Top
Top Stories

SC Quashes Allahabad HC Verdict Quashing Institutional Preference In AMU, BHC Medical PG Seats [Read Judgment]

M.A.Rashid
7 Jun 2017 4:40 PM GMT
SC Quashes Allahabad HC Verdict Quashing Institutional Preference In AMU, BHC Medical PG Seats [Read Judgment]
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Supreme Court has quashed the Allahabad High Court’s judgment that quashed institutional preference in Aligarh Muslim University and Banaras Hindu University.

The high court had also directed that post-graduate seats in these institutions shall be filled up only from those students who have passed MBBS from institutions, universities and colleges in Uttar Pradesh.

A division bench of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Deepak Gupta held that the high court erred in deciding that only those in-service doctors, who had cleared their MBBS examination from within UP, were entitled to the benefit of Regulation 9(iv) of the 2000 Regulations.

The bench examined the following question:

(i) Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the institutional preference in the Aligarh Muslim University  and Banaras Hindu University and further directing that the post-graduate seats in these institutions shall be filled up only from those students who have passed MBBS from Institutions, Universities and Colleges in the State of Uttar Pradesh;

 (ii) Whether the High Court was justified in issuing a direction that the benefit of service rendered in remote/difficult areas should be given only to those doctors of the Provincial Medical Health Services who have cleared MBBS examination from a college within the State of UP?

As far as the first question is concerned, the Supreme Court is clearly of the view that the high court has over-stepped its jurisdiction and went beyond the scope of the writ petition while issuing the direction relating to AMU and BHU.

“The 50% institutional reservation in AMU and BHU, which had been reflected in their prospectus, was not challenged by anybody before the High Court. As stated earlier, AMU and BHU were not parties before the High Court. The MCI and the Union of India were also not parties before the High Court. The High Court did not take into consideration the judgment of this Court in the case of Saurabh Chaudri and other cases upholding institutional preferences in central universities. The High Court did not also take into consideration the fact that the State had no power to control admissions to these universities.”

Regarding the second question, the bench held that Rule 9(iv) clearly provides that an incentive at the rate of 10% of the marks for each year can be provided to those in-service candidates who have served in remote or difficult areas, subject to the condition that the highest incentive will be of 30% marks.

“No distinction has been made between those who have graduated from within the State of UP or those who have graduated from outside the State of UP. Once the graduate doctors, whether they have qualified their MBBS/BDS examination from within the State of UP or from any other part of the country, are selected and join the medical health service in the State of UP, they form part of one service, i.e. PMHS. Thereafter, when these doctors are posted to remote or difficult areas they are posted as doctors of PMHS and not on the basis as to which State they have done their graduation from. We, therefore, see no reason as to why the benefit of weightage in terms of Regulation 9(iv) should be limited to those in service candidates of the PMHS category, who have graduated from within the State of UP.” 

Quashing the high court order, the Supreme Court clarified that those who were counselled and granted admission prior to the impugned judgment of the high court shall be permitted to continue in their respective courses.

The court has extended the time for filling up vacant seats, if any, in AMU, BHU and government-run medical colleges/institutions in the state up to June 12 in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

Read the Judgment here.

Next Story