K. DURAISAMY AND ANR versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] 1 S.C.R. 490 · Decided: 23-01-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
K. DURAISAMY AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. 
JANUARY 23, 2001 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, C.J., R.C. LAHOTI AND 
DORAISWAMY RAJU, J.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 15(4) and 16(4). 
Postgraduate Medical Courses-Reservation of seats-In-service and 
non-service candidates-Classification of-Validity-Government Order 
stipulated 50% reservation for in-service candidates and 50% for non-
service candidates or open quota, both based on merits-50% of the seats 
available in each speciality were also to be allotled exclusively to in-service 
candidates--Only enumerated categories of Medical Officers were to be 
treated as service candidates for selection against 50% of seats allocated to 
them-In service candidates filed writ petitions challenging the manner of 
allocation of seats for in-service and non-service candidates-Single judge 
allowed the writ petitions and held that reservation of 50% of seats for non-
service candidates have lo be given effect lo or worked out by selecting 
candidates from in-service and non-service, on the basis of merit in the first 
instance and thereafter the 50% seats reserved for in-service candidates shall 
be filled up by in-service candidates who could not gain selection on the 
basis of merit as against the other 50% earmarked as ""open"-However, Full 
Bench dismissed the appeals-Held : Government has the right and authority 
lo decide from what sources admissions in educational institutions are lo be 
made and in what proportion-Government has the power to fix a quota 
exclusively for in-service and non-service candidates-Classification of in-
service and non-service candidates cannot be tested on the touchstone of 
Arts. 15(4) or 16(4)-Hence, scheme adopted for selection of candidates for 
admission to postgraduate medical courses providing for a definite quota for 
in-service and non-service candidates, valid-Education Admission to Post-
Graduate Medical Courses-Reservation. 
The Government Order envisaged 50% reservation in postgraduate 
medical courses for the academic session 1999-2000 in favour of in-service 
H candidates on merit basis and further stipulated that 50% of the seats in 
490 
> 
• 
1 
.....
K. DURAISAMYv. STATE 
491 
each of the speciality shall be allotted exclusively to service candidates. The A 
Government Order also enumerated various categories of Medical Officers, 
who alone would be treated as service candidates and considered for selection 
against the 50% of the seats allocated exclusively for service candidates. 
The remaining 50% seats were referred to as open quota and all non-service 
Medical Officers were eligible to apply for the same. 
B 
The appellant-in-service candidates filed writ petition before the High 
Court challenging the manner of allocation of seats for in-service and non-
service candidates. Single Judge allowed the writ petitions and held that 
reservation of 50% of seats for non-service candidates have to be given 
effect to or worked out by selecting candidates from in-service and non- C 
service, on the basis of merit in the first instance and thereafter the 50% 
seats reserved for in-service candidates shall be filled up by in-servire 
candidates who could not gain selection on the basis of merit as against the 
other 50% earmarked as "open". However, a Full Bench of the High Court 
dismissed the writ petitions. Hence this appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : I. That the Government possess the right and authority to 
decide from what sources the admissions in Educational Institutions or to 
D 
particular disciplines and courses therein have to be made and that too in 
what proportion, is well established and by now a proposition well settled too. E 
It has been the consistent and authoritatively settled view of the Court that 
at the super-speciality level in particular and even at the postgraduate level 
reservations of the kind known as "protective discrimination" in favour of 
those considered to be backward should be avoided as being not permissible. 
_. 
Reservation, even if it be claimed to be so in this case, for and in favour of 
in-service candidates; cannot be equated or treated on par with communal F 
reservations envisaged under Articles 15(4) or 16(4) and extended the special 
mechanics of their implementation to ensure such reservations to be the 
minimum by not counting those selected in open competition on the basis of 
their own merit as against the quota reserved on comm

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