Case Name: DR. TANVI BEHL VS. SHREY GOEL & Ors.
Case Number: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9289 OF 2019 with civil appeal no. 9290 & 9291 of 2019 With WRIT PETITION NO. 1183 OF 2020 .
Date: January 29 ,2025
Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Hon’ble Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Hon’ble justice S.V.N. Bhatti
FACTS OF THE CASE
This case was related to the constitutional validity of residence based reservation in PG medical courses within the state quota in the U.T of Chhattisgarh . where the Govt. Medical college has 64 PG medical seats under the state quota and the seats were distributed in the following manners .
- Institutional Preference pool (IP) : 32 seats were reserved for the candidates who completed their MBBS from the same institution.
- UT Chandigarh pool : 32 seats were reserved for the candidates who would have fulfilled the residence based criteria like those who were studying in Chandigarh for 5 years , whose parents were residing for the 5 years , Holding Immovable property in Chandigarh for 5 years .
The petitions were filed before the Punjab and Haryana High court where the residence based reservation was challenged , arguing that it violated the Article 14 of the constitution of India . The High court gave the judgement that such reservation is unconstitutional and also gave the direction that such reservation was solely based upon the merit of NEET. And the decisions of the High court were challenged before the Supreme court.
ISSUE OF THE CASE
- Whether the residence based reservation were constitutionally valid in the PG Medical colleges and is permissible under the Constitution of India ?
- If residence based reservation is permissible , what should be the extent and manner of such reservation?
- If the residence based reservation is Impermissible , how could the state quota seats be filled?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Article 14 of The Constitution of India : Right to Equality
- Article 15 of The Constitution of India : Prohibition of Discrimination based upon Religion , Race, Caste, Sex , Place of Birth .
- Article 16 of The Constitution of India : Prohibition of Discrimination in public employment on the Grounds of Religion , Race , Place of birth, Caste, Sex, Decent, or Residence.
ARGUMENTS
Arguments of the Appellant ( Dr.Tanvi Behl & others ) :
The residence based reservation in PG Medical colleges is constitutionally valid and it considers the local needs and state investments into the Medical Colleges and it doesn’t violate the Article 14 of the constitution of India. And the decision of the High Court is erroneous and the striking down of the reservation is violative because the state based reservation is for the promotion of the local talents of the state.
Arguments of the Respondent (Shrey Goel & ors.):
The Residence based reservation in the PG Medical college is unconstitutional and it violates the Article 14 of the constitution of India . Because it creates an unjust classification between resident and Non resident and is not permissible at the PG level and merit should solely be a sole criteria .High Court relied upon the previous precedent decided in the previous cases.
ANALYSIS
The court analyzed the three judge bench decision and stated that the residence based reservation in PG medical college is Impermissible as it violates the Article 14 of the constitution of India , and also stated that the Merit based reservation is the sole criteria for Admission ,and also stated that the institutional preference is permissible to the limited extent but the residence based reservation is not because it creates a unjust classification between the Non – Residents.
JUDGMENT
The court after analyzing all the matters and after hearing both the parties and the judgement of the High Court held that the Residence Based reservation in the PG Medical courses is constitutionally impermissible and also violates the Article 14 of the constitution of India. And the State Quota seats must be filled on the merit basis and the reservation is only given on the basis of Institutional preference . and also stated that the judgement will not affect the students who have already taken admission in the college.
CONCLUSION
This judgment held that the reservation based upon the residential basis is unconstitutional and it violates the article 14 of the constitution of India and also stated that the reservation should be based upon the merit basis and a reasonable number of seats shall be reserved upon the Institutional preference . This judgement ensures that the quality of education and intellect must not be compromised .
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY PRINCE KUMAR
