LexA.I.I.M.S STUDENTS UNION versus A.I.I.M.S. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A.l.l.M.S. STUDENTS UNION A v. A.1.1.M.S. AND ORS. AUGUST 24, 2001 [DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ., R.C. LAHOTI AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] B Constitution of India-Articles 14, 15 (4) and 16 (4). Reservation-All India Institute of Medical Sciences-Post Graduate Medical Courses-Admission-In-house candidates-Institutional reservation C based bn rationale of continuity-113 seats reserved for in-house candidates- Subsequent reservation of 50% seats disciplinewise subject to an overall 33% reservation-Justification of-Held, reservation of seats for institutional candidates is in fact super reservation and not a mere source of entry- Institutional reservation in the absence of any relevant evidence in justification D thereof is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14-Thus, ultravires the constitution and struck down-Proposals of the Academic Committee modified and directions issued with prospective effect-Education-All India Institute of medical Sciences, Act, 1956. 'Reservation' and 'Source of Entry' difference between, explained E All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Conducts entrance examination for admission to Post Graduate courses of studies twice in a year. The prospectus declared that only candidates who had secured 65th percentile or higher marks in entrance examination were entitled for admission to Post Graduate courses and selection shall be on merits. However, I/3rd of the seats F were reserved for in-house candidates of the institute. Besides this, a subsequent reservation of 50% seats discipline-wise subject to a overall 33% quota was reserved for in-house candidates. Three candidates who were Medical Graduates from Colleges/Universities other than AJIMS appeared for the common entrance test and had secured ranks IO, 12 and 89 G respectively. They were not given seats of their choice in creamy disciplines. However, the in-house candidates who had secured less marks and ranked beyond the open category candidates were allotted seats in such disciplines. Aggrieved, the open category candidates filed writ petitions for striking down the policy of reservation in favour of in-house candidates as unconstitutional 79 H 80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A and for fresh allocation of seats. High Court struck down the 33% reservation in favour of in-house candidates both at the entry level as also discipline-wise. Hence the present appeals by AIIMS students Union and the Institute. On behalf of the appellants it was contented that what has been provided for the Institute's candidates was not a 'reservation' in the sense in which it B was understood in Constitution but what has been provided for was merely a source of entry or a channel for admission the validity whereof was not required to be tested on the principles having relevance for Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution; that reservation, ifthat be so, in favour of the students who graduated from the Institute, was justified while seeking admission to C post-graduate courses of study on the well accepted principle of institutional continuity; that the appropriation of 33% of the total post-graduate seats exclusively for the Institute's candidates does not harm the general or open category candidates and if this protection was withdrawn, the Institute's candidates who had proved their all India excellence while seeking admission in undergraduate level would be thrown once again to swim into deep waters D of all India quota. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. Reservation based on institutional continuity in the absence of any relevant evidence in justification thereof is unconstitutional and E violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and has therefore to be struck down. F The impugned reservation, obnoxious to merit, fails to satisfy the twin test under Article 14. (112-G( 1.2. Institutional reservation is not supported by the Constitution or constitutional principles. A certain degree of preference for students of the same institution intending to prosecute further studies therein is permissible on grounds of convenience, suitability and familiarity with an educational environment. Such preference has to be reasonable and not excessive. The preference has to be prescribed without making an excessive or substantial departure from the rule of merit and equality. Such marginal Institutional G preference is tolerable at post-graduation level but is rendered intolerabl
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.