Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.48 seconds)Article 15 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 10D in The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Pradip Tandon & Ors on 19 November, 1974
This Court did not approve of the reservation for rural areas for the same had
been made only on the basis of the place of birth and hence, was offending
Article 15 of the Constitution. However, in the said decision, the reservation
made in favour of the people in hill areas and Uttarakhand area was upheld,
for the same having been made for the benefit of socially and educationally
backward classes of citizens, particularly when this Court found that the State
had established that the people in those areas were of socially and
educationally backward classes.
The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956
Saurabh Chaudri & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 4 November, 2003
“11. Mr Mariarputham is right that in Saurabh Chaudri v. Union
of India this Court has held that institutional preference can be
given by a State, but in the aforesaid decision of Saurabh
Chaudri, it has also been held that decision of the State to give
institutional preference can be invalidated by the court in the
event it is shown that the decision of the State is ultra vires the
right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. When we
examine sub-clause (a) of Clause 2.1 of the two Information
Bulletins, we find that the expression “A candidate of Karnataka
origin” who only is eligible to appear for entrance test has been
so defined as to exclude a candidate who has studied MBBS or
BDS in an institution in the State of Karnataka but who does not
satisfy the other requirements of sub-clause (a) of Clause 2.1 of
the Information Bulletin for PGET-2014. Thus, the institutional
preference sought to be given by sub-clause (a) of Clause 2.1
35
of the Information Bulletin for PGET-2014 is clearly contrary to
the judgment of this Court in Pradeep Jain case.”
20.4.
Ashish Kumar Ranjan vs Union Of India & Ors on 6 December, 2016
13. The learned counsel for the Medical Council of India has also made
extensive reference to the aforesaid decisions, including those in Dr. Pradeep
Jain and Saurabh Chaudri and has submitted that, for the law settled by this
Court in Saurabh Chaudri, 50% seats of the total seats in the PG Medical
Courses are All India Quota Seats and are to be filled up from the All India
Merit List. For these All India Seats, counselling is carried out by Directorate
General of Health Services and the balance 50% goes to the respective
21
States for which, counselling is carried out by the concerned State. According
to the learned counsel, these 50% State Quota seats cannot be filled up by
the State by imposing domicile/residential requirement, though the State may
prescribe institutional preference as the criteria for filling up these 50% State
Quota seats. Learned counsel has submitted that the impugned Clause 2B of
the prospectus is violative of the principle of equality enshrined under Article
14 of the Constitution and is also contrary to the various judicial
pronouncements of this Court and is, therefore, liable to be quashed.
13.1. The learned counsel has also placed on record a chart showing the
policy of 21 States in applying institutional preference/reservation along with
relevant portion of brochures/Information Bulletin published by the respective
States. The learned counsel has also submitted that as per the time schedule
framed by the Council with the prior approval of the Central Government as
well as approved by this Court in Ashish Ranjan v. UOI & Ors.: (2016) 11
SCC 225, the date for commencement of academic year had been 01.05.2019
and the last date for completion of admission process for PG Medical Courses
had been 31.05.2019; and all admissions to PG Medical Courses had already
been completed for the current academic year 2019-20, which may not be
disturbed at this belated stage.
Yatinkumar Jasubhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 4 October, 2019
14. At this juncture, relevant it would also be to notice that during the course
of hearing of these matters, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for
parties that the question as regards institutional preference had been referred
to a Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Yatinkumar Jasubhai Patel
and others v. State of Gujarat and others: SLP(C) No. 7003 of 2017. It
has, however, been brought to our notice that while decision remained
pending in these matters, the said referred case and connected matters were
decided by a three-Judge Bench of this Court on 04.10.2019 upholding the
institutional preference for admission to the PG Medical Courses. Having
regard to the question involved we would refer to the said decision at the
appropriate stage hereafter later.
D. P. Joshi vs The State Of Madhya Bharat Andanother on 27 January, 1955
16.4. As noticed, in Saurabh Chaudri, after a short reference to the decision
in D.P.Joshi v. State of M.P.11 this Court reiterated that the concept of
“domicile” was not equivalent to the concept of “place of birth”; and the
prohibition contained in Article 15(1) of the Constitution of India relates to any
discrimination only on the basis of the “place of birth”. The said decision in
D.P.Joshi was rendered by a Constitution Bench of this Court in a writ petition
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India that was filed while questioning the
stipulation regarding capitation fees, as made by Mahatma Gandhi Medical
College at Indore, run by the State of Madhya Bharat. The petitioner, who was
a resident of Delhi and had been admitted as a student in the said Medical
College at Indore, was called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 1500/- per annum as
capitation fee in addition to the tuition fee and other charges payable by the
11
AIR 1955 SC 334
27
students of said college in general. The petitioner’s grievance had been that
such rules relating to the matter of fees, as in force in the college concerned,
were of discrimination between the students who were residents of Madhya
Bharat and those who were not, inasmuch as the residents of other States
were required to pay such capitation fee in addition to the tuition fee and
charges payable by all the students; and such a stipulation was offending
Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. The Constitution Bench, by 4:1
majority, rejected such contentions while pointing out the significant distinction
in the concepts of “domicile/residence” and “place of birth” and after finding
nothing of discrimination in providing capitation fees on a particular class of
students and not others. The rule in question was taken note of as under:
The State Of Punjab vs Ajaib Singh And Another on 10 November, 1952
Education is a State subject, and one of the directive principles
declared in Part IV of the Constitution is that the State should
make effective provisions for education within the limits of its
economy. (Vide article 41). The State has to contribute for the
upkeep and the running of its educational institutions. We are in
this petition concerned with a Medical College, and it is well-
known that it requires considerable finance to maintain such an
institution. If the State has to spend money on it, is it
unreasonable that it should so order the educational system
that the advantage of it would to some extent at least enure for
the benefit of the State? A concession given to the residents of
the State in the matter of fees is obviously calculated to serve
that end, as presumably some of them might, after passing out
of the College, settle down as doctors and serve the needs of
the locality. The classification is thus based on a ground which
has a reasonable relation to the subject-matter of the
legislation, and is in consequence not open to attack. It has
been held in The State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh and another: