TAMIL NADU MEDICAL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2018] 3 S.C.R. 551 · Decided: 24-04-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
551
TAMIL NADU MEDICAL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
(I. A. No. 33686 of 2018)
in
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 196 Of 2018)
APRIL 24, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. K. SIKRI, A. M. KHANWILKAR,
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000:
Regulation 9 – Writ petition challenging the Regulation –
Provisions of the Regulation was considered in Dinesh Singh Chauhan
case by three Judge Bench – Matter referred to Constitution Bench
for reconsideration of *Dinesh Singh Chauhan case – Stay of
operation of the Regulation sought to the extent the provision is
deemed to prohibit the States from providing a separate source of
entry to in-service candidates seeking admission to post-graduate
courses – Direction sought permitting the State Government to
implement its policy of providing for a separate source of entry to
in-service candidates for admission to post-graduate courses for
academic year 2018-19 – Interim relief also referred to Constitution
Bench – Considering the interim relief, the Court held: Dinesh Singh
Chauhan case had construed the provision in Regulation 9(iv) after
taking due note of the decisions of Constitution Bench – The decision
in Dinesh Singh Chauhan case still holds the field and cannot be
brushed aside at the stage of deciding interim relief – Grant of
interim relief at this stage would amount to a mandatory final order
and hence refused – Interlocutory order.
*State of Uttar Pradesh v Dinesh Singh Chauhan (2016)
9 SCC 749 : [2016] 6 SCR 571; R Chitralekha v. State
of Mysore [1964] 6 SCR 368; Kumari Chitra Ghosh v.
Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 228 : [1970] 1 SCR 413;
Modern Dental College and Research Centre v State of
Madhya Pradesh (2016) 7 SCC 353; K Duraisamy v.
[2018] 3  S.C.R. 551
551
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
552
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018]  3 S.C.R.
State of Tamil Nadu (2001) 2 SCC 538 : [2001] 1
SCR 490; AIIMSStudents’ Union v. AIIMS (2002) 1
SCC 428 : [2001] 2 Suppl. SCR 79; State of M P v.
Gopal D Tirthani (2003) 7 SCC 83 : [ 2003] 1 Suppl.
SCR 797; Sudhir N v. State of Kerala (2015) 6 SCC
685 : [2015] 1 SCR 884; Dr Preeti Srivastava v. State
of M P (1999) 7 SCC 120 : [1999]  1 Suppl. SCR 249
– referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2016] 6 SCR 571
referred to
Para 1
[1964] 6 SCR 368
referred to
Para 2
[1970] 1 SCR 413
referred to
Para 2
(2016) 7 SCC 353
referred to
Para 2
[2001] 1 SCR 490
referred to
Para 7
[2001] 2 Suppl. SCR 79
referred to
Para 7
[2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 797
referred to
Para 7
[2015] 1 SCR 884
referred to
Para 7
[1999] 1 Suppl. SCR 249
referred to
Para 13
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: I. A. No. 33686 of 2018 in
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 196 of 2018.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
WITH
Writ Petition (C) Nos. 252, 295 and 293 of 2018.
Aman Lekhi, ASG, Arvind Datar, K.V. Vishwanathan, A.K.
Sinha, Vikas Singh, V. Giri, Sr. Advs., Ajay Bhargava, Ms. Vanita
Bhargava, Saman Ahsan, Aayush Jain, M/s. Khaitan & Co., Jose
Abraham, Harish Pandey, Dr. Nishesh Sharma, Sarad Kumar Singhania,
Rohit Bhat, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Gaurav Sharma, Dhawal Mohan,
Prateek Bhatia, Amandeep Kaur Ahuja, Abhishek, Ms. Deepika Kalia,
Ms. Shristi Banerjee, K.V. Vijayakumar, Ms. Maitreyee Mishra, Tapesh
Kr. Singh, Mohd. Waquas, Aditya Pratap Singh, G. Prakash, Jishnu M.L.,
Mrs. Priyanka Prakash, Mrs. Beena Prakash, Vijay Shank V.L., Ms.
Vijaya Mohan V., Advs. for the appearing parties.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
553
The Order of the Court was delivered by
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. The judgment rendered by
a three judge Bench in State of Uttar Pradesh v Dinesh Singh
Chauhan1, construed the provisions of Regulations 9(IV) and 9(VII) of
the Medical Council of India Post-Graduate Medical Education
Regulations 2000, as amended on 15 February 2012. In the present batch
of cases, a Bench of three Judges opined, by an order dated 13 April
2018, that these petitions require consideration by a larger Bench.
2. In making this reference, the referring order primarily indicated
the following reasons :
(i)   The decision in Dinesh Singh Chauhan has not considered
the entries in the legislative lists of the Seventh Schedule,
more particularly Entry 66 of the Union List and Entry 25 of
the Concurrent List;
(ii)   The main contention of the petitioners is that while coordination
and determination of standards in institutions for higher
education falls within the exclusive domain of the Union (Entry
66 List I), medical education is a subject in the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.