<p class="title">A larger bench of the Supreme Court would examine a crucial question as to whether domicile or residence-based reservation in admission to Post Graduate medical courses within the state quota was constitutionally invalid and was impermissible.</p>.<p class="bodytext">A bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari on Monday framed a number of legal issues, including what should be the extent and manner of providing such domicile or residence-based reservations for admission to PG courses within the state quota seats, for authoritative pronouncement.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The other question left to be decided by a bigger bench was if such reservation was impermissible, how the state quota seats, other than the permissible institutional preference seats, were to be filled up.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The principal issue cropped up on a challenge to a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgement of April 23, 2019.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The HC had held as invalid the provisions in prospectus of Chandigarh's only medical college Government Medical College and Hospital, reserving all 50% seats to the college pass outs as domicile or residence-based reservation in UT Chandigarh pool, saying it amounted to 100% reservation on institutional preference.</p>.<p class="bodytext">"The issue of invalidity of the domicile or residence based reservation in relation to the state quota seats needs to be examined by a larger bench of this court in view of the significance of the issue, which is of recurrence in every academic year for one reason or another; and particularly when varying views have been expressed by different benches, which need to be reconciled with the observations made by the Constitution Bench in Saurabh Chaudri’s case," the bench said.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Notably, admissions to the PG courses are made on the basis of ranks obtained in NEET.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Fifty percent of the seats are assigned to the states or Union Territories as state quota seats and remaining 50% as all India quota seats.</p>.<p class="bodytext">States and Union Territories, for their part, made different provisions for filling up state quota seats.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The institutional preference, that has also been held permissible in the decisions of the Supreme Court, comes into play in relation to such state quota seats.</p>.<p class="bodytext">However, though institutional preference carries a major or prominent role in relation to such state quota seats, varying provisions have also been made by different states or UTs with reference to domicile or residence, the court noted.</p>
<p class="title">A larger bench of the Supreme Court would examine a crucial question as to whether domicile or residence-based reservation in admission to Post Graduate medical courses within the state quota was constitutionally invalid and was impermissible.</p>.<p class="bodytext">A bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari on Monday framed a number of legal issues, including what should be the extent and manner of providing such domicile or residence-based reservations for admission to PG courses within the state quota seats, for authoritative pronouncement.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The other question left to be decided by a bigger bench was if such reservation was impermissible, how the state quota seats, other than the permissible institutional preference seats, were to be filled up.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The principal issue cropped up on a challenge to a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgement of April 23, 2019.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The HC had held as invalid the provisions in prospectus of Chandigarh's only medical college Government Medical College and Hospital, reserving all 50% seats to the college pass outs as domicile or residence-based reservation in UT Chandigarh pool, saying it amounted to 100% reservation on institutional preference.</p>.<p class="bodytext">"The issue of invalidity of the domicile or residence based reservation in relation to the state quota seats needs to be examined by a larger bench of this court in view of the significance of the issue, which is of recurrence in every academic year for one reason or another; and particularly when varying views have been expressed by different benches, which need to be reconciled with the observations made by the Constitution Bench in Saurabh Chaudri’s case," the bench said.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Notably, admissions to the PG courses are made on the basis of ranks obtained in NEET.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Fifty percent of the seats are assigned to the states or Union Territories as state quota seats and remaining 50% as all India quota seats.</p>.<p class="bodytext">States and Union Territories, for their part, made different provisions for filling up state quota seats.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The institutional preference, that has also been held permissible in the decisions of the Supreme Court, comes into play in relation to such state quota seats.</p>.<p class="bodytext">However, though institutional preference carries a major or prominent role in relation to such state quota seats, varying provisions have also been made by different states or UTs with reference to domicile or residence, the court noted.</p>
