AP High Court Rejects Plea Challenging Decrease Of Reserved PG Medical Seats For In-Service Candidates, Says Reduction Was Favoured By Stats

A division bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice R. Raghunandan Rao,examined the relevant observations of the committee which propounded that the reservation policy for in-service candidates was introduced to fill specialist vacancies in medical services, which further led to a significant increase in available specialists and a reduction in vacancies. With a rise in PG seats in both government and private colleges, more in-service candidates qualified. However, the report also highlighted that in certain specialties, the number of qualified in-service candidates exceeded the available posts, making it difficult to accommodate them.

In light of this, the Court held,

“The report, placed before this Court, by the 1st respondent sets out, in detail, the number of seats that would be available. The statistics set out in this report clearly make a case for reduction of the seats that are made available to in-service candidates. In the circumstances, the contention of the petitioners that the reduction of seats, for in-service candidates, has been made on a predetermined basis cannot be accepted.”

It further said, “The purpose of private reservations for in-service candidates, is ensure that the medical services of the State, are staffed with adequate number of specialists, who can ensure maintenance of standards of medical assistance to the patients who attend government hospitals. Accordingly, one of the considerations, for fixation of seats to be reserved for in-service candidates, would the vacancy position of such specialist posts and the number of specialists that are available, in house, for filing up such posts. The State, after taking into account this factor, cannot be prohibited from altering the number of seats which are to be reserved for in-service candidates”. 

With respect to the challenge to the part of Section 15(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act the Court held the challenge “would be academic in the present case as the requirement of placing the Rules before the legislature had been carried out.”

Background

The writ petition was filed by medical professionals, challenging reduction in reservation percentage granted to in-service candidates through two government orders. 

Initially, in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers' Association & Others vs. Union of India & Others (2021), the Supreme Court had upheld reservation given to in-service candidates for admission to P.G. Medical Courses. Consequently, a committee was constituted by the Government to consider the effect of the judgement. The Andhra Pradesh Medical Colleges (Admission into P.G. Medical Colleges) Rules, 1997 were amended by government order dated 11.12.2021, based on the report submitted by the said committee, whereby 30% of clinical seats and 50% of non-clinical seats in the State Government quota of P.G. Medical seats were exclusively reserved for in-service candidates.

Thereafter, based on the report submitted by another committee formed to examine the suitability and percentage of such reservation, government order dated 20.07.2024 was issued, which reduced the reserved seats to 15% in clinical seats and 30% in non-clinical specialty seats.

Due to objections raised against this reduction, the Government, vide government order dated 01.10.2024, increased the quota of clinical seats to 20% and retained the quota in non-clinical specialty seats. Aggrieved, the petitioners challenged the government orders of July 2024 and October 2024. Additionally, the petitioner also challenged a part of sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, through which the Admission Rules 1997, were issued.

It was the case of the petitioners that they had a right of legitimate expectation of getting admission into P.G. Medical seats through in-service reservation on account of their services in the medical services of the State. Additionally, the petitioners argued that the committee was appointed with a predetermined objective of supporting the reduction in reservation of in-service candidates. They also argued that the amendment of Rules by the impugned GOs were implemented without placing them before the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council, which would render the amendments void. Lastly, the petitioners submitted that while Section 15 of the Act required that any Rules or changes to them be placed before the legislature, a part of it also stated that even if the legislature rejects or changes these Rules, anything already done under them remains valid. Effectively, this granted the executive unbridled power and amounted to excessive delegation.

Contrary to this, the State argued that the requirement of placing rules made by the executive before the Legislature was only directory. Regardless, Respondent 1 placed on record that the impugned GO had been placed before the Legislative Assembly.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition.

Case Details:

Case Number: WRIT PETITION No.22643 of 2024

Case Title: Dr. A. Himabindu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Click Here To Read/Download Order