BALRAJ Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ISSUES relating to admission to the 25 per cent seats to the postgraduate Medical courses,known as "All India Quota " ;,arise for consideration in these Original Petitions.These petitions have been referred to us by a learned Single Judge.Since common questions arise for consideration in all these petitions,we consider it advantageous to dispose of them by this common judgment.

(2.) IN Dr.Pradeep Jain v.Union of India 1934(3)SCC 654 the Supreme Court took the view that so far as admission to postgraduate courses,such as M.S .,M.D.and the like are concerned,it would be eminently desirable not to provide for any reservation based on residence requirement within the State or on institutional preference.But,having regard to the broader considerations of equality of opportunity,the Court directed a certain percentage of seats may be reserved on the basis of institutional preference in the sense that a student who has passed M.B.B.S.course from a medical college or university may be given preference for admission to postgraduate course in the same medical college or university.It was provided that such reservation on the basis of institutional preference should in no case exceed 50 per cent of the total number of open seats available for admission to postgraduate course.The rest of the seats were required to be filled by an all India competitive examination,to be held by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences.By a subsequent order,reservation of 50 p per cent for local students was changed to 75 per cent.Consequently,25 per cent of the postgraduate seats in all the institutions were required to be filled by common examination held on all India basis.

(3.) IN Dr.Dinesh Kumar v,Motilal Nehru Medical College 1990(4)SCC 627 the Court took the view that the State of Uttar Pradesh was obliged to have initiated action for admission in appropriate time so as to allow the commencement of the course for the year 1990 with effect from May 2,1990.It held that the failure to do so by the State and the seven medical colleges of the State amounted to clear act of wilful default of the binding orders of the Supreme Court.While no action in contempt was initiated,costs amounting to Rs.20,000 was awarded against the State,while each of the erring Principals were ordered to pay Rs.500 as costs.Principals were directed to pay the costs personally from their salary and ordered that they would not be,entitled to reimbursement of the same from the State exchequer.In State of Uttar Pradesh and others v.Dr.Anupam Gupta,etc .,1987(4)SCC 459,the necessity for adherence to the time schedule was again reiterated.Their Lordships.observed: '' ;.........................to maintain excellence the courses have to be commenced on schedule and to be completed within the schedule,so that the students would have full opportunity to study lull course to meet their excellence and come at par excellence.Admission in 'the midstream would disturb the courses and also works an handicap to the candidates themselves to achieve excellence.Considering from this pragmatic point of view we are of the considered opinion that vacancies of the seats would not be taken as a ground to give admission and direction by the High Court to admit the candidates into those vacant seats cannot be sustained " ;. From the above decisions,we are clear in our mind that the courses of study for postgraduate degree in Medicine should start by the beginning of May of each year and that Supreme Court has not so far departed from the scheme fixed in that regard in Dr.Dinesh Kumar's case JT 1992(4)SC 422.