# DR. TANVI BEHL v. SHREY GOEL & ORS

- **Citation:** [2019] 14 S.C.R. 781
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2019-12-09
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 9289 of 2019
- **Bench:** A. M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/dr-tanvi-behl-v-shrey-goel-ors-33384
- **Pages:** 37

## Headnote

Education/Educational Institutions :
Admission - Post Graduate medical courses - Domicile/
residence based reservation - Validity and legality of - Medical
College provided for domicile/residence based reservation for
Union Territory of Chandigarh Pool - Challenged - High Court
held such reservation invalid and directed cancellation of admission
made on the basis of such invalid reservation - Appeal to Supreme
Court - Held : The Constitution Benches of Supreme Court have
not completely overthrown/disapproved the concept of domicile/
residence based reservation - However, the manner of providing
such domicile/residence based reservation cannot be approved if
found irrational or arbitrary - Therefore, the question whether
domicile/residence based reservation, particularly in admission to
PG Medical Courses is constitutionally permissible and if
permissible what would be mode and modalities of its
implementation need to be examined by Larger Bench of Supreme
Court for authoritative pronouncement.
Nikhil Himthani & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
(2013) 10 SCC 237 : [2013] 14 SCR 23 ; Satyabrata
Sahoo & Ors. v. State of Orissa (2012) 8 SCC 203 :
[2012] 10 SCR 204 ; Vishal Goyal & Ors. v. State of
Karnataka & Ors. (2014) 11 SCC 456 ; Dr. Kriti
Lakhina v. State of Karnataka (2018) SCC Online SC
324 - distinguished.
Dr. Pradeep Jain and Ors. v. Union of India and
Ors.(1984) 3 SCC 654 : [1984] 3 SCR 942 ; Jagdish
Saran v. Union of India (1980) 2 SCC 768 : [1980] 2
SCR 831 ; Magan Mehrotra v. UOI (2003) 11 SCC
186 - held inapplicable.
 [2019] 14 S.C.R. 781
781
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
782
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
Modern Dental College and Research Centre and Ors.
v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (2016) 7 SCC
353 - needs reconsideration.
Saurabh Chaudri and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
(2013) 11 SCC 146 ; Ashish Ranjan v. UOI & Ors.
(2016) 11 SCC 225 ; Yatinkumar Jasubhai Patel and
Others v. State of Gujarat and Others [2019] 10 SCC
11 ; State of U.P. v. Pradip Tandon (1975) 1 SCC
267 : [1975] 2 SCR 761 ; D.P.Joshi v. State of M.P
AIR 1955 SC 334 : [1955] SCR 1215 ; Christian
Medical College, Vellore v. Union of India : (2014) 2
SCC 305 : [2013] 7 SCR 908 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2013) 11 SCC 146
referred to
Para 8.3
[1984] 3 SCR 942
held inapplicable
Para 10.2
[1980] 2 SCR 831
held inapplicable
Para 12
(2003) 11 SCC 186
held inapplicable
Para 12
[2013] 14 SCR 23
distinguished
Para 12
(2014) 11 SCC 456
distinguished
Para 12
(2018) SCC online SC 324 distinguished
Para 12
[2012] 10 SCR 204
distinguished
Para 12
(2016) 11 SCC 225
referred to
Para 14
[2019] 10 SCC 11
referred to
Para 14
[1975] 2 SCR 761
referred to
Para 16.3
[1955] SCR 1215
referred to
Para 16.4
[2013] 7 SCR 908
referred to
Para 22
(2016) 7 SCC 353
needs reconsideration
Para 22

## Text

_Characters 0–39,601 of 86,780. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39601 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
781
DR. TANVI BEHL
v.
SHREY GOEL & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 9289 of 2019)
DECEMBER 09, 2019
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions :
Admission - Post Graduate medical courses - Domicile/
residence based reservation - Validity and legality of - Medical
College provided for domicile/residence based reservation for
Union Territory of Chandigarh Pool - Challenged - High Court
held such reservation invalid and directed cancellation of admission
made on the basis of such invalid reservation - Appeal to Supreme
Court - Held : The Constitution Benches of Supreme Court have
not completely overthrown/disapproved the concept of domicile/
residence based reservation - However, the manner of providing
such domicile/residence based reservation cannot be approved if
found irrational or arbitrary - Therefore, the question whether
domicile/residence based reservation, particularly in admission to
PG Medical Courses is constitutionally permissible and if
permissible what would be mode and modalities of its
implementation need to be examined by Larger Bench of Supreme
Court for authoritative pronouncement.
Nikhil Himthani & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
(2013) 10 SCC 237 : [2013] 14 SCR 23 ; Satyabrata
Sahoo & Ors. v. State of Orissa (2012) 8 SCC 203 :
[2012] 10 SCR 204 ; Vishal Goyal & Ors. v. State of
Karnataka & Ors. (2014) 11 SCC 456 ; Dr. Kriti
Lakhina v. State of Karnataka (2018) SCC Online SC
324 - distinguished.
Dr. Pradeep Jain and Ors. v. Union of India and
Ors.(1984) 3 SCC 654 : [1984] 3 SCR 942 ; Jagdish
Saran v. Union of India (1980) 2 SCC 768 : [1980] 2
SCR 831 ; Magan Mehrotra v. UOI (2003) 11 SCC
186 - held inapplicable.
 [2019] 14 S.C.R. 781
781
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
782
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
Modern Dental College and Research Centre and Ors.
v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (2016) 7 SCC
353 - needs reconsideration.
Saurabh Chaudri and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
(2013) 11 SCC 146 ; Ashish Ranjan v. UOI & Ors.
(2016) 11 SCC 225 ; Yatinkumar Jasubhai Patel and
Others v. State of Gujarat and Others [2019] 10 SCC
11 ; State of U.P. v. Pradip Tandon (1975) 1 SCC
267 : [1975] 2 SCR 761 ; D.P.Joshi v. State of M.P
AIR 1955 SC 334 : [1955] SCR 1215 ; Christian
Medical College, Vellore v. Union of India : (2014) 2
SCC 305 : [2013] 7 SCR 908 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2013) 11 SCC 146
referred to
Para 8.3
[1984] 3 SCR 942
held inapplicable
Para 10.2
[1980] 2 SCR 831
held inapplicable
Para 12
(2003) 11 SCC 186
held inapplicable
Para 12
[2013] 14 SCR 23
distinguished
Para 12
(2014) 11 SCC 456
distinguished
Para 12
(2018) SCC online SC 324 distinguished
Para 12
[2012] 10 SCR 204
distinguished
Para 12
(2016) 11 SCC 225
referred to
Para 14
[2019] 10 SCC 11
referred to
Para 14
[1975] 2 SCR 761
referred to
Para 16.3
[1955] SCR 1215
referred to
Para 16.4
[2013] 7 SCR 908
referred to
Para 22
(2016) 7 SCC 353
needs reconsideration
Para 22
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9289
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.04.2019 of the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWO No. 8234 of 2019
(O&M)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
783
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 9290. 9291, 9292-9293 of 2019.
P.S. Patwalia, Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Advs., Chandra Prakash,
C.P. Rajwar, Vivek Singh, Dhrub Sheoran, Mohit Kumar Daroad,
Pankaj Jain, Harshika Verma, Rakesh Dahiya, Avijit Mani Tripathi,
Ms. Japneet Kaur, Ms. Vriti Gujral, Ms. Pallavi Singh, Sandeep
Chaudhary, Aditya Dahiya, Hemant Kushwaha, Gaurav Sharma,
Gauran Sharma, Dhawal Mohan, Prateek Bhatia, Prasana Mohan,
Kumar Dushyant Singh, Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, Rohit Sharma, Rounak
Nayak, Atul Agarwal, Anshul Chowdhary, Advs. for the appearing
parties.
The Order of the Court was passed by
DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.
Preliminary
1. Leave granted.
2. These four appeals by special leave, directed against the
common judgment and order dated 23.04.2019, as passed by the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 8234 of 2019
(O&M) and CWP No. 9565 of 2019 (O&M) and involving essentially
the same questions relating to the legality and validity of domicile/
residence-based reservation for admission to the Post Graduate Medical
Courses (MD/MS Courses 2019)1 in Government Medical College and
Hospital, Chandigarh2, have been considered together and shall be
governed by this common order.3
1 Hereinafter also referred to as "the PG Medical Courses"
2 Hereinafter also referred to as "the Medical College"/ "the said Medical College".
3 It may be noticed at the outset that the questioned reservation has been provided
for the 'candidates with background of Chandigarh'. The candidates eligible under
this category are those (i) who have studied for 5 years in Chandigarh; or (ii) whose
parents have resided in Chandigarh for a period of 5 years; or (iii) who are children
of the persons who have held or are holding immovable property in Chandigarh or
who themselves have held or are holding such immovable property for a period of 5
years. Having regard to the submissions made and the questions involved,
notwithstanding the subtle distinction in the two concepts of domicile and residence
[as noted by this Court in the case of Yogesh Bhardwaj v. State of U.P. and Ors.:
(1990) 3 SCC 355], the reservation/preference in question is referred herein as
'domicile/residence-based reservation'.
DR. TANVI BEHL v. SHREY GOEL & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
784
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
3. By the impugned judgment and order dated 23.04.2019, the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh has held invalid the
provisions made by the said Medical College in its prospectus, so far
relating to the domicile/residence-based reservation as provided in UT4
Chandigarh Pool; and has struck down the same while directing that
all the admissions made on the basis of such invalid reservation in the
said Medical College be cancelled and fresh admission process for
admission to the PG Medical Courses for the academic year 2019-20
be carried out on the basis of merit obtained by the candidates in
National Eligibility-Cum-Entrance Test.5 Aggrieved, the candidates
whose admission to the PG Medical Courses were to be cancelled as
also the UT of Chandigarh and the said Medical College have preferred
these appeals.
The basic facts concerning the parties
4. Before dilating on the rival contentions and the issue involved,
appropriate it would be to make a brief reference to the factual aspects
concerning the parties before us.
4.1. The appellant in the appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 12918
of 2019, completed her graduation in the year 2014; got herself registered
as a doctor with the Punjab Medical Council on 04.08.2016; appeared
for the NEET-PG 2019 for securing admission to a PG Medical Course;
scored 410 marks and was placed at 51533 in All India Rank. The
appellant thereafter applied for admission under UT Pool Quota as she
was domiciled in Chandigarh since 2006. Pending adjudication of CWP
No. 8234 of 2019 (O&M) before the High Court, the appellant was
selected for admission to MD in Microbiology in the first round of
counselling held on 05.04.2019; paid the course fees amounting to Rs.
33,420/-; and was waiting for her classes to begin from 01.05.2019.
With the impugned order dated 23.04.2019 her admission being in
jeopardy, she has preferred this appeal though she was not a party to
the said writ petition/s.
4.2. The appellants of SLP(C) No. 11441 of 2019, upon
completing their graduation, had appeared in the same NEET-PG 2019
conducted on 06.01.2019 and had secured 639 and 454 marks, thereby
standing at 10910 and 40780 ranks respectively. The appellant No. 1
4 'Union Territory' is abbreviated as 'UT'
5 Hereinafter also referred to as "NEET" / "NEET- PG 2019"
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
785
herein belongs to General Category while the appellant No. 2 belongs
to Schedule Caste Category. These appellants had applied for admission
in the said Medical College; participated in the counselling sessions;
were offered seats under the UT Chandigarh Pool being higher in merit;
were allotted their respective subjects; and had paid the requisite fees.
These appellants were respondent Nos. 11 and 5 respectively in CWP
No. 8234 of 2019 (O&M) before the High Court and have preferred
the appeal for their admission being in jeopardy in view of the impugned
order dated 23.04.2019.
4.3. The appellant of SLP(C) No. 12919-20 of 2019 completed
her MBBS in 2016 and had been registered as a doctor with the Punjab
Medical Board. She too appeared in NEET-PG 2019 conducted on
06.01.2019 and stood at rank 2164 with a score of 770 marks. She
participated in the counselling sessions conducted thereafter; and was
selected for the course of M.S. in General Surgery under the All India
Quota. Though the appellant had taken admission in the said course
but was listed at serial No. 8 in the UT Chandigarh Pool Quota list
and as such, was hopeful of getting allotted another course in that
Quota.
4.3.1. It is the case of the appellant that despite being selected
in the first round wherein she was allotted M.S. in General Surgery
and while waiting for the second round of counselling, the Medical
College mandated that she ought to surrender her seat of M.S. in
General Surgery before appearing in the second round of counselling
under the UT Chandigarh Pool Quota though such surrendering of the
seat was not mandated in relation to the other candidates. Nevertheless,
the appellant secured a seat in M.S. in Obstetrics and Gynaecology in
UT Chandigarh Pool Quota and duly paid her fees on 05.04.2019.
Subsequently, with passing of the order impugned, the admission of this
appellant was also in jeopardy and hence she, though not a party to
the said writ petition/s, has preferred this appeal.
4.4. The appellants of the appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.
11477 of 2019 are the Union Territory of Chandigarh and the said
Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh, whose
proposition for domicile/residence-based reservation in UT Chandigarh
Pool has been pronounced against by the High Court.
4.5. Therefore, all the appellants herein are aggrieved of the
impugned order dated 23.04.2019 and have questioned the same on more
or less similar grounds.
DR. TANVI BEHL v. SHREY GOEL & ORS.
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
786
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
5. On the other hand, the contesting respondents of these appeals
had been the writ petitioners before the High Court questioning the
domicile/residence-based reservation. They have supported the
impugned order on identical submissions.
6. It may be noticed that the Medical Council of India was not
a party to this litigation before the High Court but was ordered to be
impleaded in these proceedings by the order dated 06.05.2019. Further,
on 09.05.2019, this Court allowed the appellants to implead the already
admitted students (academic session 2019-20) as parties; and granted
ad-interim stay over the impugned order of the High Court while
making it clear that the admission process which was completed on
the basis of the stated provisions governing domicile/residence-based
reservation shall be subject to the outcome of these matters.
The question involved and the background aspects
7. The principal question calling for determination in these matters
is as to whether providing for domicile/residence-based reservation in
admission to PG Medical Courses is constitutionally invalid and is
impermissible? If answer to this question is in the negative and it is
held that such reservation is not impermissible, the corollary questions
would be as to the mode and modalities for providing such reservation
in the respective States/ Union Territories; and more particularly, in
relation to the State or Union Territory having only one medical college.
The background in which these questions have arisen could be noticed
as infra.
Academic year 2018-19 - decision in Dr. Chahat Bhatia's case
8. For the academic year 2018-19, the Government Medical
College and Hospital, Chandigarh had issued a prospectus for its PG
Medical Courses while stating that 125 seats were available with the
institution in the said PG Medical Courses of which, 50% i.e., 63 seats
were allocated to All India Quota whereas the remaining 62 seats were
meant for the students who had passed MBBS examination from the
medical institutions of UT Chandigarh.6 This prescription of
6 Out of these, 15% seats remain reserved for the Scheduled Caste candidates. The
seats remaining after such reservation are referred as open seats and the discussion
herein essentially relates to such open seats.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
787
'institutional preference' was challenged by way of a writ petition
before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, being CWP No. 8962
of 2018: Dr. Chahat Bhatia v. Government Medical College and
Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh and Ors. The High Court, by way
of its interim order dated 07.05.2018, stayed the application of the Clause
relating to 'institutional preference'. Assailing the said stay order, SLP
(C) No. 12593 of 2018 was filed by the Medical College wherein this
Court, by the order dated 10.05.2018, directed the High Court to dispose
of the matter on priority and also directed that the candidates who had
secured admissions shall not be displaced, subject to the final decision
in the matter. Subsequently, the High Court, by its order dated
15.05.2018, held that while calculating institutional preference, the seats
reserved under All India Quota ought to be excluded. The question of
reservation on the basis of 'domicile' was never challenged and,
therefore, the High Court did not deal with the said issue.
8.1.The High Court, in its order dated 15.05.2018 noted that there
was only one medical institution located within the territory of
Chandigarh leading to the position that all the seats, after deducting the
reserved ones, would be filled up from the candidates passing their
MBBS examination from the said Medical College, thereby depriving
all other candidates from the region of an opportunity of admission to
the PG Medical Courses at Chandigarh. It was contended that the
proposition of the Medical College amounted to 100% reservation on
institutional preference which was impermissible in terms of the settled
decisions of this Court. In view of the contentions urged, the Court
noted the two issues calling for determination as under:-
"i) Whether in the wake of the condition imposed in the
prospectus coupled with the fact of a singular institute in the
territorial boundary of UT Chandigarh preference
contemplated in the prospectus would tantamount to 100%
reservation in favour of the incumbents having completed
their MBBS course from Government Medical College and
Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh or not.
ii) Whether the candidates who have done their schooling
in Chandigarh or are connected to the City of Chandigarh
would need to be treated preferentially or not."
DR. TANVI BEHL v. SHREY GOEL & ORS.
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
788
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
8.2. After having thus noted the issues involved, the High Court
put aside the second issue with the following observations:-
"In so far as the second issue is concerned, it need not
engage our attention for a longer period considering it has
been settled by the various pronouncements of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court deprecating preference or weightage on the
basis of residence alone. So, the surviving issue is the one
that we have set out at (i) above."
8.3. After the aforesaid observations, the High Court noted that
the concept of institutional preference was standing on firm pedestal
with various pronouncements of this Court; and, particularly with
reference to the Constitution Bench decision in Saurabh Chaudri and
Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.: 2013 (11) SCC 146, observed that
it was not difficult to conclude that the institutional preference would
be a valid criterion but then, its extent could be irksome and bad in law.
The High Court also referred to the provisions made in regulation 9(IV)
and 9A of the Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000
prescribed by the Medical Council of India as also the institutional
preference provided by different States like the State of Punjab and
the State of Haryana. Thereafter, the High Court expressed its
disapproval of the allocation of seats as provided by the UT Chandigarh
and the Medical College while observing as under:-
"To our mind, if we see the break-up of seats, 63 out of 125
seats, being 50% would be consumed in the All India Quota
leaving the residue of 62, which, if the prescribed criteria
of the prospectus is applied, would leave no seat for any
other aspirant.
The learned Senior Standing Counsel for UT, Chandigarh
would be quick to respond to refer to clauses PG-8 and PG8.1 to contend that there is a procedure prescribed to fill the
left over seats where the candidates who have studied in
Chandigarh for a period of 5 years or the children of
persons who have resided in Union Territory of Chandigarh
for a period of at least 5 years or the children of persons
who have held immovable property in UT Chandigarh for a
period of 5 years at any time prior to the last date of the
submission of the application, would be considered.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
789
This in itself would make no significant impact to the primary
question that we are dealing with i.e. there being 100%
institutional preference. In fact, the mischief seems to have
been done not in prescribing the conditions of preference
but by placing an interpretation on the calculation for
institutional preference by taking into account the seats. The
prospectus states that 50% of total number of seats have
been reserved for institutional preference for students of
medical institution of UT Chandigarh. "Total number of
seats" taken for this determination of institutional preference
seats is 125, which according to us, would be erroneous for
the simple reason that out of 125 seats allocated to the UT
pool 50% i.e. 63 seats would be propelled out of orbit of
the UT Chandigarh pool the moment they are consumed in
the All India Quota leaving only 62 seats for the College to
be filled up. Therefore, total number of seats for the
institutional preference are the residual ones that fall to the
institution after All India Quota is consumed. Thus the
interpretation placed by the Chandigarh Administration
would virtually discard from the process of consideration
other aspirants who may, being from the region be higher
up in merit but would stand excluded.
To avoid merit being a casuality it would be in the fairness
of things that 50% institutional preference be restricted to
62 seats falling to the share of the institution after the
remaining 50% have been consumed in the All India quota."
8.4. Interestingly, the High Court, even though made a cursory
observation in the earlier part of the order that the second issue as
regards preferential treatment to the candidate having connectivity with
the city of Chandigarh need not be dilated, for this Court having not
approved the preference or weightage on the basis of residence alone
but then, proceeded to observe in the later part of the order that the
linkage of the candidate to Chandigarh was not questioned and hence,
would not invite any comment from the Court. With these observations,
the High Court concluded and held as follows:-
"Nobody has raised any question to Clauses PG-8 or PG8.1 where the candidates having linkage to Chandigarh
either through education or placement of their parents or
DR. TANVI BEHL v. SHREY GOEL & ORS.
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
790
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
property, and therefore, it need not invite any comment from
us. Suffice it to say that the interpretation of institutional
preference with its applicability of total number of seats
which are 125 has resulted in a situation that reeks of
arbitrariness and a resultant violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. We would thus hold the stand of the
UT Chandigarh erroneous in this regard. While upholding
the principal of institutional preference we would direct that
it would relate to 50% of the seats available to the institution
after 50% of All India Quota has been consumed and upon
such calculation throw open the seats to other deserving
aspirants.
 Issues have been raised about individual candidates and
their eligibility, but we are of the opinion that these are
matters to be left to the Committee in-charge of Counselling
to examine.
In view of the above, we direct the Government Medical
College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh to conduct the
counselling afresh by keeping in view the above."
8.5. Aggrieved by the order aforesaid, a petition for Special
Leave to Appeal, being SLP (C) No. 13562 of 2018, was filed in this
Court but the same was dismissed in limine on 24.05.2018.
Academic year 2019-20
 9. The Medical College, following the aforesaid decision in the
case of Dr. Chahat Bhatia (supra), issued the prospectus on 16.03.2019
for admissions to the PG Medical Courses for the academic year 201920 stating that the total number of seats were 128, which were equally
divided into All India Quota and State Quota, as set out in Clause 1
and Clause 2 of the prospectus. More specific to the case at hand,
Clause 2 explained that the State Quota was further divided in Clause
2A (Institutional Preference Pool) and Clause 2B (UT Chandigarh Pool).
This Clause 2B is the bone of contention herein. For ready reference,
the entire Clause 2 pertaining to the State Quota seats may be
reproduced as under:-
"2. State Quota: 64 seats. In compliance of the decision of
Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, distribution of
50% State Quota seats are as below:-
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
791

Category
Total No. of
seats
Reserved (SC)
15%
General
1.

Institutional
Preference Pool (IP)
32
5
27
2.

UT, Chandigarh Pool
32
5
27

Total
64
10
54
A. Institutional Preference Pool (IP): Candidates who have
passed their MBBS examination from Govt. Medical College
& Hospital Chandigarh
B. UT Chandigarh Pool: Candidate who fulfil eligibility
criteria as below: This category will include candidates with
background of Chandigarh. To be eligible for this category
candidate should fulfil any of the following criteria:-
i. Studied for a period of 5 years in the Union Territory
of Chandigarh at any time prior to the last date of the
submission of the application.
ii. Candidates whose parents have resided in Union
Territory of Chandigarh for a period of at least 5 years
at any time prior to the last date of the submission of
the application either in pursuit of a profession or
holding a job.
iii. Children of persons who have held/hold immovable
property in Union Territory of Chandigarh for a
period of five years at any time prior to the last date
of the submission of the application. The property
should be in the name of the parents or the candidate
himself/herself.
Important Note:
a) To be eligible for UT Chandigarh Pool under B(i), the
candidate must submit a certificate to the effect from
Principal of School/College located within the territory
of UT Chandigarh.
b) To be eligible under B (ii), the candidate should submit
a certificate issued by the D.C of UT Chandigarh to
the effect that the candidate or his parents have been
DR. TANVI BEHL v. SHREY GOEL & ORS.
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
792
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
residing/have resided in Chandigarh at least for 5
years.
c) To be eligible under B (iii), the candidate must submit
a certificate issued by D.C-cum-Estate Officer/Tehsildar
stating that the candidate/parents of the candidate
have held/are holding immovable property in UT
Chandigarh for at least for 5 years prior to the
submission of application."
Challenge before the High Court-the impugned order dated 23.04.2019
10. The private respondents (writ petitioners) challenged the
legality and validity of the aforesaid Clause 2B of the prospectus in
CWP No. 8234 of 2019 (O & M): Shrey Goel and Ors v. Union
Territory of Chandigarh and Anr. before the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana. Pending disposal of this petition, another writ petition,
being CWP No. 9565 of 2019 (O & M): Shweta Sandhu and Ors
v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Anr. was filed on 05.04.2019
by other candidates with similar challenge to the said Clause 2B of the
prospectus. Besides this, similarly aggrieved candidates filed various
impleading applications in the said petitions. By way of its order dated
12.04.2019, the High Court allowed such applications and the applicants
were impleaded as respondent Nos. 13 to 22 to the said petitions.
10.1. The said writ petitions were tagged together and the High
Court, by its common order dated 23.04.2019, struck down the impugned
Clauses of the prospectus issued by the Medical College. The High
Court took note of the issue involved in the matter as follows:-
"The short question that has been posed before us is whether
the above extracted clause of the prospectus inasmuch as it
gives primacy and emphasis to a person's residence and
association with a city to grant a concession in merit, is in
direct conflict with the various decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court such as Dr. Pradeep Jain etc. etc. vs. Union
of India and others reported as 1984 AIR (SC) 1420 and
Saurabh Chaudri and others v. Union of India and others
reported as (2003) 11 SCC 146 , or not?"
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
793
10.2. The High Court reproduced some of the observations made
by this Court in the referred decisions including those in Dr. Pradeep
Jain and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.: (1984) 3 SCC 654 and
those occurring in paragraphs 29 to 32 of the Constitution Bench decision
in Saurabh Chaudri (supra) as also the fact that only the question of
institutional preference was decided in Dr. Chahat Bhatia (supra) and
the question of domicile/residence-based reservation was not gone into.
The High Court, thereafter, proceeded to consider the three stipulations
occurring in the impugned Clause 2B of the prospectus (as noticed
above) and disapproved the same while observing as under:-
"To test the rationale, we would pick up all the three
stipulations one by one.
If we look at stipulation (a) that a person ought to have
studied for 5 years in UT, Chandigarh at any point of time
prior to the last date of submission of the application then
it is capable of following two interpretations:
(i) That if a preference in this category is given it will increase
the reservation for institutional preference. One has to be
mindful of the fact that we are dealing with admission to Post
Graduate courses and if there is a student who has studied
5 years in UT, Chandigarh at any time prior to the last date
of submission of the application, it will certainly lean in
favour of those who have studied for their MBBS degree in
UT, Chandigarh. Since there is only one college in
Chandigarh, the benefit flowing from such a clause would
merge with that of the institutional preference, thereby
upsetting the balance provided by a 50% cap intended for
Institutional Preference. This clause is, therefore, fraught
with inherent dangers.
Second situation would be that a candidate might have
studied for 5 years in UT, Chandigarh at any time prior to
the last date of the submission of the application which would
also mean studying from Kindergarden to Class V or for any
other period for that purpose. This would hardly provide any
rationale to the logic of claiming a seat for a post graduate
course under the UT, Chandigarh pool.
DR. TANVI BEHL v. SHREY GOEL & ORS.
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
794
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
Similarly, clause (b) reads an entitlement for those whose
parents have resided in UT, Chandigarh for a period of 5
years at any point of time prior to the last date of submission
of the application either in pursuit of a profession or in
holding a job. This too does not offer any rationale to
convert it into a preference for the simple reason that a
person may have settled down in Chandigarh briefly for a
period of 5 years and then departed. The absurdity of this
stands out if we visualize a situation, of a person having come
to Chandigarh possibly at the time when it was coming up
in the 1950s and departed after spending 5 years only to
return after a lapse of more than 60 years and claim a
preference since he had spent 5 years in Chandigarh at some
time and fulfills the condition of being a resident of this town
"at any time prior to the last date of submission of the
application."
Likewise, clause (c ) also offers a similarly absurd situation
of there being a case where a person has invested in
property, may be at any point of time but choosing to give it
up, and yet fulfilling the clause of owning a property for a
period of 5 years at any time prior to the last of submission
of the application."
10.3. Thereafter, the High Court, with reference to the aforesaid
decisions in Saurabh Chaudri's case and Dr. Pradeep Jain's case,
observed that there existed no nexus of the impugned stipulations with
the object sought to be achieved i.e., making reservations on the basis
of residence; and such a reservation has to be objected to, for admission
to the PG Medical Courses should be only on the basis of merit. The
High Court held and concluded as under:-
"We would, therefore, conclude that in the matters of
admission to Post Graduate courses such a reservation/
preference which has its foundations in a long discarded
principle i.e. domicile would be unsustainable. Besides, all
the clauses that have been introduced in the brochure and
discussed to describe a candidate with background of
Chandigarh would be unsustainable in law as they have no
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
795
rationale to the objects sought to be achieved even if we
have to assume that such a preference was permissible in law.
We, therefore, strike down clause 2 (a), (b) and (c) of UT,
Chandigarh Pool as being invalid and unsustainable in law.
All admissions made by placing reliance on the above would
as a logical corollary be also unsustainable. The only course
available to the college is to fill up the seats through merit
position obtained by candidates in NEET examinations."
The submissions:
11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants have made
more or less similar nature submissions in support of their challenge to
the order impugned that have been countered by the learned counsel
appearing for the contesting respondents. The learned counsel appearing
for the Medical Council of India has also made elaborate submissions
as regards the scheme of examination and the admissions in question
as also in response to various queries of this Court. We may briefly
take note of the varying submissions and contentions so urged.
11.1. The substance of submissions on behalf of the private
appellants, the candidates who had secured admission in the respective
branches of PG Medical Courses in the said Medical College, has been
that the High Court has erroneously held the domicile/residence-based
reservation to be impermissible for admission to the PG Medical
Courses. The learned counsel appearing for the respective appellants
have argued that even when a three-Judge Bench of this Court in the
case of Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra) expressed its disapproval of domicile/
residence-based reservation for admission to PG Medical Courses, the
Constitution Bench of this Court in Saurabh Chaudri (supra) has not
disapproved such domicile/residence-based reservation. The learned
counsel have particularly referred to paragraphs 29 to 32 of the decision
in Saurabh Chaudri (supra) in support of their contentions and have
also urged that in paragraphs 38 to 70 in Saurabh Chaudri's case,
the Constitution Bench has only considered the constitutional validity
of institutional preference and in that context, the law laid down in Dr.
Pradeep Jain was upheld but the said decision in Saurabh Chaudri
cannot be relied upon for disapproval of domicile/residence-based
preference for admission to the PG Medical Courses; and there is no
DR. TANVI BEHL v. SHREY GOEL & ORS.
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
796
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
constitutional bar over providing such a preference. It has further been
contended that the criteria as laid down by UT Chandigarh and its
Medical College cannot be said to be offending the principle of equality;
and the High Court has seriously erred in treating the same to be
arbitrary and unlawful. It has also been contended on behalf of these
appellants that in any case, the High Court could not have set aside
the admissions that had been made for the academic year 2019-20,
particularly when counselling of the candidates had been completed and
in fact, there was no specific prayer for setting aside the admissions
already given. In the alternative part of submissions, it has also been
contended in the appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 1141 of 2019
that this aspect of reservation on the basis of domicile/residence for
admission to PG Medical Courses is required to be reconsidered and
decided by a Larger Bench of this Court.
11.2. On behalf of the other appellants-UT Chandigarh and the
Medical College, the learned senior counsel has also extensively referred
to various decisions of this Court as also the decision of the High Court
in Dr. Chahat Bhatia (supra) and has submitted that until the academic
year 2018-2019, these appellants were filling up the total number of
Post-graduate seats available in the UT by dividing them in two parts:
50% of the total number of seats for All India Quota and remaining
50% by way of institutional preference from amongst the students who
had passed out from the appellant-Medical College. However, this
process was challenged and the High Court, in its decision in Dr.
Chahat Bhatia (supra) ruled that institutional preference would remain
restricted to 50% of the State Quota seats7. According to the learned
counsel, in the wake of the decision in Dr. Chahat Bhatia and the fact
that UT Chandigarh has only one medical college, the position obtainable
had been that the UT Administration could have kept only 32 seats (50%
of 64 number of State Quota seats) reserved to be filled up by way of
institutional preference. In this scenario, according to the learned counsel,
provision was required to be made for the remaining 50% of State Quota
seats allotted to UT Chandigarh and for this purpose, the UT had to
identify such students by providing some criteria. Thus, according to
the learned counsel, such criteria for filling up the remaining State Quota
7 This would effectively mean 25% of total open seats being allowed for institution
preference - being 50% of the 50% State Quota seats.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
797
seats came to be reflected in Clause 2B of the prospectus; and the
criteria so provided by the appellants are neither invalid nor suffer from
any illegality, so as to be struck down.
11.2.1. The learned senior counsel has further referred to the
fact that in the scheme of examination and admission to the PG Medical
Courses, the State Quota seats are to be filled up by the respective
States by following their respective qualifying criteria and guidelines;
and has referred to Clauses 13.2 and 14.9 of the Information Bulletin
issued by the National Board of Examination that conducts the National
Eligibility-Cum-Entrance Test.8 Thus, according to the learned counsel,
domicile/residence-based preference for State Quota seats is recognised
by the National Board of Examination too. The learned counsel has
reiterated the submission that in Saurabh Chaudri's case, the
Constitution Bench has not ruled against the domicile/residence-based
reservation for admission to the PG Medical Courses.
11.2.2. The learned counsel has also referred to the provisions
made by various other States and Union Territories for the purpose of
filling up the State Quota seats; and has pointed out that not only the
UT Chandigarh but several other States and Union Territories have
8 The said clauses read as under:-
13.2 For States/Union Territories - 50% State Quota Seats and Private Medical
Colleges/Institutes/Universities/Deemed Universities:
a) Reservation policy and guidelines applicable in different States/Union
Territories of India will be followed for the respective State/Union territory
quota seats.
b) NBE shall be providing only the data of candidates and the marks scored
by them in NEET-PG to the State Governments/Counselling Authority without
applying the reservation prevalent in the concerned States/Private Medical
Colleges/Institutes/Universities. The merit list and category wise merit list
for the concerned State shall be generated by the State themselves as per the
applicable Regulations, qualifying criteria, applicable guidelines and reservation
policies.
Clause 14.9: RESULT FOR STATE QUOTA SEAT:
e) Candidates must verify from the respective State Government/UTs if at all
they will be considered for admission to State Quota Post Graduate seats/
Institute Pool based on applicable Regulation and/or domicile criteria,
State/Institute of Graduation, reservation policy etc. Merely appearing/
passing in NEET-PG 2019 does not make a candidate qualified and/or eligible
for State Quota Seats/admission to Private Universities & Institutes.
{emphasis supplied)
DR. TANVI BEHL v. SHREY GOEL & ORS.
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
798
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 14 S.C.R.
9 The summary of procedure followed for PG Admissions in different States/UTs, as
placed before us by the counsel for the appellants makes out that in all such
admissions, 50% seats are provided for All India Quota but as regards 50% of State
Quota seats, different provisions have been made by different States/Union Territories.
These aspects are duly corroborated in the summary of such admission processes in
different States/UTs, as placed before us by the learned counsel for the Medical Council
of India. The provisions in relation to some of the States/UTs are stated as under:-
made similar provisions on domicile/residence-based preference for
filling up such 50% State Quota seats in PG Medical Courses.9
State
Reservations
HARYANA 2019
-STATE 50% Quota

20% -Institutional preference.

5% of annual sanctioned intake CAPACITY -Persons with Disabilities.

Open Merit* (left over seats)
Eligibility Criteria:
-Passed MBBS/BDS from any recognised Medical Institution in Haryana as a
resident of Haryana.
- Passed MBBS/BDS from any recognised Medical Institution in India who's
Parents produce a Haryana Resident Certificate.
PUNJAB 2018
STATE 50% Quota through Baba Farid University Of Health Science (BFUHS)

50% -Institutional Preference
ANDHRA PRADESH
2019-2020
-STATE 50% Quota

85% seats in favour of Local Candidates in relation to local areas.

15% seats for residents of 10 yrs/parents employed in Govt. jobs in State/
if spouses of candidates are in Govt. jobs in the state/employed in quasipublic institutions.
-50% of seats in Private Institutions are under competent authority.
MAHARASHTRA
2019
-STATE 50% QUOTA
- Domicile candidates of State who have got admission to MBBS through 15% AIQ
can apply for admission state quota seats.
-50% of seats in Private Institutions are under State CET cell quota/rest 50% are
through institutional preference.
BIHAR 2018
-STATE 50% Quota
- Domicile candidates of State who have got admission to MBBS through exam
conducted by AIQ/ Govt.