YATINKUMAR JASUBHAI PATEL AND OTHERS versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS

Citation: [2019] 12 S.C.R. 848 · Decided: 04-10-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 4 · 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
848
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
YATINKUMAR JASUBHAI PATEL AND OTHERS
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No 7939 of 2019)
OCTOBER 04, 2019
[ARUN MISHRA, M. R. SHAH AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions:
Rules framed by University – Providing for institutional
Reservation/Preference – For admission in post-graduate medical
course  – Challenged as being violative of Medical Council Act
and Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations after
introduction of NEET Scheme – Petition dismissed by High Court
– Appeal to Supreme Court  – Held: Institutional Preference/
Reservation to the extent of 50% of total number of open seats is
permissible – Introduction of NEET Scheme shall not affect such
preference – Therefore the regulations providing for institutional
Preference/Reservation are not ultra vires to s. 10D of Medical
Council Act – Medical Council Act, 1956 – s. 10D – Post Graduate
Medical Education Admission Regulations – Reg. 9.
Dismissing the appeals/writ petitions, the Court
HELD: 1. The purpose and object of the introduction of
the NEET Scheme was to conduct a uniform entrance
examination for all medical educational institutions at the under-
graduate level or post-graduate level and admissions at the
under-graduate level and post-graduate level are to be given
solely on the basis of the merits and/or marks obtained in the
NEET examination only. The only obligation by virtue of
introduction of NEET is that, once centralized admission test is
conducted, the State, its agencies, Universities and institutions
cannot hold any separate test for the purpose of admission to
Post-Graduate and PG and Diploma Courses and such seats are
to be filled up by the State agencies, Universities/Institutions
for preparing merit list as per the score obtained by the
applicants in NEET examination and therefore by introduction
of the NEET, Section 10D of the MCI, Act has been amended,
848
   [2019] 12 S.C.R. 848
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
849
consequently amendment to the Post-Graduate Education
Regulations, 2000, admission to Post Graduate Courses are
made providing for solely on the basis of the score secured by
the candidates seeking admission based on centralized
examination, i.e. NEET. [Para 10.3] [858-C-G]
2. Under the circumstances, introduction of the NEET
Scheme, as such, has nothing to do with the “Institutional
Preference”. Therefore, the change by introduction of the NEET
Scheme shall not affect the Institutional Preference/Reservation
as approved by this Court from time to time in catena of
decisions. Under the guise of introduction of the NEET Scheme,
the petitioners cannot be permitted to re-agitate and/or re-open
the issue with respect to Institutional Preference which has been
approved and settled by this Court in catena of decisions. [Para
10] [859-A-C]
3. Thus, Institutional Preference to the extent of 50% is
approved and it is observed and held that introduction of the
NEET Scheme shall not affect such Institutional Preference/
Reservation. Such a regulation providing 50% Institutional
Preference/Reservation shall not be in any way ultra vires to
Section 10D of the Medical Council Act. Even otherwise, even
in the case of Institutional Preference/Reservation, the
admissions in the post graduate courses are to be given on the
basis of the merits and marks obtained in the NEET examination
result only. [Para 12] [860-A-B]
4. So far as the question that if the 50% seats are reserved
for State quota and if institutional preference/reservation is
permitted to the extent of 50% of the total number of open seats,
in that case, not a single seat in the State quota shall be available
is concerned, it will be for the appropriate authority/State to
consider how much percentage seats are to be reserved for
Institutional Preference/Reservation. It will be in the realm of
a policy decision and this Court cannot substitute the same,
unless it is held to be arbitrary and/or mala fide and/or not
permissible. [Para 11] [859-C-D-F]
Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India 2003 (11) SCC
146 : [2003] 5  Suppl. SCR 152  – followed.
YATINKUMAR JASUBHAI PATEL AND OTHERS v.
STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
850
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC
654 : [1984] 3 SCR 942 ; AIIMS Students’ Union v.
AIIMS (2002) 1 SCC 428 : [2001] 2 Suppl. SCR 79 ;
D.N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore (1971) 2 SCC
293 ; Gujarat University v. Rajiv Gopinath Bhatt
(1996) 4
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.