Summary
Medical graduates challenged institutional preference in postgraduate admissions, contending that introduction of NEET required its abolition or reduction. The Court upheld institutional preference within the previously approved fifty per cent limit. NEET supplies the common measure of merit and does not eliminate the permissible institutional source of admission.
Issues
- Whether introduction of NEET invalidated institutional preference in postgraduate medical admissions or required reducing its permissible percentage.
Provisions considered
- Rules 2, 3, 4.1 and 4.3, Gujarat University postgraduate medical admission rulesThe challenged scheme allocated All India quota seats and gave preference in the remaining admissions to graduates of Gujarat University, followed by graduates of other Gujarat universities; the challenge was rejected. (¶¶ 5, 5.1, 12)
Held
- Earlier decisions, including the Constitution Bench in Saurabh Chaudri, permitted institutional preference up to fifty per cent of the total open seats. Introduction of NEET did not reopen that settled permissibility. (¶¶ 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4)
- NEET replaces separate entrance examinations with a common assessment of merit. Admissions within the institutional preference quota must still follow NEET scores; institutional preference within the approved limit was not contrary to Section 10D of the Medical Council Act. (¶¶ 10.3, 10.4, 12)
- Within the permissible limit, the percentage of institutional preference is a policy choice for the competent authority. The Court declined to substitute a lower percentage absent arbitrariness, mala fides or legal impermissibility. (¶ 11)
Result
The appeal and all connected writ petitions challenging institutional preference were dismissed without costs.