TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Upholds Lower Marks for SC/ST in Medical Colleges</h1> <h3>State Of M.P. And Anr Versus Nivedita Jain And Ors</h3> State Of M.P. And Anr Versus Nivedita Jain And Ors - 1981 AIR 2045, 1982 SCR (1) 759, 1981 SCC (4) 296, 1981 SCALE (3) 1512 Issues Involved:1. Validity of the executive order dated 9th September, 1980.2. Contravention of Regulation II of the Medical Council of India.3. Violation of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.4. Violation of Ordinance 54 of the University of Jabalpur.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Executive Order Dated 9th September, 1980:The executive order dated 9th September, 1980, by the State Government relaxed the conditions relating to the minimum qualifying marks for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) candidates for admission to medical colleges. The High Court struck down this order, holding that it violated Regulation II of the Medical Council of India, which prescribes the criteria for the selection of students to medical colleges based on merit. The Supreme Court, however, found that Regulation II is directory and not mandatory, thus the State Government's order was within its rights under Article 162 of the Constitution, which allows the executive power of a State to extend to matters within the legislative competence of the State.2. Contravention of Regulation II of the Medical Council of India:The High Court held that the executive order violated Regulation II of the Medical Council, which has statutory force. The Supreme Court, however, analyzed the Indian Medical Council Act and the Regulations framed under it, concluding that Regulation II is merely a recommendation and not mandatory. The Court emphasized that Regulation I, which prescribes eligibility for admission, is mandatory, but Regulation II, dealing with the selection process, is directory. Therefore, the State Government's executive order did not contravene any mandatory provisions of the Medical Council.3. Violation of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution:The High Court found that the order violated Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, which ensure equality before the law and prohibit discrimination. The Supreme Court, however, held that the order could be supported under Article 15(4), which allows the State to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes or for SC and ST. The Court reasoned that the relaxation of qualifying marks was aimed at making the reservation effective and benefiting the candidates from these categories, thus it did not violate Articles 14 and 15.4. Violation of Ordinance 54 of the University of Jabalpur:The High Court considered the argument that the executive order violated Ordinance 54 of the University of Jabalpur but did not come to a definite finding. The Supreme Court noted that this ground was not taken in the writ petition and, based on the affidavit from the University stating that Ordinance 54 had not been adhered to, concluded that the respondent could not rely on this alleged contravention.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and dismissing the writ petition. The Court directed that Nivedita Jain, who had already been admitted to the Medical College based on an interim order, should be allowed to continue her studies, as she was otherwise a qualified candidate and eligible for admission into the medical course. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 