SHAILESH VINAYAKA SHEKHANDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition the petitioners have mainly challenged Government Resolution dated 23rd March, 1994. Few facts which are necessary to dispose of this petition are a under: petitioner No. 1 herein passed his MBBS (Degree) Examination in November, 1992. Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 passed their MBBS (Degree) Examination also in November but in 1993. They are presently doing their internship in various medical colleges. Petitioner No. 1 will be entitled to apply for post graduate course in July, 1994 term. The other petitioner would be eligible to apply for the said course in January, 1995 term. The State of Maharashtra (respondent No. 1 herein) by a Resolution dated 23rd March, 1994 increased the reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to 50% tothe post gradutuate course. The Muncipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (respondent No. 2 herein) adopted 50% reservation as per the said Resolution. The Corporation thereafter framed rules increasing the reservation to 50% in respect of admission to post graduate courses at its colleges. The said Resolution (Ex-F to the petition), Circular dated 5th May, 1994 issued by respondent No. 1 (Ex-E to the petition) and the rules framed thereunder are subjected matter of challenge in this writ petition principally on the ground that they are in violation of the directions given by the Supreme Court in the case of (Indira Sawhney v. Union of India) 1992 Supp. (3) S. C. C. 210.

(2.) MR. Bharucha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that once benefit is given to the backward class candidates at the initial stage of 1st MBBS level and are brought on par with other candidates from the open category, no further benefit in the initial reservation should be granted at the stage of admission to the post graduate courses. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioners that a helping hand should be given to a citizen of backward class at the initial stage but it would be a serious unfair and unacceptable inroad into the rule of equality of opportunity to say that such helping hand should be provided at every stage throughout the career of a reserved candidate. According to learned Counsel reservation at the initial stage could be made in favour of a citizen of backward class but once he enters into the main stream, no further distinction can be made thereafter with reference to his caste and subsequent admission to the post graduate course can only be on the basis of merit. At this stage we may also point out that it was also contended on behalf of the present petitioners that respondent Corporation is an autonomous and an independent body and respondent No. 1 has no authority to impose its rules on the 2nd respondent. This contention was, however, not pursued and the matter was not argued before us on merits of the said controversy.

(3.) IN order to support the aforesaid contentions learned Counsel for the petitioners heavily relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indira Sawhneys case and the observations made therein. As against this it was strongly contended on behalf of the respondents by learned Counsel Miss Anklesaria and by Mr. Siodia that the observations of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case have no application to the facts of the present case inasmuch as admission from MBBS course to post graudate course does not amount to promotion - the aspect with which Supreme Court was concerned in Indira Sawhanys case. It was further contended on behalf of the respondents that the respondents have not committed any breach of the directions given by the Supreme Court in Indira Sawhneys case.