TUSHAR SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner before this Court, in essence, is challenging the decision of the Government of India to allocate 39 out of 150 seats of the MBBS in Vardhman Mahavir Medical College (VMMC) and Safdarjung Hospital to All India Region, over and above 23 seats to be filled through CBSE under the All India Quota. The petitioner belongs to OBC category and had appeared in the entrance test called NEET -UG 2013, held for admission to various medical institutions. The petitioner, however, could not secure admission and his name was placed in the waiting list.

(2.) VMMC was established by Government of India in Safdarung Hospital in the year 2001, considering the number of medical seats available in Delhi in relation to its population and demand was disproportionately small. The Government of India decided that admission to VMMC would be on All India basis, on the lines of admission in AIIMS and JIPMER, Pondicherry. Initially, 100 seats in the MBBS course were available in the said college. The Government decided to allocate 50 seats out of those 100 seats to Delhi Region category and remaining 50 seats to All India category. During the academic year 2002 -03 to 2008 -09, 15 seats out of 100 seats were earmarked to 15% All India Quota for which selection was made through entrance examination conducted by CBSE and the seats were allotted by Directorate General of Health Services, 10 seats were reserved for Central Pool Quota and the remaining 75 seats were distributed by allocating 50 seats to Delhi Region Category and 25 seats to All India Region Category. The aforesaid distribution could not take place during the year 2001 -02 on account of late start of session during the said year. For the academic year 2009 -10, the number of seats was increased from 100 to 140, considering provision of 27% reservation for OBC candidates. For the academic year 2010 -11, the admission was made against 150 seats. For the academic years 2011 -12 and 2012 -13, distribution of seats was worked out by Government of India and sent to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIU). In the year 2011, out of 150 seats available in MBBS course, 39 seats were allocated to All India Region, 79 seats to Delhi Region, 22 seats to All India Quota and 10 seats to Central Pool. The distribution of seats in the academic year 2012 -13 was 39 to All India Region, 80 to Delhi Region, 23 to All India Quota and 8 to Central Pool and in the year 2013 -14, 41 seats were allocated to All India Region, 81 to Delhi Region, 22 to All India Quota and 6 to Central Pool. Out of the seats allocated to All India Region, 10 seats are reserved for OBC candidates, whereas out of 80 seats allocated to Delhi Region, 23 seats are reserved for OBC candidates. Against the seats reserved for OBC candidates in All India Quota and All India Region, admissions are made as per the OBC list notified by Government of India, whereas admission against 23 OBC seats, out of Delhi Region Quota are made from amongst OBC candidates as per the OBC list of Delhi Government.

(3.) IN Dr. Pradeep Jain and others versus Union of India and others and other connected matters, [(1984) 3 SCC 654], the constitutional validity of residential requirements and institutional preference in regard to the admission in medical colleges in Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi was under challenge. The Apex Court was informed, during the course of hearing, that it was a uniform and constitutional practice for admission of the students to provide for residential requirements or institutional preference. The Apex Court noted that though theoretically speaking, if admissions are given on the basis of all India national entrance examination, each individual would have equal opportunity of securing admission, but that would not take into account diverse consideration, such as, differing level of social, economic and educational development of different regions, disparity in the number of seats available for. admission to the MBBS course in different States, difficulties which may be experienced by students from one region who might in the competition on all India basis get admission to the MBBS course in another region far remote from their own and other allied factors. The Court felt that though admission on All India basis is a desirable policy, it would be unrealistic to achieve the idea in the present circumstances since the real equality of opportunities cannot be achieved unless there is complete absence of disparities and inequalities. The Court felt that a certain percentage of reservation on the basis of residence requirements may legitimately be made in order to equalize the opportunities for medical admission, such percentage of reservation may also include institutional reservation for students passing from the same college or clearing the qualifying examination from the school system of the educational hinterland of the medical colleges in the States and for that purpose there could be no distinction between the schools affiliated to the State Board and the schools affiliated to the Central Board. The Court, however, held that the reservation based on residential requirement or institutional preference could not exceed the outer limit of 70% of the total number of seats after taking into account the other kinds of reservations validly made. The Court also desired that this outer limit of 70% should be gradually reduced over a period of time. Thus, the Apex Court in the aforesaid case fixed the outer limit for reservation based on residential requirement or institutional preference and not for admission on All India Basis, meaning thereby that the reservation based on residential requirement or institutional preference could if the concerned government so decided be less than 70%, though it could, in no case, exceed 70%. In fact, the Court noted that the aforesaid outer limit of 70% needs to be gradually reduced by the government. In Saurabh Chaudri versus Union of India & others [(2003) 11 SCC146], the Apex Court, inter alia, observed as under: