DR. PRADEEP JAIN ETC. v. . UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .. ETC.

'requires such assistance, it-cannot be said that the object A to be achieved has on relation to the classification made , by giving larger representation to the Andlira region. • The increase in the Telangana quota is consistent with and promotes and advances the object underlying the establishment of the institution.~' .. B J We are however not' concerned here ·with a case of reservation or preference .for persons fro]]} a backward region within a State and we need not therefore dwell any longer upon it. - It will be noticed from the above discussion that though intra-state discrimination between persons resident in different c districts or regions of a State has by an large been frowned upon by the court and struck down as invalid as in Minor P. Rajendran's . ") case. (supra) and Perukaruppan's case (supra), the Court has m. '. /J.N. Chanchal/a's case al\d other similar cases up-held institutional reservation effected through university wise distribution of seats for admission to medical colleges. The Court has also by its decisions in D.P. Joshi's case and N. Vasundhara's case (supra) sustained the consitutional validity· of reservation based on resi- dence within a State for the purpose of admis~ion to medical. college.· These decisions which all relate to admission to MBBS course are binding upon us and it is therefore not possible for usto hold, in the. face of these decisions; that residenc~ requirement in at State for admission to MBBS course is irrational and irrelevan and cannot be introduced as a condition for admission without violating the mandate of equality of opportunity cont11ined in Article 14. We must proceed on the basis that at least so far as admission to MBBS course is concerned, residence requirement in a Sta\e can be introduced as a condition for admission to the MBBS course. It is of course true .that the Medical Education Review Comµi.ittee established by the. Government of India ha~ in its reriort recommended after taking into .account all relevant cotlsiderations, that the "final objective should be to ensure that · all admissions to the MBBS course slrould be open to candidates G I . on an All India basis without the imposition of existing domici- lary condition", but having regard t~ the practical difficulties .of transition to the ·stage where admissions to MBBS course in all m~clical colleges would be on All India Basis, the medical Edu- cation ,Review Committee has suggested "that to begin with not H less than 25 per cent se~ts .in each institution m·ay be open to candidates on all India basis." We are not all sure whether at

"'· . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 3s.c.iL the present stage it 'w~uld be consistent with the mandate of equality in its broader dynamic sense to provide.that admissions to • . the MBBS course in all medical colleges in the country should. be on all India. basis. Theoretically, of course, if admissions are given . on the ba_sis of all india national entrance examination, each indi•idual woµld have equal opportunity of securing admission,' B but that would not take· into account diverse consideration, such as, differing level of social, economic and educational development of different - regions, disp~rty in the number of seats available for admission to the MBBS co.urse in· different States, dffliculties which may be experienced by students. from one region who might in the competition on all India basis.get admission to the MBBS course in another region far remote from their own and other allied . factors. There can be no doubt that_ the policy of ensuring ad.missions to the MBB' co•irse 01 all fnlia b·His i; a highly desirable policy, based as it is on _the p)stulatdh1\ ·India is on; nation1l and every

' citizen of India is entitled to lnve equ1l opportunity for education · and advancement, but it is an ideal to be . aimed at and it may not be ~ealistically .possible, in the present circumstances, to adopt it, - for· it cannot prujuce real equality of opportunity unless there> is · complete absence of disp1rlties and inequalities a situation .which simply does not exist in th~ country today. There are massive social and e~onomic dis;nrities ~1:1 inqualities not only between State E aqd State but also between region and region wi'thin a state and even between citizens . and citizens within thB- same region. There _is a yawning •gap between the rich and the poor and there, are •so many disabilities and injustices from which the poor suffer as a. class, that they cannot avail themselves of .any opportunities which may in law be open to them.· They do not ·F have the social and material resources to take advantage of these opportunities whicb. remain merely on paper recognised by law but non-existent in fact. · • Students from backward States or regions will hardly b• able 'Q ·to compete -with those from advanced States or regions because, though possessing an intelligent mirid, they would have liad no adequate opportunities for development so as to be in a position to compete with otfiers. · .So also students belonging to - the. weaker sections who have not, by rea_son of their socially or · economically disadvantaged position, peen able to secure education· · in good schools would be at a disadvantage compared to students

.. • PRADEEP JAIN v. UNIO)'I (Bhagwati, J.) 9si belonging to the aflluent or well-·to-cio fa~ilies who have had the best of school education and in open All India Competition, they would be likely to be worsted. There would .also be a number of· , students who,. if they do not get admission in a medical college near their residence; and are· assigned admission in a far . off college in another State as a result of open All India competition, may not B be ~ble to go to such other college on account of lack of resources and facilities and in the result, they would be effec'tively deprived of a real opportunity for pursing the medical course even though on paper .they would have got admission in a medical colle.ge. It would be tantamount to telling· these· students that they are given an. opportunity. of ·taking up the medical course, but if they c cannot afford it by reason of the medical college to which they are admitte.d being far away in another State, it is their bad luck : the State cannot help it; because the State has done all that it could, namely, provide equal opportunity to all for medical education. But the question is whether the opportunity provided_ is real or illusory? We are therefore of ·the view that a ·certain D percentage of reservation. on the basis offesidence requirement may legitimately be made i.n order to ~qualise opportunities for medical admission on a broader basis and to bring about real and not formal, actual and not merely legal, equality. The percentage of reservation m.ade on this count may also include institutional E r~serva1ion for students passing the PUC or pre-medical exami- nation of.the same university or clearing the qualifying examination from the school system of the educational hinterland of the medical colleges in th~ State and for this purpose, th ere should be ~o . distinction between schools affiliated to State Board and schools affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education, Jt would . F be constitutionally, permissible to provide, as an interim measure . until we· reach the stage when we can consistently 'with the broad mandate of the rule of equality in .th& larger sense ; ensure admis- sions to th.e M.B.B.S, course on the basis of national entrance exa.mination an .ideal which· we must increasingly strive to reacl;. for· reservation of a certain percentage of seats in· the medical G colleges for students satisfying a prescribed residence requirement as also for students who have passed .P.U.C. or pre-medical examination or any other qualifying examiqatlon held by the university or the State and for this purpose it should make no difference whether the qulifying examination is conducted by the State Board . or by the Central Board of Secondary Education; H because no discfimination can be made ·between schools affiliated

• ~. . . .SUPREME COURT REPORTS. . [1984] 3s.p.R.·

·" can be made between -school$ affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education. We may point out that at the qlose of the · arguments we asl1ed the learned Attorn:ey Ge~ral to inform the court as to what was the stand of the Government ol India i!l the matter of sue& reservation and· the learned Attorney General in response to' the inquiry made by the Court filed a B' policy statement wliich contained the following formulation of the policy of tb.e Government of India : ~·-1

• ~·central Government is generally opposed to the principle of reservation based on domicile or residence c for admission to institution or' higher edJcation, whether · professional or otherwise. In. view of the territorially articulated nature of the syste~ of inatitutions of higher learning including institutions of professional eduation, ""'·- there is no objection, however, to stipulating reservation or preference for a reasonable quantum in under· graduate courses for students hailing from the school system vf educational .hinterland of the institutions. For this purpose, there should be no distinction between schools affiliated to State BoarJ and schools affiliated to CBSC.'? ' We are glad to find that the policy of the Govern.neut of India in the matter" of reservatkn bas~ .on residence· requirement and institutional preference accords with the view taken by us in that behalf. We may p~ititout that even if at some stage it ,. is decided to regulate admissions to the M.B.B.S. course on the . basis of All India .Entrance Examination, some provision would have to be made fur allo;;ation of seats amongst the sele.cted F candidatl's on the basis 'of residence or ins.titutional affiliation· so as to take into account the afore-mentioned factors;

. The only question which rem~ins to be considered is as to what· should be the extent of reservation based on residence · requir~llient and ins~itutional preference. There can be no doubt that such reservation cannqt completely exclude admission of • . students from other universities and States on the b~sis of merit judged in open .competition. Krishna fyer, J;- rightly remarked in Jagdish Saran's qase (supra) at page 845 and· 846 of the ·Report: .H ) ~'Reservation . . must be kept in check by the ·demands

\ PRADEEP JAIN v. UNION (Bhagwati, J.) 983

of competence. You cannot extend the shelter of. reservation where minimum qualifications are absent, .. Similarly~ all the best talent cannot be completely exclud.ed by ,wholesale reservation. So a certain per· centage which may be av.ailable, must be kept open for !Jleritorious performance regardless of uqivernity, State and the like. Complete &xclusion of the rest of the country for the sake of a province, wholesale ba~!shment of proven abi)ity to open up, hopefully, some dali~ talent, total sacrifice of excellence at the alter <lf. equalisation- when the Constitution mandates for every one equality before and equal protection of the law-may. be fatal C· folly, selfdefeating educational technology and anti- natic;mal if made a routine rule of State policy. A fair preference, a reasonable reservation, a just · ailjust- ment of the prior needs and real potential of the weak with the. partial recognition of the presence of compe· titive merit.,,;,such is the dynamics of social justice which animates the three eg~litarian articles of the Cons· titution."

. We agree wholly with these observations made by the learned. Judge and we unreservedly condemn wholesale ;eservation mad~· by some of the State G9vernme~ts 'on the basis of 'domicile' or .reside.nee requirment within the State or· on the basis of ins(i· tutional preference for students who have passed the qualifying examination held by the university or the State excluding all students not satisfying this requirement, regardless of merit. We declare such wholesale reservation to be unconstitutienal and void as being in violation of Article 14 ofthe Constitution.

But, then to what extent can reservation based on residence requirement within the State or on. institutional preference for Q - students iiassing the qualifying examination held by the university or the state be regarded as constitutionally permissible? It is not possible to provide a categorical answer to this question for, ·as pointed out by the policy statement of Government of India, the extent of such reservation would depend on several factors foclud· ing opportunities for professional education in' that particular area, the extent of competion, level of educational deve!Opment of the. "rea and other r~levant factors. It may be that in a State. wer~ -

984 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1984] 3 S.C.R.

A the level of educational development is woefully low, there are comparatively inadequate opportunities for trainining in the medical sepcciality and there is )arge scale social and· economic backwardness, there may be justification for reservation of a higher per~ent~ge of seats ip the medical colleges· in the State and such higher percentage may n'ot militate against · "the. equality B "mandate viewed in the perspective of social justice". So many variables depending on social and eeonomic facts in the coutext of educational opportunities· would enter· into the determination of the 'question as to what in the case ,of any particular State; ... should be the limit of reservation based on- residence requ.irement · c within the State or on institutional preference. But, in our opinion, such reservation should in no·· event exceed the o.uter limit of 70 per cent of. the total number of open ~eats after taking into a.ccount other kinds of res'ervations val,idly mirde. The Medical Education Review· Committee has suggested that the outer limit should not exceed 75 per cent but ·we are the 1> view that it. wo~1ld be fair and just to fix the outer limfr at 70 per cent. We are Jay.fog down this outer limit of reservation in· an attempt to reconcile the apparently conflicting .claims of equality and excellence. We may make it clear that this outer limit 1 fixed · by us wilf be subject to any reduction or attenuation which may be made by the Inaian Medical Council which is the statutory body of ·medical practitioners ·whose functional obligations include setting standards for. medical ed.ucat_ion and providing for its regulation ancl' coordination. · We are of the opinion that this outer limit fixed by us must gradually over-the years be progressively reduced but that isa. task which' would have. to be performed by th~ Indian Medical Council. We would direct the Indian Medical Council to consider within a period of nine months from today ·whether the outer limit of 70 per cent fixed by us needs to be reduced and ·jf the Jndian Medical Council determines a ··shorter outer limit, it will be binding on the States and the Union Territories. We would .also direct the ,Indian Medical Council to subject the outer limit so fixed to reconsideration at the end of I every three years but. in no event should the outer limit exceed . 70 per cent fixed by us. The result is that in any event at \east 30 per cent of th~ open seats shal1 be available for admis- · sion of students on all India ba~is. irrespective. ~f the State or university from which they. come and such admissiQns slia'll be granted purely on merit Qii the basis of either all India Entran.ce

-. Bxanm. or entra11ce exa1llination ta be held by the State. Of

PRADEEP JAIN v. UNION (Bhagwati, •' . J.) 985

course, we need not. add that even where r~servation on the basis of residence requirement or institutibnal preference is made in 11ccordance with tbe directions given in this judgment, admissions from the source or sources indicated by such reservation ·shall be based only on• m'erit, because the ·object must be to· select. the best and most meritorious student from within· such source or sources.

So much for admission to the M.B.B.S. course: but different considerations must prevail when we come to consiiler the questi.on of reservation· based on re.sidence .requirement within the State or on institutional preference for admission· to post graduate c courses, such as, M.D . , M.S. and the like. There we cannot allow excellence ta be compromised by any other considerations because that would be deterimental to the interest ·of the nation. It was rightly pointed out by Krishna Iyer, J. in Jagdish Saran's . case, and we wholly endorse wh~t he has said : D "The basic medical needs of a region or the pre- ferential push justified for a handicapped ·group cannot prevail in the same measure at the highest scale of speciality . here the best skill or talent, must be hand- picked by selecting according to capability. At the level of Ph. D.; M'.D., or levels of higher proficiency, where international meashre of talent is 'made, where losing one great scientist or technologist in the making is a ·national Joss the considerations we hafe expended upon as important loss their potency. Here equality, measured by matching excellence, bas more meaning and cannot F be d·iluted muc.b without grave·risl<."

"If equality of opportunity for every person in the country is the constitutional guarantee, a candidate who gets more marks then another is entitled: to preference . for admission.· Merit niust be ·the test when choosing tb.e G best, according to. t.his rule of equal ch'ance for .equal· marks. This proposition· has. greater importance when we reach ,the higher levels of education Hke. post· graduate courses. , A(ter all. top technological expertise in · any vital field like .medicine is a nation's human asset with- • out which its advance and development will be stunted . . II · The .role of hign IP'ade s~ill or special talent may be less ' '' . •'

986 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984) 3 S.C.R.

A ·at ihe lesser levels of education, jobs no disciplines of social inconsequence, but more at the higher levels of . sophisticated .skills and stfategic employment. To devalue mr~it at the s\)mmit is to temporise wiih the country's development in.the vital areas of professilmal expertise~ B lh science and· technology and other specialised fields of developmental significance,·, to relax lazily or easily . in regard to exacting standar.ds of performance may be . running .a .gra.ve national risk because. in advanced medicimi" and other critical departments of higlier know• . ledge, crucial to· material progress, the people of India c should not be denied the .best the nation's talent lying • latent can produce. ·If tte. best potential in these fields .is cold-shouldered for populist considerations garbed as reservations •. ·.the victims, . in the long run, may be the people themselves.. Of course, this un-relenting strict- ness in selecting the best may not be so imp.erative~at other levels where a· broad measure of efficiency may be good enol!gh and what Is needed Is merely to weed out the worthless."

"Secondly, and more importantly, it' is difficult to denounce or. renounce the· merit criterion· when the selection is for post graduate or post doctoral courses iu specialised subjects. · There is no substitute for sheer flair, for creative talent,· fqr fine-tuned performance at, the difficult ·bights of some disciplines wh.ere the best alone is likely to blossom as the best. To sympathise mawkishly with . the weaker sections by selecting sub- sta.ndard candidates, is to punish society as a whole· by denying the prospect, of excellence say in hospital servibe. Even the poorest, when stricken by critical illness, needs • the attentfon of super-skilled ·specialists, not humdrum G . . second-rates. So it ·is that relaxation on. merit, by over .

ruling equality and quality· all· together, is a social risk where the stage is post graduate or post-doctoral." · .. · Thes~ plls~ages from the j~dgment of Krishna Iyet,'J. clearly J H and forcibly express the same view which we have .indepetldently • reached on our own and in deed that view has bee.n so ably ~xpressed in .these· p~s~a~es, that we do v,ot 'thipk we can usefully

I PRADE!P IAIN v. UNloN (Bhagwatl, ].)_ . 987

add anything to what has. already bee.n said there. We may point out that tile Indfan Medical Council ·.bas also emphasized lhat . playing with merit, so far· a,s admissions tu post graduate courses are concerned, for· pampering local feeling, will boomeriang. We may with advantage reproduce the· recommendation or .the India!!

• Medical €Duncil on this pqint which may not be the last word in social wisdom but is certainly worthy or consjderation: .

"Student for post-graduate trainirig should ~ ~c­ ted strictly on merit judged on the basis of ii~d~e record in the un·dergraduate course .. All seleeliO,e,.,. • · • post·graduite studie~ should be conducted by the Uili~er- Bities." · ""'' c: - • The Medical Education Re.view Committee has alw eiprelled •

the opi~ion ·that "all admissions to the post-graduate courses· in any institution should b~ open to ,candidates on an all India basis and there should b11, no festriction regarding domicile in the State/UT in which the institution is located." . So also · in the policy statement filed by the leaned Attorney General, the Govern· · mcnt of India has categorically expressed the view that:. ·

' "So far aa adm.issions fo the institutions or post· graduate colleges and spccjal professional colleges i1 concerned,· it should be entirely on the basis of all India • merit subject to constitutional reservations in 'favour of Sc]Jeduled Castes and.Scheduled Tribes."

We are the·refore of the view · that so 'far" as admissions to post- I' graduate co11rses, such. as M.S., M.D. and th'e like are concerned, i.t would be eminently desir-able not to provide for any reservation based on residence require men• within the S_tate or on institutional preference. . But, having regard' 'to border considerations of equality of opportunity and .. institutional continuity in education ·which has its· own importance and value, we would. direct that G tljoU!lch residence requirement within the State sj11ill not be a gtou~d for reservation in . admissions to post g_raduate courses, a certain percentage of seats.· may in the present circumstances, be ·. res~rved on the basis of institutional 'preference in the 11eµse ilia! a sfu~ent who bas passed M.B.B.S. course from a medical· \;ollege or umvers~y may be given preference for admission to i~~t- . ·u... · graduate course in the same me_dical colleges or universjt¥;j>u~ · · • . '*~ i I .

988 SUPREME COURT REPORTS. [1984) 3 S.C.R. ' A • such r~seivation on the basis of institutional preference should~at · in ·any eyent exceed 50 per cent of the total number of open seats a\laillible for ·admission to the post-graduate ·course. This outer · lin1it which •we are . fi.'!;ing will.. also .be subje~t to revision oft the . lower side by. the Indian Medical Council in the same ·mariner as B directed by-us in the.case of admissionv.to the M.B.a.s. course. . But,. even In regard, to · admissions to the post-graduate course: we would direct that so far as super specialities such. as neuro·. surgery and carqiology ar" concerned, .there should be , nci reserva· tion a,i all· even on the basis of institutional preference and admis· ~ions should• be granted purely on merit on all India basis. c • ! '

' · What we hav~ sai§ about in regard to admissions to the M,B.B.S. and post-graduate c01mes must ayply equally in relation ta!-adiniS'Slons to the B.p.s. and l\;f.D.S. cou~es. So far as

D to admissions the B.D.S. and M.D,S. courses are concerned, it will be- the 'Ii:tdian Dental Council which is the statutory body of • dental ptactitioners, ·which will have to carry out the dir~ctions given llY,,~s to the Indian Medical Council in regard to admission's to M.B.B.'S. and post-graduate courses. The directions given by us to the Indfan Medical Co~ncil u;iay therefore be read a§ appli· E cable mutatis mutandis to. the Indian . Dental Council ~o far as admissions to BDS and MDS courses are concerned. - . The de9isions reached by us in these writ petition{ will bind the Union of India, the Sfate Governments and Administrations , ' of Union Territories because it lays down the law for the entire country and mor.eover we have . reached this decision. after giving . notice to tb,e Union of India an\! all he State Governments.and. Union Territories. We may pofot out that it is not' necessary for us to give any further directions in·. these writ p.etitions in l'egard to the' a'driiissions of the ·petitioners in the writ petitions, because G the' academic term for which ihe admjssian·s were· sought bas already, expired and SO far . ·as concerns tht petitioners Wh5J have 1 already been provisfonally admitted, '\"'.'e have directed that the provisional adniissioils · given to them shall not be disturbed but · they shal.1 b~ treated as ·final admissiOii~· The y.irit ~etitions and . the. civil appeal WiJI accordingly stand disposed _of ID the above . .H, terms. There will .be 110 order as to costs in the writ xietitions " ' ' and_th~ civil appeat.

• , ' . ;.: PRADllEP JAIN v, UNION (Bhagwati,,J,) 989

· AMARENPRA NATH SEJ\\ J. I have had 'the advantage of reading the judgment of my learned brother; Bhagwati, J. I. agree with the orders passed by my learned brother and also the . directions given by· him. I, however, propose io indicates in brief my own reasons. B Mrleiil:nect'brother in his judgment has referred to various aspects of national life and has. very aptly emphasised 'on the 'need of Unity of In'dia. My learned brother iri his judgment has set ·out the relevant facts and circumstances and has also considered the . .relevant decisions. on the question involved in tl;ie present proce'e~ dings. c Unity in diversity is · the essential peculiarity . of Indian culture and .co1lstitutes the basic philosophy of Indian nationality. It is also a fundamental· tenet· of our constitution. '}'hich seeks to promote the 11nity wjiife maintaining at the same time the distinc- tiveness of the various classei and kind\. of peopfe belonging to D <:lifferent States forming the Indian Nation. Equalitr in the eye. Of law1is the fundamental postulates and ·is guaranteed under the Constitution. £ach and every -kind of discrimination is not in violation of the Constitutional concept of equality and does not necessarily, undermine the Unity· of India. The validity of any E discrimination has to 1 be tested on 'the touch-stone of Art. 14 of · the Constitution. Appropriate classification may in . very many case·s from .the vary core of· equality and promote bnity in the true' se11se amdi~t diversity . • ' F To my mind· the questions involved in these proceedings . lies within a short compass. The first question reliltes to reser- vation of seats for admission to Medical Colleges ·in any State on the basis of residence of the applicant in tlie State fdt iiileh admission. Connei:ted with this· question is the question · of , institutionalised reservatfon of se.ats for _admission to· Medical G Colleges. The other question raised is the.question bf re~ervatio,n of seats on such .considerations for admission ·to'' post-graduate medical courses.

Th~ question of constitutional validity of reservation of seats within re.asonable limits on the basis of residence and also the·' 'lf buestion of institutionaliselhreservation of seats clearly appear .cf;_ ' ,~ .....

• • 9-90 SUPJtEMB CouaT REPORTS [1984] 3 S.C.R.

to be concluded by various decisions of this Court, as- has rightly pointed outby my learned brother 'ii) his judgment in which he has referred ·at length to these decisions, These decisions are binding on this Court and are to be followed. Constitutional validity of such reservations within the reasonable limit must, . I · therefore, be upheld. . • . . t The real questfon is the question of the extent· of the limit .-"~

to which such reservations may be consitlered to be reasonable. · T)le question of reasonabieness of such 'reservations must .neces· . sarily be determined.with reference to the facts 1 and· circumstances Cl or parlicular cases and with reference to the situation prevailing . ,- . r at· &.PY given .time. ~Y learned brother in his judgmeqt has .elaboratelii and carefully considered these aspects. On a careful consideration of all the facts and circumstallces and the matei:ials placed, my learned brother has proposed. appropti~te orders and has given necessary directions in this regard,. The .orders passed D by my learned brother and the direct!olis given by him on a co11sideration of th<> materials on. recorJ and . the earlier decisions of thia Court will serve the cause of justice, meet the requirements, • of law and will n'ot affect or undermine national unity. ·I am, · ·therefore, in entire agreement with the _orders p~ssed and directions ·1 given by him in this regard ..

·- . On the question of · admission to post-graduate .medical. cources I must confess that I have some misgivings jll my .mind as to the further classification maqe on the footings of supper·· ipesialities. Both my learned brothers;' however, agree on this. r Al$0 in a· broader perspective ·this clas1ification my .serve the interests. of the· nation better, though . interests of individual · States to a small exte11t may be affected;'This distinction in cai~ of · super-specialities proceeds on the basis that in these very important spheres the criterion for selection ·should be merit only ·without institutionalised. reservations~ or. any re1ervation on the sround: G of residence. I also .agree thai the orders and directions proposed in reg-ard to admission. to MBBS and 1~ost·graduate ciiurses are. ., . 111so to be rea.d as applicable mutatis mutandis in relation t• adniisslon to BDS and• MDS courses.

ii . Th.e problem of admission to. medical colleges' and. the post· . f~A graduate medical. studies can only .be properly and effectively . . ./• . s~.lved bX;he setting up of more medical colleges and .by increas·

__ ., ~- .r;/;r'.'~f'.:, .

' PRADEEP JAIN v. UNION. (Bhagwatl, J.): 991 ing the number of seats in such colleges to enable aspirants to have their aim of being qualified as medical practitioners and 1peciaiists in various subjects achieved. The same is also the position witll regard to BOS a~d MOS courses. This. aspect ·has i:i~eri very appropriately noticed 1Jy my learned brother in his judgment. , ORDER "B .. With these. obserVations I agree with the .orders passed· an<! the directions give.n by 1'.1Y learned brother Bhagwati,_ J. Some of the students seeki9g ·admirsion to the. MBBS. course in this academic year have made an application to this Court that the Judgment delivered on 22nd June, 1984 -in the medical adinis. c sio1i'cases may be given effect to only from ·the next academic year, because admissions have already been made in. the medical · colleges attached to Sol!le of the Universities in :the country prior • to the delivery of the judgment on 22nd June, 198l1 -and moreover .·some time would be required for the purpose of achieving unifor· •. D mity in the procedure relating to admissions in the various Univer· sities. We accordingly issued notice on the aJ)pli~ation to the lear.- ned advocates who had appeared on behalf of the. various -partie~ at the hearing of the "main writ petitions as also to the Attorney General and after hearing them, we· have come to the conclasion and this is accepted by all parties that in view of the fact that all E .. formalities for admission, including the holding. of entrance exami· nation, have been completed in some of tlie ttates prior to the judgment dated. 22-6-1984 and also since some time WOIJld we • required for making the necessary preparations for implementin)! the judgment, it is notpracticable to give effect to -the judgment from the present academic year and in .fact compelling some F States to.give effect to the judgment ' from . the . present academic . year when others have not, would result in producing ·inequality and if all the States were to be required to implement the judgment im- mediately, admissions already. made would have to be· cancelled and ·fresh entrance examinations would have to be held and this· would require at least.2 or 2! months delaying the commencement of the. G. i academic term apar't froip caUBing immense hardship to the stu· -dents. We therefordlirect that the judgment shall be. inrplemented wi.te effect from the next academic year 1985-86. Whatever admis: · sions, provisional or ptherwise, have been made for . the ·academic year 1984·85, sh~t be distilrbed on the basis of. the judgment. II We may make it clear. that. the judg!ll~nt .\Viii no~;;~ly to tbe States of Andhera Pr:i.dcsh and Jaminu &' K.ashmir:~e at tbll ' ' . . . , '··j·' . f: :~~!,:'·' ' --·~, ,.: :; ': ·;--·.'.

992~ SUPREME COURT REPOl\?S [1984) 3 S.C.R.

,time' of hMring of the main writ petitions, it was pointed out ,to us by the leaa,ned advocates, appearing on b,ehalf of those States• that there were special Constitutional provisions in regard to them which woufd n'eed independent consideration . by this Court.-

B This order wm form part OT the main judgment delivered on 22·6·1984, . '

H.S.K. ' ' ;