A.I.I.M.S Students Union v. A.I.I.MS and others(AIR 2001 SC 3262)
Decided on 24/08/2001.
FACTS
On 3.12.1995 an all India entrance examination for admission to post-graduate courses in AIIMS was held. Any medical graduate who had secured a minimum of 55% marks in MBBS examination was eligible to participate in the entrance examination. The three writ-petitioners who were medical graduates having qualified from colleges/universities other than AIIMS participated in the examination.
The Institute conducts examinations for admission to postgraduate courses of study twice in a year for its two sessions commencing respectively in January and July each year. The prospectus issued in September 1995 declared that the selection shall be on merits. However, 1/3rd of the seats were reserved for in-house candidates of the Institute. Two separate merit lists were to be prepared for the two categories and the allocation was to be through counselling subject to availability of seats. Not only 33% of the available P.G. seats were reserved for the Institute’s in-house candidates to begin with, there was yet another level of reservation for the in-house candidates of AIIMS. Such subsequent reservation provided for reservation in favour of in-house candidates, of 50% seats discipline-wise, subject to an overall reservation of 33%. At the counselling, the Institute’s in-house candidate’s were given a priority by being called first in point of time and they having been allotted seats in P.G. disciplines, the general category candidates – the name denoting the category of students other than in-house candidates of AIIMS – were then called and allocated the seats left over by the in-house candidates.
The prospectus also stated that only such candidates who have secured 65th percentile or higher marks in the entrance examination shall be eligible for admission to postgraduate courses. The SC/ST/RBF candidates of AIIMS will be considered for the Institute graduates quota and open general category if they had secured marks corresponding to the 65th percentile or higher in postgraduate entrance examination. Thus for the January 1996 session the seats were four out of which two would to SC and ST candidates and two would go to AIIMS students. No seats was thus left available for the open general category in January sessions
The writ-petitioners before the High Court sought for striking down the policy of reservation in favour of institutional candidates as unconstitutional and fresh allocation seats consequent thereupon.
ISSUES
The High Court keeping in view the pleadings of the parties and the submissions made by the learned counsel for different parties appearing before it framed the following issues for consideration and decision:
(1) Does AIIMS have a special status as per the AIIMS Act, 1956 and can the reservation of 33% for AIIMS students introduced in 1978 be justified on the basis of principles applicable for a University wise quota?
(2) Whether, in law, the principle of institutional continuity is no longer acceptable because of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Thukral Anjali’s case and in P.K. Goel’s case?
(3) (a) Whether alternatively, even if it is permissible to have institutional quota, the 33% quota for MBBS students in P.G. Courses in a national Institute like the AIIMS, which is expected to be premier institute in medical education, teaching and research is on facts not permissible.
(b) Whether, alternatively, the events which have transpired from 1978 when the 33% quota was first introduced till it was withdrawn on 24.10.1994 and was reintroduced on 17.12.1994 have shown considerable deterioration in AIIMS standards so as to justify withdrawal of the 33% quota?
(4) In any event, is discipline/department wise quota as per the scheme of 17th January 1996 valid and is it contrary to the judgement of the Delhi High Court in Dr. Sandeep Tak V. AIIMS ?
(5) Is the counselling procedure valid based on discipline-wise reservation for AIIMS students (other than SC/ST students) valid?
(6) Whether the 65 percentile method valid?
(7) What is the relief to be granted in the writ petition?
DECISION
1) The institutional reservation for AIIMS candidates is declared ultra vires and, hence, is struck down.
2) By way of institutional preference the institutional candidates, i.e., those who have graduated from the institute shall be preferred for admission against 25% seats available to open category candidates and not 25% seats discipline wise out of the total post-graduate seats for AIIMS undergraduates as suggested by the Academic Committee.
3) An uniform minimum cut-off of 50% marks in the competitive entrance test as a condition of eligibility for all candidates may be adopted subject to further rider (1) that the last student to qualify for admission as AIIMS graduate cannot be one who has secured marks at the common entrance P.G. test less than the one secured by any other candidate belonging to a reserved category enjoyed constitutional protection such as SC, ST etc., marks for Institute’s candidate shall not be too wide with the one for general category candidate.
4) Any seat left vacant out of the preferential seats for AIIMS graduate consequent upon the above said directions, shall be diverted to and made available for open general category candidates.
5) The preference for institute candidates to the extent of 25% as above said shall remain confined to admission in P.G. course of study. There shall be no further reservation in the matter of allotment of seats discipline wise which allotment shall be made solely on the basis of merit out of a common list drawn up pursuant to the result of common entrance examination placing the selected candidate strictly as per their ranking.
ANALYSIS:
The upshot of the above discussion is that institutional reservation is not supported by the Constitution or constitutional principles. A certain degree of preference for students of the same institution intending to prosecute further studies therein is permissible on grounds of convenience, suitability and familiarity with an educational environment. Such preference has to be reasonable and not excessive. The preference has to be prescribed without making an excessive or substantial departure from the rule of merit and equality. It has to be kept within limits. Minimum standards cannot be so diluted as to become practically non-existent. Such marginal institutional preference is tolerable at post-graduation level but is rendered intolerable at still higher levels such as that of super-specialty. In the case of institutions of national significance such as AIIMS additional considerations against promoting reservation or preference of any kind destructive of merit become relevant. The facts found by Delhi High Court is well articulated by the learned Chief Justice speaking for the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi, which visibly demonstrate the arbitrariness and hence unsustainability of such a reservation.
Submitted by:-SHUBHANGI GUPTA.
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS