# A.l.l.M.S. STUDENTS UNION v. A.1.1.M.S. AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2001] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 79
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2001-08-24
- **Bench:** Dr. A.S. Anand, R.C. Lahoti, Shivaraj V. Patil
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/a-l-l-m-s-students-union-v-a-1-1-m-s-and-ors-18194
- **Pages:** 39

## Headnote

B
Constitution of India-Articles 14, 15 (4) and 16 (4).
Reservation-All India Institute of Medical Sciences-Post Graduate
Medical Courses-Admission-In-house candidates-Institutional reservation C
based bn rationale of continuity-113 seats reserved for in-house candidatesSubsequent reservation of 50% seats disciplinewise subject to an overall 33%
reservation-Justification of-Held, reservation of seats for institutional
candidates is in fact super reservation and not a mere source of entryInstitutional reservation in the absence of any relevant evidence in justification D
thereof is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14-Thus, ultravires the
constitution and struck down-Proposals of the Academic Committee modified
and directions issued with prospective effect-Education-All India Institute
of medical Sciences, Act, 1956.
'Reservation' and 'Source of Entry' difference between, explained
E
All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Conducts entrance
examination for admission to Post Graduate courses of studies twice in a year.
The prospectus declared that only candidates who had secured 65th percentile
or higher marks in entrance examination were entitled for admission to Post
Graduate courses and selection shall be on merits. However, I/3rd of the seats F
were reserved for in-house candidates of the institute. Besides this, a
subsequent reservation of 50% seats discipline-wise subject to a overall 33%
quota was reserved for in-house candidates. Three candidates who were
Medical Graduates from Colleges/Universities other than AJIMS appeared
for the common entrance test and had secured ranks IO, 12 and 89 G
respectively. They were not given seats of their choice in creamy disciplines.
However, the in-house candidates who had secured less marks and ranked
beyond the open category candidates were allotted seats in such disciplines.
Aggrieved, the open category candidates filed writ petitions for striking down
the policy of reservation in favour of in-house candidates as unconstitutional
79
H
80
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A and for fresh allocation of seats. High Court struck down the 33% reservation
in favour of in-house candidates both at the entry level as also discipline-wise.
Hence the present appeals by AIIMS students Union and the Institute.
On behalf of the appellants it was contented that what has been provided
for the Institute's candidates was not a 'reservation' in the sense in which it
B was understood in Constitution but what has been provided for was merely
a source of entry or a channel for admission the validity whereof was not
required to be tested on the principles having relevance for Articles 15 and
16 of the Constitution; that reservation, ifthat be so, in favour of the students
who graduated from the Institute, was justified while seeking admission to
C post-graduate courses of study on the well accepted principle of institutional
continuity; that the appropriation of 33% of the total post-graduate seats
exclusively for the Institute's candidates does not harm the general or open
category candidates and if this protection was withdrawn, the Institute's
candidates who had proved their all India excellence while seeking admission
in undergraduate level would be thrown once again to swim into deep waters
D of all India quota.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1. Reservation based on institutional continuity in the absence
of any relevant evidence in justification thereof is unconstitutional and
E violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and has therefore to be struck down.
F
The impugned reservation, obnoxious to merit, fails to satisfy the twin test
under Article 14. (112-G(
1.2. 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
e

## Text

_Characters 0–39,891 of 100,528. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39891 for what follows._

A.l.l.M.S. STUDENTS UNION
A
v.
A.1.1.M.S. AND ORS.
AUGUST 24, 2001
[DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ., R.C. LAHOTI AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.]
B
Constitution of India-Articles 14, 15 (4) and 16 (4).
Reservation-All India Institute of Medical Sciences-Post Graduate
Medical Courses-Admission-In-house candidates-Institutional reservation C
based bn rationale of continuity-113 seats reserved for in-house candidatesSubsequent reservation of 50% seats disciplinewise subject to an overall 33%
reservation-Justification of-Held, reservation of seats for institutional
candidates is in fact super reservation and not a mere source of entryInstitutional reservation in the absence of any relevant evidence in justification D
thereof is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14-Thus, ultravires the
constitution and struck down-Proposals of the Academic Committee modified
and directions issued with prospective effect-Education-All India Institute
of medical Sciences, Act, 1956.
'Reservation' and 'Source of Entry' difference between, explained
E
All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Conducts entrance
examination for admission to Post Graduate courses of studies twice in a year.
The prospectus declared that only candidates who had secured 65th percentile
or higher marks in entrance examination were entitled for admission to Post
Graduate courses and selection shall be on merits. However, I/3rd of the seats F
were reserved for in-house candidates of the institute. Besides this, a
subsequent reservation of 50% seats discipline-wise subject to a overall 33%
quota was reserved for in-house candidates. Three candidates who were
Medical Graduates from Colleges/Universities other than AJIMS appeared
for the common entrance test and had secured ranks IO, 12 and 89 G
respectively. They were not given seats of their choice in creamy disciplines.
However, the in-house candidates who had secured less marks and ranked
beyond the open category candidates were allotted seats in such disciplines.
Aggrieved, the open category candidates filed writ petitions for striking down
the policy of reservation in favour of in-house candidates as unconstitutional
79
H
80
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A and for fresh allocation of seats. High Court struck down the 33% reservation
in favour of in-house candidates both at the entry level as also discipline-wise.
Hence the present appeals by AIIMS students Union and the Institute.
On behalf of the appellants it was contented that what has been provided
for the Institute's candidates was not a 'reservation' in the sense in which it
B was understood in Constitution but what has been provided for was merely
a source of entry or a channel for admission the validity whereof was not
required to be tested on the principles having relevance for Articles 15 and
16 of the Constitution; that reservation, ifthat be so, in favour of the students
who graduated from the Institute, was justified while seeking admission to
C post-graduate courses of study on the well accepted principle of institutional
continuity; that the appropriation of 33% of the total post-graduate seats
exclusively for the Institute's candidates does not harm the general or open
category candidates and if this protection was withdrawn, the Institute's
candidates who had proved their all India excellence while seeking admission
in undergraduate level would be thrown once again to swim into deep waters
D of all India quota.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1. Reservation based on institutional continuity in the absence
of any relevant evidence in justification thereof is unconstitutional and
E violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and has therefore to be struck down.
F
The impugned reservation, obnoxious to merit, fails to satisfy the twin test
under Article 14. (112-G(
1.2. 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. Such marginal Institutional
G preference is tolerable at post-graduation level but is rendered intolerable at
still higher levels such as that of super-speciality. 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. One can understand a reasonable reservation or preference being
provided for at the initial stage of medical education, i.e., under-graduate level
H while seeking entry into the institute. It cannot be forgotten that the medical
....
...
A.1.1.M.S. STUDENTS UNION v. A.1.1.M.S.
81
graduates of AIIMS are not 'sons of the soil'. They are drawn from all over A
the country. They have no moorings in Delhi. They are neither backward nor
weaker sections of the society by any standards-social, economic, regional or
physical. They were chosen for entry into the Institute because of their having
displayed and demonstrated excellence at all-India level competition where
thousands participate but only a mere 40 or so are chosen. Their achieving
an all-India merit and entry in the premier institution of national importance B
should not bring in a brooding sense of complacence in them. They have to
continue to strive for achieving still higher scales of excellence. Else there
would be no justification for their continuance in a premier Institution like
AIIMS. In AIIMS where the best of facilities are available for learning with
best of teachers, best of medical services, sophistication, research facilities and C
infrastructure, the best entrants selected from the length and breadth of the
country must come out as best of all-India graduates. The only reason which
logically follows from the material available on record is that being assured
of allotment of post-graduation seats in the same institution, the Zeal for
preserving excellence is lost [110-G-H; 111-A-G]
1.3. One who justifies reservation must place on record adequate
material, enough, to satisfy an objective mind judicially trained, to sustain
the reservation, its extent and qualifying parameters. In the instant case, no
material has been placed on record to show that Institute graduates, if asked
D
to face all-India competition while seeking PG seats, would get none or face
feeble opportunities because of the policies of other universities. The way merit E
has been made a martyr by institutional reservation policy AIIMS, the high
hopes on which rests the foundation of AIIMS are belied. No sound and
sensible mind can accept scorers of 15-20% being declared as passed, crossing
over the queue and arraigning themselves above scorers of 60-70% and that
too to sit in a course where they will declared qualified to fight with dreaded p
and complicated threats to human life. Reserving 33% seats for institutional
candidates was in effect 100% reservation for subjects. Coupled with 50%
reservation in allocation of specialities not exceeding over-all 33'Yo reservation
integrated with 65 percentile-is a conceited gimmick and accentuated politics
of pampering students, weak in merit but mighty in strength. Having taken
a common entrance test, there is no intelligible differentia which distinguisheS G
the institutional candidates from other; and there is no nexus sought to be
achieved with the objects of AIIMS by such reservation. [112-A, C-G]
K. Duraisamy an.d Anr. etc. etc. v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., JT
(2001) 2 SC 48, distinguished.
H
82
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001 j SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A
Kumari Chitra Ghosh and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., 119691 2 SCC
228; The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. v. U.S. V. Balaram and Ors., 119721
I SCC 660; A. Peeriakaruppan v. State of Tamilnadu and Ors., 1197111 SCC
38; MR. Balaji and Ors. v. State of Mysore and Ors., 119631Supp.1SCR439;
Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, 1198413 SCC 654; Dr. Jagdish Saran and
B Ors. v. Union of India, 11980] 2 SCC 768; Municipal Corporation of Greater
Bombay and Ors. v. Thukral Anajali, 1198912 SCC 249; P.K. Goel and Ors. v.
U.P. Medical Council and Ors., 1199213 SCC 232; State of MP. v. Nivedita Jain,
[1981) 4 SCC 296; Dr. Sadhna Devi and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., 11999]
3 SCC 90; Mohan Bir Singh Chawla v. Panjab University, Chandigarh and Anr.,
11997) 2 SCC 171; Dr. Preeti SrivastavaandAnr. v. State of MP. and Ors., 119971
C 7 SCC 120; State a/Tamil Nadu v. TDhilipkumar and Ors., 1199515Scale67
and D.N. Chanchala v. The State of Mysore and Ors., 119711 2 SCC 293, relied
on.
2. Reservation is guided by consideration of ensuring allotment of a
privilege or quota to, or conferral of state largesse on, a defined class or
D category of limited persons dispensing with the need of competition with
another defined class of persons or remaining persons. Beneficiary of
reservation is necessarily a minor or smaller group of persons which
deservedly stands in need of protection or push up because of historical,
geographical, economic, social, physical or similar such other handicaps.
E Persons consisting in reserved category are found to be an under-privileged
class who cannot be treated on par with a larger and more privileged class
of persons and shall be denied social justice and equality unless protected and
encouraged. Sources of recruitment or entry are carved out for the purpose
of achieving a defined proportion of intermingling at the target or destination
between two or more categories of such persons who though similarly situated
F or belonging to one class to begin with, have stood divided into two or more
categories by fortuitous circumstances and unless allowed entry from two
separate sources one would exclude or block the other. No one of the two
classes can be said to be weaker than the other. The factor impelling provision
of different or separate sources of entry may not provide justification for
G reservation. Two sources of entry ensure an equal distribution between two
segments of one society. The emphasis in reservation is on the subjects; the
emphasis in providing sources of entry is on the subject matter. Reservation
is protective discrimination; provision for sources of entry is aimed at securing
equal or proportionate distribution. The characteristics of the two may to some
extent be overlapping yet the distinction is perceptible though fine. In the
H instant case the division of seats between two classes coupled with two level
A.1.1.M.S. STUDENTS UNION v. A.l.l.M.S.
83
reservation and unique percentile method has been so carved out, as if tailor- A
made, as is resulting into a reservation which ensures allotment to the extent
100% of PG seats followed by guaranteed placement in the choicest of creamy
disciplines to the candidates belonging to one category (i.e. lnstitute's in-house
candidates) without regard to their competitive merit. This is not a reservation
but a super-reservation and certainly not a source of entry.
B
(97-G, H; 98-A-C; 99-A)
3. When protective discrimination for promotion of equalization is
pleaded, the burden is on the party who seeks to justify the ex facie deviation
from equality. The basic rule is equality of opportunity for every person in
the country which is a constitutional guarantee. A candidate who gets more C
marks than another is entitled to preference for admission. Merit must be
the test when choosing the best, according to this rule of equal chance for
equal marks. This proposition has greater importance when we reach the
higher levels of education like post-graduate courses. Reservation, as an
exception, may be justified subject to discharging the burden of proving
justification in favour of the class which must be educationally handicapped- D
the reservation geared up to getting over the handicap. The rationale of
reservation in the case of medical students must be removal of regional or
class inadequacy or like disadvantage. Even there the quantum of reservation
should not be excessive or societally injurious. The higher the level of the
speciality the lesser the role of reservation. (105-E-G)
E
4. The decision of Academic Committee of AIIMS tolrecommend a 25%
quota disciplinewise out of the total post-graduate seats for AIIMS undergraduates; a uniform minimum cut-off of 50% marks in the competitive
entrance test as a condition of eligibility for all candidates; 75% compulsory
attendance during the course shall be made mandatory for AIIMS students F
cannot be endorsed in its entirety and for all times. Yet for the present, and
until a better alternative is found out, it is not proper to strike down the
proposal of the Academic Committee in its entirety and can be sustained with
some modifications. The following direction will meet the ends of justice :
(115-C, D; 116-A, BJ
(1) The Institutional reservation for AIJMS candidates is declared ultra
vires the Constitution and, hence, is struck down. [116-C(
G
(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 H
84
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A disciplinewise out of the total post-graduate seats for AIIMS undergraduates
as suggested by the Academic Committee. [116-DJ
(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 (i) that the last student to qualify for admission as
B 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 enjoying constitutional protection such as SC, ST, etc.,
and (ii) that the margin of difference between the qualifying marks for
lnstitute's candidate shall not be too wide with the one for general category
C candidate. [116-E, Fl
(4) Any seat left vacant out of the preferential seats for AIIMS
graduates consequent upon the abovesaid directions, shall be diverted to and
made available for open general category candidates. [116-Gf
(5) The preference for institute candidates to the extent of 25% as
D abovesaid shall remain confined to admission in P.G. course of study. Their
shall be no further reservation in the matter of allotment of seats disciplinewise
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 candidates strictly as per their ranking. [116-H; 117-Af
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7366 of I 996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.2.96 of the Delhi High Court
in C.W.P. No. 274 of 1996.
WITH
F
(C.A. No. 7367/1996)
R.N. Trivedi, Additional Solicitor General, Rakesh Dwivedi, U.N.
Bachawat, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, T.Raja (NP), S.R. Hegde, Satya Mitra, Sushil
Kumar Jain, S.D. Sharma, Alok Bachawat, A.P.Dhamija, A.P. Chhabra, L.P.
Sing, Shyam Moorjhani, M.K.D. Namboodri (NP), S.R. Bhat, Naveen R.
G Nath and Mukul Gupta for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R.C. LAHOTI, J. Delhi, the National Capital of the country is also the
seat of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, better known as 'AIIMS',
H an autonomous premier institution of national importance.
A.1.1.M.S. STUDENTS UNION v. A.1.1.M.S. [R.C. LAHOTI, J.]
85
AJIMS-'an institution of excellence for excellence' :
A
The Health Survey and Development Committee, popularly known as
the Bhore Committee, in its report published in 1946 recommended the
establishment of a national medical centre at Delhi which will concentrate on
training well qualified teachers and research workers in order that a steady
stream of these could be maintained to meet the needs of the rapidly expanding B
health activities throughout the country. After the attainment of independence,
the Union Ministry of Health proceeded to implement the challenging idea.
A munificent grant of one million pounds by the Government of New Zealand
through the Colombo Plan helped to translate the idea into a reality. An Act
of Parliament in 1956 established the All India Institute of Medical Sciences
(AIIMS) as an autonomous institution of national importance and defined its
objectives and functions. [see - Prospectus Postgraduate Courses, January
1996].
c
The All India Institute of Medical Sciences Act, 1956 (hereinafter the
Act, for short) sets out the Statement of Objects and Reasons as under :-
D
"For improving professional sompetence among medical practitioners,
it is necessary to place a high standard of medical education, both
post-graduate and under-graduate, before all medical colleges and
other allied institutions in the country. Similarly, for the promotion of
medical research it is necessary that the country should attain self- E
sufficiency in post-graduate medical education. These objectives are
hardly capable of realisation unless facilities of a very high order for
both under-graduate and post-graduate medical education and research
are provided by !) central authority in one place. The Bill seeks to
achieve these ends by the establishment in New Delhi of an institution
under the name of the all-India Institute of Medical Sciences. The F
Institute will develop patterns of teaching in under-graduate and postgraduate medical education in all its branches so as to demonstrate a
high standard of medical education to all medical colleges and other
allied institutions, will provide facilities of a high order for training
of personnel in all important branches of health activities and also for
medical research in its various aspects. The Institute will have the G
power to grant medical degrees, diplomas and other academic
distinctions which would be recognised medical degress for the
purpose of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1933".
A reference to a few provisions of the Act is apposite. Section 5 declares
that the Institute shall be an institution of national importance. Section 13 H
86
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A specifies the objects of the institute as under:
B
(a) to develop patterns of teaching in under-graduate and postgraduate medical education in all its branches so as to demonstrate
a high standard of medical education to all medical colleges and
other allied institutions in India;
(b) to bring together in one place educational facilities of the highest
order for the training of personnel in all important branches of
health activity; and
( c) to attain self-sufficiency in post-graduate medical education."
C
With a view to promote the abovesaid objects, the functions of the
Institute are specified in Section 14 which include amongst others establishment
of one or more medical colleges, a dental college, a nursing college and
several other institutions. The Institute is not only to produce graduates and
post-graduates of outstanding excellence, it is also to train teachers who in
their turn would impart instructions in the different medical colleges in India.
D To achieve the objects and discharging the functions, the Institute is
empowered to hold examinations and grant degrees, diplomas and other
academic distinctions and titles of under-graduate and post-graduate level.
Section 23 opens with a non-obstante clause giving the provision an overriding effect on the provisions of Indian Medical Council Act, 1933 and
E declares that the medical degrees and diplomas granted by the Institute shall
be recognised medical qualifications for the purpose of that Act, thereby
entitling the holders to the same privileges as those attached to the equivalent
awards from the recognised Universities of India.
In the field of postgraduate education the most important function of
F the Institute is to provide opportunities for training teachers for medical
colleges in the country in an atmosphere of research and enquiry. The
postgraduate students are exposed to the newer methods of teaching and
given opportunities to actively participate in teaching exercises. The other
important objectives of the Institute are to bring together in one place
educational facilities of the highest order for the training of personnel in all
G the important branches of health activity and to attain self-sufficiency in
postgraduate medical education. The educational principles and practices being
adopted are those which are best suited to the needs of the nation. [See -
Prospectus, Postgraduate Courses, July 2000].
The claim made by the Institute in its prospectus released from time to
H time is not so truthful as it professes to be, is a judicial finding arrived at, in
A.I.I.M.S. STUDENTS UNION v. A.1.1.M.S. [R.C. LAHOTI, J.)
87
the judgment under appeal by a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi A
presided over by the Chief Justice.
The controversy - an exposure into reality :
Three meritorious students aspiring for achieving excellence in the field
of medical sciences by availing opportunity of receiving instructions and B
cloing research in the premier medical institution of the nation in the year
1996, knocked the doors of Delhi High Court by filing a writ petition and
complaining that the system, as devised by the Institute, of reservations and
blocking the seats in the process of allocation through counselling was resulting
in sacrificing merit and prestigious post-graduation seats in creamy disciplines
being usurped by such candidates who were far far below in merit compared C
with the petitioners. The Delhi High Court dug deep into the relevant records
of the Institute and penetrated its searching eyes into correspondence
exchanged between the Central Government and the Institute. All this exercise
led the Delhi High Court into finding itself 'stunned to see', to borrow the
expression employed by the learned Chief Justice of Delhi High Court and D
'havoc being played with the laudable aims and objectives' on which the
premier Institute of Medical Sciences was founded and was intended to achieve.
On 3.12.1995 an all-India entrance examination for admission to postgraduate courses in ABMS was held. Any medical graduate who had secured
a minimum of 55% marks in MBBS examination was eligible to participate E
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 exact number of seats available for graduate and post-graduate
seats in the Institute by reference to the time when they were made available F
initially at the commencement of these courses of study cannot be ascertained
from the record as it stands. For our purpose it would suffice to notice that
in the year 1958 the Institute made provision for 40 seats for graduation and
120 seats for post-graduation. We are told that though the number of seats
for graduation remains almost the same however the number of seats for G
post-graduation in different disciplines taken together has been increased to
132 some time in the year 1975.
The writ petitioners had sought for admission in postgraduate courses
for January session. The Institute conducts examinations for admission to
postgraduate courses of study twice in a year for its two sessions commencing H
88
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A respectively in January and July each year. The prospectus issued in September
1995 declared that the selection shall be on merits. However, I/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. Each candidate was to
be permitted to opt for two specialities/courses ofM.D./M.S. and the allocation
was to be through counselling subject to availability of seats. Not only 33%
B 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 lnstitute's in-house
C 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.
D
The result of the common entrance examination was declared on 8.1.1996
E
F
for JOO seats. The writ-petitioners nos. I to 3 secured ranks JO, 12 and 89
respectively. The total number of seats available for allocation in January
1996 was 83. The reservation of seats, according to the prospectus, was as
follows :
(I) Scheduled Castes
15%
(2) Scheduled Tribes
7.5%
(3) Quota for Rural/BW/FM of AIIMS (those who
33%
served in rural area or belong to backward area or
have worked in Family Welfare programmes)
(4) MBBS students from AIIMS
(5) Balance for open category
33%
39.5%
The prospectus also declared that only such candidates as have secured
65th percentile or higher marks in the entrance examination shall be eligible
G 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. The corresponding cut-off marks for
reserved quota of SC/ST/RBF candidates shall be 60th percentile or higher
in the entrance examination. The department!discipline-wise reservation was
H set out in the scheme of allocation as follows :-
A.I.I.M.S. STUDENTS UNION v. A.1.1.M.S. (R.C. LAHOTI, J.]
89
"The seats shall be allocated on the basis of merit by a process of A
counselling. Not more than 50% seats in any department/discipline
will be reserved for AIIMS graduates subject to the overall reservation
of33% of all Post Graduate seats. A 7-year roster of seats in different
departments/disciplines is prepared for allocation of seats".
The scheme contained a tabular statement described as session-wise B
allocation of seats for the year 1996 for reserved categories (SC, ST and
Rural) at AIIMS PG Entrance Examination. How these reserved seats were
distributed, it would suffice to demonstrate by setting out reservation in one
of the disciplines only, by way of example. The reservation of seats made in
the discipline of Obstetrics & Gynaecology was as under:-
C
Obst. & Gyn :
Jan. Seats
July Seats
Total
4
2
6
S.C.
S.T.
AIIMS
Open General
D
Jan. July
Jan. July
Jan.
July
Jan. July
2
Thus for the January 1996 session the seats were four out of which two
would go to SC and ST candidates and two would go to AllMS students. No E
seat was thus left available for the open general category in January session
and out of the two seats available in July only one could be allocated to open
general category candidate.
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 of seats consequent thereupon.
The three writ-petitioners before the High Court had impleaded only
the Institute as respondent. During the course of hearing the High Court felt
F
the necessity of impleading the Medical Council of India and the Central G
Government also as parties before it and that was done. All India Institute of
Medical Sciences Students Union sought for intervention at the hearing which
was allowed.
It is not necessary to set out in details the pleadings of the parties and
the several issues of law arising therefrom in very many details. It would H
90
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A suffice to state that the Institute, the Central Government and the Students
Union all offered a vehement opposition to the reliefs sought for by the writpetitioners on grounds more or less common to each other. Further it would
serve our purpose to briefly sum up the facts found and the findings on issues
of facts and law arrived at by the High Court so as to highlight the core of
B controversy around which the learned counsel for the parties have made their
submissions before us.
Issues before, and Findings arrived at by, the High Court :
The High Court keeping in view the pleadings of the parties and the
C submissions made by the learned counsel for different parties appearing before
it framed the following points for consideration and decision:
0
(I) Does AIIMS have a special status as per the AIIMS Act, 1956
and can the reservation of 33% for All MS students introduced in
1978 be justified on the basis of principles applicable for a
Universitywise quota?
(2) Whether, in law, the principle of institutional continuity is no
longer acceptable because of the judgments of the Supreme Court
in Thukral Anja/i's case, [1989] 2 SCC 249 and in P.K. Gor:l's
case, ( 1992) 3 sec 232 ?
E
(3)
(a) Whether alternatively, even if it is permissible to have
F
institutional quota, the 33% quota for MBBS students in P.G.
Courses in a national Institute like the AllMS, 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 I7.12.1994
have shown considerable deterioration in AllMS standards so as
to justify withdrawal of the 33% quota?
G
( 4) In any event, is discipline/department wise quota as per the
scheme of 17th January I 996 valid dnd is it contrary to the
judgement of the Delhi High Court in Dr. Sandeep Tak v. AIIMS
(C.W. 2347/95) dated 11.9.1995?
(5) Is the counselling procedure of 17th January 1996 valid, if it is
H
based on discipline-wise reservation for AIIMS students (other
,_
A.1.1.M.S. STUDENTS UNION v. A.1.1.M.S. [R.C. LAHOTI, J.]
91
than SC/ST students)?
A
( 6) Whether the 65 percentile method is valid?
(7) What is the relief to be granted in the writ petition?
It will be useful to precis the detailed findings arrived at by the High
Court, which we do as under :
B
Point Nos. I & 2 : The Institution based preference on which is founded
33% reservation of postgraduate seats in favour of AIIMS students has no
justification on the principle of institutional continuity or on the principle of
regional requirement. Neither it can be said that the candidates falling in this
category belong to a particular region nor are they going to settle down in C
Delhi. This Court has not recognised the principle of institutional continuity
as providing reasonable basis justifying carving out of a category for the
purpose of reservation nor does it help in achieving the aims and objectives
with which this premier institution of the country was established rather it is
counter-productive to the laudable object of achieving excellence in the field D
of medical sciences and health services of the nation. After the decision of
this Court in the case of Dr. Pradeep Jain etc. etc. v. Union of India and Ors.
[1984] 3 sec 654 there are 2000 seats available throughout the country
against which the AIIMS students can also compete. Thus there is no
justification left after the year 1984 for continuing this category of reservation
created in the year 1978.
E
The High Court found out the manner in which the 33% reservation in
favour of AIIMS students both at the level of the entrance and then at the
level of disciplinewise allocation of seats was actually working up to date.
For that purpose the High Court analysed the statistics of five years, i.e., July,
1992 to January, 1996 (both inclusive) and prepared the following table :
TABLE
Session
%
A II MS
SC
ST
Open General
July'92
Lowest
31.5.
20.66
36.00
47.0
Jan.'93
Lowest
14.7
28.16
31.5
42.6
July'93
Lowest
22.16
36.16
31.33
49.50
Jan.'94
Lowest
24.33
40.50
38.33
54.67
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
92
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
July'94
Lowest
19.83
31.50
31.50
50.0
Jan.'95
Lowest
31.33
41.1
31.66
47.33
July 95
Lowest
38.00
22.6
37.17
46.33
Jan.'96
Lowest
46.167
46.167
45.500
61.333
(33% + Percentile 65%)
The statistics so tabulised led to the following inferences being drawn
by the High Court :-
(i)
That AllMS students who had secured marks as low as 14% or
19% or 22% in the entrance examination got admission to PG
courses while scheduled castes or scheduled tribes candidates
could not secure admission in their 15% or 7% quota in PG
course in spite of having obtained marks far higher than the inhouse candidates of the Institute.
(ii) The figure of 33% reservation for in-house candidates was
statistically so arrived at as to secure I 00% reservation for AIIMS
students. There were about 40 AIIMS candidates. The PG seats
being 120, 33% thereof worked out to be 40; meaning thereby
all the 40 AIIMS graduates were 100% assured of PG seats.
Point No. 3 : In spite of facility of having instructions and conducting
research in lhe premier institution of the country, the reservation in favour of
AllMS in-house candidates was resulting into complacence and deterioration
of standards. During the period July 1992 to July 1995 the AIIMS in-house
F candidates could hardly secure notable place amongst the first 100 meritorious
candidates. These were the number of AIIMS graduates securing a place
amongst the fitst I 00 in the order of merit at the entrance examination for PG
courses :-
Number of candidates from AIIMS in first JOO ranks
G
I. July 1992
3
2. Jan.'93
14
3. July, 1993
H
A.1.1.M.S. STUDENTS UNION v. A.1.1.M.S. (R.C. LAHOTI, J.)
93
4. Jan. 1994
4
5. July, 1994
2
6. Jan. 1995
7
7. July, 1995
3
The above is a bare spectacle. And yet the seats in creamy discipline
were being appropriated by the AIIMS in-house candidates. This deterioration
A
B
in academic standards was contributed .by the students as well as the teachers.
Because of the students being assured of a seat in PG course of study, they
were not working hard and the teachers too were not putting in their best C
while imparting instructions. The reservation was thus proving to be counterproductive.
The High Court found that the reservation of 33% PG seats in favour
of AIIMS in-house candidates was not an objective policy decision arrived
at on considerations of public good. In the year 1978 this reservation was D
introduced on account of demand made by the students' union which was
resorting to agitation and dhamas. The Central Government found such
reservation not in public interest and hence it was withdrawn on 24. I 0.1994.
The withdrawal sparked off once again agitations and dhamas by the members
of the Union and the Central Government had to kneel down before the E
students within two months of the withdrawal resulting into the reservation
being restored on 17.12.1994. The reservation in favour of AIIMS candidates
was, thus, not a decision taken with objectivity and by due applfcation of
mind to all relevant facts but only under pressure of agitating AllMS Students
Union.
F
Point Nos. 4 & 5 : The High Court prepared a chart and set out the
same in its judgment showing disciplinewise allotment of seats from July
1992 to July 1995, also showing the percentage of marks and rank in the
merit secured by the AIIMS in-house candidates who could succeed in securing
allocation of seats mostly in creamy disciplines compared with the percentage G
of marks and the high ranks secured by open general category candidates and
yet either denied a seat or allocated a seat in lesser important disciplines. We
need not burden this judgment by reproducing the long table running into
pages set out in the judgment of the High Court. We would just highlight the
deductions drawn by the High Court, culled out from its judgment, and
briefly set out as under:-
H
94
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A
(i) The petitioner no. 1, having secured rank 10 and marks 68.667%,
had opted for M.D. Obstetrics and Gynaecology and MD Physiology while
petitioner no. 2 having got rank 12 with 66.667% marks had opted for MS
Orthopaedics and M.D. Medicines. At the counselling none of the two got
the seat of his choice. At the same time AIIMS students with marks 52% and
46.167% respectively and rank beyond 450 and 900 respectively got PG
B seats in such disciplines. At another allocation a general category candidate
having secured 75.67% marks and the top rank, i.e., the first was denied a
discipline of his choice.
(ii) All the creamy discipline such as Obstetrics and Gynaecology,
C Medicines, Orthopaedics and Opthalomology were being appropriated by the
AIIMS in-house candidates though lower in merit while the meritorious open
general candidates were either being denied a seat or were being pushed to
the 'left-over' disciplines. Such reservation was working "havoc" and was
"indeed a very sorry state of affairs".
D
Point 6 : The percentile method along with 33% quota and 50% quota
disciplinewise subject to an overall 33% quota for AIIMS students was
arbitrary and unreasonable. In January 1996 session, an AlIMS student with
46.167 marks got admission; that being the lowest mark for the AlIMS students
who got admission in PG course. At the same time, an SC candidate with
46.167 marks got admission that was also the lowest mark among SC
E candidates who secured admission. Candidates with as low as 52%, 48%,
48.333% and 46.167% from AlIMS got admission and also got the creamy
disciplines such as Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Medicine and Ophthalomology
while SC students with 52%, 51.333%, 50.167%, 47.833%, 47.167%, 46.667%,
46.500% and 46.167%, 47.833%, 47.167%, 46.667%, 46.500% and 46.667%
F got admission. While SC candidate of 46.167% got Community Medicine,
AIIMS candidate with 46.167% was given the creamy subject of Obstetrics
and Gynaecology. Twelve AIIMS candidates were selected even though they
got less marks than the SC candidate who secured 60.33% marks. Similarly
sixteen AIIMS students got admission to PG courses even though they got
less marks than the ST student who got 62.167%.
G
Under the 65% percentile method, even if we take the 35% candidates
who are at the top of the merit list, the AlIMS students are able to get in even
though their marks are less than or comparable to marks of SC/ST students.
Further, there being no minimum qualifying marks, in the top 35% even if
H the lowest is quite a low mark, yet he would get in. That is not what is
A.1.1.M.S. STUDENTS UNION v. A.1.1.M.S. [R.C. LAHOTI, J.]
95
expected of an Institute like AIIMS. For the above reasons, the High Court A
was of the view that the percentile system does not also assure an equitable,
fair or reasonable result.
Point 7 : In view of the findings arrived at, the High Court struck
down 33% quota carved out in favour of the AIIMS in-house candidates both
at the entry level as also disciplinewise. However, the High ·Court made B
incidental directions excluding rigorous application of its decision to the
January 1996 session so as not to prejudice the career of such AIIMS students
who had already got in. The High Court also made it clear that the reservation
in favour of SC, ST students being constitutional, as also the reservation in
favour of rural/backward/family welfare students, were left untouched as C
they were not under challenge.
Appeals and Points for Decision :
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of Delhi High Court, AIIMS Students
Union and the Institute have filed these appeals by special leave.