LEGAL ISSUE: Whether reservations can be applied to admissions for Super Specialty Medical Courses.
CASE TYPE: Education Law, Medical Admissions
Case Name: Dr. Prerit Sharma & Ors. vs. Dr. Bilu B.S. & Ors.
Judgment Date: 27 November 2020
Date of the Judgment: 27 November 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 907
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao J., Hemant Gupta J., Ajay Rastogi J.
Can reservations be introduced mid-admission process for Super Specialty Medical Courses? The Supreme Court of India grappled with this question, ultimately deciding to halt the implementation of reservations for the 2020-2021 academic year. This case arose from conflicting orders of the Kerala and Madras High Courts regarding reservations for in-service doctors in Super Specialty Medical Courses. The bench comprised Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta, and Ajay Rastogi.
Case Background
The case originated from two separate writ petitions filed in the High Courts of Kerala and Madras concerning reservations for in-service doctors in Super Specialty Medical Courses. In Kerala, Dr. Bilu B.S. filed a writ petition seeking the implementation of 40% reservation for in-service doctors, citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association v. Union of India. The Kerala High Court initially refused to stay counseling but later directed the preparation of a list of eligible in-service candidates. This order was challenged by post-graduate degree holders who had qualified for NEET 2020.
Simultaneously, in Tamil Nadu, a writ petition was filed seeking 50% reservation for in-service doctors. The State of Tamil Nadu issued GOMS No. 462, providing for 50% reservation. This order was challenged before the Supreme Court by doctors who were eligible for admission to Super Specialty Medical Courses. The petitioners sought to conduct the counseling as per the information bulletin which did not provide for any reservation.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 03.08.2020 | Information bulletin for NEET-SS 2020 issued, stating no reservations for Super Specialty courses. |
| 15.09.2020 | NEET Super Specialty Examination conducted. |
| 25.09.2020 | Results of NEET Super Specialty Examination declared. |
| 05.10.2020 | Kerala High Court Single Judge refused to stay counseling for 40% in-service quota. |
| 07.10.2020 | Kerala High Court Division Bench directed preparation of list for in-service candidates. |
| 07.11.2020 | Tamil Nadu issued GOMS No. 462, providing 50% reservation for in-service doctors. |
| 09.11.2020 | Madras High Court disposed of the writ petition as the relief was already granted by the State Government. |
| 27.10.2020 | Supreme Court issued notice and status quo order. |
| 27.11.2020 | Supreme Court directed counseling without reservations for the 2020-2021 academic year. |
Course of Proceedings
The Kerala High Court initially refused to grant a stay on counseling for the 40% in-service quota. However, a Division Bench of the High Court overturned this decision and directed the preparation of a list of in-service candidates. This order was challenged before the Supreme Court. In Tamil Nadu, the High Court disposed of a writ petition after the State Government issued an order providing 50% reservation for in-service doctors. This order was also challenged before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case involves the interpretation of the Kerala Medical Officers Admission to Postgraduate Courses under Service Quota Act, 2008, which provides for a service quota for in-service doctors. The information bulletin for NEET-SS 2020, issued on 03.08.2020, stated that there would be no reservations for Super Specialty DM/MCH Courses. The Medical Counselling Committee also stated that there shall be no reservation for Super Specialty Medical Courses while referring to the judgment by this Court in Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Another vs. State of M.P . and Others and Dr. Sandeep Sadashivrao v. Union of India & Ors. The Tamil Nadu Government Order GOMS No.462 dated 07.11.2020 provided for 50% reservation for in-service doctors in Super Specialty Medical Courses.
Arguments
Arguments by the Appellants (Petitioners):
- The appellants argued that the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association v. Union of India does not apply to Super Specialty Medical Courses.
- They contended that there cannot be any reservation in admissions to Super Specialty Courses, citing precedents like Jagdish Saran v. Union of India, Dr. Pradeep Jain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Another vs. State of M.P. and Others, and Indira Sawhney & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
- They emphasized that the information bulletin for the academic year 2020-2021 clearly stated that there would be no reservations for Super Specialty Courses.
- They argued that the rules of the game cannot be changed mid-stream, and no reservation can be introduced at this stage of the admission process.
Arguments by the Respondents (In-service Doctors and State Governments):
- The respondents argued that the Kerala Medical Officers Admission to Postgraduate Courses under Service Quota Act, 2008, provides for a service quota for in-service doctors.
- They contended that the Supreme Court had upheld the State’s power to provide reservation to in-service doctors in super specialties in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association v. Union of India.
- They emphasized the need for doctors with Super Specialty qualifications in rural areas and argued that in-service doctors are more likely to serve in these areas.
- They argued that the State has the power to provide reservation by an executive order, taking into account the needs of the State.
- They relied on K. Duraisamy and another v. State of T.N. and Modern Dental College and Research Centre & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. to argue that reservation is permissible in Super Specialty Medical Courses.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions by Appellants | Sub-Submissions by Respondents |
|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Reservations to Super Specialty Courses | ✓ No reservation is permissible in Super Specialty Courses as per precedents. ✓ The Constitution Bench in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association did not deal with Super Specialty Courses. ✓ Rules cannot be changed mid-stream. |
✓ State has the power to provide reservation to in-service doctors in super specialties. ✓ In-service doctors are more likely to serve in rural areas. ✓ State can provide reservation by executive order. ✓ Reservation is permissible in Super Specialty Medical Courses as per K. Duraisamy and another v. State of T.N. and Modern Dental College and Research Centre & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.. |
| Timing of Reservation Implementation | ✓ Information bulletin for 2020-2021 clearly stated no reservations. ✓ Admission process has commenced, and reservations cannot be introduced now. |
✓ The State is implementing the law that has been upheld by the Supreme Court. ✓ The judgment in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association should be implemented for the 2020-2021 admissions. |
| Validity of Government Orders | ✓ GOMS No.462 was issued without any cogent material. ✓ Posting in rural areas is not a valid reason for reservation. |
✓ State has the power to provide reservation by an executive order, taking into account the needs of the State. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues in this interim order. However, the following points were considered by the Court:
- Whether the judgment in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association v. Union of India applies to Super Specialty Medical Courses.
- Whether reservations are permissible in Super Specialty Medical Courses.
- Whether the State Governments can introduce reservations mid-admission process.
- Whether the Government Orders issued by the State of Tamil Nadu are valid.
- Whether the rules of the game can be changed mid-stream.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | How the Court Dealt with It |
|---|---|
| Applicability of Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association to Super Specialty Courses | The Court did not make a final determination but noted that the arguments on this point are to be considered in detail at a later stage. |
| Permissibility of Reservations in Super Specialty Courses | The Court did not make a final determination but noted that this point is to be considered in detail at a later stage. |
| Introduction of Reservations Mid-Admission Process | The Court held that the process for admissions had started on 03.08.2020 and it was made clear to all the competing candidates that there shall be no reservation to Super Specialty Medical Courses. The Court did not allow the introduction of reservations at this stage. |
| Validity of the Government Orders | The Court did not express any opinion on the validity of GOMS No.462 of 07.11.2020 but stayed its operation for the current academic year. |
| Changing the rules mid-stream | The Court held that the rules of the game cannot be changed mid-stream and no reservation can be provided for this academic year i.e. 2020-2021. |
Authorities
Cases Cited by the Court:
| Authority | Court | Legal Point | How it was used |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association v. Union of India | Supreme Court of India | Reservation for in-service doctors in postgraduate courses | The Court considered the arguments of both sides on the applicability of this judgment to Super Specialty courses. |
| Jagdish Saran v. Union of India, (1980) 2 SCC 768 | Supreme Court of India | No reservation in Super Specialty courses | Cited by the petitioners to argue against reservations in Super Specialty courses. |
| Dr. Pradeep Jain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (1984) 3 SCC 654 | Supreme Court of India | No reservation in Super Specialty courses | Cited by the petitioners to argue against reservations in Super Specialty courses. |
| Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Another vs. State of M.P . and Others, (1999) 7 SCC 120 | Supreme Court of India | No reservation in Super Specialty courses | Cited by the petitioners to argue against reservations in Super Specialty courses. |
| Indira Sawhney & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217 | Supreme Court of India | No reservation in Super Specialty courses | Cited by the petitioners to argue against reservations in Super Specialty courses. |
| K. Duraisamy and another v. State of T.N., (2001) 2 SCC 538 | Supreme Court of India | Reservation is permissible in Super Specialty Medical Courses | Cited by the respondents to argue that reservation is permissible in Super Specialty Medical Courses. |
| Modern Dental College and Research Centre & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., (2016) 7 SCC 353 | Supreme Court of India | Reservation is permissible in Super Specialty Medical Courses | Cited by the respondents to argue that reservation is permissible in Super Specialty Medical Courses. |
| Dr. Sandeep Sadashivrao v. Union of India & Ors., (2016) 2 SCC 328 | Supreme Court of India | No reservation in Super Specialty courses | Cited by the Medical Counselling Committee to state that there shall be no reservation for Super Specialty Medical Courses. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| The judgment of the Constitution Bench in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association v. Union of India does not apply to Super Specialty Medical Courses. | The Court did not make a final determination but noted that the arguments on this point are to be considered in detail at a later stage. |
| There cannot be any reservation in admissions to Super Specialty Courses. | The Court did not make a final determination but noted that this point is to be considered in detail at a later stage. |
| The information bulletin for the academic year 2020-2021 clearly stated that there would be no reservations for Super Specialty Courses. | The Court accepted this submission and held that the rules of the game cannot be changed mid-stream. |
| The rules of the game cannot be changed mid-stream, and no reservation can be introduced at this stage of the admission process. | The Court accepted this submission and held that the admission process had commenced, and reservations cannot be introduced now. |
| The Kerala Medical Officers Admission to Postgraduate Courses under Service Quota Act, 2008, provides for a service quota for in-service doctors. | The Court acknowledged this submission but noted that the State of Kerala had expressed its inability to implement the Act for the current academic year. |
| The Supreme Court had upheld the State’s power to provide reservation to in-service doctors in super specialties in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association v. Union of India. | The Court did not make a final determination but noted that the arguments on this point are to be considered in detail at a later stage. |
| The need for doctors with Super Specialty qualifications in rural areas and that in-service doctors are more likely to serve in these areas. | The Court acknowledged this submission but did not accept it as a valid reason to implement reservations mid-admission process. |
| The State has the power to provide reservation by an executive order, taking into account the needs of the State. | The Court did not express any opinion on the validity of the Government Orders but stayed its operation for the current academic year. |
| Reservation is permissible in Super Specialty Medical Courses as per K. Duraisamy and another v. State of T.N. and Modern Dental College and Research Centre & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. | The Court did not make a final determination but noted that the arguments on this point are to be considered in detail at a later stage. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court considered the arguments of both sides on the applicability of Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association v. Union of India to Super Specialty courses.
- The Court noted that the petitioners relied on Jagdish Saran v. Union of India, Dr. Pradeep Jain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., Dr. Preeti Srivastava and Another vs. State of M.P . and Others and Indira Sawhney & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. to argue against reservations in Super Specialty courses.
- The Court noted that the respondents relied on K. Duraisamy and another v. State of T.N. and Modern Dental College and Research Centre & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. to argue that reservation is permissible in Super Specialty Medical Courses.
- The Court noted that the Medical Counselling Committee relied on Dr. Sandeep Sadashivrao v. Union of India & Ors. to state that there shall be no reservation for Super Specialty Medical Courses.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the admission process had already commenced, and the information bulletin had clearly stated that there would be no reservations for Super Specialty Medical Courses. The Court emphasized that the rules of the game cannot be changed mid-stream. The Court also took into consideration the fact that the State of Kerala had expressed its inability to implement the reservation for the current academic year. The Court did not express any opinion on the validity of the Government Orders issued by the State of Tamil Nadu but stayed its operation for the current academic year.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Importance of following the rules of the admission process | 40% |
| The admission process had already commenced | 30% |
| Inability of the State of Kerala to implement the reservations | 20% |
| No opinion on the validity of the Government Orders | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 70% |
| Law | 30% |
Logical Reasoning:
The Court considered the arguments of both sides but ultimately decided to prioritize the sanctity of the admission process and the principle that the rules cannot be changed mid-stream. The Court did not make a final determination on the legal issues raised but decided to address them at a later stage.
The Court stated, “The process for admissions to Super Specialty Medical Courses started on 03.08.2020 and it was made clear to all the competing candidates that there shall be no reservation to Super Specialty Medical Courses.”
The Court also noted, “We are not in agreement with the submission of Mr. Vaidyanathan and Mr. Giri that nobody will be prejudiced if the Government Order is given effect to. There will be reduction of 50% of seats in Super Specialty courses in Tamil Nadu if the Government Order is carried out, which is detrimental to their chances of admission.”
The Court further clarified, “We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the validity of GOMS No.462 of 07.11.2020. We direct that the counselling for admission to Super Specialty Medical Courses for the academic year 2020-2021 shall proceed on a date to be fixed by the competent authority without providing for reservations to in-service doctors for the academic year 2020-2021.”
Key Takeaways
- For the academic year 2020-2021, admissions to Super Specialty Medical Courses will proceed without any reservations for in-service doctors.
- The Supreme Court has not made a final determination on the legality of reservations in Super Specialty Medical Courses, and this issue will be addressed in future hearings.
- The Court emphasized that the rules of the admission process cannot be changed mid-stream.
- The interim order protects the interests of the meritorious candidates who had applied for admission based on the information bulletin that stated no reservation for Super Specialty Medical Courses.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the counselling for admission to Super Specialty Medical Courses for the academic year 2020-2021 shall proceed on a date to be fixed by the competent authority without providing for reservations to in-service doctors for the academic year 2020-2021. The Court also directed that the appeals and the writ petition be listed for hearing in February 2021.
Specific Amendments Analysis
There were no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the rules of the game cannot be changed mid-stream, and reservations cannot be introduced mid-admission process. The Court has not made a final determination on the legality of reservations in Super Specialty Medical Courses, and this issue will be addressed in future hearings. This case highlights the importance of following the rules of the admission process and protecting the interests of the meritorious candidates.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court, in this interim order, directed that admissions to Super Specialty Medical Courses for the academic year 2020-2021 should proceed without reservations for in-service doctors. The Court emphasized that the rules of the admission process cannot be changed mid-stream. The Court did not make a final determination on the legality of reservations in Super Specialty Medical Courses, and this issue will be addressed in future hearings. The Court’s decision provides relief to the meritorious candidates who had applied for admission based on the information bulletin that stated no reservation for Super Specialty Medical Courses.
Category
- Education Law
- Medical Admissions
- Super Specialty Courses
- Reservation Policy
- NEET
- Constitutional Law
- Article 14
- Article 15
- Kerala Medical Officers Admission to Postgraduate Courses under Service Quota Act, 2008
- Service Quota
- In-service Doctors
FAQ
Q: What was the main issue in the Dr. Prerit Sharma case?
A: The main issue was whether reservations could be applied to admissions for Super Specialty Medical Courses for the academic year 2020-2021.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
A: The Supreme Court directed that admissions for Super Specialty Medical Courses for the academic year 2020-2021 should proceed without any reservations for in-service doctors.
Q: Why did the Supreme Court halt the reservations?
A: The Court emphasized that the admission process had already commenced, and the information bulletin had clearly stated that there would be no reservations. The Court held that the rules of the game cannot be changed mid-stream.
Q: Does this mean there can never be reservations for Super Specialty Courses?
A: No, the Supreme Court has not made a final determination on the legality of reservations in Super Specialty Medical Courses. This issue will be addressed in future hearings.
Q: What should medical aspirants keep in mind?
A: Medical aspirants should be aware that the rules of the admission process cannot be changed mid-stream and that the information bulletin should be carefully reviewed before applying for any course.