Summary
Considering interim relief pending a larger-Bench reference, the Supreme Court refused to permit a separate in-service channel for postgraduate medical degree admissions in 2018–19. Dinesh Singh Chauhan’s interpretation of Regulation 9 still governed: degree admissions allowed specified incentive marks, while diploma courses had an express reservation. Granting the requested interim order would effectively grant final mandatory relief. The Court expressly made counselling subject to the eventual reference result; it did not finally dispose of the substantive challenge.
Issues
- Whether pending reference justified interim permission for an in-service postgraduate-degree admission channel.
- Whether the existing regulatory interpretation should continue to govern counselling pending final determination.
Provisions considered
- Regulation 9(IV) and (VII), as amended in 2012, Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000For the interim decision, the Court applied Dinesh Singh Chauhan’s distinction between incentive marks for degree admissions and the express fifty per cent reservation in diploma courses. It declined to read an additional degree reservation into the regulation at that stage. (¶¶ 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
- Seventh Schedule, List I Entry 66 and List III Entry 25, Constitution of IndiaThe Court considered the primacy of Union standards regulation and the qualification of the concurrent education entry when assessing interim relief. The broader reference remained pending. (¶¶ 2, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15)
Held
- The larger-Bench reference included questions about legislative competence and earlier constitutional authorities, and the present Constitution Bench was constituted to decide interim relief. The substantive reference was not finally answered by this order. (¶¶ 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 15)
- Dinesh Singh Chauhan construed the amended Regulation 9 and remained operative. At the interim stage, the Court considered its basic approach consistent with the relevant constitutional standards principles and declined to disregard it. (¶¶ 10, 11, 14)
- Regulation 9(IV)’s proviso prescribed incentive marks for qualifying remote or difficult-area service, while Regulation 9(VII) expressly reserved diploma seats. The existing interpretation did not permit importing a separate in-service degree admission channel merely because no express prohibition appeared. (¶¶ 9, 12, 13)
- The requested interim intervention would amount to final mandatory relief and interfere with the expert regulator’s framework at that stage. Interim relief was therefore refused. (¶¶ 14, 15)
- Counselling and admissions undertaken meanwhile were expressly to abide by the ultimate result of the reference. Refusal of interim relief did not foreclose the final resolution of the referred issues. (¶ 15)
Result
Interim relief refused and I.A. 33686/2018 disposed of. Counselling to remain subject to the eventual reference outcome; substantive proceedings not finally disposed of.