Summary
On a reference, a three-judge Bench held that domicile or residence-based reservation in admission to Post Graduate medical courses within the State quota is constitutionally impermissible as violative of Article 14; apart from a reasonable number of institutional preference seats, State quota seats must be filled strictly on merit in the all-India NEET examination. The Court upheld the High Court's invalidation of the UT Chandigarh residence pool, but protected admissions already granted under it.
Issues
- Whether domicile or residence-based reservation in admission to PG medical courses within the State quota is constitutionally invalid.
- If such reservation is impermissible, how the State quota seats other than permissible institutional preference seats are to be filled.
- Whether admissions already made under the invalid residence-based pool should be disturbed.
Provisions considered
- Article 14, Constitution of IndiaFollowing Jagadish Saran, Pradeep Jain and the Constitution Bench in Saurabh Chaudri, the Court held that classifying candidates by residence for PG medical admissions is an unjustifiable classification that denies equality before the law, because merit must prevail at the level of specialisation; residence-based reservation to a degree is tolerable only at the MBBS level. (¶¶ 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32)
- Article 15, Constitution of IndiaArticle 15 prohibits discrimination on the ground of 'place of birth', which is distinct from residence, and does not by itself bar residence as an admission criterion, as Saurabh Chaudri recognised; but a residence requirement must still satisfy Article 14, of which Article 15 is a facet. (¶¶ 11, 17, 18, 28)
- Article 16(3), Constitution of IndiaRelying on the Constituent Assembly debates, the Court noted that residence is a prohibited ground in public employment and that only Parliament may prescribe a residence requirement, for uniformity; this was referred to as background, Article 16 not governing admissions. (¶¶ 25, 26, 27, 28)
- Article 5, Constitution of IndiaThe Court reiterated from Pradeep Jain and the Bombay High Court's Full Bench in Narayandas Mangilal Dayame that the Constitution recognises only one domicile, domicile in the territory of India; regional or State domicile is alien to the Indian legal system, and State rules loosely using 'domicile' really mean residence. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24)
Held
- Providing for domicile or residence-based reservation in admission to PG medical courses within the State quota is constitutionally invalid and impermissible, being violative of Article 14; questions 2(a) and 2(b) on the extent and modality of such reservation therefore did not arise. (¶¶ 5, 31, 32)
- Saurabh Chaudri, while recognising that residence is not a prohibited ground under Article 15 and upholding institutional preference to a reasonable extent, followed Pradeep Jain entirely in holding residence-based reservation in PG medical courses violative of Article 14; reading it as permitting such reservation is an incomplete reading. (¶¶ 9, 11, 12, 13, 16)
- There is only one domicile in India, the domicile of India; the concept of a provincial or State domicile is a misconception, and residence or permanent residence is a different concept. (¶¶ 19, 24, 25)
- Residence-based reservation may be permitted to a degree at the MBBS level, given local needs, regional backwardness and State expenditure on medical colleges, but at the PG and higher specialist levels merit cannot be compromised, so such reservation is impermissible there. (¶¶ 14, 29, 30, 31)
- State quota seats in PG medical courses, apart from a reasonable number of institutional preference seats, must be filled strictly on merit in the all-India examination. On the facts, the 32 institutional preference seats at Government Medical College, Chandigarh were valid, but the 32 seats of the UT Chandigarh pool were wrongly filled on residence, and the High Court's finding to that effect was upheld. (¶ 33)
- The declaration does not affect residence-based admissions already granted at Government Medical College, Chandigarh in the present case: students who have completed or are undergoing the course, including the appellants admitted under the interim order of 09.05.2019, are protected on equitable grounds. (¶ 34)
Result
Reference answered; residence-based reservation in PG medical courses held impermissible and the High Court's invalidation of the UT Chandigarh pool upheld, but admissions already granted were protected; appeal disposed of, and connected appeals and writ petition decided accordingly.