/2022 INSC 0211/
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL/APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 53 OF 2022
DR. N. KARTHIKEYAN AND ORS.   ...PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU
AND ORS.    ...RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2066   OF 2022
[Arising out of SLP(C) No.2514 of 2022]
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2065 OF 2022
[Arising out of SLP(C) No.13557 of 2020]
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1299 OF 2020
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3840 OF 2020
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3841­3843 OF 2020
O R D E R
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.
1

2. Rule granted in the Writ Petitions.
3. Writ Petition (Civil) No.53 of 2022 challenges the validity of
G.O.   (Ms.)   No.   462   dated   7 th
  November,   2020,   issued   by   the
Health   and   Family   Welfare   (MCA­1)   Department   of   the
Government of Tamil Nadu (hereinafter referred to as “the said
G.O.”).   The basic contention of  the  writ  petitioners is that  the
reservation   of   50%   Super   Specialty   seats   (DM/M.Ch.)   for   in­
service candidates in Government Medical Colleges in the State
of Tamil Nadu is not permissible in law.  
4. Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.
2514 of 2022 challenges the judgment and order of the learned
Single   Judge   of   the  High   Court   of   Judicature   at   Madras   dated
12 th
 January, 2022, vide which, the said High Court has issued
a   direction   to   the   Director   of   Medical   Education,   Kilpauk,
Chennai   to   implement   the   said   G.O.   for   the   academic   year
2021­2022 itself, if there is no legal impediment to do the same.
2

5. This Court vide interim order dated 27 th
  November, 2020,
passed in Civil Appeal No. 3840 of 2020 1
  had directed that the
counselling   for   admission   to   Super   Specialty   Medical   Courses
for   the   academic   year   2020­2021   shall   proceed   without
providing for reservations to in­service doctors.  
6. The   writ   petitioners   as   well   as   the   appellants   in   the
present   case   have   urged   this   Court   to   continue   the   aforesaid
interim  order  of this Court dated 27 th
  November, 2020 (supra),
even for the academic year 2021­2022.
7. Per   contra,   this   request   made   by   the   writ
petitioners/appellants   is   vehemently   opposed   by   the   learned
counsels   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   State   as   well   as   the   in­
service candidates.  
8. We   have,   therefore,   heard   the   learned   counsels   for   the
parties   on   the   limited   question,   as   to   whether   the   interim
protection,   which   was   granted   for   the   academic   year   2020­
1   [Dr. Prerit Sharma & Ors. Versus Dr. Bilu B.S. & Ors.]
3

2021,   vide   order   dated   27 th
  November,   2020   (supra),   should
also be continued for the academic year 2021­2022 or not.
9. We   have   heard   Shri   Dushyant   Dave,   Shri   Shyam   Divan
and   Shri   Gopal   Sankaranarayanan,   learned   Senior   Counsel
appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners/appellants as well as
Ms.   Aishwarya   Bhati,   learned   Additional   Solicitor   General
(“ASG”) appearing for the Union of India.  
10. Shri C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned Senior Counsel and Shri
Amit   Anand   Tiwari,   learned   Additional   Advocate   General
(“AAG”) have made submissions on behalf of the State of Tamil
Nadu   and   Shri   P.   Wilson,   learned   Senior   Counsel   has   argued
on behalf of the in­service doctors. 
11. The   learned   Senior   Counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
writ   petitioners/appellants   submitted   that   the   nine­judge
Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of  Indra Sawhney
&   Ors.   vs.   Union   of   India   &   Ors. 2
  as   well   as   Constitution
Bench  of this Court in the case of   Dr.   Preeti  Srivastava  and
2   1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217
4

another   vs.   State   of   M.P.   and   others 3
  have   specifically   held
that   there   cannot   be   any   reservation   for   admission   in   Super
Specialty   courses.     It   is   submitted   that   NEET­SS     2021
Information   Bulletin   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “NEET
Bulletin”),   in   clause   10.10,   specifically   states   that,   as   per
judgment   of   the   Constitution   Bench   of   this   Court   in   Writ
Petition (C) No.350 of 1998, there is no reservation of seats for
Super   Specialty   (DM/M.Ch.)   courses.     It   is   submitted   that   the
case of   Dr. Sweety Bhartiya vs.   State of M.P. & Ors. , which
is referred to in the NEET Bulletin, is a case which was a part
of   the   batch   of   cases   disposed   of   by   this   Court   in   the   case   of
Dr. Preeti Srivastava  (supra) .
12. The   learned   Senior   Counsel   further   submitted   that   since
the   matters   regarding   co­ordination   and   determination   of
standards   in   institutions   for   higher   education   or   research   and
scientific   and   technical   institutions   are   squarely   covered   by
Item 66 in List­I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of
India,   it   is   the   Regulation   issued   by   the   Medical   Council   of
3   (1999) 7 SCC 120
5

India,   which   would   prevail   over   the   said   G.O.     It   is   submitted
that the State will have no power to provide reservation of seats
in Super Specialty courses, in view of the stipulation contained
in clause 10.10 of the NEET Bulletin.
13. Shri   Dave   and   Shri   Divan   further   submitted   that   the
finding   of   the   Constitution   Bench   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of
Tamil   Nadu   Medical   Officers   Association   and   others   vs.
Union  of  India   and  others 4
  to  the  effect that  the States have
legislative   competence   and   authority   to   provide   reservation   for
in­service candidates does not lay down a correct proposition of
law.  It is submitted that, in view of the judgments of this Court
in the cases of  Indra Sawhney  (supra),  Dr. Preeti Srivastava
(supra)   and   other   cases,   it   is   not   at   all   permissible   to   provide
reservation for Super Specialty courses.   It is submitted that it
is   only   merit   and   merit   alone   which   shall   weigh   while   giving
admissions in the Super Specialty courses.  
4   (2021) 6 SCC 568
6

14. It is also submitted by Shri Dave and Shri Divan that the
judgment   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Tamil   Nadu   Medical
Officers Association   (supra) is restricted only to postgraduate
degree/diploma   courses   and   cannot   be   made   applicable   to
Super Specialty courses.   It is, therefore, urged that the interim
order dated 27 th
  November, 2020 (supra), which was passed by
this   Court   for   the   academic   year   2020­2021,   should   also   be
continued for the academic year 2021­2022. 
15. Ms.   Aishwarya   Bhati,   learned   ASG   appearing   for   the
Union   of   India   supported   the   request   made   by   the   writ
petitioners/appellants   and   submitted   that   the   stand   of   the
Union   of   India   was   also   to   continue   the   interim   protection,
which   was   granted   by   this   Court,   vide   order   dated   27 th
November, 2020 (supra), for the academic year 2020­2021.
16. Shri   C.S.   Vaidyanathan,   learned   Senior   Counsel
appearing on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu, submitted that
this Bench, consisting  of two Judges, is bound by  the law laid
down   by   the   Constitution   Bench   in   the   case   of   Tamil   Nadu
7

Medical Officers Association  (supra).  It is submitted that the
Constitution   Bench   in   the   case   of   Tamil   Nadu   Medical
Officers   Association   (supra)   has   specifically   held   that   the
State   is   within   its   competence   to   provide   reservation   for   in­
service candidates.  It is submitted that the Constitution Bench
has specifically held that the State is empowered to provide for
a   separate   source   of   entry   or   reservation   for   in­service
candidates   seeking   admission   to   postgraduate   degree/diploma
courses,   in   view   of   Schedule   VII   List   III   Entry   25   of   the
Constitution of India.   It is submitted that, it has been held by
this   Court   that   the   policy   for   such   a   reservation   must   provide
that,   subsequent   to   obtaining   the   postgraduate   degree   by   the
in­service   doctors   concerned   through   such   separate   channel,
they must serve the State in the rural, tribal and hilly areas for
a certain  amount  of  years and  execute  bonds for  such  sum  as
the respective State may consider fit and proper.  
17. Shri   Vaidyanathan   further   submitted   that   on   account   of
non­availability   of   the   candidates   having   degree   in   super
8

specialization,   as   many   as   49   vacancies   for   the   posts   of
Professors/Associate Professors and 58 vacancies for the posts
of Assistant Professors could not be filled.   It is submitted that
the   channel   for   admission   for   in­service   candidates/categories
is provided so that in­service candidates would serve the State
Government   and   that   they   could   be   appointed   on   the   vacant
posts   of   Assistant/Associate   Professors   and   Professors.     It   is
submitted   that   if   this   is   not   done,   there   is   a   danger   of   a   large
number   of   Super   Specialty   seats   being   reduced   on   account   of
non­availability of the requisite number of faculty.  
18. It   is   further   submitted   that   all   the   candidates   selected
through  in­service channels  for   the  Super   Specialty  courses  at
the time of joining are required to execute a bond that they will
serve the Government till their superannuation.  It is, therefore,
submitted   that,   in­service   reservation   is   provided   with   an
avowed   object   of   getting   services   of   such   candidates   till   their
superannuation.     It   is   submitted   that,   per   contra,   if   all   the
seats are filled in through open channel, prior experience would
9

show  that  all  such  candidates  would   leave  after   a  bond  period
of two years or even prior to that by paying the bond money.  It
is,   therefore,  submitted   that  this   will   lead  to   a   very  dangerous
situation   wherein   the   faculty   members   would   not   be   available
for Super Specialty seats and the number  of such seats would
drastically reduce.  
19. Shri Amit Anand Tiwari, learned AAG, submitted that the
stand taken by the Union of India is inconsistent, inasmuch as
the   Government   of   India   was   already   providing   separate
entrance   examination   for   postgraduate   and   Super   Specialty
seats   and   was   providing   for   separate   entry   for   in­service
candidates   in   the   name   of   ‘sponsored   candidates’   (service
candidates of  various  Government  Institutions).    He, therefore,
submitted that the Union of India cannot be permitted to take a
contrary view and oppose the separate channel provided for in­
service candidates by the State of Tamil Nadu.   
20. We   clarify   that   we   are   passing   the   present   order   for   the
limited purpose of considering, as to whether the interim order
10

dated   27 th
  November,   2020   (supra),   which   was   granted   for   the
academic   year   2020­2021,   should   also   be   continued   for   the
academic   year   2021­2022   or   not.     We   further   clarify   that   the
present   order   is   being   passed   only   on   prima   facie
considerations.  
21. No   doubt   that   this   Court   has   passed   the   interim   order
dated   27 th
  November,   2020   (supra),   thereby   directing   that
counselling   for   admission   to   Super   Specialty   medical   courses
for   the   academic   year   2020­2021   shall   proceed   without
providing for reservation to in­service candidates/doctors.   It is
relevant to note that this Court in the interim order dated   27 th
November,   2020   (supra),   has   specifically   observed   that   the
process   for   admissions   to   Super   Specialty   medical   courses
started   on   3 rd
  August,   2020,   and   it   was   made   clear   to   all   the
competing   candidates   that   there   shall   be   no   reservation   to
Super Specialty medical courses. This Court further notes that
the said G.O. was issued on 7 th
  November, 2020, i.e., after the
admission process had begun.  It could thus be seen that what
11

weighed   with   this   Court   while   passing   the   interim   order   dated
27 th
  November,   2020   (supra)   was   that   the   rules   of   the   game
were   changed   after   the   admission   process   had   begun.
However,   in   the   penultimate   para,   this   Court   has   specifically
clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the validity of
said   G.O.   This   Court   also   reiterated   that   the   said   direction
would be operative only for the  academic year 2020­2021 .  
22. Insofar   as   academic   year   2021­2022   is   concerned,
undisputedly,   the   said   G.O.   was   notified   prior   to   the
commencement of the admission process for the said academic
year. 
23. The   Constitution   Bench   in   the   case   of   Tamil   Nadu
Medical Officers Association  (supra) has specifically held that
the State is empowered to provide a separate channel/source of
entry   or   reservation   for   admission   to   postgraduate
degree/diploma   medical   courses   insofar   as   in­service
candidates are concerned.  
12

24. It   will   not   be   out   of   place   to   mention   that   this   Bench   is
sitting   in   a   combination   of   two   Judges.     Strong   reliance   has
been placed on behalf of the writ petitioners/appellants on the
Constitution   Bench   judgment   in   the   case   of   Dr.   Preeti
Srivastava   (supra).   With  equal  vehemence, reliance  is  placed
by   the   State   of   Tamil   Nadu   and   the   in­service
candidates/doctors on the Constitution Bench judgment in the
case of  Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association  (supra).  As
such,   we   are   faced   with   a   challenge   as   to   which   of   these   two
Constitution   Bench   judgments   should   guide   us   while
considering   the   question,   as   to   whether   the   interim   protection
as was granted for the academic year 2020­2021 also needs to
be continued or not for the academic year 2021­2022. 
25. In the case of  Dr. Preeti Srivastava  (supra), the question
that fell for consideration before the Constitution Bench was, as
to   whether   any   type   of   relaxation   would   be   permissible   at   the
Super Specialty level.  In the said case, the minimum qualifying
marks for the general category candidates were 45%.  However,
13

the   minimum   qualifying   marks   for   the   reserved   category
candidates   were   lowered   down   to   20%.     In   this   situation,   this
Court   found   that   this   would   make   it   difficult   for   the   reserved
category candidates to bring their performance on par with the
general   category   candidates   in   the   course   of   postgraduate
studies.       This   Court,   therefore,   found   that   lowering   the
qualifying   criteria   for   reserved   category   candidates,   thereby
resulting   in   great   disparity   of   qualifying   marks   between   a
general   category   candidate   on   one   hand   and   a   reserved
category candidate on the other hand, was not permissible.  
26. However,   in   the   case   of   Tamil   Nadu   Medical   Officers
Association   (supra),   the   question,   as   to   whether   the   States
have  legislative  competence  to   provide  for   a  separate  source of
entry or reservation for in­service candidates seeking admission
to   postgraduate   degree/diploma   medical   courses,   directly   fell
for   consideration   before   the   Constitution   Bench.     The
conclusions  in   the   judgment   of  M.R.  Shah,   J.   in  the  said  case
are as under:
14

“ Conclusions
23.   The   sum   and   substance   of   the   above
discussion   and   conjoint   reading   of   the
decisions   referred   to   and   discussed
hereinabove, our conclusions are as under:
23.1.   That List I Entry 66 is a specific entry
having a very limited scope.
23.2.   It   deals   with   “coordination   and
determination   of   standards”   in   higher
education.
23.3.   The   words   “coordination   and
determination   of   standards   would   mean
laying down the said standards.
23.4.   The   Medical   Council   of   India   which
has   been   constituted   under   the   provisions
of   the   Indian   Medical   Council   Act,   1956   is
the   creature   of   the   statute   in   exercise   of
powers   under   List   I   Entry   66   and   has   no
power to make any provision for reservation,
more   particularly,   for   in­service   candidates
by   the   States   concerned,   in   exercise   of
powers under List III Entry 25.
23.5.   That   Regulation   9   of   the   MCI
Regulations,   2000   does   not   deal   with
and/or   make   provisions   for   reservation
and/or affect the legislative competence and
authority   of   the   States   concerned   to   make
reservation   and/or   make   special   provision
15

like   the   provision   providing   for   a   separate
source   of   entry   for   in­service   candidates
seeking   admission   to   postgraduate   degree
courses   and   therefore   the   States   concerned
to   be   within   their   authority   and/or
legislative   competence   to   provide   for   a
separate   source   of   entry   for   in­service
candidates   seeking   admission   to
postgraduate   degree   courses   in   exercise   of
powers under List III Entry 25.
23.6.   If   it   is   held   that   Regulation   9,   more
particularly,   Regulation   9(IV)   deals   with
reservation for in­service candidates, in that
case,   it   will   be   ultra   vires   of   the   Indian
Medical   Council   Act,   1956   and   it   will   be
beyond   the   legislative   competence   under
List I Entry 66.
23.7.   Regulation   9   of   the   MCI   Regulations,
2000   to   the   extent   tinkering   with
reservation   provided   by   the   State   for   in­
service   candidates   is   ultra   vires   on   the
ground   that   it   is   arbitrary,   discriminatory
and   violative   of   Articles   14   and   21   of   the
Constitution of India.
23.8.   That   the   State   has   the   legislative
competence   and/or   authority   to   provide   for
a   separate   source   of   entry   for   in­service
candidates   seeking   admission   to
postgraduate   degree/diploma   courses,   in
exercise   of   powers   under   List   III   Entry   25.
However, it is observed that the policy must
16

provide   that   subsequent   to   obtaining   the
postgraduate   degree   by   the   in­service
doctors concerned obtaining entry in degree
courses   through   such   separate   channel
serve the  State  in  the rural, tribal and  hilly
areas   at   least   for   five   years   after   obtaining
the   degree/diploma   and   for   that   they   will
execute   bonds   for   such   sum   the   respective
States may consider fit and proper.
23.9.   It is specifically observed and clarified
that   the   present   decision   shall   operate
prospectively   and   any   admissions   given
earlier   taking   a   contrary   view   shall   not   be
affected by this judgment.”
27. The conclusions in the judgment of Aniruddha Bose, J. in
the said case read thus:
“ 95.   Because of these reasons, we hold that
there   is   no   bar   in   Regulation   9   of   the   MCI
Postgraduate   Medical   Education
Regulations,   2000   as   it   prevailed   on   15­2­
2012   and   subsequently   amended   on   5­4­
2018   on   individual   States   in   providing   for
reservation   of   in­service   doctors   for
admission into postgraduate medical degree
courses.   But   to   take   benefit   of   such
separate   entry   channel,   the   aspiring   in­
service   doctors   must   clear   NEET
examination   with   the   minimum   prescribed
17

marks   as   stipulated   in   the   2000
Regulations.
96.   We   respectfully   differ   from   the   views
expressed   by   the   Bench   of   three   Hon'ble
Judges   of   this   Court   in   State   of
U.P.   v.   Dinesh   Singh   Chauhan   [ State   of
U.P.   v.   Dinesh Singh Chauhan , (2016) 9 SCC
749 : 8 SCEC 219] to the extent it has been
held in the said decision that reservation for
the said category of in­service doctors by the
State would be contrary to the provisions of
the 2000 Regulations. In our opinion, that is
not the correct view under the Constitution.
The reference is answered accordingly.
97.   We   also   expect   that   the   statutory
instruments   of   the   respective   State
Governments   providing   for   such   separate
channel   of   entry   should   make   a   minimum
service   in   rural   or   remote   or   difficult   areas
for   a   specified   period   mandatory   before   a
candidate   could   seek   admission   through
such separate channel and also subsequent
to   obtaining   the   degree.   On   completion   of
the   course,   to   ensure   the   successful
candidates   serve   in   such   areas,   the   State
shall   formulate   a   policy   of   making   the   in­
service   doctors   who   obtain   entry   in
postgraduate   medical   degree   courses
through   independent   in­service   channel
execute   bonds   for   such   sum   the   respective
States may consider fit and proper.”
18

28. The question that is required to be decided in the present
batch   of   cases   is,   as   to   whether   the   said   G.O.   which   provided
for   50%   reservation   for   admission   in   Super   Specialty
courses/seats is permissible in law or not.  
29. The   Constitution   Bench   in   the   case   of   Tamil   Nadu
Medical   Officers   Association   (supra)   clearly   holds   that   it   is
within   the   competence   of   the   State   Legislature   to   provide
separate   channel/source   of   entry   or   reservation   for   in­service
candidates   seeking   admission   to   postgraduate   degree/diploma
medical courses. Though,  it is sought  to be urged on behalf of
the   writ   petitioners/appellants   that   the   judgment   of   the
Constitution   Bench   in   the   case   of   Tamil   Nadu   Medical
Officers   Association   (supra)   deals only  with the postgraduate
degree/diploma   medical   courses   and   cannot   be   made
applicable   to   Super   Specialty   courses,   and   that   the   present
cases   would   be   governed   by   the   Constitution   Bench   judgment
in the case of  Dr. Preeti Srivastava  (supra); we find it, at least
19

prima   facie ,   difficult   to   accept   the   said   proposition   made   on
behalf of the writ petitioners/appellants.   
30. As to what is  ratio decidendi  has been succinctly explained
by   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Regional   Manager   and   Another
vs.   Pawan   Kumar   Dubey 5
  as under:
“7..........Indeed,   we   do   not   think   that
the   principles   of   law   declared   and
applied   so   often   have   really   changed.
But,   the   application   of   the   same   law   to
the   differing   circumstances   and   facts
of   various   cases   which   have   come   up
to   this   Court   could   create   the
impression   sometimes   that   there   is
some   conflict   between   different
decisions   of   this   Court.   Even   where
there   appears   to   be   some   conflict,   it
would,   we   think,   vanish   when   the
ratio   decidendi   of   each   case   is   correctly
understood.   It   is   the   rule   deducible
from   the   application   of   law   to   the   facts
and   circumstances   of   a   case   which
constitutes   its   ratio   decidendi   and   not
some   conclusion   based   upon   facts
which   may   appear   to   be   similar.   One
additional   or   different   fact   can make   a
world   of   difference   between
conclusions   in   two   cases   even   when
the same   principles   are applied in each
case to similar   facts.”
5  (1976) 3 SCC 334
20

31. It   would   also   be   relevant   to   refer   to   the   following
observations   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Union   of   India   and
Others vs. Dhanwanti Devi and Others 6
:  “9	...........	 It is not everything said by a	
judge	 	while	 	giving	 	judgment	 	that	
constitutes	 a pr
e	c e	d e	nt.             T	he      	only	
thing
      i	n      	a              	J	udg e	's  	decision	
binding   a   party   is   the   principle   upon
which  the case is decided and for this
reason   it	 	is   important   to   analyse   a	
decision   and   isolate	 from   it   the  	ratio	
decidendi.	 According  to the	 well	settled	
theory	 	of	 	precedents,	 	every	 	decision	
contains	 	three	 	basic	 	postulates	 
(i)
findings   of   material   facts,   direct   and
inferential.   An inferential finding of facts
is  the   inference   which   the   Judge   draws
from   the   direct,   or   perceptible   facts;   (ii)
statements   of   the   principles   of   law
applicable   to   the   legal   problems
disclosed        by        the        facts;     and
(iii)   judgment   based   on   the   combined
effect of   the above.   A decision is only an
authority   for   what   it   actually   decides.
What   is   of   the   essence   in   a   decision   is
its   ratio   and   not   every   observation
found   therein   nor   what   logically   follows
from   the   various   observations   made   in
the   judgment.   Every   judgment   must   be
read as   applicable   to   the   particular   facts
proved,   or   assumed   to   be   proved,   since
6  (1996) 6 SCC 44
21

the   generality   of   the   expressions   which
may   be   found   there   is   not   intended   to
be   exposition   of   the   whole   law,   but
governed   and   qualified   by   the   particular
facts   of   the   case   in   which   such
expressions   are   to   be   found.   It   would,
therefore,   be   not   profitable   to   extract   a
sentence   here   and   there   from   the
judgment   and   to   build   upon   it
because the essence of the decision is its
ratio   and   not   every   observation   found
therein.   The   enunciation   of   the   reason
or   principle   on   which   a   question   before
a   court   has   been   decided   is   alone
binding   as   a   precedent.   The   concrete
decision   alone   is binding     between   the
parties   to   it,   but   it   is   the   abstract   ratio
decidendi,   ascertained   on   a
consideration   of   the   judgment   in
relation   to   the   subject   matter   of   the
decision,   which   alone   has   the   force   of
law   and   which,   when   it   is   clear   what   it
was,   is   binding.   It   is   only   the   principle
laid   down   in   the   judgment   that   is
binding   law   under   Article   141   of   the
Constitution.   A   deliberate   judicial
decision   arrived   at   after   hearing   an
argument   on   a   question   which   arises   in
the   case   or   is   put   in   issue   may
constitute   a   precedent,   no   matter   for
what   reason,   and   the   precedent   by   long
recognition   may   mature   into   rule   of
stare   decisis.   It   is   the   rule   deductible
from   the   application   of   law   to   the   facts
and   circumstances   of   the   case   which
constitutes its   ratio   decidendi.”
22

32. At   the   cost   of   repetition,   we   may   state   that   the   issue
involved in the case of  Dr. Preeti Srivastava  (supra) was, as to
whether   a   relaxation   can   be   provided   insofar   as   minimum
qualifying   marks   are   concerned   to   the   reserved   category
candidates, resulting in a huge disparity of qualifying marks for
the   reserved   category   candidates   as   against   the   general
category candidates.  The question, as to whether a reservation
or a separate channel for admission can be provided to the in­
service   candidates   did   not   fall   for   consideration   in   the   case   of
Dr. Preeti Srivastava  (supra).  
33. As   against   this,   in   the   case   of   Tamil   Nadu   Medical
Officers   Association   (supra) ,  a  direct  question,  as  to  whether
the   State   was   competent   to   provide   reservation   by   a   separate
channel   for   in­service   candidates   seeking   admission   to
postgraduate   degree/diploma   medical   courses   was   permissible
or   not,   fell   for   consideration   before   the   Constitution   Bench.
The   Constitution   Bench   in   the   case   of   Tamil   Nadu   Medical
Officers   Association   (supra)   has   held   that   insofar   as
23

admission   to   postgraduate   courses   are   concerned,   it   is   within
the competence of the State Legislature to do so.  
34. As   such,   we   find   that   the   facts   in   the   present   case   are
much nearer  to the facts that fell for  consideration in the case
of   Tamil  Nadu  Medical  Officers   Association   (supra) . We  are
also   of   the   prima   facie   view   that   the   facts   that   fell   for
consideration in the case of  Dr. Preeti Srivastava  (supra) were
distinct from the facts that fall for consideration in the present
case.  We are, therefore, of the considered view that taking into
consideration   the   principles   of   judicial   discipline   and   judicial
propriety,   we   should   be   guided   by   the   judgment   of   the
Constitution   Bench   in   the   case   of   Tamil   Nadu   Medical
Officers   Association   (supra)   rather   than   the   judgment   of   the
Constitution   Bench   in   the   case   of   Dr.   Preeti   Srivastava
(supra). 
35. We are, therefore, of the view that no case is made out for
continuing   the   interim   protection   which   was   granted   for   the
academic   year   2020­2021   vide   interim   order   dated   27 th
24

November, 2020   (supra) and thus, we reject the prayer  in that
regard.   Needless to say that the State of Tamil Nadu would be
at   liberty   to   continue   the   counselling   for   academic   year   2021­
2022  by taking into consideration the reservation provided by it
as per the said G.O.  
36. List the matters for hearing after vacations.  
…..….......................J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO ]
                    …….........................J.
[B.R. GAVAI]
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 16, 2022
25