DR. KRITI LAKHINA AND OTHERS versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS
[2018] 3 S.C.R. 517, Supreme Court of India, 2018
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
517
DR. KRITI LAKHINA AND OTHERS
v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 204 of 2018)
APRIL 4, 2018
[ARUN MISHRA AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions: Medical education –
Admission to Post Graduate courses – Clause 4 of the Information
Bulletin issued by Directorate of Medical Education, Government
of Karnataka and Karnataka Examinations Authority, Government
of Karnataka – Imposition of condition of domicile for 10 years in
Karnataka, for admission to MD, MS and Post-Graduate courses
in respect of 50% government quota seats in Medical/Dental
Colleges in the State of Karnataka – Writ petition by doctors who
did their MBBS/BDS Courses from State of Karnataka and have
cleared the NEET-PG, 2018 examination, aspiring for admission to
Post-Graduate Courses in Karnataka, seeking quashing of clause
4 as invalid – Held: Clause 4.1 of the Information Bulletin (PGET-
2018) is invalid to the extent it disqualifies petitioners-doctors and
similarly situated candidates who completed their MBBS/BDS Degree
Courses from colleges situated in Karnataka from competing for
admission to Post-Graduate Medical/Dental Courses in Government
Medical Colleges and against government quota seats in non-
governmental institutions – Issuance of direction to the State of
Karnataka and other respondents to suitably modify and amend
the Information Bulletin – Constitution of India – Art. 32.
Vishal Goyal and Others v. State of Karnataka and
Others
(2014) 11 SCC 456 – relied on.
Dr. Pradeep Jain and Others v. Union of India and
Others (1984) 3 SCC 654 : [1984] 3 SCR 942; Saurabh
Chaudri and Others v. Union of India and Others (2003)
11 SCC 146 : [2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 152; Magan
Mehrotra and Others v. Union of India and Others
(2003) 11 SCC 186; Nikhil Himthani v. State of
Uttarakhand and Others (2013) 10 SCC 237 : [2013]
[2018] 3  S.C.R. 517
517
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
518
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018]  3 S.C.R.
14 SCR 23; D.P. Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat and
Another AIR 1955 SC 334 : [1955] 1 SCR 1215;
Kumari N. Vasundara v. State of Mysore and Another
(1971) 2 SCC 22 : [1971] Suppl. SCR 381; Minor P.
Rajendran v. State of Madras and Others [1968] 2 SCR
786; Minor A. Peeriakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu
and Others (1971) 1 SCC 38 : [1971] 2 SCR 430;
D. N. Chanchala v. The State of Mysore and Others
(1971) 2 SCC 293 : [1971] Suppl SCR 608;
Dr. Jagadish Saran and others v. Union of India (1980)
2 SCC 768 : [1980] 2 SCR 831; Fraz Naseem v. Union
of India (2014) 11 SCC 453 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1984] 3 SCR 942
referred to
Para 7
[2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 152
referred to
Para 7
(2003) 11 SCC 186
referred to
Para 7
[2013] 14 SCR 23
referred to
Para 7
[1955] 1 SCR 1215
referred to
Para 8
[1971] Suppl. SCR 381
referred to
Para 11
[1968] 2 SCR 786
referred to
Para 11
[1971] 2 SCR 430
referred to
Para 11
[1971] Suppl SCR 608
referred to
Para 11
[1980] 2 SCR 831
referred to
Para 11
(2014) 11 SCC 453
referred to
Para 13
(2014) 11 SCC 456
relied on
Para 14
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
204 of 2018.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
Amarendra Sharan, Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sr. Advs., Amit
Kumar, Shaurya Sahay, V. N. Raghupathy, Chinmay Deshpande,
Ms. Ruchita Hiramath, Parikshit Angadi, Geet Ahuja, Gaurav Sharma,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
519
Dhawal Mohan, Prateek Bhatia, Ms. Mansi Sharma, H. Chandra Sekhar,
Ms. Rekha Patil, Ranjay Kr. Dubey, Ms. Priya Puri, Swatantra Rai,
Ms. Vijaya Laxmi, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. 1. This petition under Article 32 of
the Constitution of India has been filed by 44 Doctors who did their
MBBS/BDS Courses from State of Karnataka and have cleared the
NEET-PG, 2018 examination with high merit position and are aspiring
for admission to Post-Graduate Courses in Karnataka.  The principal
prayer in the writ petition seeks issuance of an appropriate writ, order or
direction quashing Clause 4 of the Information Bulletin jointly issued by
Directorate of Medical Education, Government of Karnataka and
Karnataka Examinations Authority, Government of Karnataka,
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively.
2. The Information Bulletin in question lays down, inter alia,
conditions for admission to Post-Graduate Medical and Dental Courses
in respect of government quota seats in Medical/Dental Colleges in State
of Karnataka and was published on the website on 10.03.2018.   Relevant
portion of Clause 4 of this Information Bulletin deals with eligibility
conditions in following terms:
“4. ELIGIBILITY
4.1 ELIGIBILITY for Government seats (G) &GMP seats:
    A candidate who fulfills the following criteria is eligible to
appear for the online seat allotment process, namely:-
•  He/she is a citizen of India, who is of
Karnataka Origin and
has studied MBBS or BDS degree in a Medical or Dental College
situated in Karnataka or outside Karnataka and affiliated to any
University established by law in India recognized by Medical
Council of India or Dental Council of India and Government of
India and has qualified in the NEET (National Eligibility-cum-
Entrance Test) for admission to post graduate medical or dental
degree/diploma courses.
Note: Children for the purpose of the rule means natural born
son/daughter and not adopted son/daughter and not grandson/grand
daughter.
DR. KRITI LAKHINA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF
KARNATAKA AND OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
520
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018]  3 S.C.R.
Explanation: A candidate of Karnataka Origin: means, a
candidate found eligible under clause A or B below. 
(Clause A)
i) A candidate who has studied and passed in one or more
Government or Government recognized, educational institutions
located in the State of Karnataka for a minimum period of TEN
academic years as on the 31st March, 2018, commencing for 1st
standard to MBBS/BDS and must have appeared and passed either
SSLC/10th standard or 2nd PUC/12th standard examination from
Karnataka State.   In case of the candidate who has taken more
than one year to pass a class or standard, the year of academic
study is counted as one year only (Document to be produced)
(Clause B)
ii) The candidate should have studied and passed 1st and 2nd year
Pre-University Examination or 11th or 12th standard examination
within the State of Karnataka from an Educational Institution run
or recognized by the State Government or MBBS/BDS from a
professional educational institution located in Karnataka and that
either of the parents must have studied/resided in Karnataka for
a minimum period of 10 years. (Documents to be produced)”
3. It is submitted by the petitioners that this Information Bulletin
issued by Respondent Nos.2 and 3, to the extent Clause 4.1 thereof
imposes a condition of domicile for admission to MD, MS and Post-
Graduate Diploma seats in State of Karnataka is invalid and
unconstitutional. According to the petitioners said
Clause 4.1 arbitrarily
and illegally deprives the petitioners who had obtained MBBS/BDS
Degrees from the Colleges situated in Karnataka from competing for
admission to Post-Graduate Medical/Dental Curses in Government
Medical Colleges and against Government quota seats in non-
Governmental institutions.  Reliance has been placed on the Judgment
of this Court in Vishal Goyal and Others v. State of Karnataka and
Others1 to submit that the controversy is no longer res-integra and the
view taken in Vishal Goyal (supra) ought to have been adhered to by
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 while issuing the Bulletin.
1 (2014) 11 SCC 456
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
521
4. Since the matter involves urgency and the career prospects of
the petitioners and similarly situated candidates are in question, the matter
was taken up for hearing immediately.  State of Karnataka entered
appearance and has filed its reply submitting inter alia, that under the
eligibility conditions, only candidates of Karnataka origin could compete
for admission to 50% government seats in government colleges and
against government quota seats in private colleges. The reply further
stated that these eligibility conditions were stipulated in order to ensure
that the State’s requirement of skilled human resource is met with and
that the Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulation 2000 (‘2000
Regulations’ for short) of Medical Council of India do not prohibit the
State from stipulating eligibility conditions for Post-Graduate courses.
According to certain statistics given in the reply, candidates of Karnataka
origin numbering 4093 candidates would be competing for admission to
1828 seats while 10003 candidates of origin other than Karnataka which
number includes 1263 candidates from outside the State who had studied
and completed MBBS/BDS Courses from the colleges situated in
Karnataka would be competing for admission to 2301 seats.  The reply
further submitted that the State was within its right to formulate eligibility
conditions to give preference to candidates who were most likely to
serve the State.
5. In its reply, Medical Council of India (“MCI”,
for short)
submitted that the Information Bulletin (PGET-2014) issued by the State
of Karnataka in the year 2014 contained similar eligibility criteria as
provided in Clause 4.1 of the present Information Bulletin (PGET-2018)
which was challenged in the case of Vishal Goyal (supra) and that this
Court held the preference based on domicile to be violative of the principle
of equality and liable to be set aside.  After referring to various Judgments
of this Court the reply set out the emerging legal position as perceived
by MCI in following terms:-
“a. Reservation of seats at the post graduate level has been in
principle disapproved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court;
b. Reservation of seats at the post graduate level on the basis of
domicile/ residence/ place of origin is impermissible and cannot
be done by the State; 
c. Institutional reservation/ preference for reserving seats at the
post graduate level is permissible subject to an outer limit of 50%;
DR. KRITI LAKHINA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF
KARNATAKA AND OTHERS [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
522
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018]  3 S.C.R.
d. Institutional reservation/ preference can be invalidated on the
ground that the same is violative of the principle of equality
enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India; 
e. There cannot be any domicile requirement imposed by the State
while implementing institutional reservation;
f. Institutional reservation/ preference disguised as domicile
reservation has been held to be invalid and violative of Article 14
of the Constitution.”
6. We heard Mr. Amrendra Sharan, learned Senior Advocate for
the petitioners, Mr. Basavaprabhu S. Patil, learned Senior Advocate for
State of Karnataka and official respondents and Mr. Gaurav Sharma,
learned Advocate for MCI.
7. Mr. Sharan, learned Senior Advocate relied upon the decisions
of this Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain and Others v. Union of India and
Others2, Saurabh Chaudri and Others v. Union of India and Others3,
Magan Mehrotra and Others v. Union of India and Others4, Nikhil
Himthani v. State of Uttarakhand and Others5 and finally on the decision
of this Court in Vishal Goyal (supra).  In his submission these decisions
as culminated in the decision in Vishal Goyal (supra) fully conclude the
matter.  These submissions were supported by Mr. Gaurav Sharma,
learned Advocate for the MCI.
8. Mr. Patil, learned Senior Advocate, on the other hand relied
upon the decision of this Court in D.P. Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat
and Another6 and on paragraphs 6, 13 and 16 of
the decision in Dr.
Pradeep Jain (supra), in support of his submissions.
9. After conclusion of hearing, written submissions were filed by
the parties.  In their written submissions, petitioners inter alia submitted
that Clause 4.1 of the Information Bulletin in question was violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution and was opposed to Regulation 9 of 2000
Regulations.   A chart was appended showing similarity between Clause
2 of PGET-2014 which was subject matter of the decision in Vishal
Goyal (supra) and the present Clause 4.1. In its written submissions
2 (1984) 3 SCC 654 paras 20, 22 and 24
3 (2003) 11 SCC 146 paras 29, 69 and 70
4 (2003)11 SCC 186 paras 3 and 8
5 (2013) 10 SCC 237 para 3
6 AIR 1955 SC 334 = 1955 (1) SCR 1215
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
523
MCI also relied upon 2000 Regulations and specially Regulation 9 thereof. 
It was further submitted:
“It is important to note that there are primarily two types of courses
at post-graduate level i.e. post-graduate diploma courses and post
graduate degree courses.   On a close reading of Regulation 9(IV)
and 9(VII) the distinction between post graduate diploma course
and post-graduate degree course is apparent.  It needs to be
emphasized that as per Regulation 9 and the amendments made
therein from time to time, reservation of seats for in-service
candidates is only permissible in post-graduate diploma courses.
Further, there is no provision under the IMC Act, 1956 and the
Regulations framed thereunder which permits reservation in post-
graduate degree courses.”
10. State of Karnataka in its written submissions sought to justify
the action but did not explain how the decision in Vishal Goyal (supra)
would not be applicable in the present case.   It was however submitted:-
“The State of Karnataka has 11615 Public Health Care Institutions
managed by the Health and Family Department of the State.  It is
the objective of the State to provide secondary and tertiary care
services too within the reach of common public.  This objective is
sought to be fulfilled by setting up of new State of the art institutions
and strengthen the existing institutions through provisions of
equipments, up-gradation of infrastructure and recruitment of
skilled man power.  Today,
there are 3435 posts of specialists
about which 1312 are vacant, underlying the deficiency of skilled
medical professional to address the health care needs of the State.
In the medical and dental educational institutions out of 2700 posts
of specialists, 517 are vacant highlighting the deficiency of skilled
medical teachers to address the medical teachers’ needs of the
State.  16 out of 39 medical colleges in Karnataka are run by the
State.  There are 970 senior resident posts in these medical
colleges, 524 of which are vacant.  The State has to ensure that
these posts are filled up at any given point of time as stipulated by
Medical Council of India.  If these remain vacant for want of
specialist, de-recognition looms large with the risk of jeopardizing
the future of both undergraduate and post-graduate candidates’
studying in these colleges.  The posts of senior resident need to
be filled by fresh post graduates passing out every year.  There is
DR. KRITI LAKHINA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF
KARNATAKA AND OTHERS [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
524
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018]  3 S.C.R.
a huge requirement of specialists to run these institutions.   Hence
the State Government has to ensure availability of adequate
number of post graduates to fill these posts.”
11. The decision of this Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra) had
considered the Judgments rendered in Kumari N. Vasundara v. State
of Mysore and Another7, Minor P. Rajendran v. State of Madras
and Others8, Minor A. Peeriakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu and
Others9 and D.N. Chanchala v. The State of Mysore and Others10 as
well as the decision in Dr. Jagadish Saran and others v. Union of
India11 and finally concluded:
“…. We unreservedly condemn wholesale reservation made by
some of the State Government on the basis of institutional
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 unconstitutional and void
as being in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.”
12. During the course of its Judgment in Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra)
this Court also considered the impact of submissions from the concerned
States as advanced in various Judgments that were considered in
paragraphs 14 to 16, which submissions were similar to the ones advanced
before us by the State either in the reply or in the written submissions. 
Para 22 of the decision in Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra) finally summed up
the matter as regards post graduate courses as under:-
“22.   ….. The Medical Education Review Committee has also
expressed the opinion that “all admissions to the post-graduate
courses in any institution should be open to candidates on an all-
India basis and there should be no restriction regarding domicile
in the State/Union Territory in which the institution is located”. So
also in the policy statement filed by the learned Attorney General,
the Government of India has categorically expressed the view
that:
7 (1971) Suppl. SCR 381 = (1971) 2 SCC 22
8 1968 (2) SCR 786
9 1971 (2) SCR 430 = (1971) 1 SCC 38 = AIR 1971 SC 2303
10 (1971) Suppl SCR 608 = (1971) 2 SCC 293
11 (1980) 2 SCC 768= 1980 (2) SCR 831
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
525
“So far as admission to the institutions of post-graduate colleges
and special professional colleges is concerned, it should be
entirely on the basis of all-India merit subject to constitutional
reservations in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes.”
    We are therefore of the view that so far as admissions to
post-graduate courses, such as MS, MD and the like are
concerned, it would be eminently desirable not to provide for any
reservation based on residence requirement within the State or
on institutional preference. But, having regard to broader
considerations of equality of opportunity and institutional continuity
in education which has its own importance and value, we would
direct that though residence requirement within the State shall not
be a ground for reservation in admissions to post-graduate courses,
a certain percentage of seats may in the present circumstances,
be reserved on the basis of institutional preference in the sense
that a student who has passed MBBS course from a medical
college or university, may be given preference for admission to
the post-graduate course in the same medical college or university
but such reservation on the basis of institutional preference should
not in any event exceed 50 per cent of the total number of open
seats available for admission to the post-graduate course…..”
13. In Vishal Goyal (supra) the challenge was to the validity of
Clause 2.1 of the Information Bulletin for PGET-2014.  The
eligibility
conditions as laid down in said Clause 2.1 are identical to those stipulated
in the present clause, namely, Clause 4.1 of PGET-2018.   Paragraphs 4,
10 to 13 and 15 of the decision in Vishal Goyal (supra) were as under:
“4. The said Clause 2.1 of the two Information Bulletins, which is
identically worded for admissions to postgraduate medical and
postgraduate dental courses, is extracted hereinbelow:
“2.1. No candidate shall be admitted to a professional
educational institution unless the candidate possesses the
following qualifications or eligibility to appear for the entrance
test namely:
(a) He is a citizen of India who is of Karnataka origin and
has studied MBBS/BDS degree in a medical/dental college
situated in Karnataka or outside Karnataka, and affiliated to
DR. KRITI LAKHINA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF
KARNATAKA AND OTHERS [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
526
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018]  3 S.C.R.
any university established by law in India recognised by
Medical Council of India and the Government of India.
Explanation.—‘A candidate of Karnataka Origin’ means a
candidate found eligible under clause (i) or (ii) below, namely:
(i) A candidate who has studied and passed in one or more
government recognised educational institutions located in the State
of Karnataka for a minimum period of TEN academic years as
on the last date fixed for the submission of application form,
commencing from 1st standard to MBBS/BDS and must have
appeared and passed either SSLC/10th standard or 2nd PUC/
12th standard examination from Karnataka State. In case of the
candidate who has taken more than one year to pass a class or
standard, the years of academic study is counted as one year
only.
Documents to be produced, namely:
(1) SSLC or 10th standard marks card.
(2) 2nd PUC or 12th standard marks card of the candidate.
(3) Candidates Study Certificate: A study certificate from the Head
of educational institution where he or she had studied. Further,
School Study Certificates should be countersigned by the Block
Education Officer (BEO)/Deputy Director of Public Instructions
(DDPI) concerned COMPULSORILY in the proforma
prescribed.
(4) Qualifying degree certificate and all phases marks card.
(5) Domicile certificate issued by the Tahsildar in the prescribed
proforma (Annexure I); and if claiming reservation benefits: Caste/
Caste Income
Certificate issued by Tahsildar concerned, for SC/
ST in Form D, Category 1 in Form E and 2-A, 2-B, 3-A and 3-B
in Form F.
(6) MCI/DCI State Council Registration Certificate.
(7) Attempt Certificate issued by the college Principal concerned.
(ii) The candidate should have studied and passed 1st and 2nd
years Pre-University Examination or 11th and 12th standard
examination within the State of Karnataka from an educational
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
527
institution run or recognised by the State Government or MBBS/
BDS from a professional educational institution located in
Karnataka and that either of the parents should have studied in
Karnataka for a minimum period of 10 years.
Documents to be produced, namely:
(1) SSLC or 10th standard marks card.
(2) 2nd PUC or 12th standard marks card of the candidate.
(3) Qualifying degree certificate and all phases marks card.
(4) Domicile certificate issued by the Tahsildar in the prescribed
proforma (Annexure I).
(5) If claiming reservation benefits: Caste/Caste Income
Certificate issued by Tahsildar concerned, for SC/ST in Form D,
Category 1 in Form E and 2-A, 2-B, 3-A and 3-B in Form F; and
(6) (a) A study certificate for either of the parent having studied
for at least 10 years in Karnataka from the Head of the educational
institution where he/she had studied. Further, school study
certificates should be countersigned by the Block Educational
Officer (BEO)/Deputy Director of Public Instructions (DDPI)
concerned COMPULSORILY in the proforma prescribed
(Annexure III).
(b) The candidates study certificate for having studied both 1st
and 2nd PUC or 11th and 12th standard in Karnataka issued by
the Head of the educational institution.
(7) MCI/DCI State Council Registration Certificate.
(8) Attempt Certificate issued by the college Principal concerned.”
          …………
10.   We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel
for the parties and we find that
the basis of the judgment of this
Court in Pradeep Jain case is Article 14 of the Constitution which
guarantees to every person equality before the law and equal
protection of the laws. As explained by this Court in paras 12 and
13 of the judgment in Nikhil Himthani v. State of Uttarakhand:
(SCC pp. 244-45)
DR. KRITI LAKHINA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF
KARNATAKA AND OTHERS [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
528
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018]  3 S.C.R.
“12. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees to every person
equality before law and equal protection of laws. In Jagadish
Saran v. Union of India, Krishna Iyer, J., writing the judgment
on behalf of the three Judges referring to Article 14 of the
Constitution held that equality of opportunity for every person
in the country is the constitutional guarantee and therefore merit
must be the test for selecting candidates, particularly in the
higher levels of education like postgraduate medical courses,
such as MD. In the language of Krishna Iyer, J.: (SCC pp.
778-79, para 23)
‘23. Flowing from the same stream of equalism is another
limitation. The basic medical needs of a region or the
preferential push justified for a handicapped group cannot
prevail in the same measure all the highest scales of speciality
where the best skill or talent, must be handpicked by selecting
according to capability. At the level of PhD, MD, or levels of
higher proficiency, where international measure of talent is
made, where losing one great scientist or technologist in-the-
making is a national loss, the considerations we have expanded
upon a important lose their potency. Here equality, measured
by matching excellence, has more meaning and cannot be
diluted much without grave risk.’
13. Relying on the aforesaid reasons in Jagadish Saran v.
Union of India, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Pradeep
Jain case held that excellence cannot be
compromised by any
other consideration for the purpose of admission to postgraduate
medical courses such as MD/MS and the like because that
would be detrimental to the interests of the nation and therefore
reservation based on residential requirement in the State will
affect the right to equality of opportunity under Article 14 of
the Constitution….” 
      In Magan Mehrotra v. Union of India and Saurabh
Chaudri v. Union of India also, this Court has approved the
aforesaid view in Pradeep Jain case that excellence cannot be
compromised by any other consideration for the purpose of
admission to postgraduate medical courses such as MD/MS and
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
529
the like because that would be detrimental to the interests of the
nation and will affect the right to equality of opportunity under
Article 14 of the Constitution.
11.   Mr Mariarputham is right that in Saurabh Chaudri v. Union
of India this Court has held that institutional preference can be
given by a State, but in the aforesaid decision of Saurabh Chaudri,
it has also been held that decision of the State to give institutional
preference can be invalidated by the court in the event it is shown
that the decision of the State is ultra vires the right to equality
under Article 14 of the Constitution. When we examine sub-clause
(a) of Clause 2.1 of the two Information Bulletins, we find that
the expression “A candidate of Karnataka origin” who only is
eligible to appear for entrance test has been so defined as to exclude
a candidate who has studied MBBS or BDS in an institution in the
State of Karnataka but who does not satisfy the other requirements
of sub-clause (a) of Clause 2.1 of the Information Bulletin for
PGET-2014. Thus, the institutional preference sought to be given
by sub-clause (a) of Clause 2.1 of the Information Bulletin for
PGET-2014 is clearly contrary to the judgment of this Court in
Pradeep Jain case.
12. To quote from para 22 of the judgment in Pradeep Jain case:
(SCC p. 693)
“22. … a certain percentage of seats may in the present
circumstances, be reserved on the basis of institutional
preference in the sense that a student who has
passed MBBS
course from a medical college or university, may be given
preference for admission to the postgraduate course in the
same medical college or university….”
13. Sub-clause (a) of Clause 2.1 of the two Information Bulletins
does not actually give institutional preference to students who
have passed MBBS or BDS from colleges or universities in the
State of Karnataka, but makes some of them ineligible to take the
entrance test for admission to postgraduate medical or dental
courses in the State of Karnataka to which the Information Bulletins
apply.
…………
DR. KRITI LAKHINA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF
KARNATAKA AND OTHERS [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
530
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018]  3 S.C.R.
15. In the result, we allow the writ petitions, declare sub-clause
(a) of Clause 2.1 of the two Information Bulletins for postgraduate
medical and dental courses for PGET-2014 as ultra vires Article
14 of the Constitution and null and void. The respondent will now
publish fresh Information Bulletins and do the admissions to the
postgraduate medical and dental courses in the government
colleges as well as the State quota of the private colleges in
accordance with the law by the end of June 2014 on the basis of
the results of the entrance test already held. We also order that
the general time schedule for counselling and admissions to
postgraduate medical courses in our order dated 14-3-2014 in Fraz
Naseem v. Union of India12 will not apply to such admissions in
the State of Karnataka for the academic year 2014-2015. Similarly,
the general time schedule for counselling and admissions for
postgraduate dental courses will not apply to such admissions in
the State of Karnataka. The parties shall bear their own costs.”
14. Paragraphs 13 and 15 of the Judgment of this Court in Vishal
Goyal (supra) are clear that the Information Bulletin for PGET-2014 did
not actually give institutional preference to students who had passed
MBBS/BDS from Colleges or universities in State of Karnataka but
made some of them ineligible to take the entrance test for admission to
Post-Graduate Medical or Dental Course in State of Karnataka and
that
said clause was held ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution and declared
null and void.   The relevant clause under consideration, namely, Clause
4.1 of the Information Bulletin for PGET-2018 is identical in substance
to the one that was considered in Vishal Goyal (supra).  The matter is
thus no longer res-integra and is completely covered by the decision in
Vishal Goyal (supra).  In the circumstances, we respectfully follow the
decision of this Court in Vishal Goyal (supra) and hold Clause 4.1 of the
Information Bulletin (PGET-2018) which was published on the website
on 10.03.2018 to be invalid to the extent it disqualifies petitioners and
similarly situated candidates who completed their MBBS/BDS Degree
Courses from colleges situated in Karnataka from competing for
admission to Post-Graduate Medical/Dental Courses in Government
Medical Colleges and against government quota seats in non-
governmental institutions.
12 (2014) 11 SCC 453
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
531
15. This writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.  State
of Karnataka and Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to suitably modify
and amend the Information Bulletin in question in keeping with the
observations made in this Judgment and re-publish the Calendar of Events
in terms of this Judgment and complete the entire process within the
timeline stipulated by the concerned regulatory authorities.
Nidhi Jain
                       Writ Petition allowed.
DR. KRITI LAKHINA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF
KARNATAKA AND OTHERS [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]