DR. NARAYAN SHARMA AND ANR. ETC. versus DR. PANKAJ KR. LEHKAR AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 364 · Decided: 03-11-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DR. NARAYAN SHARMA AND ANR. ETC. 
v. . 
DR. PANKAJ KR. LEHKAR AND ORS. ETC. 
NOVEMBER 3, 1999 
B 
[G.B. PATTANAIK, M. SRINIVASAN AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950. 
Articles 15(1), 15(4) and 29(2)-Post-graduate Courses-Admission-
C Criterion-Held, admission to post-graduate courses should be strictly on 
merit-Method-Held, entrance examination for uniform standard in 
assessment of merit-Reservation-Sec oe of Article 15(4)-Held, reservation 
should be within reasonable limits-Classification should· be based on 
intelligible differentia having rational .nexus to the object of the Rule-
D Assam Medical Colleges (Regulation of Admission to Post Graudate Courses) 
Rules, 1997. 
Assam Medical Colleges (Regulation of Admission to Post Graduate 
Courses) Rules, 1997 
E 
Rule 4 (ii)-Post-graduate Courses-Reservation-N.E.C. quota-No 
F 
Medical College in 5 States-Held, candidates belonging to 5 States form 
a separate class-Rule 4(ii) is valid. 
R.4 (iii)-Teachers quota-Dearth of qualified Doctors-Institutional 
requirement-Held, teachers form a class by themselves-Rule 4(iii) is valid 
R.4(iv)--States Health Service quota-Reservation of seats/or Doctors 
working in places not situated-in Municipal areas-Held, the rule does not 
require the doctor to serve in a remote rural area-Even if the rule had 
provided for service in a rural area, the classification is not a valid one-
G Rule 4(iv) is unconstitutional and void-Rightly quashed. 
H 
Rule 5 (i)-Exemption from entrance test to candidates mentioned in 
Rules 4(ii), (iii) and (iv)-Held, admission to post-graduate courses should 
be strictly on merits-Assessment of merit by performance in entrance 
examination-Admission not to be left to arbitrary discretion of any 
364 
. 
# 
DR. N. SHARMA v. DR. PANKAJ KR. LEHKAR 
365 
administrative body-lfeld, Rule 5(i) is unconstitutional and not valid so A 
far as it exempts candidates referred to in Rule 4(ii) and (iii)-As regards 
exemption to teachers, the provision is valid 
Rule 8 (vii)-Provision for filling up vacancies-Upheld 
The validity of Rules 4(ii), (iii) and (iv), 5(i) and S(vii) of Assam Medical B 
Colleges (Regulation of Admission to Post-Graduate Courses) Rules, 1997, 
framed for regulating admissions ·to post-graduate courses· in medical colleges 
of Assam, were challenged in writ petition by respondents on the ground that 
there could not be any reservation for post-graduate courses and that at any 
rate, reservation provided thereunder were arbitrary and uncanalised. High C 
Court struck down Rules 4(ii), (iii) and (iv), 5(i) and S(vii) on the ground that 
merit should be the sole criterion for admission to post-graduate medical 
courses subject to reservation permitted by the Constitution. Aggrieved by 
· the judgment of High Court. persons who were not parties before High Court 
and affected by the said judgement, the State of Assam and some of the in-
service doctors, have filed the present appeals. 
D 
The appellant- State contended that students of States belonging to North 
Eastern Council form a class by themselves and it is valid classification; and 
that reservation under teachers quota is valid on the ground of institutional 
requirement 
The respondent contended that there was no necessity for reservation 
for the categories of candidates mentioned in sub-rules (ii) to (iv) of Rule 4; 
and that reservation could be made only in accordance with Article 15(4) of. 
the Constitution and provisions in the Constitution have been violated by the 
State Government by framing such rules. 
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. A provision for reservation must be within reasonable limits. 
There can be a reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia for 
E 
F 
the purpose of Articles 15(1), 15(4) and 29(2). There can be reservation for G 
persons belonging to areas which are socially and educationally backward. A 
rural area is not a class by itself and cannot be considered to be socially and 
educationally backward merely because it is a rural area. (382-C-D) 
MR. Balaji and Ors. v. State of Mysore, [1963) Supp. lSCR 439 and 
Chitra Ghosh and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., (1970) l SCR 413, followed. H 
366 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
State of U}.P. v. Pradip Tandon, [1975) 1SCC267, relied on. 
2. Admission to post-graduate courses should be strictly based on merit 
The merits of the candidates seeking admission to higher educational courses 
shall

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.