VISHAL GOYAL & ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 5 S.C.R. 606 · Decided: 24-04-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. PATNAIK · Disposal: Case Allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c· 
[2014] 5 S.C.R. 606 
VISHAL GOYAL & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. 
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 48 of 2014) 
APRIL 24, 2014 
[A.K. PATNAIK AND FAKKIR MOHAMED 
IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.] 
Education/Educational Institutions: 
Medical and Dental Colleges - Post Graduate Entrance 
Test, 2014 - Information Bulletins - Sub-clause (a) of clause 
2. 1 providing that no candidate shall be admitted. to a 
professional educational institution unless the· candidate is of 
0 Kamataka origin - Constitutional validity of - Held: The 
institutional preference sought to be given by sub-clause (a) 
of clause 2.1 of the Information Bulletin for PGET-2014 is 
clearly contrary to the judgment of Supreme Court in *Dr. 
Pradeep Jain's case - The said sub-clause does not actually 
E ·give institutional preference to students who have passed 
MBBS or BDS from Colleges or Universities in the State of. 
Kamataka, but makes some of them ineligible to take the 
Entrance Test for admission to Post Graduate MedicfifOr 
Dental courses in the State of Karnataka to which the 
Information Bulletins apply - Therefore, sub-clause (a) of 
r 
F clause 2. 1 is ultra-vires Article 14 of the Constitution and null 
. and.void- Respondent is directed to publish fresh Information 
Bulletins and do the admissions to the post graduate medical 
and dental courses in the Government colleges as well as the 
State quota of the private colleges in accordance with the law · 
G by the end of June, 2014 on the basis of the results of the 
Entrance Test already held. 
The National Board of Examinations issued two 
Information Bulletins for Post Graduate Entrance Test, 
H 
606 
VISHAL GOYAL v .. STATE OF KARNATAKA 
607 
2014 (PGET-2014) for admissions to the State Quota seats 
A 
in Karnataka Government Colleges and Institutions and 
Karnataka Government Quota seats in private colleges/ 
institutions/deemed universities. Clause 2 of these 
Information Bulletins laid down the criteria for PGET-2014. 
Sub-clause (a) of Clause 2.1 provided that no candidate 
B 
shall be admitted to a professional educational institution 
unless the candidate is a citizen of India and is of 
Karnataka origin. The case of the petitioners was that by 
virtue of sub-clause (a) of clause 2.1, they are debarred 
from appeariqg in .the Entrance Tests for admissions to c 
MD/MS/Medical Post Graduate Diploma Courses, 2014 or 
·• 
I 
to MOS/Dental Post Graduate Diploma Courses, 2014 in 
the State of Karnataka even though they have studied 
MBBS/BDS in institutions in the State of Karnataka. They, 
therefore, challenged sub-clause (a) of clause 2.1 as ultra 0 
vires Article 14 of the Constitution. They also contended 
that in the case of Dr. Pradeep Jain, it was held that a 
certain percentage of seats must be reserved on the 
basis of institutional preference to enable students ·who 
have passed MBBS or BOS courses from medical or 
dental colleges in the State of Karnataka to get admission 
E 
to Post Graduate medical or dental courses in the 
Medical or Dental Colleges of the State of Karnataka. The 
petitioners, therefore, prayed that appropriate writs and 
directions be issued tO the respondents to permit the 
petitioners to participate in the admission process of MD/ 
F 
MS/MOS and other Post Graduate Medical and Dental 
course in the State of Karnataka. 
Allowing the writ petitions, the Court 
HELD: 1. As per sub-clause (a) of clause·2.1 of the two 
Information Bulletins, the expression "A 9andidate of 
Karnataka Origin" who only is eligible to appear for 
Entrance Test has been so defined as to exclude a 
candidate who has studied MBBS or BOS in an institution 
G 
H 
608 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 5 S.C.R .. 
A 'in the State of Karnataka but who does not satisfy the 
other requirements of sub-clause (a)· of clause 2.1 'of the 
Information Bulletin for PGET-2014. Thus, the institutional 
preference sought to be given by sub-clause (a) of clause 
2.1 of the Information Bulletin for PGET-2014 is clearly 
B contrary to the judgment of this Court in* Dr. Pradeep Jain's 
case. Sub-clause (a) of clause 2.1 of the two Information 
Bulletins does not actually give institutional preference to 
students who have passed MBBS or BOS from Colleges 
or Universities in the State of Karnataka, but makes some 
c of them ineligible to take the Entrance Test for admission 
to Post Graduate Medical or Dental courses in the State 
of Karna.taka to which the Information Bulletins apply. 
[Para 1 O] [617-
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.