PARAG GUPTA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Students who had qualified for medical degree course got admission under the All India quota of 15 per cent and migrated to different States to pursue the course of study and are now seeking admission into Post-graduate courses. Their grievance is that the States or concerned authorities have framed admission rules in such a way that they can neither pursue their studies in the migrated State nor in their home State.

(2.) Before we address to the controversy we may briefly survey a few decided cases. In Jagadish Saran (Dr.) v. Union of India, (1980) 2 SCC 768 : (AIR 1980 SC 820) the admission rules prescribed by the Delhi University provided that 70% of the seats at the post graduate level in the medical courses shall be reserved for students who had obtained their MBBS degree from the same university and the remaining 30% seats were open to all, including the graduates of Delhi. After considering the decisions rendered till that day, this Court took the view that "university-wise preferential treatment may still be consistent with the rule of equality of opportunity where it is calculated to correct an imbalance or handicap and permit equality in the larger sense. If University-wise classification for post graduate medical education is shown to be relevant and reasonable and the differentia has a nexus (with) the larger goal of equalisation of education opportunities the vice of discrimination may not invalidate the rule." The admissions to post graduate medical course are determined on the basis of a common entrance test inasmuch as the students of Delhi University are drawn from all over India and are not confined to the Delhi region. The rule was held to be not invidious and recognised the desires of the students for institutional continuity in education and recognised as one of the grounds justifying the reservation. The argument of excessive reservation in that case could not be considered on the ground of inadequacy of material on record.

(3.) In Pradeep Jain (Dr.) v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 654 : (AIR 1984 SC 1420) this Court opined that wholesale reservation made by some of the States on the basis of 'domicile' or requirement of residence within the State or on the basis of institutional preference for students who have passed the qualifying examination held by the university or the State and excluding the students not satisfying the said requirement, regardless of merit, is unconstitutional and being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Declaring that anyone from anywhere in the country, irrespective of his language, religion, place of birth or residence, is entitled to be afforded equal chance of admission to any secular educational course anywhere in the country, but, at the same time, recognising the factual position as to inequalities existing in the society and the need for affirmative action on that account, this Court directed that certain percentage of seats in the MBBS course and post graduate medical courses in all the government colleges in the State should be set apart for being filled purely on the basis of merit and students from all over the country were entitled to compete for these seats and the admission was directed to be based upon merit and merit alone. On further consideration of the matter, the percentage was fixed at 15% to students level (sic) and 25% P.G. level in a later decision in Dinesh Kumar (Dr.) (II) v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, (1986) 3 SCC 727 : (AIR 1986 SC 1877). It was, however, made clear that so far as super-specialities are concerned there should be no reservation either on the basis of institutional preference or otherwise and that admissions should be granted purely on merit determined on all India basis.