LEGAL ISSUE: Whether institutional preference in Aligarh Muslim University and Banaras Hindu University and service benefits for doctors should be restricted to those who graduated from within the State of Uttar Pradesh.
CASE TYPE: Education and Service Law
Case Name: Dr. Saurabh Dwivedi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.
[Judgment Date]: June 7, 2017
The Supreme Court of India, in this case, addressed a critical question: Can a High Court interfere with the admission policies of central universities and restrict benefits for in-service doctors based on where they obtained their MBBS degree? The core issue revolved around the validity of institutional preferences in Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) and Banaras Hindu University (BHU) for postgraduate medical admissions and whether service benefits should be limited to doctors who graduated from colleges within Uttar Pradesh. This judgment clarifies the scope of institutional preferences and the eligibility criteria for in-service doctors.
The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and Deepak Gupta, with Justice Deepak Gupta authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The case originated from a writ petition filed by some doctors. They claimed that the benefit of Regulation 9(iv) of the Medical Council of India Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, should only be available to in-service doctors of the Uttar Pradesh Provincial Medical Health Services (PMHS) who had passed their MBBS from a university/institution within Uttar Pradesh.
The High Court, while addressing this issue, also raised questions about admissions to postgraduate courses in medical colleges, specifically AMU and BHU. The High Court questioned whether students who passed their MBBS/BDS final exams from colleges within Uttar Pradesh should be given preference in AMU and BHU.
The High Court also held that the weightage of marks under Rule 9(iv) was available only to those candidates who had passed their MBBS examination from universities/institutions situated within the State of U.P.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 15.05.2017 | High Court takes up the matter and raises queries regarding admissions and service benefits. |
| 31.03.2017 | State Government issues circular clarifying that students from AMU and BHU would be counselled in their own institutes. |
| 29.05.2017 | High Court issues the impugned order setting aside institutional preference and restricting service benefits. |
| 07.06.2017 | Supreme Court sets aside the High Court’s order. |
| 12.06.2017 | Supreme Court extends the deadline for filling vacant seats in AMU, BHU and government medical colleges. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court, in its order dated 15.05.2017, raised queries about admissions to postgraduate courses in medical colleges and asked the Chief Secretary to file a reply. The High Court also raised the issue of admissions to AMU and BHU, questioning whether students who passed their MBBS/BDS final exams from colleges within Uttar Pradesh should be given preference.
Despite the State’s clear stand that all in-service candidates who have worked in notified remote or difficult areas were eligible for the benefit of Regulation 9(iv), the High Court held that institutional preferences in AMU and BHU were contrary to the 2000 Regulations. The High Court further held that the weightage of marks under Rule 9(iv) was available only to candidates who had passed their MBBS from universities/institutions within Uttar Pradesh.
Legal Framework
The core of the legal framework lies in the Medical Council of India Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000. Specifically, Regulation 9(iv) is crucial. It states:
“The reservation of seats in Medical Colleges/Institutions for respective categories shall be as per applicable laws prevailing in States/Union Territories. An All India merit list as well as State-wise merit list of eligible candidates shall be prepared on the basis of the marks obtained in National Eligibility cum Entrance Test and candidate shall be admitted to Post Graduate courses from the said merit list only; Provided that in determining the merit of candidate who are in service of Government/Public authority, weightage in the marks may be given by the Government/Competent Authority as an incentive @ 10% of the marks obtained for each year of service in remote and/or difficult areas up to a maximum of 30% of the marks obtained in National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test. The remote and difficult areas shall be as defined by the State Government/Competent authority from time to time………”
This regulation allows for weightage of marks for in-service doctors who have worked in remote or difficult areas. Additionally, the Medical Council of India Act, 1956, establishes the Medical Council of India (MCI) as a statutory body governing medical education.
Arguments
The appellants, including students, in-service doctors, AMU, and BHU, argued that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction. They contended that the High Court’s order was erroneous and went beyond the scope of the writ petition.
The appellants argued that the High Court erred in setting aside the institutional preference in AMU and BHU. They pointed out that these are central universities and the State has no control over their admission policies. They also argued that the 50% institutional reservation was not challenged by anyone and was in line with the judgment in *Saurabh Chaudri & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2003) 11 SCC 146*.
Furthermore, the appellants argued that the High Court was wrong in restricting the benefit of weightage of marks under Rule 9(iv) of the 2000 Regulations to only those in-service doctors who had graduated from within the State of U.P.
The State of Uttar Pradesh also supported the appellants’ contention that no distinction should be made between in-service doctors who graduated from within the State of U.P. or those who had graduated from outside the State of U.P.
The respondents, on the other hand, were in favour of the High Court order.
Submissions Table
| Party | Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Appellants (Students, In-service Doctors, AMU, BHU) | High Court exceeded jurisdiction and erred in its order. |
✓ High Court went beyond the scope of the writ petition. ✓ Institutional preference in AMU and BHU is valid. ✓ Restriction of service benefits to U.P. graduates is incorrect. |
| State of Uttar Pradesh | Supports the appellants’ contention. | ✓ No distinction should be made between in-service doctors who graduated from within the State of U.P. or those who had graduated from outside the State of U.P. |
| Respondents | Supported the High Court order. | ✓ In favour of the High Court order. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following two issues:
- Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the institutional preference in the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) and Banaras Hindu University (BHU) and further directing that the post-graduate seats in these institutions shall be filled up only from those students who have passed MBBS from Institutions, Universities and Colleges in the State of Uttar Pradesh;
- Whether the High Court was justified in issuing a direction that the benefit of service rendered in remote/difficult areas should be given only to those doctors of the Provincial Medical Health Services (PMHS), who have cleared MBBS examination from a college within the State of U.P.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Institutional preference in AMU and BHU | High Court’s order set aside. | The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with the admission policies of central universities. The 50% institutional preference was valid and not challenged. |
| Service benefits for in-service doctors | High Court’s order set aside. | The High Court erred in restricting benefits to only those who graduated from U.P. The benefit should be given to all in-service doctors who have served in remote/difficult areas, regardless of where they graduated. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Saurabh Chaudri & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2003) 11 SCC 146 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Upheld the 50% institutional preference in central universities. |
| State of U.P. & Ors. v. Dinesh Singh Chauhan, 2016 (8) SCALE 16 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Regulation 9 of the 2000 Regulations is a complete code in itself to determine inter se merit of the candidates and that the State was entitled to make a provision for giving weightage of marks as incentive to those in service candidates who have worked in notified, remote or difficult areas in the State. |
| Medical Council of India Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, Regulation 9(iv) | – | Interpreted | Provided for weightage of marks for in-service doctors serving in remote/difficult areas. |
| Medical Council of India Act, 1956 | – | Referred | Established the MCI as a statutory body governing medical education. |
Judgment
Treatment of Submissions
| Party | Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Appellants | High Court exceeded its jurisdiction and erred in its order. | Accepted. The Supreme Court agreed that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction. |
| Appellants | Institutional preference in AMU and BHU is valid. | Accepted. The Supreme Court upheld the 50% institutional preference. |
| Appellants | Restriction of service benefits to U.P. graduates is incorrect. | Accepted. The Supreme Court held that all in-service doctors who have served in remote/difficult areas are eligible for the benefit. |
| State of Uttar Pradesh | No distinction should be made between in-service doctors who graduated from within the State of U.P. or those who had graduated from outside the State of U.P. | Accepted. The Supreme Court agreed with the State’s submission. |
| Respondents | Supported the High Court order. | Rejected. The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s order. |
Treatment of Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:
- Saurabh Chaudri & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2003) 11 SCC 146*: The Supreme Court followed this judgment, which upheld the 50% institutional preference in central universities. This case was crucial in determining that the High Court had erred in setting aside the institutional preference in AMU and BHU.
- State of U.P. & Ors. v. Dinesh Singh Chauhan, 2016 (8) SCALE 16*: The Supreme Court followed this case, which held that Regulation 9 of the 2000 Regulations is a complete code and that the State was entitled to make a provision for giving weightage of marks as incentive to those in service candidates who have worked in notified, remote or difficult areas in the State.
- Regulation 9(iv) of the Medical Council of India Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000: The Supreme Court interpreted this regulation to mean that weightage of marks should be given to all in-service doctors who have served in remote/difficult areas, regardless of where they graduated.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- The High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by interfering with the admission policies of central universities and by restricting service benefits based on the location of MBBS graduation.
- The institutional preference of 50% in AMU and BHU was valid and had not been challenged.
- Regulation 9(iv) of the 2000 Regulations was meant to incentivize doctors to serve in remote and difficult areas, and this benefit should not be restricted to only those who graduated from within the State of U.P.
- The State of U.P. had also not made any distinction between in service doctors based on where they had graduated from.
Sentiment Analysis Table
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| High Court overstepped its jurisdiction | 40% |
| Validity of 50% institutional preference | 30% |
| Incentivizing doctors to serve in remote areas | 20% |
| State of U.P. had not made any distinction | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Consideration | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Logical Reasoning
Issue 1: Institutional Preference
High Court sets aside institutional preference in AMU and BHU
Supreme Court examines jurisdiction of High Court
High Court overstepped its jurisdiction
50% institutional preference in AMU and BHU is valid
High Court order set aside
Issue 2: Service Benefits
High Court restricts service benefits to U.P. graduates
Supreme Court examines Regulation 9(iv)
Regulation 9(iv) meant to incentivize service in remote areas
No distinction based on where MBBS was obtained
High Court order set aside
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by interfering with the admission policies of central universities and by restricting service benefits based on the location of MBBS graduation. The Court emphasized that the 50% institutional preference in AMU and BHU was valid and had not been challenged. Additionally, the Court clarified that Regulation 9(iv) of the 2000 Regulations was meant to incentivize doctors to serve in remote and difficult areas, and this benefit should not be restricted to only those who graduated from within the State of U.P.
The Court stated, “The purpose behind this rule is that those doctors who willingly served in remote and difficult areas should be given some preference while considering them for admission to post-graduate courses.”
The Court further noted, “We, therefore, see no reason as to why the benefit of weightage in terms of Regulation 9(iv) should be limited to those in service candidates of the PMHS category, who have graduated from within the State of U.P. This is a totally artificial distinction drawn up by the High Court.”
The Supreme Court also observed, “We are also of the view that not only the High Court transgressed its jurisdiction and went beyond the scope of the writ petition but by the impugned order set at naught the entire selection process only two days before the last date of admissions making it virtually impossible to comply with the direction of the High Court within the short period of two days.”
The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and all consequential actions taken pursuant to that order. The Court also extended the time for filling up the vacant seats until June 12, 2017.
Key Takeaways
- The High Court cannot interfere with the admission policies of central universities.
- Institutional preferences in central universities, up to 50%, are valid.
- In-service doctors who have served in remote/difficult areas are eligible for weightage of marks, regardless of where they obtained their MBBS degree.
- The judgment clarifies the scope of Regulation 9(iv) of the 2000 Regulations.
- This decision ensures that doctors who serve in remote areas are not penalized based on where they graduated.
Directions
The Supreme Court extended the time for filling up the vacant seats in AMU, BHU, and government-run medical colleges/institutions in the State of U.P. up to 12th June 2017.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that High Courts should not interfere with the admission policies of central universities and that in-service doctors who have served in remote/difficult areas are eligible for weightage of marks, regardless of where they obtained their MBBS degree. This judgment reaffirms the validity of institutional preferences in central universities and clarifies the scope of Regulation 9(iv) of the 2000 Regulations.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in *Dr. Saurabh Dwivedi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.* overturned the High Court’s order, upholding the institutional preferences in AMU and BHU and clarifying that the benefit of service in remote areas should be given to all in-service doctors, irrespective of where they completed their MBBS. This decision ensures that the admission process in central universities remains fair and that doctors who serve in remote areas are not penalized.