
Tamil Nadu Medical
Officers Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 196 of 2018.
Decided
on 31.08.2020
Bench: Arun
Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M.R. Shah, Aniruddha Bose, JJ.
Facts: Tamil
Nadu Medical Officer’s Association and others filed a writ petition in the
Supreme Court which challenged the Regulations 9(4) and 9(8) of the Post
Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 which were framed by the Medical
Council of India.
Arguments
Petitoner |
The
petitioners contended that “the co-ordination and determination of standards
in institution for higher education” lies within the exclusive domain of the
Union. But the Medical Education which falls under Entry 25 of List III,
though is subject to Entry 66 of List I, is a subject under the Concurrent
list of the Constitution and hence, States have the power to legislate on the
manner and method of admissions to the post graduate medical courses. The
contention was that giving reservation benefits to the in-service doctors in
the admission for Post Graduate degree courses would encourage those working
in the government hospital and rural areas, therefore, the State Government
should be allowed to continue with their reservation policy. |
Decision
The
petitions are heard by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. M.R Shah, J
wrote majority opinion on behalf of four judges and Anirudha Bose, J wrote
separate concurring judgement.
Both
of them held that the Medical Council of India has no power to make reservation
for in-service candidates in PG Medical Courses in any particular state and
States can make regulations which provide for reservation for in-service doctors
in PG Medical Courses.
1.
Issue: What is the scope and ambit of Entry
66 of List I of the Constitution in Seventh Schedule? Is the State denuded of
its power to legislate on the manner and method of admission to PG Medical
Courses by virtue of this Entry and the entire filed of admission in higher
educational institutes is covered by this Entry?
Per M.R Shah, J: The Court observed
that Entry 66 of List I is a specific entry having a very specific and limited scope;
it deals with “Co-ordination and determination of Standards” in institutions of
higher education or research as well as scientific and technical institutions.
The words “co-ordination and determination of standards” would mean the laying
down of the said standards and therefore exclusive domain is given to the Union
when it comes to prescribe the standards for institutions of higher learning. States
have the power to make provisions for admission, or looking to the requirements
in that particular state.
Per Anirudha Bose, J: The Court
observed that there is no plenary legislative power of the Union covering
entire filed of admission in higher educational institutions. All aspects of
admission cannot be said to be covered by Entry 66 of the Union List, even if
the entire admission process is incorporated in a single code. There can be
rules on facets of admission process in institutions of higher education framed
by the State legislature which would not have impact on the subjects enumerated
against Entry 66 of List I and thus would not result in conflict with that
Entry.
2.
Issue:
Whether the Regulation 9 of MCI Regulations, 2000 is a complete code in itself
and affects the rights of the State to provide for reservation for in-service
candidates seeking admission to postgraduate degree courses?
Per M. R Shah, J: On this point the
Court observed that, the 2000 Regulations are framed by the Medical Council of
India in exercise of its powers conferred under Section 33 of the Indian
Medical Council Act, 1956 and this Act has been passed by the Union in exercise
of the power conferred by Entry 66 List I. Therefore, the main source of this
power of Medical Council of India comes from Entry 66 List I. When it comes to
regulating “education” which includes even medical education as well as
Universities, that is prescribed in Entry 25 of List III. Medical Council of India would not have the
authority or jurisdiction to frame any regulations with respect to reservation
or making provision for providing for a separate source of entry for in-service
candidates seeking admission to postgraduate courses. Therefore, the court held
that it cannot be construed that Regulation 9 is a complete code with respect
to providing reservation or making special provision like providing separate
source of entry for in-service candidates within the State quota and subject to
fulfilling of other criteria fixed and provided by MCI.
Per Anirudha Bose, J: It was observed
that the Regulation 9 is not a complete code which covers every feature of
admission to postgraduate degree courses in medical education. If the code does
not refer to certain matters, which do not impact on or dilute the main subject
for which the code is made, then the State is not barred from making provisions
for such uncovered areas. 2000 Regulations are not so overwhelming in its scope
and extent that entire field of admission to postgraduate medical course stands
covered by it.
The
facets of admission to the postgraduate medical degree course from a separate
entry channel comprising of in-service doctors is not covered by the Regulation
9 of the 2000 Regulations which owes its origin to Entry 66 of List I, thus it
is not a complete code and it would be permissible for the States to lay down
their own norms, which are not covered by the Union legislations.
3.
Issue:
Whether the States have a power to reserve seats for admission in Post Graduate
Degree medical courses for the in-service doctors’ i.e, medical professionals
working in government hospitals within that State under Entry 25 of List III?
Per M.R Shah, J: The Court
observed that, the proviso to the Regulation 4 enables the States by conferring
the discretion for weightage in marks to be given to the in-service candidates
for the services rendered in remote or difficult areas. The proviso has nothing
to do with the reservation or making special provision to provide for a
separate source of entry for in-service candidates seeking admission to
postgraduate courses. Thus, Regulation 9(4) cannot be said to be taking away
the power of the States under Entry 25 of List III, to provide for a separate
source of entry for in-service candidates seeking admission to postgraduate
degree courses. Any contrary view would affect the right of the States under
Entry 25 List III.
The
legislative disability will occur only when there is a Union legislation
covering the same subject on which the State has undertaken the legislative
exercise and the State’s legislative instrument is found to be repugnant to the
latter. Regulation 9 of the MCI Regulations, 2000 does not deal with or make
provisions for reservation or affect the legislative competence and authority
of the concerned states to make reservation and Therefore, the concerned States
are in their authority or legislative competence to provide for a separate
source of entry for in-service candidates seeking admission to postgraduate
degree courses in exercise of powers under Entry 25 List III.
The
Court also pointed out that, there is a legitimate and rational basis in
providing a separate source of entry for in-service candidates in order to
encourage them to offer their services and expertise to the state. There is a
sufficient nexus with the larger goal of equalization of educational
opportunities. The action of the State in providing for the in-service quota is
in the discharge of its positive constitutional obligations to promote and
provide better health care facilities for its citizens. This is in furtherance
of the objective of promotion of public health which is also the power of the
State under Entry 6 of List II. Thus, when the State provides a separate source
of admission for in-service doctors as a distinct class and within the State
quota, the State is within its power to provide such separate source in
exercise of its powers under Entry 25 List III read with Entry 6 List II.
The
court also held that the Regulation 9 of the MCI Regulations, 2000 can be
declared ultra vires on the ground of being arbitrary, discriminatory and
violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, to the extent of
not providing any reservation for in-service candidates working in rural,
tribal and difficult areas. If provisions are made for the reservation of
in-service candidates for admission to postgraduate diploma courses then there
is no reason as to on what basis similar in-service reservation is not
permissible for admission to post-graduate courses. If the concept of
in-service reservation is permissible then opposition to reservation for
postgraduate degree courses is unreasonable and irrational
Per Anirudha Bose, J: The Court observed
that doctors in employment of the States form a separate and distinct class and
for the purpose of admission in postgraduate degree courses they can be given
certain elements of preference. Setting apart specified percentage of seats for
in-service doctors in postgraduate medical degree courses is referable to
matters of admissions and not standards of education. If the State authorities
provide an independent channel of entry for in-service doctors in postgraduate
medical degree courses, who fulfil the minimum standards laid down by the
Regulation 9 then that would not be in breach of the Constitutional scheme. The
separate entry-channel for the in-service doctors is integral to the admission
norms and would be relatable to the Entry 25 of List III. Regulation 9 does not
prescribe specific bar on the State authorities to provide separate entry
channel for the in-service doctors.
Reservation
for in-service doctors has been a long standing practise and the rationale
behind such reservation is reasonable. Therefore, the admission process which
stipulates a distinct source of entry for in-service candidates will not
constitute breach of Regulation 9 of 2000 regulations provided that the minimum
standards mandated by the said regulations are adhered to. States are well
within their power to provide for reservation for in-service candidates and
they should provide for such reservation after requiring candidates to serve in
rural, tribal or hilly areas subsequent to obtaining the postgraduate degree by
the concerned in-service doctors.