Is Domicile quota in PG Medical Admissions Constitutionally Valid- Supreme Court to decide

New Delhi: A higher bench of the Supreme court is now going to take a final call on the matter whether the domicile reservation in PG medical admissions within the State Quota is a constitutionally invalid division or not as the division bench of Supreme Court has referred the case to a larger bench.

This decision came in view of a bunch of pleas and Punjab and Haryana High Court observations on domicile quota in UT pool for PG medical admission at Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32 Chandigarh (GMCH Chandigarh).

Medical Dialogues had extensively reported about the whole issue which took the course after PG medical aspirants moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking admission to the MD/MS courses. They found the stipulated domicile clauses to be in breach of several pronouncements of the SC as it tended to subvert merit by granting benefit to few by giving them preference in the matter of admission by giving primacy to their place of residence.

On April 23, 2019, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had ruled the domicile condition for 32 PG medical seats at Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32 (GMCH 32); as “invalid” and “unsustainable to law.”

For this year’s PG medical admissions, the medical college offered a total of 128 MD, MS seats. Of which, 64 seats reserved under state quota are equally divided before this ruling, 32 were reserved under institutional preference pool for its own MBBS students and the rest 32 for those PG medical aspirants who are with Chandigarh background. The rest 64 PG medical seats are allotted in All India quota.

Last year in May as well, the HC while calculating the legitimacy of domicile reservation had held the stand of the UT Chandigarh as erroneous.

“While upholding the principle of institutional preference we would direct that it would relate to 50% of the seats available to the institution after 50% of All India Quota has been consumed and upon such calculation, throw open the seats to other deserving aspirants.”

The High Court had noted that time that there was only one medical institution in Chandigarh leading to the position that all the seats, after deducting the reserved ones, would be filled up from the candidates passing their MBBS examination from the said Medical College, thereby depriving all other candidates from the region of an opportunity of admission to the PG Medical Courses at Chandigarh.

The same was noted by the HC in April wherein the bench had struck down the clause 2 (a) (b) and (c) of UT, Chandigarh Pool. The relevant is as under

“clause (b) reads an entitlement for those whose parents have resided in UT, Chandigarh for a period of 5 years at any point of time prior to the last date of submission of the application either in pursuit of a profession or in holding a job. This too does not offer any rationale to convert it into a preference for the simple reason that a person may have settled down in Chandigarh briefly for a period of 5 years and then departed…”

In light of the April 2019 order, PG medical counselling at GMC Sector 32 was quashed and the matter reached the Supreme Court.

Read Also: PG Medical Counselling may get stuck at GMC Chandigarh as UT plans to challenge HC order in SC

Now, in its recent observation on the whole case, the apex court’s bench of honourable Justices AM Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari took note of all the deliberations made by the High court in the matter and stated that the generalised and blanket prohibition on domicile/residence-based reservation may not be workable in relation to the State Quota seats of PG Medical Courses.

“The peculiar feature in relation to the State Quota seats is that if some provision as regards domicile/residence-based reservation is not made, the only other method of filling up these State Quota seats would be by way of institutional preference. This would effectively result in entire of the State Quota seats going to institutional preference alone. Now, if the entire State Quota seats are provided for institutional preference alone, the consequence would be that only the candidates of the medical institutions in the State/UT would be filling up the State Quota seats; and such a consequence may not be permissible at all...

… Moreover, the unique situation in relation to UT Chandigarh is that it has only one Medical College. Thus, the dispensation in question, as provided by UT Chandigarh and its Medical College and as construed by High Court, if given effect to, would inevitably result in cornering all the State Quota PG seats by the students of that solitary Medical College alone. In the alternative, if only 50% of State Quota seats are to be given to that Medical College, the remaining 50% of State Quota seats would again fall in the pool of All India Quota because there is no other mode of filling up these seats. We find it difficult if either of such consequences could be countenanced.”

The apex bench observed that it is difficult to accept that domicile/residence-based reservation, as provided for filling up of the State Quota open seats, be held invalid altogether. It noted:

…the High Court has indicated several reasons for its disapproval of the stipulations made in impugned Clause 2B of the prospectus in question. Prima facie, it appears that even if domicile/residence-based reservation in admission to PG Medical Courses is held permissible, the mode and modalities for its application would still require further examination because it remains questionable if such reservation could be applied by way of such stipulations, as made in the impugned Clause 2B of the prospectus in question. Having said so and for the order proposed to be passed in these matters, we do not find it necessary to enter into microscopic analysis of the sub-clauses pertaining to domicile/residence-based reservation as occurring in the impugned Clause 2B of the prospectus in question and would leave such questions open to be determined on the basis of answers to the root questions by the Larger Bench.

The bench held that the matter needs to be scrutinized by the larger bench and hence it referred the case to the Honourable Chief Justice of India for the constitution of appropriate Larger Bench and stated that the interim orders passed in these matters shall continue until further orders.

“…in our view, the question as to whether providing for domicile/residence-based reservation, particularly in admission to PG Medical Courses, is constitutionally permissible as also its corollaries, including the mode and modalities of its implementation (if permissible), more particularly in relation to the State/UT having only one Medical College, need to be examined by a Larger Bench of this Court for authoritative pronouncement.”

Accordingly, it proposed the following questions to be examined by a Larger Bench of Supreme Court :

As to whether providing for domicile/residence-based reservation in admission to “PG Medical Courses” within the State Quota is constitutionally invalid and is impermissible?

(a) If the answer to the first question is in the negative and if domicile/residence-based reservation in admission to “PG Medical Courses” is permissible, what should be the extent and manner of providing such domicile/residence-based reservation for admission to “PG Medical Courses” within the State Quota seats?

(b) Again, if domicile/residence-based reservation in admission to “PG Medical Courses” is permissible, considering that all the admissions are to be based on the merit and rank obtained in NEET, what should be the modality of providing such domicile/residence based reservation in relation to the State/UT having only one Medical College?

If answer to the first question is in the affirmative and if domicile/residence-based reservation in admission to “PG Medical Courses” is impermissible, as to how the State Quota seats, other than the permissible institutional preference seats, are to be filled up?