NITIN AGGARWAL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE batch of writ petitions are filed by the candidates who are aspiring admission for medical/P.G.Super Speciality Course, 2014. The common ground in all these writ petitions is challenge regarding clause 3.1.3 of the prospectus of admission for Super Speciality Course reserving 50% of seats to the candidates of Kerala origin. In W.P.(C).20562/2014, the petitioner has an additional prayer to read down the above clause in theprospectus to treat as an institutional preference instead of reservation of 50% to the candidates of Kerala origin as contemplated in clause 3.1.3. The clause 3.1.3 reads as follows: Clause 3 eligibility for admission:

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, they are eligible candidates and have appeared for the entrance examination conducted for admission to Super Speciality Courses by Commissioner for Common Entrance Examinations. According to the petitioners, the above clause is unconstitutional as no reservation is possible in view of the various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court declaring that reservation based on domicile is unconstitutional in Super Speciality. The petitioners have relied on Dr.Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, 1984 3 SCC 654; Jagadees Saran v. Union of India, 1980 2 SCC 768; Dr. P.G. Sreevasthava and another v. State of M.P and others,1997 7 SCC 120; Saurabh Chaudri and others v. Union of India, 2003 11 SCC 146; Vishal Goyal and others v. State of Karnataka (, Nikhil Himthani v. State of Utharakand and others, 2013 10 SCC 237); Dr.Mohammed Sulaiman v. Director of Medical Education, 2006 2 KerLT 205.

(3.) COUNTER affidavit has been filed by the first respondent on behalf of the Government. It is stated in the counter affidavit that State of Kerala did not earmark wholesale reservation for super speciality courses for candidates having Kerala origin and the petitioners are eligible to be considered for the 50% of seats other than quota earmarked of candidates of Kerala origin. The State has justified action for the reason that the State is facing acute shortage of specialities in various specialities and the State require more specialities which can be fulfilled only by generating specialists exclusively for the State utilising State infrastructure. It is further stated that without such quota being earmarked for the candidates of Kerala origin, State Government would not be able to find out sufficient number of candidates to one exclusively for State of Kerala. It is stated further that non Keralite candidates after taking P.G Super Speciality Degree, are not interested in and do not impart their service for State of Kerala. The case of the State is that having expended huge money from Public Exchequer, State expects reciprocal service of specialists for the ultimate benefit of the people in Kerala. Party respondents, who are admitted in the quota of 50% earmarked for candidates of Kerala origin have also supported the stand of the State and submitted that such action of the State is justifiable in the light of judgments Saurabh Chaudri , Dr.Pradeep Jain , K.Duraisamy and another v. State of T.N. and others, 2001 2 SCC 538, Saurabh Jain v. State of Kerala, 2011 2 KerLT 646. It is also contended by the Government as well as party respondents that reservation is possible under the various judgments relied by them. However, it is also contended that the attempt of the State in the prospectus is not to provide the reservation by relaxing the norms, but only an identification of separate source or channel of admission through candidates of Kerala Origin.