Whether providing for domicile/residence-based reservation in admission to ‘PG Medical Courses’ within State Quota is constitutionally invalid and is impermissible? If domicile/residence-based reservation in admission to ‘PG Medical Courses’ is impermissible, how State Quota seats, other than permissible institutional preference seats, are to be filled up?

In Dr. Tanvi Behl v. Shrey Goel, [Civil Appeal No. 9289 of 2019] SC observed, that, Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India (2003) 11 SCC 146 held, domicile/residence-based reservation was not impermissible; that, Saurabh Chaudri in Paragraph 31 referred to State of U.P. v. Pradip Tandon, (1975) 1 SCC 267; that, it is difficult to conclude, domicile/residence-based reservation/preference is a concept totally overthrown and jettisoned; that, a blanket prohibition on domicile/residence-based reservation may not be workable; that, a Larger Bench is required.

_____

“A division between the population of our country on the ground of poverty that the people in the urban areas are not poor and that the people in the rural areas are poor is neither supported by facts nor by a division between the urban people on the one hand and the rural people on the other that the rural people are a socially and educationally backward class.

Some people in the rural areas may be educationally backward, some may be socially backward, there may be few who are both socially and educationally backward, but it cannot be said that all citizens residing in rural areas are socially and educationally backward.

80% of the population in the State of Uttar Pradesh in rural areas cannot be said to be a homogeneous class by itself. They are not of the same kind. Their occupation is different. Their standards are different. Their lives are different. Population cannot be a class by itself. Rural element does not make it a class. To suggest that the rural areas are socially and educationally backward is to have reservation for the majority of the State.”

– Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Justice A.N. Ray, State of U.P. v. Pradip Tandon, (1975) 1 SCC 267.

_____

It becomes difficult to demarcate where Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India, (2003) 11 SCC 146 ends and Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 654 or Jagadish Saran v. Union of India, (1980) 2 SCC 768 begins. But then a closer look leaves one with no doubt.

Whether providing for domicile/residence-based reservation in admission to ‘PG Medical Courses’ within State Quota is constitutionally invalid and is impermissible? Our answer is in affirmative. Yes, it is constitutionally invalid. State quota seats, apart from a reasonable number of institution-based reservations, have to be filled strictly on basis of merit.

We make it clear though, our declaration of impermissibility of residence-based reservation in ‘PG Medical courses’ will not affect such reservations already granted and students who are undergoing ‘PG courses’ or have already passed out from Government Medical College, Chandigarh. We do this simply because there is an equity in favour of such students.

– Hon’ble Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Dr. Tanvi Behl v. Shrey Goel, [Civil Appeal No. 9289 of 2019] decided on 29.01.2025.