NDLI: Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association & Ors Vs. Union of India & Others

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Medical Council of India Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7 Referred Case 8 Referred Case 9 Referred Case 10 Referred Case 11 Referred Case 12 Referred Case 13 Referred Case 14 Referred Case 15 Referred Case 16 Referred Case 17 Referred Case 18 Referred Case 19 Referred Case 20 Referred Case 21 Referred Case 22
Case Type	Writ Petition
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Case Disposed Off
Headnote	Medical Council of India Post Graduate Medical EducationRegulations, 2000:Regulations 9(IV) and (VII) (as it stood prior to 5 th April2018) and 9(4) and (8) (as it stood after amendment dated 5 th April2018) – Whether take away the power of State Governments toreserve seats in Post-Graduate Medical degree courses for in-service medical professionals – Held: Per Shah, J. – In exerciseof power under Entry 25 of List III of Seventh Schedule to theConstitution, State has power with respect to reservation/ percentageof reservation and/ or mode of admission within State quota –Scope of Entry 66 of List I to Seventh Schedule is limited toprescribe the standard of education – The source of power toMedical Council of India (MCI) to frame Regulations is from s.2.33 of MCI Act which is emanating from Entry 66 of List I –Regulation 9(IV) is limited to reservation in favour of SC/ ST/ OBC– Therefore, Regulation 9(IV) cannot be said to be taking awaypower of States under Entry 25, List III, to provide separate sourceof entry for in-service candidates – There is legitimate rationalbasis in providing a separate source of entry to in-servicecandidates – Such act of the State is in discharge of itsconstitutional obligation provided u/Art. 47 which is correspondingfundamental right u/Art. 21 of the Constitution – ThereforeRegulation 9, to the extent it tinkers with the reservation providedby State to in-service doctors, is ultra vires on the ground that it isarbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Arts. 14 and 21 ofConstitution – However, the doctors who would obtain admissionthrough such separate channel, need to serve the State in rural,tribal and hilly areas at least for five years after obtaining thedegree – Per Bose, J. – Allocation of seats for in-service candidatesis only a separate or exclusive source of admission which cannotbe equated with reservation provisions incorporated ascompensatory discrimination – The field of legislation in questionis shared field between Union and the State – In such caselegislative disability of the States would occur only when the Unionlegislation covers the same subject on which State undertakeslegislative exercise and the State legislative instrument is found tobe repugnant – Such repugnancy has to be direct and positive –There cannot be implied repugnancy – If certain area of legislativeentry is left void by Union, this void can be filled by the Statelegislature – The Regulations in question, though a self-containedcode are not an exhaustive code covering all the aspects ofadmission in post-graduate medical degree courses – The provisionfor reservation in clause 9(4) for in-service doctors by the Statefrom State-wise merit list, cannot be interpreted to mean that theState is denuded of its power to make separate channel ofadmission – There is no bar on the State Authorities to provide forsuch reservation – Therefore, such reservation provided by the Statewould not be contrary to the Regulations – The doctors inemployment form a separate and distinct class and hence can begiven certain element of preference – But to take benefit of suchseparate entry channel, the aspiring in-service doctors must clearNEET Examination with minimum prescribed marks – In order toavail the separate source of entry, the State should make a minimumservice in rural, remote or difficult areas for a specified periodbefore seeking admission and subsequent to obtaining the degree– Constitution of India – Arts. 14, 21, 47, 245, Schedule VII,List I, Entry 66, List III, Entry 25.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah
Neutral Citation	2018 INSC 332
Petitioner	Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association & Ors
Respondent	Union Of India & Others
SCR	[2020] 8 S.C.R. 583
Judgement Date	2020-08-31
Case Number	196

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association & Ors Vs. Union of India & Others

Please Log-in to view this content

Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Tamil Nadu Medical Officers’ Association & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Pallavi Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Dr. Jeevak Almast Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Ashish Ranjan & Ors. Vs. Union of India and Others

State of U.p. & Ors. Vs. Dr. Dinesh Singh Chauhan

Deepa Thomas & Ors. Vs. Medical Council of India & Ors.

Disha Panchal and Others Vs. Union of India The Secretary and Others

Ombir Singh and Others Etc. Etc. Vs. State of U.p. and Another Etc. Etc.

Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association & Ors Vs. Union of India & Others

Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association & Ors Vs. Union of India & Others

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Tamil Nadu Medical Officers’ Association & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Pallavi Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Dr. Jeevak Almast Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Ashish Ranjan & Ors. Vs. Union of India and Others

State of U.p. & Ors. Vs. Dr. Dinesh Singh Chauhan

Deepa Thomas & Ors. Vs. Medical Council of India & Ors.

Disha Panchal and Others Vs. Union of India The Secretary and Others

Ombir Singh and Others Etc. Etc. Vs. State of U.p. and Another Etc. Etc.

Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association & Ors Vs. Union of India & Others