The High Court of Delhi on Thursday refused to interfere with the admission process for postgraduate medical courses in Delhi University and Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University for the academic year 2017-18.
Justice V. Kameswar Rao observed that there existed no prima facie case for restraining the two Universities from holding counselling for postgraduate medical seats. The Court, however, found merit in the contention that the two Universities should not pool their seats for common counselling as they were governed by two different reservation policies.
“In any case, prima facie when Universities are governed by two different reservation policies, they cannot pool their seats for common counselling. It would lead to further litigation by candidates, who are entitled to admission in view of one list, say Central List but denied the same as his/her caste does not find mentioned in the UT list,” Justice Rao observed in this regard.
The Court was hearing a bunch of Petitions demanding an interim order restraining the Universities from holding common counselling sessions for Post Graduate Medical Seats. The order had been sought on Petitions challenging University rules and regulations which provide for institutional preference while admitting students.
Challenging the Petitions, the Medical Council of India had submitted that institution reservation is permissible under the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulation, 2000. Such reservation, it was further submitted, is purely based on “institutional continuity”, and constituted reasonable classification, which had a reasonable nexus with the object of educational scheme. It was also contended that post the NEET regime, it is no longer open to the Universities to establish their own standards in supersession of NEET standards.
Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University had contended that common counselling does not do away with institutional quota. It had averred that the purpose of common counselling was to provide the State with the overall superintendence, direction and control of the admission procedures. It was, however, submitted that seats of two different categories of Universities can be clubbed together only if the reservation policy applicable to them are common.
Accepting such contentions, the Court then noted that the Supreme Court has already upheld institutional reservation as constitutional. It further observed that the brochures providing for such reservation do not prima facie violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
“That apart, prima facie the impugned brochures, does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as sought to be contended by Mr. Angad Mehta, inasmuch as, the admission shall be on the basis of inter-se merit of the candidates from the same University based on NEET-PG exam. That apart, there is no denial of consideration to the petitioners for PG seats, in their University. Merely because they have less chances to get admission in their University, is no ground to set aside a well considered policy decision of the respondent Nos.1 and 2,” the Court observed.
Read the Judgment here.