Dr. N KARTIKEYAN V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

DATE OF JUDGMENT	16st MARCH, 2022
COURT	SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
APPELLANT	DR. N KARTIKEYAN AND ORS.
RESPONDENT	STATE OF TAMIL NADU
BENCH	L. NAGESWARA RAO; B.R. GAVAI, JJ.

INTRODUCTION

• APPELLANTS – DR. N. KARTHIKEYAN AND ORS.

                                  VERSUS

• RESPONDENTS- THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS

Dr. N. Karthikeyan and Ors. challenged a Tamil Nadu Government Order (G.O.) that reserved 50% of Super Specialty (DM/M.Ch.) seats in Government Medical Colleges for in-service physicians. The petitioners contested the legality of this reservation, but state officials and practicing physicians upheld it, pointing to the state’s legislative authority. The question in the case was whether this reservation complied with previous court rulings and constitutional provisions. The court’s ruling set a precedent regarding the power of states to hold seats for in-service candidates in specialized medical courses and had a substantial impact on the medical education policies of Tamil Nadu’s Government Medical Colleges.

FACTS

In this case,

• On November 7, 2020, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued a Government Order (G.O.) reserving 50% of Super Specialty (DM/M.Ch.) seats in Government Medical Colleges for in-service physicians. The purpose of this reservation was to serve medical professionals who were already employed by the state.
• The validity of this order was challenged by Dr. N. Kartikeyan and others in the court contending that the order was unlawful and not permissible under law.
• However, this contention of the appellants was rejected by the respondents stating the legislative competence of the state to provide the reservation.
• Basically, this case revolved around the legality of the reservation of seats in super specialty courses in Tamil Nadu’s Government Medical Colleges for in-service candidates.

ISSUES RAISED 

1. Whether the state could hold seats for in-service physicians in Super Specialty courses?
2. Whether rulings on reservations in medical courses from the past applied to Super Specialty courses?

CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANTS

1. The main contention of the appellants was that the order violated the legal precedents laid down in the case of Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India (the reservation cannot exceed 50%) and the case of Dr. Preeti Srivastava vs. State of M.P.
2. The appellants argued that the Medical Council of India’s regulation should take precedence over the state’s Government Order (G.O.) in accordance with Item 66 of List I in the Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution. They emphasized that, given the requirements in NEET bulletins and previous rulings, the state was not authorized to make reservations for Super Specialty courses.
3. They argued that admission to Super Specialty courses should be determined only by merit, emphasizing the meritocracy principle.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENTS

The respondents, representing the State of Tamil Nadu and in-service doctors, presented the following contentions:

1. They contended that the State had the legislative authority to make reservations for in-service applicants wishing to enroll in postgraduate medical programs or diploma programs. They emphasized that the State had the right to create a separate channel or reservation for in-service candidates, citing the Constitution Bench ruling in the Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association v. Union of India case.
2. The respondents emphasized the need for in-service reservations in order to cover faculty positions that become vacant in Super Specialty courses. They stressed that there was a chance of significant openings in teaching positions in the absence of these reservations. The reservation policy addressed the scarcity of faculty in specialized medical fields by requiring in-service physicians to work for the State Government until superannuation.

JUDGEMENT 

The Court deliberated between Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association v. Union of India and Dr. Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P., grappling with conflicting precedents. The Court declined to extend interim protection against reservations for in-service candidates in Super Specialty courses for the academic year 2021–2022, citing prima facie evidence in favor of the latter, which upheld the State’s authority for in-service candidate reservations in postgraduate courses. With a focus on following precedent and upholding judicial discipline, the Court granted the State permission to carry out the reservation policy, deeming it enforceable for future admissions and applying the ruling prospectively so as not to impact previous admissions.

ANALYSIS

The case highlighted a disagreement between two rulings from the Constitution Bench about in-service training for medical candidates. One ruling supported admissions on the basis of merit, while the other maintained the State’s right to make reservations. With an inclination toward the latter ruling, the Court declined to grant temporary safeguards, permitting the State to establish in-service candidate reservations in Super Specialty courses beginning in the 2021–2022 academic year. This decision clarified its prospective application without affecting earlier admissions, underscoring the significance of upholding judicial discipline and precedential law.

CONCLUSION 

To sum up, the Court’s ruling in this case highlighted the importance of judicial discipline and precedent in resolving the disagreement between two important Constitution Bench rulings. One ruling emphasized admissions on the basis of merit, while the other maintained the State’s right to hold seats in postgraduate medical courses for candidates who are currently employed. Following a preliminary examination, the Court decided to support the latter position and declined to grant temporary safeguards against these reservations for the 2021–2022 academic year. This decision essentially upheld the State’s reservation policy and was consistent with the Constitution Bench’s ruling on in-service candidate quotas. The judgment was crucial in that it directed future admissions while making sure that prior admissions that were made in accordance with different guidelines were not disrupted or rendered invalid. This decision established a crucial precedent that emphasized the significance of adhering to court decisions that uphold the States’ authority in determining admissions policies for in-service candidates in medical courses.

REFERENCES

1. NEET-SS| States Can Provide In-Service Quota In Super Speciality Medical Courses : Supreme Court’s (livelaw.in)
2. N. Karthikeyan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 March, 2022 (indiankanoon.org)

Written by Vimla Choudhary an intern under legal vidhiya

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.