In-Service Quota for Super Specialty Courses Upheld: Supreme Court Decision (March 16, 2022)

Date of the Judgment: March 16, 2022

Citation: (Not provided in the source)

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and B.R. Gavai, J.

Can a state government reserve seats in super-specialty medical courses for doctors already employed by the government? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, focusing on the balance between merit and the need for specialized medical professionals in public service. This case examines the legality of a Tamil Nadu government order reserving 50% of super-specialty seats for in-service candidates. The bench consisted of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai.

Case Background

The case originated from a challenge to G.O. (Ms.) No. 462, issued by the Tamil Nadu government on November 7, 2020. This order reserved 50% of the seats in Super Specialty medical courses (DM/M.Ch.) in government medical colleges for doctors already working in government service. The petitioners argued that such reservations were not permissible under the law, citing previous Supreme Court judgments that emphasized merit in admissions to super-specialty courses.

The High Court of Judicature at Madras had directed the Director of Medical Education to implement the said G.O. for the academic year 2021-2022. The Supreme Court had previously issued an interim order on November 27, 2020, stating that admissions to Super Specialty courses for the 2020-2021 academic year should proceed without reservations for in-service doctors. The petitioners sought to extend this interim order to the 2021-2022 academic year.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Madras had directed the Director of Medical Education to implement the G.O. for the academic year 2021-2022. This order was challenged before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had previously issued an interim order on November 27, 2020, which prevented reservations for in-service doctors for the 2020-2021 academic year. The petitioners requested that this interim order be extended to the 2021-2022 academic year.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of the Constitution of India, specifically:

• Item 66 in List I of the Seventh Schedule: This deals with the coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education.
• Entry 25 in List III of the Seventh Schedule: This relates to education, including medical education.

The Medical Council of India (MCI) Regulations and the NEET Bulletin were also considered. The NEET Bulletin stated that there is no reservation of seats for Super Specialty courses, citing a previous judgment of the Supreme Court.

Arguments

The petitioners argued that reservations for super-specialty courses are not permissible, relying on previous judgments of the Supreme Court:

• The nine-judge Constitution Bench in Indra Sawhney & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. and the Constitution Bench in Dr. Preeti Srivastava and another vs. State of M.P. and others held that there cannot be any reservation for admission in Super Specialty courses.
• The NEET-SS 2021 Information Bulletin, clause 10.10, specifically states that, as per the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (C) No.350 of 1998, there is no reservation of seats for Super Specialty (DM/M.Ch.) courses.
• The case of Dr. Sweety Bhartiya vs. State of M.P. & Ors., referred to in the NEET Bulletin, was part of the batch of cases disposed of by this Court in the case of Dr. Preeti Srivastava.
• Since matters regarding coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education are covered by Item 66 in List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, the Regulations issued by the Medical Council of India would prevail over the said G.O.
• The judgment of this Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association and others vs. Union of India and others, which held that the States have legislative competence to provide reservation for in-service candidates, does not lay down a correct proposition of law.
• The judgment of this Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association is restricted only to postgraduate degree/diploma courses and cannot be made applicable to Super Specialty courses.

The State of Tamil Nadu and the in-service doctors argued that:

• The Constitution Bench in the case of Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association has specifically held that the State is within its competence to provide reservation for in-service candidates.
• The Constitution Bench has specifically held that the State is empowered to provide for a separate source of entry or reservation for in-service candidates seeking admission to postgraduate degree/diploma courses, in view of Schedule VII List III Entry 25 of the Constitution of India.
• The policy for such a reservation must provide that, subsequent to obtaining the postgraduate degree by the in-service doctors concerned through such separate channel, they must serve the State in the rural, tribal and hilly areas for a certain amount of years and execute bonds for such sum as the respective State may consider fit and proper.
• There is a shortage of faculty members in super-specialty courses, and the in-service quota ensures that doctors will serve the state after completing their studies.
• All the candidates selected through in-service channels for the Super Specialty courses at the time of joining are required to execute a bond that they will serve the Government till their superannuation.
• If all the seats are filled in through open channel, prior experience would show that all such candidates would leave after a bond period of two years or even prior to that by paying the bond money.

The Union of India initially supported the petitioners but was later criticized for its inconsistent stance, as it already provided separate entrance examinations for postgraduate and Super Specialty seats and separate entry for in-service candidates as ‘sponsored candidates’.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The core issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the interim order dated 27th November, 2020, which was granted for the academic year 2020-2021, should also be continued for the academic year 2021-2022.
2. Whether G.O. (Ms.) No. 462, providing 50% reservation for in-service candidates in Super Specialty courses, is legally valid.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Indra Sawhney & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., Supreme Court of India: This case was cited by the petitioners to argue against reservations in super-specialty courses.
• Dr. Preeti Srivastava and another vs. State of M.P. and others, Supreme Court of India: This case was cited by the petitioners to argue against relaxation of qualifying marks in super-specialty courses.
• Dr. Sweety Bhartiya vs. State of M.P. & Ors., Supreme Court of India: This case was cited in the NEET Bulletin.
• Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association and others vs. Union of India and others, Supreme Court of India: This case was cited by the State of Tamil Nadu to support the legislative competence of the State to provide reservations for in-service candidates.
• Regional Manager and Another vs. Pawan Kumar Dubey, Supreme Court of India: This case was cited by the court to explain the concept of ratio decidendi.
• Union of India and Others vs. Dhanwanti Devi and Others, Supreme Court of India: This case was cited by the court to explain what constitutes a precedent.

Legal Provisions:

• Item 66 in List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India: Deals with the coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education.
• Entry 25 in List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India: Relates to education, including medical education.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

The Supreme Court refused to extend the interim protection granted for the academic year 2020-2021 to the academic year 2021-2022. This means that the State of Tamil Nadu was allowed to proceed with counselling for the 2021-2022 academic year, considering the 50% reservation for in-service candidates as per the said G.O. The Court clarified that this order was based on a prima facie consideration and the matter would be heard in detail after the vacations.

The Court held that the judgment in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association, which directly addressed the issue of the State’s competence to provide reservations for in-service candidates in postgraduate courses, was more applicable to the present case than the judgment in Dr. Preeti Srivastava, which dealt with the issue of relaxation of qualifying marks.

How submissions were treated

How each authority was viewed by the Court

• Indra Sawhney & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. [CITATION]: The court acknowledged this case but distinguished it from the present case.
• Dr. Preeti Srivastava and another vs. State of M.P. and others [CITATION]: The court distinguished this case, stating that it dealt with relaxation of qualifying marks and not with the issue of reservation for in-service candidates.
• Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association and others vs. Union of India and others [CITATION]: The court relied on this case, stating that it directly addressed the issue of the State’s competence to provide reservations for in-service candidates.
• Regional Manager and Another vs. Pawan Kumar Dubey [CITATION]: The court used this case to explain the concept of ratio decidendi.
• Union of India and Others vs. Dhanwanti Devi and Others [CITATION]: The court used this case to explain what constitutes a precedent.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Judicial Discipline: The Court emphasized the principle of judicial discipline, stating that a bench of two judges should be guided by a judgment of a Constitution Bench on a directly related issue.
• Ratio Decidendi: The Court focused on the ratio decidendi of the cases, noting that the Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association case directly addressed the State’s competence to provide reservations for in-service candidates, which was the core issue in the present case.
• Timing of the G.O.: The Court noted that the G.O. was notified before the commencement of the admission process for the academic year 2021-2022, unlike the situation in the previous year when the G.O. was issued after the admission process had begun.

The court considered the need to balance merit with the state’s need to have qualified doctors in public service. The court also acknowledged the shortage of faculty in super-specialty courses and the importance of in-service candidates serving the State after completing their studies.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court did not extend the interim order that had prevented reservations for in-service doctors in Super Specialty courses for the academic year 2020-2021.
• The State of Tamil Nadu was allowed to proceed with the counselling for the academic year 2021-2022 as per the G.O. which provided for 50% reservation for in-service candidates.
• The Court emphasized the principle of judicial discipline, stating that a bench of two judges should be guided by a judgment of a Constitution Bench on a directly related issue.
• The Court considered the Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association judgment to be more applicable to the present case than the Dr. Preeti Srivastava judgment.

Directions

The State of Tamil Nadu was at liberty to continue the counselling for the academic year 2021-2022 by taking into consideration the reservation provided by it as per the said G.O.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that a bench of two judges should be guided by a judgment of a Constitution Bench on a directly related issue. The Court also clarified that the Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association judgment is more relevant in cases related to reservations for in-service candidates in medical courses. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the court clarified which authority should be followed when there are multiple authorities available.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision allowed the State of Tamil Nadu to proceed with its policy of reserving 50% of Super Specialty seats for in-service doctors for the academic year 2021-2022. The Court emphasized the importance of judicial discipline and the need to follow the ratio decidendi of the relevant Constitution Bench judgments. The case highlights the ongoing debate about balancing merit and the need for public service in medical education.