High Court says no to 10th-12th schooling criterion for UT PG medical quota

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that filling postgraduate medical seats in the UT Chandigarh pool on the basis of candidates having passed Classes 10, 10 1 and 10 2 from institutions recognised by the Chandigarh Administration and located within the union territory “cannot be allowed.”

Considering a challenge to Clause-B of the prospectus governing MD/MS admissions, the Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor observed that the UT Administration had failed to place before the court an acceptable criterion for filling UT Chandigarh pool seats.

The Bench ruled: “As per the prospectus, there are 155 seats in the postgraduate medical course out of which 50 per cent have to be filled from all India quota. Filling up of seats would be as per the reservation provided for in the detailed distribution of charts contained in the prospectus to which, there is no challenge, as of now”.

The Bench added: “The balance 50 per cent seats would be allowed to be filled by way of institutional preference as no acceptable criteria for filling up of UT Chandigarh Pool seats is placed before the court. The filling up of seats on the basis of passing 10 or 10 1 and 10 2 otherwise cannot be allowed. We find that this process otherwise respects merit which is of prime consideration in filling up of post graduate medical seats”.

The Bench added that the approach it was adopting aligned with the process followed nationally: “This was also the process by which NEET-PG (MD/MS/DNB) counselling was being undertaken by the Medical Council Committee at the all India level. “We have already noticed that filling up of 50 per cent institutional seats is consistent with the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”

Finding merit in the challenge to the schooling-based criterion, the Court asserted: “The Supreme Court has already held reservation based on descent to be impermissible. We, therefore, prima facie, find substance in the petitioner's contention that filling up of UT Chandigarh Pool seats by the candidates who have passed their 10, 10 1 and 10 2 from the school or college recognised by the UT Administration and situated in Union Territory of Chandigarh to be impermissible.”

The Bench pointed out that previous attempts by the administration — seat allocation based on residence, ownership of property for five years, and five-year schooling — had all been invalidated. It found the present attempt no different: “The manner in which UT Chandigarh Pool seats is proposed to be filled by the respondent(s), prima facie cannot have the approval of the court.”

It added that unless the administration evolved a lawful and viable policy, “the existing seats will have to be filled by following a process which is consistent with the laws and the considerations of merit are not compromised.”

Listing the matter for January 21 next, the Court permitted the Administration to revisit the policy:

“In the meantime, the UT Administration shall be at liberty to revisit the policy for filling up of UT Chandigarh quota seats in postgraduate medical courses consistent with the judgments operating in the field and file their affidavit(s) by the next date of hearing.”

The matter was brought to the high court’s notice by Dr Tanvi. In her petition against the UT of Chandigarh, the petitioner — an MBBS graduate from Government Medical College, Chandigarh — had challenged the criteria for filling UT pool seats.

The Bench was assisted in the matter by counsel Gautam Pathania for the petitioner, while UT was represented by senior standing counsel and senior advocate Amit Jhanji, along with additional standing counsel Sumeet Jain and Himanshu Arora. Junior panel counsel Dhruv Chowfla and advocates Kudrit Kaur Sara and Eliza Gupta also appeared for the respondents.