- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Janhit Abhiyan v. Union Of India .
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioners sought an interim order challenging the State of Maharashtra’s decision to extend a 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) to postgraduate medical courses. The State’s action was based on the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, which inserted Article 16(6) permitting such reservations. Although the amendment came into force in January 2019 and the State issued notifications on 12 February 2019 and 7 March 2019, the relevant admission process for postgraduate medical courses had already begun in November 2018. The petitioners contended that altering the reservation policy mid-process would be unlawful. The Court was required to decide, on an interim basis, whether the new reservation policy could be applied to the ongoing admissions.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the State of Maharashtra can apply the 10% EWS reservation, introduced after the commencement of the postgraduate medical admission process, to that ongoing process.
- Whether existing seats can be re-allocated to EWS candidates without prior sanction of additional seats by the Medical Council of India (MCI).
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 2616 (Bombay High Court) | A reservation scheme cannot be applied to an admission process that commenced before the scheme took effect. | The Court relied on this precedent to reinforce the principle that selection modalities cannot be altered mid-process, noting that the Supreme Court had dismissed an SLP against the Bombay High Court’s decision. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court reaffirmed the “time-tested” principle that the rules governing a selection process cannot be changed after the process has begun. It noted that:
- The EWS reservation under Article 16(6) is only an enabling provision; implementation must not disturb ongoing admissions.
- Applying the State’s 7 March 2019 notification to the November 2018 admissions would contravene this principle.
- Unless the Medical Council of India sanctions additional seats, reallocating existing seats to EWS candidates would be impermissible.
- An interim declaration was necessary to maintain equity and avoid the possibility that candidates admitted under the new quota might later lose their seats if the policy were ultimately invalidated.
Holding and Implications
INTERIM DECLARATION: The State of Maharashtra’s notification dated 7 March 2019 extending 10% EWS reservation shall not apply to the ongoing postgraduate medical admission process that began in November 2018.
Implications: EWS reservation cannot be implemented in the current admission cycle unless the Medical Council of India sanctions additional seats. The ruling preserves the status quo, preventing disruption to non-EWS candidates while leaving open the possibility of future accommodation through seat expansion. The decision sets no final precedent, as it is expressly interim pending resolution of the writ petitions.
Order
1. The entitlement of the petitioners to an appropriate interim order is the precise question that is being dealt with by the Court by the present order.
2. By the 103rd Constitutional amendment, after clause (5) of Article 16, the following clause numbered as clause (6) has been inserted:
“16. (6) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes mentioned in clause (4), in addition to the existing reservation and subject to a maximum of ten per cent of the posts in each category.”
Though an enabling provision, the State of Maharashtra by Notifications dated 12-2-2019 and 7-3-2019 has extended the benefit of reservation to the extent of 10% to economically weaker sections, inter alia, in postgraduate medical courses. The bone of contention between the parties is whether the aforesaid decision following the Constitutional amendment will apply to the ongoing admission process which had commenced in the month of November, 2018 i.e. well before the coming into force of the Constitutional amendment (January 2019) and the notifications of February and March, 2019.
3. Not only are we reminded of the time-tested principle of law that the modalities of selection cannot be changed after initiation of the process, in a similar matter involving reservation of 16% seats for socially and educationally backward classes including the Maratha community in the educational institutions in the State of Maharashtra in terms of the provisions of the Maharashtra State Reservation (of Seats for Admission in Educational Institutions in the State and for Appointments in the Public Services and Posts under the State) for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018, the Bombay High Court had taken the view 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 2616 that the said Act having come into force with effect from 30-11-2018, could not be made applicable to the very same admission process as the same had been initiated earlier i.e. on 2-11-2018. The special leave petition against the said order of the Bombay High Court has since been dismissed by this Court.
4. Having considered the matter, we are of the view, at this stage, that though the State may act under the enabling provision contained in Article 16(6) of the Constitution, as introduced by the 103rd Constitutional amendment, unless additional seats are sanctioned by the Medical Council of India, the existing seats cannot be subjected to the provisions of the aforesaid Constitutional amendment by issuing appropriate notifications, as has been done in this case. Though the above view is a tentative view, on the basis thereof, we deem it proper to declare that the Notification of the State of Maharashtra dated 7-3-2019 insofar as the admission to postgraduate medical courses is concerned, will have no application to the ongoing process of selection, so as to enable the representatives of the economically weaker sections to avail of the benefit of reservation for admission to postgraduate medical courses. While making the above declaration, we have kept in mind the need to balance the competing claims which balance could be upset by claim of equity, if the reserved category candidates are allowed to undergo the medical course(s) and in the event their admission is found to be untenable at a later stage of the present proceedings. We have, therefore, deemed it appropriate to pass the above interim directions/to make the aforesaid interim declaration pending final decision in the writ petitions before us. Needless to say, it is always open for the Medical Council of India to sanction additional seats, if deemed fit.
5. IA No. 84633/2019 filed for intervention stands disposed of.
Court Masters
Alert