Supreme Court Judgment on the institutional preferences by Delhi University on the Post Graduate course in medical.

                  SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT.
 
CASE NO. :-
Writ Petition (civil) 5  of 2001.
Writ Petition (civil) 13 of 2001.
Writ Petition (civil) 38 of 2001.
Writ Petition (civil) 50 of 2001.
Special Leave Petition (civil) 104 of 2001.
 
PETITIONER:
ABHINAV AGGARWAL & ANR.
V.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/02/2001
BENCH:

  1. Rajendra Babu & K.G. Balakrishnan.

 
The petitioners claim to be from Delhi and have completed their MBBS from different colleges situated in the different parts of the country. They further claim that their classmates who have studied in Delhi and have completed their graduation from Delhi itself are getting advantage of Institutional Preference over the petitioner in Delhi University for their Post-Graduation.
The Delhi University has prescribed the conditions for admissions are as follows:-
Requirement for admission to Post-Graduate Degree Courses :-
(A) 1 Candidate must have completed satisfactorily one year of compulsory rotating internship after passing the final M.B.B.S. examination from the University of Delhi on or before 31.3.2001 and must have full registration with the State Medical Council/Medical Council of India.
(B) The candidate who has passed the MBBS examination from a University other than Delhi University, having  been allotted to the same under the 15% All India Quota by the Director General of Health Services would also be eligible if he/she is permanent resident of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, (The proviso has been incorporated as per the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. Parag Gupta’s   case and is subject to further order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court) and if he/she also fulfils all the following three conditions :-
(i)      He/She has passed 10+2 examination from National Capital Territory of Delhi.
(ii) He/She is a permanent resident of the National Capital Territory of Delhi.
(iii) He/She has passed the MBBS examination from a University other than Delhi University, having been allotted to the same under the 15% All India Quotas by the Director General of Health Services if he/she is permanent resident of the National Capital Territory of Delhi.
Note: (i) A candidate must produce any one of the following documents to prove his/her permanent residence in the National Capital territory of Delhi:
(a) Ration Card.
(b) Voters Identity Card.
(c) Passport.
(d) Driving license.
(ii) The Candidate must submit documentary proof for serial no. (i) & (iii).
The petitioners having studied outside their home States under the 15% all-India quota are not entitled to seek admission in Delhi University against the 75% Delhi University seats by invoking the decision in Dr. Parag Gupta’s case. The institutions in which the petitioners did their MBBS course are  not covered by the judgment or scheme formulated in Dr. Pradeep Jain’s case and admission in the said institutions is  not made on all-India entrance examination being conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education on behalf of  the Director General of Health Services pursuant to the judgment and direction of this Court in Dr. Pardeep Jains case. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to seek admission in postgraduate medical courses in Delhi University under the 75% Delhi University quota seats.
In view of the law declared by this Court and directions issued pursuant thereto, schemes have been framed by respondent’s institutions.  The court reiterate that it would be ideal for the States/authorities concerned to achieve uniformity by adopting appropriate criteria in  the matter of admission to PG courses in medical colleges.
When the admission rules have been framed pursuant to the decisions of this Court and those decisions have been rendered bearing in mind the scope of Article 14 of the Constitution vis-à-vis the local needs, the court  does not think, it is permissible or appropriate for the court  to disturb that scheme. Hence, the court decline to interfere with the process of selection being made to consider the cases of the petitioners.
The petitions, therefore, stand dismissed.
Submitted by:- JASJIT PRANJAL.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *