NIPUN TAWARI & ORS versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 15 S.C.R. 591 · Decided: 20-10-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
591
NIPUN TAWARI & ORS.
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7778 of 2022)
OCTOBER 20, 2022
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions: Medical admission – Post
Graduate Medical Degree courses in Maharashtra – Reservation
for in-service candidates – Issuance of admission brochure by the
Government of Maharashtra on 21.09.2022 – Clause 7.2 of the
brochure providing that 50% of seats in post graduate diploma
courses would be reserved for in-service candidates; and that for
in-service quota reservation, any change made by Government from
time to time would be applicable – Thereafter, issuance of
government Resolution dated 26.09.2022, providing for in-service
reservation to the extent of 20% seats in post graduate medical
degree courses for officers serving in government hospitals – Writ
petition by the appellants seeking that the resolution cannot be made
applicable for admissions to post graduate medical degree courses
for the 50% state quota in Government and Corporation run medical
colleges for the current academic year-2022-23 – High Court
dismissed the Writ Petition – On appeal, held: Provisions of the
brochure specifically placed students on notice that in- service
reservations would abide by such resolutions as may be issued by
the government from time to time – Thus, the brochure envisages
that there may be a change in the reservation policy for in-service
candidates and accounts for the same – Rules of the examination
have remained constant and the Government Resolution dated
26.09.2022 did not change the rules after the admission process
had commenced – Selection criteria were not changed after the
selection process commenced – Government Resolution dated
26.09.2022 is in consonance with the brochure issued by the
Government of Maharashtra – Thus, judgment of the High Court
does not call for interference – Post Graduate Medical Regulations,
2000.
[2022] 15 S.C.R. 591
591
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
592
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 15 S.C.R.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Clause 7.2 of the brochure issued by the State
Government provides that 50% of seats in post graduate diploma
courses would be reserved for in-service candidates. Clause 7.2
also provides that “for in-service quota reservation, any change
made by Government from time to time will be applicable”. An
additional weightage for in-service candidates was also prescribed
by Clause 7.2 in terms of clauses 9(IV) and (VII) of the MCI
Regulations. Clause 8.16.1 prescribes that the eligibility for in-
service candidates would be in terms of the Government
Resolution dated 19 March 2019 or any other Government
Resolution issued from time to time. Incentive marks of up to
10% marks for each year of service in remote and/or difficult
areas subject to a maximum of 30% of the marks obtained in the
NEET-PG 2022 was prescribed in Clause 8.17 of the brochure.
[Para 28][605-D-F]
1.2 Clause 3 of the Government Resolution dated 26
September 2022 which prescribes a reservation of 20% of the
State quota seats for in-service candidates also makes it clear
that an in-service candidate seeking admission to the general
category will not get any additional marks other than the marks
obtained in the NEET Examination. In other words, an in-service
candidate who opts for a seat in the general category would not
be entitled to any weightage of marks. The weightage of marks
is, therefore, prescribed in relation to those candidates who aspire
for a seat in the 20% quota which is set apart for in-service
candidates. [Para 29][605-F-H]
1.3 The submission of the appellants that the Government
Resolution dated 26 September 2022 ought not to apply for the
current academic year on the ground that it has altered the ‘rules
of the game’ midstream cannot be accepted. The High Court has
principally rejected the submission of the appellants on the ground
that there was no challenge to the validity of the Government
Resolution dated 26 September 2022 in which event, it is not
permissible for the court to read it down so as to exclude its
applicability for the current academic year. [Para 30][606-A-B]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
593
1.4 There was no specific prohibition in the brochure in
the matter of reservation for in-service candidates. On the
contrary, Clause 7.2 of the brochure issued by the State of
Maharashtra clearly specified that in quota reservations would
abide by Government Resolutions as may be issued from time t

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