Supreme Court Upholds Institutional Preference in Post Graduate Medical Admissions Despite NEET (4 October 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 4 October 2019
Citation: Yatinkumar Jasubhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat (2019) INSC 1179
Judges: Arun Mishra, J., M.R. Shah, J., B.R. Gavai, J.

Can a medical college give preference to its own graduates for post-graduate admissions, even after the introduction of the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET)? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question, examining the validity of “Institutional Preference” in post-graduate medical courses. This judgment clarifies the interplay between NEET and existing institutional preferences. The three-judge bench, consisting of Justices Arun Mishra, M.R. Shah, and B.R. Gavai, delivered a unanimous decision, with the opinion authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The case originated from a challenge to the rules framed by Gujarat University, which provided preference to candidates graduating from Gujarat University for admission to post-graduate medical courses. This “Institutional Preference” was contested by petitioners who argued that the introduction of NEET should eliminate such preferences, as admissions should be based solely on merit as determined by NEET scores. Similar challenges were raised against Delhi University and Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University for their policies on institutional preference.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat dismissed the writ petition, upholding the rules of Gujarat University that provided for “Institutional Preference.” The original writ petitioners then appealed to the Supreme Court. Subsequently, other writ petitions were filed challenging similar policies of “Institutional Preference” in Delhi University and Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University. A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court referred all these matters to a larger bench.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of the Gujarat University Act, 1949, specifically Section 39 read with Section 32, which empowers the university to frame rules for admissions. The rules framed by Gujarat University are as follows:

• Rule 2: 50% of total available seats in post-graduate courses in government institutions are filled through the All India Quota based on All India 50% quota rank. The remaining seats are available for candidates from Gujarat University as per Rule 4.1. Students from other statutory universities within Gujarat are considered per their merit as per Rule 4.3.
• Rule 3: The remaining 50% (or more) of total seats in post-graduate courses are filled by the University’s Admission Committee.
• Rule 4.1: Preference is given to candidates graduating from Gujarat University.
• Rule 4.3: After the merit list under Rule 4.1 is exhausted, candidates from other universities in Gujarat are considered.

The petitioners argued that these rules violate the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, particularly Regulation 9, which they claim mandates admissions based solely on NEET merit.

Arguments

The petitioners argued that with the introduction of NEET, all admissions to post-graduate medical courses must be based solely on merit as determined by NEET scores. They contended that “Institutional Preference” is no longer permissible under the Medical Council Act and the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000. They argued that the purpose of “Institutional Reservation” no longer exists because of the 50% All India Quota and admissions based on the All India NEET examination. They also submitted that the Medical Council of India (MCI) Regulations do not permit “Institutional Reservation” and that these regulations are a complete code, not allowing reservations unless explicitly permitted.

The petitioners further argued that Delhi University and Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University were not following the MCI Regulations by preparing separate “University-wise” lists instead of a unified “State-wise” list for the 50% State Quota seats. They claimed that these universities were providing 100% “Institutional Reservation” for their alumni, denying opportunities to other state candidates. They also argued that if “Institutional Preference” is permissible, it should be limited to 50% of the total State quota seats, as was the case in previous judgments.

The respondents, including the States, Universities, and the MCI, argued that “Institutional Preference” has been consistently held permissible by the Supreme Court since 1971. They contended that the issue is not res integra and cited previous decisions such as D.N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore, Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India, and Gujarat University v. Rajiv Gopinath Bhatt. They argued that the relevant regulations prescribing “Institutional Preference” are in line with the law laid down by the Supreme Court.

The MCI argued that admissions are based on NEET merit, with 50% seats filled on an “All India basis” and 50% on a “State-wise basis.” They clarified that while NEET determines merit, it does not prohibit the source from which admissions are made at the post-graduate level. They contended that the introduction of NEET does not invalidate “Institutional Preference.”

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The main issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether, after the introduction of the NEET Scheme, “Institutional Preference” in the Post Graduate Medical Courses would still be permissible?

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:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the introduction of NEET does not invalidate “Institutional Preference” in post-graduate medical admissions. The court reasoned that NEET’s purpose is to conduct a uniform entrance examination, and it does not dictate the source from which admissions are to be made. The court emphasized that admissions, even under institutional preference, must be based on the merit determined by NEET scores.

The court observed that the purpose of NEET was to conduct a uniform entrance examination for all medical educational institutions, and admissions are to be given solely on the basis of the merits and/or marks obtained in the NEET examination. The court clarified that the change by introduction of the NEET Scheme shall not affect the Institutional Preference/Reservation as approved by the Court in previous decisions.

The Court further stated that the Institutional Preference to the extent of 50% of the total number of open seats has been approved by the Court in catena of decisions. It was also observed that it would be in the realm of a policy decision and this Court cannot substitute the same, unless it is held to be arbitrary and/or mala fide and/or not permissible.

The Court held that a regulation providing 50% Institutional Preference/Reservation shall not be in any way ultra vires to Section 10D of the MCI Act. Even otherwise, the admissions in the post graduate courses are to be given on the basis of the merits and marks obtained in the NEET examination result only.

The Supreme Court quoted from the judgment in Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra):

“We are therefore of the view that so far as admissions to post­graduate courses, such as MS, MD and the like are concerned, it would be eminently desirable not to provide for any reservation based on residence requirement within the State or on institutional preference. But having regard to broader considerations of equality of opportunity and institutional continuity in education which has its own importance and value, we would direct that though residence requirement within the State shall not be a ground for reservation in admissions to post­graduate courses, a certain percentage of seats may in the present circumstances, be reserved on the basis of institutional preference in the sense that a student who has passed MBBS course from a medical college or university, may be given preference for admission to the post­graduate course in the same medical college or university but such reservation on the basis of institutional preference should not in any event exceed 50 per cent of the total number of open seats available for admission to the post­graduate course.”

The Supreme Court also quoted from the judgment in Saurabh Chaudri (supra) where the court reiterated the scheme of “Institutional Preference” as framed in Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra) and has approved the “Institutional Preference” confined to 50% of the total number of open seats.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the consistent upholding of “Institutional Preference” in previous judgments. The Court emphasized that the introduction of NEET was intended to standardize the entrance examination process and not to alter the existing framework of reservations and preferences. The Court also recognized the importance of institutional continuity in education. The court emphasized that even with institutional preference, admissions were to be based on the merit determined by NEET scores.

Key Takeaways

• The introduction of NEET does not invalidate “Institutional Preference” in post-graduate medical admissions.
• Admissions under “Institutional Preference” must still be based on merit as determined by NEET scores.
• The extent of “Institutional Preference” is a policy decision for the appropriate authority/State to determine, subject to the 50% limit set by previous Supreme Court judgments.
• The judgment reaffirms the principle of institutional continuity in education.

Directions

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

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the introduction of NEET does not invalidate the existing system of “Institutional Preference” in post-graduate medical admissions. The Court reaffirmed its previous position on the permissibility of “Institutional Preference” up to 50% of the open seats, emphasizing that NEET only standardizes the entrance examination and does not affect the source of admissions. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment clarifies the relationship between NEET and Institutional Preference.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and writ petitions, upholding the validity of “Institutional Preference” in post-graduate medical admissions, even after the introduction of NEET. The court clarified that NEET only standardizes the entrance examination process and does not invalidate the existing system of reservations and preferences. The court also emphasized that admissions, even under institutional preference, must be based on the merit determined by NEET scores.