Gulshan Prakash and ors. vs. State of Haryana and ors

INTRODUCTION

The Indian Constitution establishes a system in which citizens’ rights are wisely protected, and the states have been vested with specific responsibility to ensure some of the rights through legislative enactments and regulations that meet the needs of all categories of persons equally. However, it must not be used as a tool to undermine the system, particularly when it comes to reservations. The following is an example of a scenario in which the authority to supply or not provide the reservation has been repeated to be solely in the hands of the state, and they shall decide accordingly.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The State of Haryana directed Maharshi Dayanand University (‘MDU’ in short) Rohtak to conduct and publish the entrance examination for admission to the MD/MS/PG Diploma and MDS Courses in Government Medical and Dental Colleges in the State of Haryana for the 2008-2009 academic year. The State of Haryana further directed Pt. B.D. Sharma PGIMS, Rohtak to conduct counselling and finalise admission to the aforementioned courses via the same notification. In response to the aforementioned announcement, MDU, Rohtak prepared a prospectus for the 2008-2009 MD/MS/PG Diploma and MDS Courses in Government Medical and Dental Colleges in the State of Haryana.

On December 15, 2007, the appellants made a representation to the Commissioner and Health Secretary, Ministry of Health and Medical Education, Government of Haryana, Panchkula, requesting that the State Government implement SC/ST reservation in Post-Graduate Courses (MD/MS/MDS/Diploma) PGIMS in accordance with the guidelines issued by the State Government on March 19, 1999. Because there was no response, the appellants filed a writ case in the High Court seeking a quashing of the prospectus, which was denied. As a result, the appellants have requested special leave to file their appeal.

ISSUE RAISED

• Is it possible to file a writ suit before the Supreme Court of India to direct the state government involved to execute the SC/ST reservation as per Articles 15 and 16 of the Indian Constitution?
• Can the court impose a minimum qualifying mark for candidates in the reserved category, particularly for post-graduate medical education?

CONTENTIONS OF APPELANT

According to the Appellants, the Maharshi University offered reservations in P.G. Medical courses in accordance with its announcement in the year 2000, and similarly, numerous medical schools in Haryana, including AIIMS, issued reservations in Post Graduate MBBS courses in the state of Haryana. Appellants noted the reservation offered by the University of Delhi and a few other medical institutes, in addition to Haryana.

They also relied on seven-judge bench decisions in the N.M. Thomas case, where there was no mention of reservations for S.C./STs in medical courses, particularly P.G. Medical courses, and whether they force the state to offer them or not.

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT

The responding state has made three key and compelling arguments. For starters, they claimed that the state of Haryana, in particular, had already extended quota to some backward classes. Second, they pointed out that article 15(4) is only an enabling provision that does not require governments to grant quota for postgraduate candidates from Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes, and Other Backward Classes. In such a case, the state argued vehemently that the state should not be forced to establish reservations for such a group of people through a writ petition of Mandamus.

JUDGEMENT

Concerning the first point, the Supreme Court reaffirmed previous rulings on the topic of article 15(4). It stated as follows:

To begin, it noted that there are no flaws in the state governments’ decision to not provide the reservation. It was said that when assessing the requirement under Article 15(4), it is crucial to recognise that the State government should be the best judge to give quota for Scheduled castes, Scheduled tribes, and OBCs as well.

It accepted the respondent’s claim that article 15(4) is just an enabling provision for the states and shall make any judgement in this regard. Just because a state has offered reservations at the undergraduate level does not imply that it should do so at the graduate level as well.

Thus, the court upheld the state of Haryana’s contentions by firmly deciding not to create a reservation, and such a decision shall never be called into question on the basis of issuing of a Writ of Mandamus. The court also implied that the state is allowed to reconsider its position if necessary, in the future.

Second, on the issue of determining the minimum qualifying marks for Scheduled Castes and Tribes, the court cited the Preeti Srivastava case, stating that there should be no unreasonable disparity between the marks determined for general category candidates and the marks lowered for reserved category candidates.

It approaches arbitrariness in such circumstances, and the Medical Council of India must interfere because the assigning of marks is connected to the certification of such professional studies. The court concluded by declaring that establishing percentages of 45 and 20 for the general and reserved categories, respectively, is inconsistent and unjustified in the public interest.

CONCLUSION

The court’s rationale above assures that reservation does not undermine meritocracy, particularly in educational subjects. Any arbitrariness in such matters would diminish the meritorious essence of such schooling. States should thoroughly assess the circumstances and make appropriate decisions (whether to give reservations or not) to promote social fairness.

REFERENCE

1. https://indiankanoon.org
2. https://www.barelaw.in/case 

written by bhoomi sharma student at Lloyd law college, legal intern at legal vidhiya. 

Admin