DR. SAURABH DWIVEDI AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2017] 4 S.C.R. 286 · Decided: 07-06-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
(2017] 4 S.C.R. 286 
OR. SAURABH DWIVEDI AND ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 8268 of 2017) 
B 
JUNE07,2017 · 
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.] 
Education/Educational Institutions: 
Medical Council of India Post Graduate Medical Education 
C Regulations, .2000 ~ Regn. 9(1V) - Procedure for selection of. 
candidate for Post Graduate Courses in Medical Colleges -
Weightage to in-service doctors, who have worked in remote or 
difficult areas - High Court set aside the institutional preference in 
Aligarh Muslim University and Banaras Hindu University-Central 
D 
Universities - Issuance of direction that the PG seats in these 
institutions to be filled up only from those ,fiudents who have passed 
MBBS from Institutions, Universities and Colleges in State of U.P.; 
and that the benefit of.service rendered in remote/difficult areas to 
be given only to those docto_rs of the Provincial Medical Health 
Services (PMHS) who have cleared MBBS examination from a 
E college within the State of U.P.- Justificatir;m of - Held: State can 
have no control over the seats in the medical colleges which are 
part of the central universities/institutions - These seats have to be 
filled up on the basis of merit and institutional preference could he 
given to the extent permissible i.e. 50% - Benefit of weightage in 
F 
terms of Regn. 9(1V) is available to medical officers belonging to 
PMHS cadre, who have served in remote and difficult areas, 
irrespective of the State of graduation - High Court overstepped its 
jurisdiction while issuing the said directions - Order of Hig~ Court 
as also direction issued by it, set aside. 
G 
H 
Disposing of tJie appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Both Aligarh Muslim University-AMU and 
Banaras Hindu University-BHU are central universities. The State 
· Government had issued a circular on 31.03.2017 clarifying that 
students, who had done their MBBS/BDS final year from AMU 
and BHU would be entitled for counselling only in the seats 
286,..., 
DR. SAURABH DWIVEDI AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA 
287 
AND ORS. 
available in their own institutes-AMU and BHU. In the central A 
universities 100% admissions for MBBS course are based on all 
India examination. There is no State quota for seats in central 
universities like AMU and BHU or other central institutions like 
All India Institute of Medical Sciences etc. It is, thus, apparent . 
that the State can have no control over the seats in those medical B 
colleges which are part of the central universities/institutions. 
These seats have to be filled up on the basis of merit and 
institutional preference could be given to the extent permissible 
i.e. 50%.[Para 11][293-C-E] 
1.2 The 50% institutional reservation in AMU and BHU, 
which had been reflected in their prospectus, was not challenged C 
by any body before the High Court. AMU and BHU were not 
parties before the High Court. The MCI and the Union of India 
were also not parties before the High Court. The selected 
candidates were not joined as respondents. The High Court did 
not take into consideration the judgment of this Court in the case D 
of Saurabh Chaudri and other cases upholding institutional 
preferences in central universities. The High Court did not also 
take into consideration the f.act that the State had no power to 
control admissions to these universities. Therefore, the High 
Court overstepped its jurisdiction and went beyond the scope of 
the writ petition while issuing the direction relating to AMU and 
E 
BHU. The order of the High Court is erroneous and is liable to 
be set aside. [Para 12][294-B-D] 
1.3 Regulation 9(IV) of the Medical Councii' of India Post 
Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 clearly provides 
that an incentive at the rate of 10% of the marks for each year F 
can be provided to those in service candidates, who have served 
in remote or difficult areas subject to the condition that,the highest 
incentive will be of 30% marks. The power to notify the remote 
and difficult areas is vested with the State Government. The 
purpose behind Regulation 9(1V) is that those doctors who G 
willingly served in remote and difficult areas shonld be given some 
preference while considering them for admission to post-graduate 
courses. The intention is to benefit those who left the comforts 
o( towns and cities and are willing to work in difficult conditions 
'in remote and difficult areas. [Paras 13, 14][294-D-E, G-H] 
H 
' ' 
~ i ,. 
288 
SUPREME C

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