Reservation

Charles H. Alexandrowicz Professor of International and

Constitutional Law, University of Madras

• "protective discrimination" H. Alexandrowicz,

Constitutional Developments in India, (1957),
pp.56-64.
 KHANWILKAR, J.
State Of U.P And Ors vs
Dr. Dinesh Singh Chauhan on 16 August, 2016
• a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India inter alia praying for a
declaration that the third Proviso to Regulation
9(2) of the Post Graduate Medical Education
Regulations, 2000 is unconstitutional and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution; and for
a direction against the Authorities to refrain from
disturbing the selection of the said writ
petitioners or to interfere with their Post
Graduate studies which they are presently
pursuing.
 KHANWILKAR, J.
State Of U.P And Ors vs
Dr. Dinesh Singh Chauhan on 16 August, 2016
• reservation for in-service candidates against the 30%
seats in “Post Graduate Degree Courses”
• the Competent Authority has prepared a fresh merit
list of all the candidates in terms of Regulation 9, giving
weightage of marks to eligible in-service Medical
Officers. As a result, the previous merit list stood fully
altered and realigned.
• Most of the candidates who had earlier secured higher
position in the common entrance test examination,
have been pushed back due to allocation of incentive
marks to the concerned in-service Medical Officers.
 KHANWILKAR, J.
State Of U.P And Ors vs
Dr. Dinesh Singh Chauhan on 16 August, 2016
Some PG Medicos have been dislodged from the
respective Post Graduate Degree Courses in which
they were already admitted in the concerned
medical colleges and even started pursuing their
courses. The High Court, however, quashed the
entire resolution providing for 30% reservation to
in-service candidates.
whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in
setting aside the Government Order dated
28.02.2014 providing for reservation to in-service
candidates,
 KHANWILKAR, J.
State Of U.P And Ors vs
Dr. Dinesh Singh Chauhan on 16 August, 2016
Held
the State Government is obliged to adopt a procedure as is stipulated by the
Central Act and Regulations framed thereunder and noted in the interim
order dated 12.05.2016. Regulation 9(2) specifically deals with the process of
“determining the academic merit” of the eligible candidates. Indeed, the
primary consideration for determining the academic merit of the candidates
is the marks obtained by the respective candidates in the common
competitive test or centralized competitive test held by the concerned
Authority. What is relevant for our purpose is the third proviso in Regulation
9(2). It envisages that in determining the merit, weightage may be given at
the rate of 10% of the marks obtained for each year in-service in remote or
difficult areas upto the maximum of 30% marks obtained in the common
examination by the candidates. This Regulation does not envisage reservation
of seats for the Post Graduate “Degree” Courses, unlike the express provision
which is made in the same Regulation to provide reservation of seats for in-
service candidates in “Diploma” courses.
 KHANWILKAR, J.
State Of U.P And Ors vs
Dr. Dinesh Singh Chauhan on 16 August, 2016
Held
It is also well established that the State has no authority to enact any
law muchless by executive instructions that may undermine the
procedure for admission to Post Graduate Medical Courses enunciated
by the Central Legislation and Regulations framed thereunder, being a
subject falling within the Entry 66 of List I to the Seventh Schedule of
the Constitution
Regulation 9(IV) provides for reservation of seats in medical
colleges/institutions for reserved categories as per applicable laws
prevailing in States/Union Territories. The reservation referred to in
the opening part of this clause is, obviously, with reference to
reservation as per theconstitutional scheme (for Scheduled Caste,
Scheduled Tribe or Other Backward Class Candidates); and not for the
in-service candidates or Medical Officers in service.