Patna High Court
Dr. Vijay Kumar Singh And Ors. vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 20 May, 1989
Equivalent citations: 1990(1)BLJR486
JUDGMENT U.P. Singh, J.
1. Since common questions of law and facts are raised in all these writ applications, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.
1 (a). In all these writ applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamous commanding the respondents to admit the petitioners in the Post Graduate Medical Courses in the different colleges on the basis of their successful results at the examination held for admission in 1987 Post Graduate Medical Courses strictly according to merit and not on the basis of reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Accordingly the constitutionality and validity of the impugned prospectus issued by the Government for the Post Graduate Medical Admission Test, 1987 annexed with the counter-affidavit marked Annexure-C has been challenged wherein 14% and 9% of total seats in all colleges and in all courses are reserved for Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes candidates respectively.
2. All these petitioners passed the M.B.B.S. examination before 1986 from different colleges and hospitals of the State of Bihar. They completed the Housemanship much before the 1987 Test Examination for admission to the Post Graduate in the Medical College. In December, 1987 it was notified in the daily news papers that the prescribed forms for admission to the Post Graduate Medical Course in different colleges of the State would be available to the intending candidates from 2.12.1987. The petitioners obtained the prescribed forms in time. The last date for filling up the applications for the aforesaid post was 20.12.1987. In accordance with the prospectus for admission, issued by the Controller of the Examination and Chairman for the Post Graduate Medical Admission Test of 1987, all these petitioners had the requisite qualifications and they were eligible to sit for the admission test. The Test examination for admission in the Post Graduate Medical Course for the year 1987 started from 9.2.1988. These petitioners alongwith others appeared in the aforesaid test and the result of the successful candidates was published in the daily english newspaper 'The Times of India' on 10.4.1988. The petitioner's roll numbers were included in the merit list of the successful candidates and the result was published in order of merit. The merit list of the successful candidates is Annexure-1. The successful candidates were then called for interview in which the petitioners were called to appear.
3. The grievance of the petitioners arose when they found that on 7th May, 1988 when the respondents published a list nominating the candidates for admission in the said course, did not include the petitioners. The said list included sixty-two such candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes admitted in different specialities of Post Graduate Medical Course, who had secured lesser marks than the petitioners. Thus the successful candidates, including the petitioners, though included in the merit list, were refused admission by the respondents and those belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, who had obtained lower marks than the petitioners, were admitted for admission to the Post Graduate Medical Course.
4. In the year 1982 the respondent State had taken a decision to reserve certain seats for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. On challenge, the High Court upheld the decision of the State. The judgment of the High Court was challenged in the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4033 of 1982). The Supreme Court stayed the operation of the judgment of the High Court. On the question of stay their Lordships of the Supreme Court said:
We direct that until further orders, the petitioners shall be considered for admission on the assumption that the Government order dated January 7, 1982 does not operate against them. This will not debar the respondents from considering for admission of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes candidates, and in the case of those who have been found fit for admission, additional seats will be created. It is distinctly understood that this order will be subject to the final order in the appeal itself.
It may be stated that the above said order of the Supreme Court dated 15.4.1982 was carried out by the respondent State for long five years between 1982 to 1986.
5. It was thus contended on behalf of the petitioners that the respondents illegaly reduced the number of seats by not admitting all the candidates on the basis of merit list, although, there should have been four hundred and twenty seats, which was the number for 1986 session, calculated on the basis of 1:1 teachers-Students ratio as prescribed by the Medical Council of India. It was further submitted that the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes could be admitted on additional seats according to the aforesaid directions of the Supreme Court. It was urged that refusal to admit these petitioners in 1987 Post Graduate Medical Course was arbitrary, mala-fide, illegal and unconstitutional.
6. By way of a supplementary affidavit a comprative chart showing the total number of seats in Post Graduate Medical Course against the sanctioned strength of teachers in 1986-87 has been annexed marked Aunexure-3. According to the said chart the total number of seats available in General Surgery comes to 55. In the year 1986, fifty-five candidates were admitted for the Post Graduate Medical Course in General Surgery on the aforesaid basis. It is stated that there are only forty regular teachers in Patna Medical College Hospital; Darbhanga Medical College Hospital and Ranchi Medical College Hospital. Twelve posts of teachers, which are within the sanctioned strength as approved, by the Indian Medical Council, are lying vacant and the petitioners and other similarly situated students are being deprived of their legal rights to Medical education as also employement after such completion of the course.
7. It may be noticed that till the year 1986 although the position of teachers for Pose Graduate Medical Course in General Surgery in Bihar, was the same, the students in the said course were admitted on the basis of sanctioned strength determined by the Indian Medical Council in the ratio of teacher 1 student as prescribed by the Indian Medical Council.
8. It appears from the said comparative chart (Annexure-3) that there are twenty-eight seats in Eye, thirty-eight seats in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, sixteen seats in Orthopaedics, eight seats in Skin, fifty-six in General Medicine and sixteen seats in E.N.T. There are thirty-two seats in Paediatrics, twelve seats in Radiology, four in Neurosurgery and four seats in Radio Thearapy calculated on the basis of teachers students ratio sanctioned by the Indian Medical. Mala fide action of the authorities has been pleaded on the fact that although there are thirty-two seats in Paediatrics and twelve seats in Radiology, the respondents have admitted only nineteen (14 + 5 Scheduled Castes) candidates in the Paediatrics and eight (6 + 2 Scheduled Castes) candidates in the Radiology, which are much below the sanctioned strength of the posts sanctioned by the Medical Council of India.
9. A true copy of the merit list of the First and the last candidates selected for admission in Post Graduate Medical Course in various specialities has also been annexed marked Annexure-4, The arbitrariness and the mala fide action of the authorities has been further pleaded on the fact that the candidates belonging to the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes have been admitted in different Post Graduate Courses on very marginal marks in comparison to the marks obtained by the candidates of general category including the petitioners. Although the candidates in the general category have obtained minimum marks of 71%, their genuine claim for admission has been denied and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates who have obtained only 46 and 53 marks respectively in general surgery, have been admitted. Likewise, it has been asserted, that in all subjects, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates who have obtained much lesser marks in comparison to the candidates in the general category, have been admitted. In other words, the candidates in the general category having secured much higher marks than the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates are being denied their right of admission to the Post Graduate Medical Course in various specialities in the State of Bihar. It has been further pointed out that when all the conditions prescribed in the year 1987 are similar to those of 1986, there does not appear to be any reasonable basis as to why the petitioners and other similarly situated students be not admitted to the 1987 Post Graduate Medical Course on the basis of the sanctioned strength indicated by the Indian Medical Council. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that if the admission for Post Graduate Medical Course for 1987 session is taken on the same strength of seats as has been taken from 1982-1986 session in different specialities, than all these meritorious petitioners and others who have been qualified in competitive test will be admitted without disturbing the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates already admitted in 1986 session.
10. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is stated that prior to the year 1982 there was no reservation in the Post Graduate Course. The State Government took a policy decision to reserve certain percentage of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes out of the total number of seats available for admission in different subjects in Post Gradudate Course. This resulted into reduction of seats available in favour of candidates belonging to the general category. Challenging the said reservation, some candidates filed writ application in the High Court which was dismissed. Appeal was taken to the Supreme Court, Special leave was granted and interim order was passed. In view of the Court's direction the students were admitted in the Post Graduate Course. The stand taken in the counter-affidavit by the State is that in the year 1987 the Government decided to follow the mandatory provision of the Medical Council of India and did not allow additional seats which was based on misunderstanding of the orders passed in the Special Leave Petition. According to them the seats in different categories had been filled up directly in order of merit and no candidate of reservation category securing lesser marks than the petitioners and other similar candidates have been admitted in the test in the subjects concerned.
11. A copy of the Chart of Post Graduate Medical Admission Test, 1987 showing the availability of seats in different specialities has been annexed to the counter-affidavit marked Annexure-8. The State have reserved 23% seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (14% for Scheduled Castes and 9% for Scheduled Tribes) out of the total sanctioned seats in different specialities. Thus, undisputedly, the reservation of 14% and 9% of the total seats in all colleges and in all courses were made for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates within the sanctioned strength of the Post Graduate seats available as per the recommendation of the Medical Council of India maintaining the teacher-student ratio 1:1. An extract of the prospectus for the Post Graduate Medical Admission Test, 1987 has been annexed with the counter-affidavit marked Annexure-C and it reads as follows:
XI-Reservation.--(i) 14% and 9% of total seats in all colleges and in all Courses are reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates respectively. This reservation will be within the sanctioned strength of Post Graduate seats available as per Medical Council of India's recommendation maintaining Teacher-Student ratio 1:1.
12. The statement in paragraph 8 of the writ application that the mark of the petitioners in the merit list was much higher than that of many others who have been admitted to the said course has not been denied in the counter affidavit and, likewise, the allegations in paragraph 10 of the writ application, that the list published by the respondents on 7th May, 1988 nominating candidates for admission did not include the names of the petitioners but included the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates who obtained lower marks than the petitioners, has not been controverted and the only statement in reply contained in paragraph 16 of the counter-affidavit is that the result of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes candidates were published against the reserved seats of Post Graduate Medical Admission Test, 1987. Again, the specific allegation in paragraph 11 of the writ application, that the candidates were declared successful on the basis of merit have been refused admission and inferior candidates were admitted belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, has not been categorically denied and the only reply in paragraph 17 of the counter affidavit is that the merit list was separate for the general category candidates and for the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates and accordingly, the admission was made on the seats available for the particular category.
13. That the clear and categorical allegation in paragraphs 17 and 18 of the writ application, that the respondents illegally reduced the number of seats by not admitting all the candidates on the basis of merit list, although, there should have been four hundred and twenty seats, which was the number for 1986 session calculated on the basis of 1:1 teacher student ratio as prescribed by the Medical Council of India, has not been specifically denied. In their reply in paragraph 22 of the counter affidavit the respondents submitted that the seats nave not been reduced rather seats which had been increased temporarily in the light of the Supreme Court orders and the directions in the Special Leave Petition have been eliminated following all the necessary procedures. The arrangement of seats in different speciality for different categories as stated in paragraph 5 of the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners has been controverted annexing a chart contained in Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. It has been submitted on behalf of the respondents that there is separate qualifying marks for the general category and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes respectively. Candidates of each categories have to compete with the candidates in their own category. The facility of reservation has been extended to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates only because they were not able to compete with the general candidates. According to them all the seats in different speciality for each category had already been filled up. Since one and the same question is involved in all other analogous writ applications, the statement made in this counter affidavit have been adopted in those writ applications as well.
14. The admission to the Post Graduate Course in the Medical Colleges is Regulation framed by the Medical Council of India and they are approved by the Government of India as regulation under Section 33 of the Medical Council Act, 1956. The regulation of the Medical Council of India regulating the number of admissions to different Post Graduate Medical Courses, inter alia, provides that the number of Post Graduate Students shall not exceed one candidate per recognised Post Graduate Teacher per year.
15. 'Post Graduate Teachers' as defined; means:
Teachers in a Medical College/Medical Institute having atleast seven years under Graduate, and Post Graduate Teaching experience of which not less than four years and after obtaining the requisite recognition, Post Graduate qualification shall be recognised as Post Graduate Teachers.
The number of Post Graduate Students admitted to Post Graduate Degree Course in a particular subject should not exceed the number of Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor with seven years of teaching experience in the subject. Medical Council of India holds periodical inspection of the various courses to see if the Regulation of the Medical Council of India arc followed and in case they find major deviation they may withdraw the recognition of the Degree in question.
16. The Medical Council Act, 1956 was enacted for regulating different kinds of medical education and profession with a view to provide proper guideline to maintain the standard of medical education and profession. There are various objects and reasons for the Act. One of the statements and objects envisaged in Clause (d) of the Act reads:
(d) To provide for the formation of a committee of Post-Graduate Medical Education for the purpose of assisting Medical Council to prescribe standards of Post Graduate Medical Education for the guidence of universities and to advise universities in the matter of securing uniform standard for Post Graduate Medical Education throughout India.
For this purpose Section 20 was inserted in the Act which provides fur formation of the committee of expert to assist Medical Council in formation of any rules or regulations with regard to Post Graduate Education. The rules or the guidelines in the matter of Medical Education is to be framed under Section 33 of the Medical Council Act. The Medical Council of India framed a rule after recommendation of the committee as envisaged in Section 20 of the Act with the concurrence of the Central Government as provided under Section 33 of the Act and that clearly speaks about selection of the students strictly on merit.
17. It is relevant to mention that recommendations are also made with regard to the admission of the M.B.B.S. course and in that recommendation there is already a provision for giving relaxation to the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and on that basis the Government can frame rule or issue instructions for reservation in M.B.B.S. course only, but in Post Graduate regulation there is only provision for admission strictly on the basis of merit of a candidate which reads as follows:
Student for Post Graduate training should be selected strictly on merit judged on the basis of academic record in the undergraduate course. All selection for Post Graduate studies should be conducted by the Universities.
18. In the case of Jagdish Saran and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1980 SC 220 it was held:
The basic medical needs of a region or the preferential push justified for handicapped group cannot prevail in the same measure at the highest scale of speciality when the best skill or talent, must be handpicked by selecting according to capability. At the level of Ph.D., M.D., or levels of higher proficiency, where international measure of talent it made, where losing one great scientist or technologist in the making is a national loss, the considerations we have expanded upon as important lose their potency. Here equality, measured by matching excellence, has more meaning and cannot be diluted much without grave risk. The Indian Medical Council has rightly emphasised that playing with merit for pampering local feeling will boomerang. Midgetry, were summitry is the desideratum, is a dangerous article. We may here extract the Indian Medical Council's recommendation, which may not be the last word in social wisdom but is worthy of consideration:
Student for post-graduate training should be selected strictly on merit judged on the basis of academic record in the under graduate course. All selection for post-graduate studies should be conducted by the Universities.
If equality of opportunity for every person in the country is the constitutional guarantee, a candidate who gets more marks than another is entitled to preference for admission. Merit must be the test when choosing the best, according to this rule of equal chance for equal marks. This proposition has greater importance when we reach the higher levels of education like post-graduate courses. After all, top technological expertise in any vital field like medicine is a nation's human asset without which its advance and development will be stunted. The role of high grade skill or special talent may be less at the lesser levels of education, jobs and disciplines of social inconsequence, but more at the higher levels of sophisticated skills and strategic employment. To devalue merit at the summit is to temporise with the country's development in the vital areas of professional expertise. In science and technology and other specialised fields of developmental significance, to relax lazily or easily in regard to exacting standards of performance may be running a grave national risk because in advanced medicine and other critical departments of higher knowledge, crucial to medical progress, the people of India should not be denied the best the nation's talent lying latent can produce. If the best potential in these fields is cold shouldered for populist considerations garbed as reservations, the victims, in the long run, may be the people themselves. Of course, this unrelenting strictness in selecting the best may not be so imperative at other levels where a broad measure of efficiency may be good enough and what is needed is merely to weed out the worthless.
Secondly, and more importantly, it is difficult to denounce or renounce the merit criterion when the selection is for post-graduate or postdoctoral courses in specialised subjects. There is no substitute for sheer flair, for creative talent for fine-tuned performance at the difficult nights of some disciplines where the best alone likely to blossom as the best. To sympathise mawkishly with the weaker sections by selecting sub-standard candidates, is to punish society as a whole by denying the prospect of excellence say in hospital service. Even the poorest, when stricken by critical illness, needs the attention of super-skilled specialists, not humdrum secondrates. So it is that relaxation on merit, by overruling equality and quality altogether, is a social risk where the stage is post-graduate or post-doctoral.
19. In the case of Pradeep Jain and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. , their Lordships held; "different considerations must prevail when we come to consider the question of reservation based on residence requirement within the State or on institutional preference for admission to the postgraduate courses, such as, MD, MS and the like. There we cannot allow excellence to be compromised by any other considerations because that would be deterimental to the interest of nation." Their Lordships then quoted the relevant paragraphs 23, 39 and 44 of the judgment of Justice Krishna Iyer in the Jagdish Saran's case and then said:
We may point out that the Indian Medical Council had also emphasized that playing with merit, so far as admissions to post-graduate courses are concerned, for pampering local feeling, will boomerang.
20. The next important question for consideration is whether the State Government can frame a rule or issue guideline or order for reservation if the same is not provided in the Central Act and the Rule framed thereunder (sic) regulation issued on that matter. The Medical Council of India Act was framed by the Parliament fop providing the conditions for admission to the Post Graduate Medical Course and passing for all of the Post Graduate Medical Examination and connected matters.
The Central Act is framed and the Post Graduate Medical Education is given importance in the Act specially treated in Section 20 of the Medical Council Act. On the basis of the provisions under Section 20 of the Act the committee is constituted. The committee recommends the guidelines for Medical Education to the Medical Council of India. The recommendations in Post Graduate Education are approved as (Regulations' under Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 by the Government of India.
21. In the present case Rule or Regulations have been framed by the Medical Council under Section 33 of the Medical Council Act, and, thus, the State Government has got no power to frame a rule or regulation or issue an order in contradiction to the said regulation or for that matter, in violation of Section 20 read with Section 33 of the Medical Council of India Act. In the case of Dr. Vinay Rampal v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. , the Supreme Court held that the Rules made by the State Government must be in conformity with the Regulation prepared by the Medical Council of India. In the case of Dr. Ambash Kumar v. Principal, L.L.R.M. College Meerut and Ors. etc. it was held that for the Post Graduate Study the merit alone shall be the criteria as per the Medical Council Regulation and the State can only fix the higher merit. Here, in the present case the order passed Bihar Government reserving the seat for SC/ST is not permissible as the same is in conflict with Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India and the conflict is immissible.
22. The next question which arises for consideration is whether under item 25 of the concurrent list the State Government can frame a Rule or issue Regulation which may be in contravention of law framed by Parliament. The power of the State Government under item 25 is restricted and the State Legislature/Government can frame a law subject to the provisions in item 66 list 1 of the Seventh Scheduled contained under entry 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I. This matter was considered by the Supreme Court when the item No. 25 of List 3 was item 11 of the State List and the Supreme Court interpreted the word "subject to" and held that in view of "subject to" in the entry in List II, the power is taken away from the State Legislature. In the ease of Gujarat University v. Krishna Ranganath Mudholkar and Ors. , it was held:
the extensive power vested in the Provincial Legislature to legislate with respect to higher, scientific and technical education and vocational and technical training of labour, under the Government of India Act is under the Constitution controlled by the five items in List I and List III mentioned in item 11 of List II. Item 63 to 66 of List I are carved out of the subject of education and in respect of these items the power to legislate is vested exclusively in the Parliament. Use of the expression "subject to in item 11 of List II of the Seventh Schedule clearly indicates that legislation in respect of excluded matters cannot be undertaken by the State Legislature.
Power of the State to legislate in respect of education including Universities must to the extent to which it is entrusted to the Union Parliament, whether such power is exercised or not, be deemed to be restricted. If a subject of legislation is covered by item 63 to 66 even if it otherwise falls within the larger field of "education including Universities", power to legislate on that subject must lie with the Parliament.
Item 11 of List II and item 66 of List I must be harmoniously constructed. The two entries undoubtedly overlap : but to the extent of overlapping, the power conferred by the item 66 List I must prevail over the power of the State under item 11 of the List II. It is manifest that the excluded heads deal primarily with education in institutions of national or special importance and institutions of higher education including research, sciences, technology and vocational training of labour.
Thus, though the powers of the Union and of the State are in the Exclusive Lists, a degree of overlapping is inevitable.
The validity of the State Legislation on University education and as regards the education in technical and scientific institution not falling within Entry 64 of List I would have to be judged having regard to whether it impinges on the field reserved for the Union under Entry 66. In other words, the validity of State Legislation would depend upon whether it prejudicially affects co-ordination and determination of standards, but not upon the existence of some definite Union legislation directed to achieve that purpose. If there be Union legislation in respect of co-ordination and determination of standards, that would have paramountcy over the State law by virtue of the first part of Article 254(1); even if that power be not exercised by the Union Parliament the relevant legislative entries being in the exclusive lists, a State law trenching upon the Union field would still be invalid.
23. Thus, the State Government cannot frame a law in conflict with the Central Law and when a law cannot be framed in conflict with Central Law the State Government has got no power to do the some by Government Order. Under the existing Medical Council Act, no reservation can be provided for by the State under item 25 and in contravention of restriction imposed under item 66 of List I. Item 25 is overwritten by the regulation framed under the Central law. Reservation in Post-Graduate Course on the basis of the caste cannot be made by either State or Central Government unless Medical Council of India Act is suitably amended and the necessary Rules or Regulations be framed clearly providing for the reservation by Medical Council of India with the approval of the Central Government. The impugned reservation is bad even on the ground that it abolishes the merit list of a candidate for Post Graduate Courses in Medical Education for the reserved class. If the State want to produce doctors who are M.D. or M.S. particularly Surgeons who are going to operate upon human being, it is of the utmost importance that the selection should be based on merit. The Special Leave Petition filed in 1982 is still pending before the Supreme Court, where the question can be considered and decided by it and until that question is considered and decided, the State Government cannot allow to compromise or frame or issue instructions contrary to the law framed by the Medical Council of India.
24. The judgment in the case of State of M.P. v. Nivedita Jain , is not applicable in this case. Since the same deals with the reservation in under graduate course for which the regulation framed by Medical Council of India also provides for it and certain concession to SC/ST candidates were given. That course is the initial admission in which the preference should be given but in case of speciality and super speciality, as per the observation of Krishna Iyer, J. in Jagdish Saran's case, merit must be the test when choosing the best and according to this equal chance for equal mark. This proposition has greater importance when we reach the higher level of education like Post-Graduate Courses. After all technology expertise in any vital field like medicine is a national human asset without which its advancement and development work will be stunted.
25. Any provision for reservation of seats for admission to Post-Graduate Medical Course cannot be called supplemental to the Medical Council of India regulation read with Section 20 of the Medical Council of India Act concerning Post-Graduate Courses which are exclusively within one Central Legislation field and of Special in nature which in all cases prevail all over the general. The supplemental can be made only when there is any provision in the original Act or rules. When there is no provision in Medical Council Act or Regulation framed thereunder the State Government cannot say that this is a supplemental legislation. Here, the Act passed by the Central legislation is a Special Act and the regulation framed thereunder is also special regulation keeping in view Section 20 of the Medical Council Act and any general legislation or orders issued by the State Government cannot override the special provision made by the Central Government and provided under the Act and Regulation. In the present case, the Central Government under the powers conferred by an Act passed by the Parliament specifically mention about the Standard of Post-Graduate Education for which, under the Medical Council of India Act provision is made under Section 20 and on that matter the State Legislature cannot pass any Act or rule or issue any order or instructions.
26. In this view, the impugned Prospectus marked Annexure-C annexed with the counter affidavit, in so far as it is contrary to the Medical Council of India Regulation, is ultra vires the provision of Indian Medical Council Act. The State Government has no power to act executively against the requirement of the Medical Council of India Regulation, and the Medical Council Act and on this account it must be held to be arbitrary. I am, therefore, left with no option but to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to admit the petitioners in the Post Graduate Medical Courses in different colleges on the basis of their successful results at the examination held for admission in 1987 Post Graduate Medical Course strictly according to merit and not on the basis of reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
27. These applications are accordingly, allowed but in the circumstances, however, there will be no order as to costs.