SUJATA GAUTAM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition and Misc. Petition No. 875 of 1984 have been filed, one by a candidate who has not been granted admission to the Medical College, and the other by Dr. S.C. Pandey, who has filed the petition as a member of the profession having interest in general about the maintenance of standard of medical education.

(2.) The main grievance made in these two petitions is that the State PMT Board in its regulations has provided for a scheme of examination for admission to Medical Colleges. In this Scheme 15% seats have been reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, 3% for army personnel and 3% for children and grand children of freedom fighters. It is alleged that 15% seats although not reserved but a quota is fixed for admission of women candidates and 20% seats are reserved for Central Government nominees. On this basis it is contended in these two petitions that the reservation exceeds 50% and, therefore, is not reasonable.

(3.) The other main contention raised in these two petitions is that in regard to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes the marks have been relaxed. For a general candidate it is necessary to obtain 50% marks, whereas for a Scheduled Caste candidate the requirement is 35% and for a Scheduled Tribe candidate the requirement is 25%. For admission to Dental and Ayurvedic Colleges the general candidates are required to obtain 35% marks whereas Scheduled Caste candidates are expected to get 30% marks and Scheduled Tribe candidates 25% in Dental and 30% in Ayurvedic. It is contended that this percentage provided by the State PMT Board is less than the standard prescribed for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the regulations made by the Indian Medical Council and, therefore, this relaxation could not be done. It is further contended that after the decision in State of M.P. Vs. Nivedita Jain AIR 1981 S.C. 2045, the Government of India issued administrative instructions, copies of which have been filed as Annexure-A dated 31st Dec. 1981 and Annexure-B dated 5th Jan. 1982, and it is contended that these two administrative instructions are mandatory in nature and the State Government had no option but to follow them. It is, therefore, contended that even after the decision in Nivedita Jain's case, as the Central Government has now issued directions to the State Government not to relax the requirement for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes below the prescribed standard fixed in accordance with the regulations made by the Indian Medical Council which is not less than 40%, the rules framed by the State PMT Board relaxing it for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes below 40% is beyond the authority of the State and, therefore, deserves to be struck down. It was further contended that the Indian Medical Council Act was enacted in exercise of the powers conferred under Entry 66 of List I and in exercise of powers under section 33 of this Act, the Indian Medical Council enacted the regulations. Therefore, these regulations are binding on the State Government and the State Government in exercise of powers under Entry 26 in List III had the authority to enact about legal, medical and other professions. Entry 26 falls in the Concurrent List and, therefore, it is plain that the Parliament's powers overrides the powers of the State Legislature. In this view of the matter it was contended that even after the decision in Nivedita Jain's case referred to above the Central Government issued administrative instructions which were in the nature of mandate and the State Government while framing rules for the Pre-Medical Examinations for admission to medical colleges could not have acted contrary to these directions issued by the Central Government.