The Supreme Court yesterday rejected a petition challenging the Medical Counselling Committee's January 10, 2022 notice, which revised the OBC reservation criteria for Institutional Preference seats in central institutes.

The case was considered by a bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, who found no reason to intervene with the contested notice. In summary, the notice limited OBC reservation for postgraduate institutional preference seats to candidates on the central OBC list, thereby excluding those listed under the Delhi OBC list from eligibility for the reserved seats.

The MCC notice was initially challenged in the Delhi High Court, where the petitioner argued that, according to the brochure released by Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University on June 10, 2021, and the Information Bulletin issued by the MCC on October 3, 2021, OBC candidates listed by the GNCT of Delhi were eligible for admission to the OBC seats within the 50% institutional preference category. However, the petitioner claimed that the MCC altered the "rules of the game" after the counseling process had already begun.

The petitioner contended that the MCC lacked the legal authority to deny Delhi OBC candidates their right to be considered under the Delhi OBC quota for the 50% institutional preference seats at GGSIPU. Additionally, they argued that since Vardhman Mahavir Medical College (VMMC) and Atal Bihari Vajpayee Institute of Medical Sciences (ABVIMS) are affiliated with GGSIPU, a State University, these institutions should be classified as state institutes. As a result, candidates on the Delhi OBC list should be eligible for consideration for the institutional preference seats.

Counsel for the MCC argued that VMMC and ABVIMS are centrally funded and supported institutions within central government hospitals. To ensure consistency in the counseling process, the decision was made to adopt the same criteria of using the central OBC list, as has been implemented in other central institutes.

It was also argued that granting admissions based on the Delhi OBC list would effectively create reservations based on candidates' domicile, which is not permitted under the existing regulations.

After considering the arguments from both sides, a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, stating: "In my view, the understanding that admissions against seats reserved for OBCs in all Central Institutions were intended solely for those on the Central OBC list was clear to everyone from the outset. Additionally, all candidates were aware that, in all central institutes, including VMMC, SJH, ABVIMS, RML, and ESIC, only the central OBC list had been followed for undergraduate courses since NEET-PG 2020. However, it cannot be overlooked that FAQ No. 50, as initially notified on October 3, 2021, and again on January 10, 2022, appeared to suggest otherwise."

Challenging the order, the Delhi OBC candidate(s) appealed to the Supreme Court. In April 2022, a bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Surya Kant issued a notice on the petition.

Senior Advocate K Parmeswar, on behalf of the petitioner, argued that GGSIPU follows dictate of NCT of Delhi, and being a state-run university, Delhi policy applied to it, until the MCC circular excluding Delhi OBCs took over. "If the interpretation is upheld, Delhi OBCs who are not mentioned in the Central list of OBCs are out of even the teachers' course", the senior counsel claimed.

As an alternative, Parmeswar urged the Court to permit Delhi OBC candidates to be considered "in parallel" with those on the Central list. However, Justice Gavai remarked that granting such relief could lead to candidates from other states seeking similar treatment.

The judge also posed to Parmeswar, "Delhi govt says that their policy is only for the colleges run by them. Can Delhi govt impose its policy on a 100% centrally funded institution?"

Justice Viswanathan, on the other hand, noted: "If funding comes from a particular government, that government can on a valid classification create sources for admission. In this case, a reservation on the ground that it is a valid classification under the central government, and merely because they don't fall within the definition of 'Centrally Governed Institutions', it will not preclude...we have been shown documents after documents where Delhi government's reservation cannot apply unless it's a Delhi government institution."

"Article 14, source of funding can create a source of admission, as long as classification is valid...Merely because a central government funded institution is located in a place, why should the local reservation list apply?" the judge further remarked.

Ultimately, the petition was dismissed. Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati represented the respondent(s).

Case Title: Amandeep v. Medical Counselling Committee & Ors., Diary No. 9755/2022.