Case Note & Summary
The case involves multiple appeals and a writ petition challenging orders of the Kerala High Court and Madras High Court directing implementation of reservation for in-service doctors in Super Specialty Medical Courses for the academic year 2020-2021. The appellants, who are postgraduate degree holders in Medicine and qualified NEET 2020, argued that the information bulletin for admission to Super Specialty Courses issued on 03.08.2020 clearly stated that there would be no reservation. The NEET Super Specialty Examination was conducted on 15.09.2020, results declared on 25.09.2020, and counselling was scheduled to commence on 08.10.2020. The Kerala High Court, by order dated 07.10.2020, directed preparation of a list of in-service candidates and their consideration for admission. The Madras High Court, by order dated 09.11.2020, disposed of a writ petition noting that the State Government had issued GOMS No.462 dated 07.11.2020 providing 50% reservation for in-service doctors. The Supreme Court heard arguments from all parties. The State of Kerala filed an affidavit stating that it was practically impossible to implement reservation for the current academic year as the admission process had already commenced. The appellants and the Union of India argued that it is settled law that there can be no reservation in Super Specialty Courses, relying on judgments such as Jagdish Saran v. Union of India, Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P., and Indira Sawhney v. Union of India. They also contended that the Constitution Bench judgment in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association v. Union of India operated prospectively and did not deal with Super Specialty Courses. The State of Tamil Nadu argued that the Constitution Bench had upheld the power of States to provide reservation for in-service candidates in postgraduate courses and that there was a need for doctors with super specialty qualifications in rural areas. The Supreme Court, considering that the admission process had already commenced and the information bulletin did not provide for reservation, held that the rules of the game cannot be changed mid-stream. The Court stayed the implementation of reservation for in-service doctors for the academic year 2020-2021, leaving the larger questions to be decided later. The Court clarified that it was not entertaining submissions on the correctness of the Constitution Bench judgment at this stage.
Headnote
A) Medical Law - Reservation in Super Specialty Courses - Mid-Stream Change - Information Bulletin - The issue was whether reservation for in-service doctors could be introduced for the academic year 2020-2021 when the information bulletin had already been issued without such reservation and the admission process had commenced. The Supreme Court held that the rules of the game cannot be changed mid-stream and stayed the implementation of reservation for the current academic year. (Paras 5-8)
B) Medical Law - Reservation in Super Specialty Courses - Prospective Operation - The Constitution Bench judgment in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association v. Union of India was held to operate prospectively and did not deal with admissions to Super Specialty Courses. The Court noted that it is settled law that there cannot be any reservation in Super Specialty Courses. (Paras 7-8)
C) Medical Law - Administrative Inconvenience - State's Stand - The State of Kerala filed an affidavit stating that it was practically impossible to implement reservation for the current academic year as the admission process had already commenced. The Court accepted this stand and stayed the High Court's direction. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether reservation for in-service doctors can be implemented in Super Specialty Medical Courses for the academic year 2020-2021 when the admission process had already commenced without such reservation.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court stayed the implementation of reservation for in-service doctors in Super Specialty Medical Courses for the academic year 2020-2021. The Court held that the rules of the game cannot be changed mid-stream as the admission process had already commenced. The larger questions regarding the validity of reservation in Super Specialty Courses were left to be decided at a later stage.
Law Points
- Reservation in super specialty courses is impermissible
- Rules of the game cannot be changed mid-stream
- Prospective operation of judgment
- Administrative inconvenience cannot override settled law
Case Details
Civil Appeal No.3840 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.12891 of 2020) with Writ Petition (C) No.1299 of 2020 and Civil Appeal Nos.3841-3843 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.13670-13672 of 2020)
Mr. Dushyant Dave, Mr. Shyam Divan, Mr. Vikas Singh, Mr. Sanjay Jain, Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Mr. C.S. Vaidhyanathan, Mr. V. Giri, Mr. P. Wilson, Mr. George Varghese Perumpallikuttiyil
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeals and writ petition challenging High Court orders directing implementation of reservation for in-service doctors in Super Specialty Medical Courses for the academic year 2020-2021.
Remedy Sought
The appellants sought to set aside the High Court orders and to direct that admissions be conducted without reservation for in-service doctors for the current academic year.
Filing Reason
The High Courts directed implementation of reservation for in-service doctors in Super Specialty Medical Courses, which the appellants contended was impermissible as the admission process had already commenced without such reservation.
Previous Decisions
The Kerala High Court (Division Bench) by order dated 07.10.2020 directed preparation of a list of in-service candidates and their consideration for admission. The Madras High Court by order dated 09.11.2020 disposed of a writ petition noting the State Government's GOMS No.462 providing 50% reservation for in-service doctors.
Issues
Whether reservation for in-service doctors can be implemented in Super Specialty Medical Courses for the academic year 2020-2021 when the admission process had already commenced without such reservation.
Whether the Constitution Bench judgment in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association v. Union of India applies to Super Specialty Courses.
Whether the rules of the game can be changed mid-stream.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants: The information bulletin for Super Specialty Courses issued on 03.08.2020 clearly stated no reservation; the admission process had commenced; it is settled law that there can be no reservation in Super Specialty Courses; the Constitution Bench judgment operates prospectively and does not deal with Super Specialty Courses.
State of Kerala: It is practically impossible to implement reservation for the current academic year as the admission process has already commenced.
State of Tamil Nadu: The Constitution Bench upheld the power of States to provide reservation for in-service candidates in postgraduate courses; there is a need for doctors with super specialty qualifications in rural areas.
Union of India: Supported the appellants, citing judgments that there can be no reservation in Super Specialty Courses.
Respondents (in-service doctors): The Kerala Act provides for service quota; administrative inconvenience cannot be a ground to interfere with the High Court order.
Ratio Decidendi
The rules of the game cannot be changed mid-stream; once the admission process has commenced without reservation, it cannot be introduced mid-way. The Constitution Bench judgment in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association v. Union of India operates prospectively and does not deal with Super Specialty Courses.
Judgment Excerpts
It has been stated in the said affidavit that there are 140 postgraduate Super Specialty seats in the Government Medical Colleges and RCCs in the State of Kerala.
As the information bulletin for the entrance examination for admission to Super Specialty Medical Courses has already been issued in which no reservation has been provided for in-service candidates, it is practically impossible to introduce any new reservation norms for the current academic year i.e. 2020-2021.
They relied upon the observations made by the Constitution Bench in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association v. Union of India (supra) that the judgment shall operate prospectively.
They further contended that the Rules of the game cannot be changed mid-stream and no reservation can be provided for this academic year i.e. 2020-2021 as the procedure for selections for admission to Super Specialty Medical Courses commenced a long time back.
Procedural History
Writ Petition No.20256 of 2020 was filed by Dr. Bilu B.S. in the Kerala High Court seeking implementation of reservation for in-service doctors. A learned Single Judge refused to grant stay. The Writ Appeal was allowed by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on 07.10.2020 directing preparation of a list of in-service candidates. The appellants filed SLP (C) No.12891 of 2020 against that order. In Tamil Nadu, a writ petition was filed in the Madras High Court seeking 50% reservation for in-service doctors; the High Court disposed of it on 09.11.2020 noting the State Government's GOMS No.462. Appeals were filed against that order. Writ Petition (C) No.1299 of 2020 was filed directly in the Supreme Court by six doctors seeking no reservation. The Supreme Court issued notice on 27.10.2020 and passed an order of status quo. After hearing all parties, the Court stayed the implementation of reservation for the current academic year.
Acts & Sections
- Kerala Medical Officers Admission to Postgraduate Courses under Service Quota Act, 2008:
