PRE P.G. MEDICAL SANGARSH COMMITTEE AND ANR. versus DR. BAJRANG SONI AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 506 · Decided: 14-08-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PRE-P.G. MEDICAL SANGARSH COMMITTEE AND ANR. 
v. 
DR. BAJRANG SONI AND ORS. 
AUGUST 14, 2001 
B 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND D\)RAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] 
Education 
Post-graduate Medical Courses-Admission-Jn-service candidates-
C Fixing of 33% as minimum eligibility marks and increase in reservation of 
seats-Validity of-Held, in-service candidates constitute a distinct class by 
themselves who deserve special treatment-Thus, there is no discrimination 
or arbitrariness in the special provision made for them-Constitution of 
India, 1950-Articles 14 and 16. 
D 
The State Government decided to provide certain special concessions 
to in-service candidates aspiring for admission to the Post-graduate Medical 
Courses by fixing 33% as minimum qualifying marks and by increasing the 
reservation of seats for them from 25% to 50%. On challenge, Single 
Judge of High Court while upholding the decision of State Government 
E fixing 33% minimum qualifying marks for admission, set aside, the increase 
of reservation of seats to 50% as excessive. However, on appeal, Division 
Bench of High Court set aside the order of Single Judge as regards the 
percentage of reservation holding that the policy decision of State Government 
based on reasons which had nexus to the objects sought to be achieved could 
not be interfered with. Hence the present appeal. 
F 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : I. I. In-service candidates serving in government hospitals were 
distinct Class by themselves who deserve special treatment. Thus, there is 
no discrimination or arbitrainess in the special provision made to meet their 
G just and appropriate need in public interest. (512-F, GI 
1.2. It is permissible for the Government to fix a source or classification 
of candidates from which selection for admission to the Post-graduate Courses 
in the State had to be made if there is genuine, relevant and reasonable cause 
and purpose, which has, sufficient nexus to the larger goal of equalization 
H of educational opportunities and to sufficiently prefer the doctors serving in 
506 
•. 
PRE·P.G. MEDICAL SANGARSH COMMITTEE v. BAJRANG SONI 
507 
the various hospitals run and maintained from out of public funds by the A 
government or government departments, in the absence of which there would 
be serious dearth of qualified post-graduate doctors and experts to meet the 
requirements of such hospitals. (511-D-F) 
State of Tamil Nadu v. T. Dhilip Kumar and Ors., (1995) 5 SCALE 208 
and Ajay Kumar Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., (1994( 4 SCC B 
401, relied on. 
Dr. Narayan Sharma and Anr. e1c: v. Dr. Pankaj Kr. lehkar and Ors. 
ere., (2000( 1 SCC 44 and Indra Sawhney v. Union of India and Ors., (1992( 
Suppl 3 SCC 217, held inapplicable. 
c 
2. Mere theoretical excellence or merit alo.ne is no sufficient indicia 
of the qualitative merits of the candidate in the field of actual practice and 
application. The doctors, who are in-service candidates in various medical 
institutions run and maintained by the government or government 
Departments, hav~ wide area and horiz(ln of exposure on the practical side 
and they may not have the required eAtra time to keep themselves afresh on D 
the theoretical side like an open candidate who may have sufficient time at 
his disposal to plod through books. The in-service candidates in contrast to 
the fresh or open candidates have to spend much of their time on attending 
and treating the patients in the hospitals they serve gaining excellence on 
the practical side and they would constitute a distinct class by themse.lves E 
to be given a special treatment and no grievance can be made out on the 
ground that the minimum eligibility marks for their selection in respect of 
seats earmarked for them should also be the same· as that or-the fresh or 
open candidates. (512-D, E, Fl 
3. In the instant case, it is not in controversy that during the academic F 
years in question, there was no stipulation by the Medical Council of India 
of any minimum eligibility marks to be secured in the entrance examination 
for admission to post-graduate courses. Though it is said that in year 2000 
s·uch a stipulation has been made for the obvious reason that during the 
years under considera'tion there is no such stipulation, ttie challenge in this 
regard does not merit any consideration or acceptance. (512-C( 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 7256-7259 
of 1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.7.99 of the Rajas

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