AJAY KUMAR SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 3 S.C.R. 57 · Decided: 07-03-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A.IA Y KUMAR SINGH AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 
MARCH l 7, 1994 
[S.C. AGRAWAL, B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND 
M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.1.J 
· Co11stitutio11 of I11dia-A11ic/e 15( 4)-Admission to post-graduate medi-
A 
B 
cal courses--Rese1vatio11--Co11stitutio11ality of-State of Bihar rese1vi11g 50% 
seats for socially aiid educationally backward classes-Held, words "any spe-
C 
cial provisio" i11 A1ticle 15(4) of wide amplinide and pennits rese1vatio11 of 
scats in educational institutions-Reservations not anti-nieritarian-No rule 
under A1ticle 15(4) that a saident ca1111ot be given the benefit of reseivatio11 
niore than once in an educational career-Adn1ission to post-graduate n1edi-
cal course! held, cannot be equated with appoi11tn1ent to post. 
Co11stitutio11 of 111dia-Seve11th Schedul~E11t1y 66 List I and Ent1y 25 
List III--Doct1i11e of Pith and Substanc~Regulation of admission to medi-
cal courses, held, integral to power in Ent1y 25 List II and incidental to the 
power in Entry 66 List I. 
Indian Medical Council Act, 1956--Admission to graduate or post-
graduate niedical courses-Held, Act does not e1npower Council to presc1ibe 
qualifications or conditions for adniission to such courses-Regulation niade 
by Medical Council in 1971 on selection of students, held, is in the nanire of 
advice and not binding direction-In any case, Act does not purpo!t to 
regulate ad111issions to these courses-Field for the State to regulate. 
Administrative Law : Delegated Legislation-Regulations-Held, can-
not travel beyond the Act-ReRlllations nu1sf be read consistent with the 
constitutional poiver 101dt:r Article 15(.J.)--Constinllion of India, A11icle 
15(4)-lndian Medical Council Act, 1956, S.33 
The State of Bihar issued a prospectu; relating to Post-Graduate 
Medical Admission Test 1992. It provided, inter alia, reservation for socialM 
ly and educationally back-ward classes, scheduled castes, scheduled tribes 
and women to an extent of 50%. The appellant's challenge to the resena~ 
tion in two m-it petitions before the High Court was negatived. 
57 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
58 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
In the appeal before this Court, it was contended that Article 15(4) 
B 
does not permit reservation in educational institutions; that reservation is 
detrimental to the interests of society; that admission to the course is akin 
to appointment to a post, with a stipend, and that it is a promotional post 
for doctors who have completed MBBS; and that after Indra Sawhney v. 
Union of India, (1992) 6 JT 273 there can be no reservations in the matter 
of promotion, that the Regulations made by the Indian Medical Council 
prohibit reservation in post-graduate medical courses. 
For the Indian Medical Council, it was argued that the Council, born 
of an Act of Parliament referrable to Entry 25 List III and Entry 66 of List 
C I, in discharge of its duty had decided that there should be no reservation 
of any kind. By virtue of Entry 66, List I, it was contended, the States are 
denuded of.all and every power to determine and coordinate the standards 
of higher education. Even if Parliament does not regulate the admission 
to these courses, the States have no power, it was urged, to provide 
therefor. 
D 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1. It is true that clasue (4) of Article 15 does not expressly 
authorise providing of reservations in educational institutions but it is too 
E 
late in the day to question this power. The words "any special provision" 
are of wide amplitude and do certainly take in a provision reserving certain 
number of seats in educational institutions. (63-B-C] 
F 
M.R. Balaji & Ors. v. State of Mysore, [1963) Suppl. SCR 439, referred 
to. 
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, (1992) 6 JT 273, applied. 
2. The assumption that reservations are anti-meritarian is without 
any basis. Reservation is provided only at the stage of entry and not at the 
G stage of exit. In the matter of passing of the examination, no concession is 
shown to members of reserved classes. A student admitted in a reserved 
category has to acquire the same proficiency as any other candidate while 
passing the examination. This circumstance is a complete answer to the 
argument of'less merit'. [63-G-H; 64E-F) 
H 
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, (1992) 6 JT 273, followed. 
ATAY KUMAR v. STATEOFBIHAR 
59 
Chitralekha & Ors. v.State of Mysore, (1964] 6 SCR 368; Janaki Prasad A 
Pmimoo v. Staie of Jammu & Kashmir, (1973] 3 S
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.