  by the Medical Council of India for lowering of  marks
\nfor  admission\tto  the\t  under-graduate  M.B.B.S.   medical
\ncourses,  at  the  post-graduate level also as\ta  temporary
\nmeasure\t until the norms are laid down.\t This, however, will
\nnot  be\t treated  as our having held that such\tlowering  of
\nmarks  will not lead to a lowering of standards at the post-
\ngraduate  level\t of medical education.\tStandards cannot  be
\nlowered\t at this level in public interest.  This is a matter
\nto  be decided by an expert body such as the Medical Council
\nof  India  assisted by its Post- Graduate Medical  Education
\nCommittee in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
      I.A.   No.2  in  WP(C) No.679 of 1995,  Writ  Petition
\nNos.290\t of  1997,  300\t of 1997,  C.A.\t  No……..of\t1999
\n(Arising  out of SLP(C) No.12231 of 1997) and Writ  Petition
\n(C) No.350 of 1998 are disposed of accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
      Review   Petition\t  Nos.2371-72\tof    1997   in\t  CA\nNos.3176-77\/97\n\n<\/pre>\n
      Normally\tthe power to review is used by us  sparingly
\nto  correct  errors apparent on the face of the record.\t  In
\nthe  judgment  sought  to be reviewed,\thowever,  there\t are
\nobservations which are so widely worded that they may create
\nmischief  or national detriment.  We would, therefore,\tlike
\nto  clarify  the position regarding admissions to the  super
\nspecialities  in  medicine.  In Post Graduate  Institute  of
\nMedical\t Education & Research, Chandigarh and Ors.  v.\tK.L.
\nNarasimhan & Anr.<\/a>  ([1997] 6 SCC 283), which is the judgment
\nin  question,  it was, inter alia, held that there could  be
\nreservation  of seats for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
\nTribes\tat  post-graduate  levels  or  doctoral\t levels\t  in
\nmedicine and that such reservations would not lead to a loss
\nof efficiency and are permissible under Article 15(4).\n<\/p>\n
      In the group of civil appeals decided by Post Graduate
\nInstitute  of  Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh\t and
\nOrs.   v.   K.L.  Narasimhan & Anr.<\/a>  (supra), the appeal  of
\nthe  present petitioners had challenged an Admission  Notice
\nNo.15\/90  issued in the Indian Express of 25.11.1990,  under
\nwhich  six  seats  for\tthe   super  speciality\t courses  of
\nD.M.\/M.C.H.   were kept reserved for the Scheduled Caste and
\nthe  Scheduled\tTribe candidates.  The\tpetitioners  rightly
\ncontend\t that at the super speciality level there cannot  be
\nany  relaxation\t in  favour of any category  of\t candidates.
\nAdmissions should be entirely on the basis of open merit.\n<\/p>\n
      The  ambit  of special provisions under Article  15(4)
\nhas  already  been  considered by us.  While the  object  of
\nArticle\t 15(4)\tis  to\tadvance the  equality  principle  by
\nproviding  for\tprotective discrimination in favour  of\t the
\nweaker sections so that they may become stronger and be able
\nto  compete  equally with others more fortunate, one  cannot
\nalso  ignore  the wider interests of society while  devising
\nsuch\tspecial\t   provisions.\t   Undoubtedly,\t  protective
\ndiscrimination\t in  favour  of\t  the  backward,   including
\nscheduled  castes  and\tscheduled tribes is as much  in\t the
\ninterest  of  society as the protected groups.\tAt the\tsame
\ntime,  there  may  be  other  national\tinterests,  such  as
\npromoting  excellence at the highest level and providing the
\nbest  talent  in  the  country with  the  maximum  available
\nfacilities  to\texcel and contribute to society, which\thave
\nalso  to be borne in mind.  Special provisions must strike a
\nreasonable balance between these diverse national interests.\n<\/p>\n
      In the case of Dr.  Jagdish Saran & Ors.\tv.  Union of
\nIndia<\/a> (supra) this Court observed that at the highest scales
\nof  speciality, the best skill or talent must be hand-picked
\nby  selection  according to capability.\t Losing a  potential
\ngreat  scientist  or technologist would be a national  loss.
\nThat  is why the Court observed that the higher the level of
\neducation  the lesser should be the reservation.  There\t are
\nsimilar\t observations in Dr.  Pradeep Jain & Ors.  v.  Union
\nof  India & Ors.  (supra).  Undoubtedly, Dr.  Pradeep Jain &
\nOrs.   v.  Union of India & Ors.  (supra) did not deal\twith
\nreservation  in\t favour\t of  the Scheduled  Castes  and\t the
\nScheduled  Tribes.   It dealt with reservation in favour  of
\nresidents and students of the same university.\tNevertheless
\nit  correctly  extended\t the  principle\t laid  down  in\t Dr.
\nJagdish\t Saran\t& Ors.\tv.  Union of India<\/a> (supra) to  these
\nkinds  of  reservation\talso, holding that  at\tthe  highest
\nlevels of medical education excellence cannot be compromised
\nto  the detriment of the nation.  Admissions to the  highest
\navailable   medical   courses\tin   the  country   at\t the
\nsuper-speciality  levels,  where  even\tthe  facilities\t for
\ntraining  are  limited, must be given only on the  basis  of
\ncompetitive  merit.   There  can be no\trelaxation  at\tthis
\nlevel.\n<\/p>\n
      Indra  Sawhney  &\t Ors.\tv.  Union of  India  &\tOrs.<\/a>\n<\/p>\n
(supra)\t has also observed that in certain positions at\t the
\nhighest\t level\tmerit  alone counts.   In  specialities\t and
\nsuper-specialities in medicine, merit alone must prevail and
\nthere  should  not  be\tany   reservation  of  posts.\t The
\nobservations  in Indra Sawhney & Ors.  v.  Union of India  &
\nOrs.<\/a>(supra) were in respect of posts in the specialities and
\nsuper-specialities  in\tmedicine.   Nevertheless,  the\tsame
\nprinciple   applies  to\t seats\tin  the\t  specialities\t and
\nsuper-specialities   in\t medicine.    Moreover,\t study\t and
\ntraining at the level of specialities and super-specialities
\nin  medicine  involve  discharging the\tduties\tattached  to
\ncertain specified medical posts in the hospitals attached to
\nthe  medical  institutions giving education in\tspecialities
\nand  super-specialities.   Even where no specific posts\t are
\ncreated\t  or  kept  for\t the   doctors\tstudying   for\t the
\nsuper-specialities  or specialities, the work which they are
\nrequired   to  do  in  the   hospitals\tattached  to   these
\ninstitutions is equivalent to the work done by the occupants
\nof such posts in that hospital.\t In this sense also, some of
\nthe considerations under Article 16(4) read with Article 335
\nrub  off on admissions of candidates who are given seats for
\nspeciality  and super-speciality courses in medicine.\tEven
\notherwise  under Article 15(4) the special provisions  which
\nare  made  at this level of education have to be  consistent
\nwith  the national interest in promoting the highest  levels
\nof  efficiency, skill and knowledge amongst the best in\t the
\ncountry so that they can contribute to national progress and
\nenhance\t the prestige of the nation.  The same view has been
\nupheld\tin  Dr.\t  Fazal Ghafoor v.  Union of  India  &\tOrs.<\/a>
\n([1988]\t Supp.\t SCC  794)  and Mohan Bir  Singh  Chawla  v.
\nPunjab University, Chandigarh, & Anr.<\/a>  ([1997] 2 SCC 171).\n<\/p>\n
      The  Post-graduate Institute of Medical Education\t and
\nResearch,  Chandigarh, has been set up as an institution  of
\nnational importance.  The Post-graduate Institute of Medical
\nEducation  and Research, Chandigarh Act, 1966, under Section
\n2  provides  that the object of the said institution  is  to
\nmake the institution one of national importance.  Section 12
\nsets  out  the\tobjects\t of the\t Institute.   These  are  as
\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n
      “Objects of Institute:<\/p>\n
      The objects of the Institute shall be –<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (a) to develop patterns of teaching in under- graduate
\nand  post-graduate medical education in all its branches  so
\nas to demonstrate a high standard of medical education;\n<\/p>\n
      (b)  to bring together, as far as may be, in one place
\neducational facilities of the highest order for the training
\nof  personnel in all important branches of health  activity;
\nand<\/p>\n
      (c)  to  attain  self-sufficiency\t in  post-  graduate
\nmedical\t  education   to  meet\t the  country’s\t needs\t for
\nspecialists and medical teachers.”\n<\/p>\n
      Under  Section  13  the  functions  of  the  Institute
\ninclude\t providing  both  under-graduate  and  post-graduate
\nteaching,  inter  alia, in medicine as also  facilities\t for
\nresearch,  conducting experiments in new methods of  medical
\neducation both under-graduate and post-graduate, in order to
\narrive\t at  satisfactory  standards   of  such\t  education,
\nprescribe  courses and curricula for both under-graduate and
\npost-graduate  study  and to establish and maintain  one  or
\nmore  medical  colleges\t equipped  to  undertake  not\tonly
\nunder-graduate\tbut also post-graduate medical education  in
\nthe subject.\n<\/p>\n
      Under  Section  32 of the said Act, the  Post-graduate
\nInstitute  of  Medical\tEducation and  Research,  Chandigarh
\nRegulations,  1967 have been framed.  Regulation 27 provides
\nfor  20%  of  the  seats in every course  of  study  in\t the
\nInstitute  to  be reserved for candidates belonging  to\t the
\nScheduled  Castes,  Scheduled Tribes or other categories  of
\npersons\t in accordance with the general orders issued by the
\nCentral\t Government  from  time\t to  time.   Regulation\t 27,
\nhowever, cannot have any application at the highest level of
\nsuper-specialities  as this would defeat the very object  of
\nimparting  the best possible training to select\t meritorious
\ncandidates   who  can  contribute  to  the  advancement\t  of
\nknowledge  in  the  fields  of\t medical  research  and\t its
\napplications.\tSince  no relaxation is permissible  at\t the
\nhighest\t levels in the medical institutions, the petitioners
\nare  right when they contend that the reservations made\t for
\nthe  Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe candidates\t for
\nadmission   to\t D.M.\tand   M.C.H.   courses\t which\t are
\nsuper-speciality  courses,  is\tnot   consistent  with\t the
\nconstitutional\tmandate\t under\tArticles  15(4)\t and  16(4).
\nRegulation  27 would not apply at the level of admissions to
\nD.M.  and M.C.H.  courses.\n<\/p>\n
      We, therefore, hold that the judgment of this Court in
\nPost  Graduate\tInstitute of Medical Education\t&  Research,
\nChandigarh  and\t Ors.  v.  K.L.\t Narasimhan & Anr.<\/a>   (supra)
\ncannot\tbe  read as holding that any type of  relaxation  is
\npermissible  at\t the super-specialities level.\t The  review
\npetitions are disposed of accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
      All the interlocutory applications also stand disposed
\nof.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Dr.Preeti Srivastava,Dr.Sadhna … vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & … on 10 August, 1999 Author: M S Manohar Bench: A.S. Anand, Sujata V.Mahohar, K.Venkataswami, V.N.Khare PETITIONER: DR.PREETI SRIVASTAVA,DR.SADHNA DEVI,DR.ASHUTOSH AGRAWAL. Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS,STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/08\/1999 BENCH: A.S. Anand, Sujata […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11286","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDr.Preeti Srivastava,Dr.Sadhna ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & ... on 10 August, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-preeti-srivastavadr-sadhna-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-10-august-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr.Preeti Srivastava,Dr.Sadhna ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & ... on 10 August, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-preeti-srivastavadr-sadhna-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-10-august-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1999-08-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-26T23:17:42+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"74 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-preeti-srivastavadr-sadhna-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-10-august-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-preeti-srivastavadr-sadhna-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-10-august-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr.Preeti Srivastava,Dr.Sadhna … vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & … on 10 August, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-08-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-26T23:17:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-preeti-srivastavadr-sadhna-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-10-august-1999\"},\"wordCount\":14801,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-preeti-srivastavadr-sadhna-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-10-august-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-preeti-srivastavadr-sadhna-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-10-august-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-preeti-srivastavadr-sadhna-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-10-august-1999\",\"name\":\"Dr.Preeti Srivastava,Dr.Sadhna ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & ... on 10 August, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-08-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-26T23:17:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-preeti-srivastavadr-sadhna-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-10-august-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-preeti-srivastavadr-sadhna-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-10-august-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-preeti-srivastavadr-sadhna-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-10-august-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr.Preeti Srivastava,Dr.Sadhna … vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & … on 10 August, 1999\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dr.Preeti Srivastava,Dr.Sadhna ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & ... on 10 August, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-preeti-srivastavadr-sadhna-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-10-august-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr.Preeti Srivastava,Dr.Sadhna ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & ... on 10 August, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-preeti-srivastavadr-sadhna-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-10-august-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-08-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-26T23:17:42+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"74 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-preeti-srivastavadr-sadhna-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-10-august-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-preeti-srivastavadr-sadhna-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-10-august-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr.Preeti Srivastava,Dr.Sadhna … vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & … on 10 August, 1999","datePublished":"1999-08-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-26T23:17:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-preeti-srivastavadr-sadhna-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-10-august-1999"},"wordCount":14801,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-preeti-srivastavadr-sadhna-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-10-august-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-preeti-srivastavadr-sadhna-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-10-august-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-preeti-srivastavadr-sadhna-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-10-august-1999","name":"Dr.Preeti Srivastava,Dr.Sadhna ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & ... on 10 August, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-08-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-26T23:17:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-preeti-srivastavadr-sadhna-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-10-august-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-preeti-srivastavadr-sadhna-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-10-august-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-preeti-srivastavadr-sadhna-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-10-august-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr.Preeti Srivastava,Dr.Sadhna … vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & … on 10 August, 1999"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11286","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11286"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11286\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11286"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11286"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11286"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}