Supreme Court Upholds 20% In-Service Quota in Maharashtra PG Medical Admissions: Nipun Tawari vs. State of Maharashtra (20 October 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 20 October 2022
Citation: Not Available in the source
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Hima Kohli, J.

Can a state government change the rules for medical admissions mid-process? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning postgraduate medical admissions in Maharashtra. The core issue was whether the state government could introduce a 20% reservation for in-service candidates after the admission process had already begun.

The Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli, delivered the judgment. Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud authored the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around the State of Maharashtra’s decision to reserve 20% of postgraduate medical degree seats for in-service candidates. The National Board of Examinations released the NEET PG-2022 information bulletin on 15 January 2022, with the exam held on 21 May 2022, and results declared on 1 June 2022.

On 21 September 2022, the Maharashtra government released a notice outlining the schedule for postgraduate medical admissions. This was followed by a brochure on the same day, which stated that 50% of seats in postgraduate diploma courses would be reserved for in-service candidates, and that any changes to the in-service quota would be applicable as per government resolutions issued from time to time.

On 26 September 2022, the government issued a resolution reserving 20% of seats in postgraduate medical degree courses for in-service candidates. The appellants challenged this, arguing that the reservation could not be applied to the current academic year (2022-23) since it was introduced after the admission process had commenced.

The appellants sought a declaration that the Government Resolution dated 26th September 2022 cannot be applied for admissions to postgraduate medical degree courses for the 50% State quota for the academic year 2022-2023. They also sought a direction to the authorities to conduct the admission process without applying the 20% reservation.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The case references the Post Graduate Medical Regulations 2000, particularly clauses 9(IV) and 9(VII), which relate to weightage for in-service candidates.

Clause 7.2 of the admission brochure stated that 50% of seats in postgraduate diploma courses would be reserved for in-service candidates and that any changes made by the government would apply. It also mentioned that weightage for in-service candidates would be given as per the Post Graduate Medical Regulations 2000 and relevant government resolutions.

Clause 8.16.1 of the brochure stated that eligibility for in-service candidates would be as per the criteria laid down by the Public Health Department of the State of Maharashtra, as per the Government Resolution dated 19th March 2019, or any other Government Resolution issued from time to time.

Clause 8.17 of the brochure stipulated that while determining the eligibility of in-service candidates, a weightage of marks would be provided as an incentive at the rate of 10% of the marks obtained for each year of service in remote and/or difficult areas with a maximum of 30% marks out of the marks obtained in the NEET -PG 2022.

The Government Resolution dated 26 September 2022, introduced a 20% reservation for in-service candidates for both postgraduate degree and diploma courses in government/municipal medical colleges. It also clarified that in-service candidates seeking admission from the general category would not get any additional marks other than the marks in the NEET examination.

The Supreme Court also considered the constitutional obligation of the State to provide better health care facilities to its citizens, and its entitlement to prescribe an in-service quota for the purpose of upgrading the qualifications of existing in-service doctors.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The Government Resolution dated 26 September 2022, providing for a 20% reservation for in-service candidates, was issued after the admission process had commenced for the Academic Year 2022-23. Therefore, it should not be applicable for that academic year.
• The appellants relied on the three-judge bench decision in Dr Prerit Sharma v. Dr Bilu B S [(2022) 2 SCC 751], arguing that the underlying principles for admission cannot be altered once the admission process has commenced.
• The State Government did not collect sufficient data before providing the in-service reservation. This is evident from the fact that only 69 in-service candidates appeared for NEET-PG, and only 52 were considered eligible, while 282 seats were reserved.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• There was no change in the rules midstream, as the brochure clearly stated that in-service reservations would be subject to government resolutions issued from time to time.
• In-service reservation in postgraduate degree courses was previously provided in Maharashtra before 2017 but was discontinued due to the judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dinesh Singh Chauhan [(2016) 9 SCC 749]. However, it was restored after the Constitution Bench decision in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association v. Union of India [(2021) 6 SCC 568].
• The State Government has aligned the in-service reservation for postgraduate degree courses, reducing the quantum of reservation from 30% to 20%.
• There was no challenge to the legality and validity of the Government Resolution dated 26 September 2022.

Intervenors’ Arguments:

• Admissions have already been granted in the first round of counselling, and the admitted students were not made parties to the proceedings.
• In the absence of a challenge to the validity of the Government Resolution, the High Court was justified in not reading down the provision to exclude its applicability for the current academic year.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Government Resolution dated 26 September 2022, which provided for a reservation of 20% for in-service candidates, could be applied to the current academic year (2022-23) given that it was issued after the admission process had commenced.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases:

• Dr Prerit Sharma v. Dr Bilu B S [(2022) 2 SCC 751] – Supreme Court of India. This case was relied upon by the appellants to argue that the rules of admission cannot be changed mid-process.
• State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dinesh Singh Chauhan [(2016) 9 SCC 749] – Supreme Court of India. This case initially held that reservation for in-service candidates in postgraduate medical degree courses was violative of the MCI Regulations.
• Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association v. Union of India [(2021) 6 SCC 568] – Supreme Court of India. This Constitution Bench judgment overturned the decision in Dinesh Singh Chauhan, holding that states have the competence to provide for a separate source of entry for in-service candidates.
• Neil Aurelio Nunes (OBC Reservation) v. Union of India [(2022) 4 SCC 1] – Supreme Court of India. This case was cited by the court to support the view that changes in reservation policies can be made after the start of the admission process if the initial notification indicates that details of reservation would be notified later.
• A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Swapna [(2005) 4 SCC 154] – Supreme Court of India. This case was cited by the appellants to argue that selection criteria cannot be changed once the selection process has started.
• Maharashtra SRTC v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve [(2001) 10 SCC 51] – Supreme Court of India. This case was also cited by the appellants to argue that selection criteria cannot be changed once the selection process has started.

Legal Provisions:

• Post Graduate Medical Regulations 2000 – Specifically, clauses 9(IV) and 9(VII) of these regulations were considered, which relate to weightage for in-service candidates.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Dr Prerit Sharma v. Dr Bilu B S [(2022) 2 SCC 751]*: The Court distinguished this case, noting that unlike in Prerit Sharma, the brochure in the present case did not specifically prohibit reservation for in-service candidates and, in fact, mentioned that in-service reservations would abide by government resolutions issued from time to time.
• State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dinesh Singh Chauhan [(2016) 9 SCC 749]*: The Court noted that this judgment was overturned by the Constitution Bench in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association.
• Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association v. Union of India [(2021) 6 SCC 568]*: The Court relied on this Constitution Bench decision, which upheld the state’s competence to provide for a separate source of entry for in-service candidates seeking admission to postgraduate degree courses.
• Neil Aurelio Nunes (OBC Reservation) v. Union of India [(2022) 4 SCC 1]*: The Court used this case to support its view that changes in reservation policy can be made after the start of the admission process if the initial notification indicates that details of reservation would be notified later.
• A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Swapna [(2005) 4 SCC 154]* and Maharashtra SRTC v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve [(2001) 10 SCC 51]*: The Court distinguished these cases, stating that the selection criteria were not changed mid-process in the present case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the admission brochure issued by the State of Maharashtra had a clause that specifically stated that the in-service quota would be subject to changes made by the government from time to time. This indicated that the rules were not changed mid-stream, and the candidates were aware that the reservation policy could be altered.

The Court also considered the constitutional obligation of the State to provide better health care facilities to its citizens, and its entitlement to prescribe an in-service quota for the purpose of upgrading the qualifications of existing in-service doctors.

The Court emphasized that the State Government was in the process of taking a final decision on in-service reservation, and the Government Resolution dated 26 September 2022 was a result of this process.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that the Government Resolution was issued after the admission process began. However, it rejected this argument because the brochure had a clause that clearly stated that the in-service quota was subject to changes made by the government from time to time. The Court also relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association v. Union of India, which upheld the state’s power to provide in-service reservation.

The Court considered the decision in Dr. Prerit Sharma v. Dr. Bilu B.S., but distinguished it on the grounds that in that case, the brochure had specifically stated that there would be no reservation for in-service candidates, unlike the present case.

The court also noted that the State Government was in the process of taking a final decision on in-service reservation, and the Government Resolution dated 26 September 2022 was a result of this process.

The Court concluded that the Government Resolution was applicable to the current academic year and dismissed the appeal.

The Court quoted from the brochure:

“7.2…For In-service quota reservation, any change made by Government from time to time will be applicable.”

The court also quoted from the Government Resolution:

“1. From the academic year 2022- 23, Government approval is being given to reserve 20% seats for in- service candidates for admission to Post Graduate Degree and Diploma courses in Government/Municipal Medical Colleges in the State.”

The court also quoted from the judgment in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association v. Union of India:

“23.5) That Regulation 9 of MCI Regulations, 2000 does not deal with and/or make provisions for reservation and/or affect the legislative competence and authority of the concerned States to make reservation and/or make special provision like the provision providing for a separate source of entry for in- service candidates seeking admission to postgraduate degree courses and therefore the States concerned to be within their authority and/or legislative competence to provide for a separate source of entry for in- servi ce candidates seeking admission to postgraduate degree courses in exercise of powers under List III Entry 25;”

Key Takeaways

• State governments can introduce reservations for in-service candidates in postgraduate medical courses even after the admission process has commenced, provided that the initial notification or brochure indicates that such changes are possible.
• The judgment reaffirms the state’s power to provide for in-service reservations to ensure better healthcare facilities and to upgrade the qualifications of existing in-service doctors.
• Candidates must carefully review all clauses in admission brochures, especially those related to reservations, as these clauses can be subject to changes made by the government.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a state government can introduce reservations for in-service candidates in postgraduate medical courses even after the admission process has commenced, provided that the initial notification or brochure indicates that such changes are possible.

This judgment clarifies that the principle against changing the rules of the game mid-process does not apply if the initial rules explicitly state that changes may be made. It also reinforces the state’s power to provide for in-service reservations, as per the Constitution Bench decision in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association v. Union of India.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Maharashtra government’s decision to reserve 20% of postgraduate medical seats for in-service candidates. The Court emphasized that the brochure issued by the state government clearly stated that in-service reservations were subject to changes made by the government from time to time. This judgment clarifies the extent to which state governments can modify reservation policies during the admission process, provided that such changes are contemplated in the initial notifications.