CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR v. Government of Tamil Nadu

Courses of D.M.(Medical Oncology) and M.Ch.(Surgical Oncology). Itis an unaided institution. It is also stated that the saidinstitution does not charge any fees while on the other hand, itpays a stipend of Rs.9000/- per month to its students who areselected to undergo the super-speciality courses. It is alsostated that the stipend is not payable to the students from theArmy who receive their full salary. The petitioner claims to bethe second best National Oncological Centre of India and first inDoctors competence in a survey conducted by a News Magazine.6. In these Writ Petitions, we are only concerned with the SuperSpeciality courses, namely, D.M. (Medical Oncology) and M.Ch.(Surgical Oncology). The petitioner is having three seats in eachof the above said courses. The State Government issuedG.O.Ms.No.469 dated 18-9-1996 directing the petitioner institutionto offer 50% of the seats in PG courses in the same manner inwhich they are being filled up in Tamil Nadu Government Colleges.Pursuant to the said G.O.Ms.No.469, dated 18-9-1996, the list ofInstitutions to which, the said Government Order was applicablewas set out in G.O.Ms.No.119 dated 26-3-1997 and the petitionerinstitution was one of the institutions mentioned in thesubsequent G.O.Ms.No.119 dated 26-3-1997. According to thepetitioner, based on its representation, the State Governmentpassed orders to the effect that G.O.Ms.No.469 dated 18-9-1996would not apply to the petitioner by deleting the name of thepetitioner institution from the list of the institutions mentionedin G.O.Ms.No.119 dated 26-3-1997. 7. After the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt reported in "T.M.A.Pai Foundations and Others Vs. State ofKarnataka and others" reported in "2002(8) SCC 481" (hereinafterreferred to as "T.M.A.Pai Foundation case"), the State Governmentissued G.O.Ms.No.130 dated 17-6-2003 wherein, in para 4(i), (ii)and 5, it is stated as under:-"4. The Government have examined the matterand decided to accept the Government of India'sguidelines regarding the seat sharing betweenGovernment and the Management in Unaided PrivateMedical/Dental Colleges imparting Postgraduatecourses. The Government accordingly issue thefollowing orders.(i) the seats in various Postgraduate courses(P.G.Degree/Diploma/MDS) in each unaided SelfFinancing Institution shall be filled up in theratio of 50:50 by the State Government and themanagement of the Institution. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (ii) the procedure of selection ofstudents for these seats shall be as being followedfor admission of students for these courses inGovernment Medical Colleges.(iii) .....(iv) .....5. The Director of MedicalEducation/Secretary, Selection Committee isdirected to take action accordingly."8. When a copy of the above said Government Order was forwarded tothe petitioner, the petitioner is stated to have sent a letterdated 17-9-2003 to the first respondent seeking exemption from thesaid notification in so far as the Super Speciality courses,namely, D.M. (Medical Oncology) and M.Ch. (Surgical Oncology).While no reply was sent by the first respondent, a letter dated14-1-2004 was issued by the third respondent to all theInstitutions including the petitioner Institution fixing the cutof date for all Under Graduate Courses and Post Graduate Coursesfor admission of students in the light of the Judgment of theHon'ble Supreme Court reported in "T.M.A.Pai Foundation case". Asper the said Notification, as far as the Super Speciality Coursesare concerned, after the declaration of results by 30th June of therespective years, the first round of counselling/admission was tobe concluded by 25th July and the last date for joining the coursewas fixed as 31st July. Further, in respect of the admissionsagainst the vacancies arising due to any other reason, the lastdate was fixed as 30th September, 2004. It was, in thosecircumstances, the impugned order dated 3-2-2004 came to be issuedby the third respondent prescribing 50% of the seats to be filledup by the allotment to be made by the State Government.9. On behalf of the first and third respondents, counter affidavithas been filed by the first respondent countering the variousaverments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the WritPetitions. According to the first and third respondent, in thelight of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'T.M.A.PaiFoundation Case', for all professional courses including even theSuper Speciality courses, the admission procedure as directed tobe prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgments in'T.M.A.Pai Foundation Case' as well as in the subsequent Judgmentreported in "2003(6) SCC 697 (ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION ANDANOTHER versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS)" would apply andtherefore, the petitioner is entitled to fill up only 50% of theseats while the other 50% should go to the first respondent State.10. The fifth respondent who is in the medical service of thefirst respondent State is stated to have applied for M.Ch.(Oncology) pursuant to the Prospectus 2004-2005 issued by thethird respondent and that in the event of the stand of the first https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondent State being countenanced he is likely to be benefittedby securing the seat in M.Ch. (Surgical Oncology) course.11. The sixth respondent is the candidate who has securedadmission in the petitioner institution in M.Ch. Course for whichseat, the present conflict has been raised in these WritPetitions. The sixth respondent is stated to have been calledupon to join the course by the petitioner through itscommunication dated 27-8-2004 and that he joined the course by 1-9-2004.12. These Writ Petitions were entertained by this Court on 18-6-2004. While admitting the Writ Petitions, an order of interiminjunction was also granted in W.P.M.P.No.19588 of 2004restraining the respondent State from filling up any seats in theSuper Speciality courses in the petitioner institution from theGovernment quota pending Writ Petition No.16572 of 2004.13. By a subsequent order dated 18-8-2004, the interim injunctionwas directed to be continued until further orders.14. In W.P.M.P.No.19589 of 2004 in W.P.No.16573 of 2004, aninterim direction was granted on 18-6-2004 to the effect that thepetitioner can fill up all the vacancies in the Super Specialitycourses purely on the basis of merit as has been done in theprevious years. In the said application, orders were passed on18-8-2004 stating that in the light of the interim directiongranted on 18-6-2004, no further orders are necessary. One otherrelevant factor to be noted is that by order dated 28-9-2004 inthese Writ Petitions, it was stated as under:-"It is brought to the notice of the Courtthat the last date for admission as per theNotification of the third respondent is 30-9-2004.The third respondent will be bound by the finalorder to be passed in the Writ Petition. Hence, anorder has got to be passed that in so far as thefifth respondent is concerned, the last date foradmission i.e. 30-09-2004 will have no force.Accordingly, the same is ordered only in so far asthe fifth respondent is concerned. Post the WritPetition on 7-10-2004 at 2.15 p.m."15. Mr.Sriram Panchu, learned senior counsel appearing for thepetitioner contended that hitherto the petitioner was allowed tofill up all the seats in the Super Speciality courses on its ownpurely on merit, that the restriction imposed in G.O.Ms.No.130dated 17-6-2004 will be applicable only to the other P.G.Courses,namely, D.M.R.T. And M.D.R.T. and will not apply to Super https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Speciality courses, that the impugned proceedings dated 3-2-2004cannot, therefore, alter the settled position and that in thelight of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in"Dr.Preeti Srivastava case", no such restrictions can be imposedin respect of Super Speciality courses. According to the learnedsenior counsel, when the petitioner was admitting the candidatesto the Super Speciality courses by conducting a rigorous test onan all India basis, the candidates sponsored by the thirdrespondent in particular the in-service candidates cannot beequated to the meritorious candidates selected by the petitionerfor being admitted to the Super Speciality courses. The learnedsenior counsel would contend that even the decisions in 'T.M.A.PaiFoundation case' as well as one reported in "(2003)6 SCC 697(ISLAMIC ACADEMY OF EDUCATION AND ANOTHER versus STATE OFKARNATAKA AND OTHERS)" (hereinafter referred to as "IslamicAcademy of Education case") rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Courthave not diluted the ratio rendered by it in its earlierConstitution Bench Judgment in "Dr.Preeti Srivastava case".16. Mr.K.Subramanian, learned senior counsel appearing for thefifth respondent, contended that the only distinction that one candiscern from the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is onlywith reference to professional institutions and non professionalinstitution and therefore, whatever stated by the Hon'ble SupremeCourt as regards the procedure to be followed for admission tovarious Under Graduate courses and Post Graduate courses wouldequally apply to the Super Speciality courses as well. Thelearned senior counsel pointed out that the Super Specialitycourse is nothing but a Higher Post Graduate course and therefore,the same cannot be excluded from the purview of the judicialdictum as regards admission. The learned senior counsel submittedthat when once the State Government stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.130dated 17-6-2004 that 50% of the seats in Post Graduate courses inall the other private institutions should be filled up through theprocess of selection made by it and when the fifth respondent hadundergone the said process of selection pursuant to the Prospectus2004-2005 issued by the third respondent, in the event of thefifth respondent being eligible for being allotted by virtue ofhis seniority in the merit list, the same cannot be deprived of bythe petitioner. The learned senior counsel also submitted that inthe light of the order dated 28-9-2004 referred to earlier, thefifth respondent would be entitled to be admitted irrespective ofthe expiry of the last date of admission, namely, 30-9-2004.17. In this context, learned senior counsel relied uponthe P.G.Medical Education Regulations 2000 issued by the MedicalCouncil of India to point out that even super speciality coursesare nonetheless P.G.Courses and whatever procedure applicable toP.G.Courses Admissions would be equally applicable to D.M.(MedicalOncology) and M.Ch.(Surgical Oncology). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

18. On behalf of the first and third respondents, Mr.A.L.Somayaji,learned Addl.Advocate General made his submissions. The learnedAddl.Advocate General also submitted that the Judgments in"T.M.A.Pai Foundation case and Islamic Academy of Education cases"have held in no uncertain terms that the admission procedureshould be as directed in the said judgments and that SuperSpeciality course is also a P.G.Course. He also placed before theCourt the communication of the third respondent dated 26-7-2004issued to the Press for the publication/telecast of the merit listfor the 3 Years Higher Speciality Courses for 2004-2005, forwhich, the entrance examination was held on 27-6-2004 which wasreleased in the web site on 27-7-2004. The learned Addl.AdvocateGeneral pointed out that in the said communication, the thirdrespondent while referring to the total number of seats for theHigher Speciality courses also included the two seats available inthe petitioner institution, namely, one in D.M.(Medical Oncology)and the other in M.Ch.(Surgical Oncology). He also pointed outthat in the merit list for the seats that were available in theGovernment Medical Colleges, allotment has already been made andfor the seats available in the petitioner institution havingregard to the interim injunction granted on 18-6-2004, noallotment could be made and that in the event of this Courtholding that those seats should be made available for allotment bythe State, the same would be done as per the merit list alreadydrawn.19. Mr.Vellaisamy, learned standing counsel appearing for thesecond respondent University referred to the judgment of theHon'ble Supreme Court reported in "(2002) 7 SCC 258 (MEDICALCOUNCIL OF INDIA versus MADHU SINGH AND OTHERS)" and submittedthat all admissions are to be completed strictly as per the timeschedule and that no deviation can be made.20. Mrs.Tilakavati, learned counsel appearing for the sixthrespondent contended that when merit is the relevant criteria fora Super Speciality course as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in'Dr.Preeti Srivastava case; the criteria as prescribed inSl.No.50 to 52 of the Prospectus 2004-2005 issued by the StateGovernment if applied that would virtually dilute the ratio laiddown in the said Judgment and therefore, the stand of the StateGovernment cannot be countenanced. She placed reliance upon "1986(3) SCC 727 (DR.DIDNESH KUMAR AND OTHERS versus MOTILAL NEHRUMEDICAL COLLEGE, ALLAHABAD AND OTHERS)", "1992(2) SCC 26(DR.SNEHELATA PATNAIK AND OTHERS versus STATE OF ORISSA ANDOTHERS)" and "2002(7) SCC 258 (MEDICAL COIUNCIL OF INDIA versusMADHU SINGH AND OTHERS)" in support of her submissions.21. By way of reply, Mr.Sriram Panchu, learned Senior counselappearing for the petitioner, referred to the judgments of theHon'ble Supreme Court reported in "2002(1) SCC 428 (AIIMS https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ STUDENTS' UNION versus AIIMS AND OTHERS)", in particular paragraph59, to point out that there is always a distinction between PostGraduate Medical Course and Super-speciality. In para 59, theHon'ble Supreme Court while holding that minimum standards cannotbe diluted while showing any preference for institutionalcandidates, has stated "such marginal institutional preference istolerable at Postgraduate level, but is rendered intolerable atstill higher levels such as that of super-speciality". Thelearned senior counsel further reiterated his contention based onthe observations by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Dr.PreetiSrivastava case" that a Superspeciality course is distinct anddifferent from a Postgraduate course since the Hon'ble SupremeCourt while concluding their decision in para 62, held that at thelevel of admission to the Superspeciality courses, no specialprovisions are permissible, they are being contrary to thenational interest where merit alone can be the basis of selection.The learned senior counsel would contend that when in theProspectus issued by the State Government for higher Super-speciality Courses, provision for awarding of marks for in-servicecandidates itself would dilute the merit based selection andtherefore, it would be contradictory to the dictum of the Hon'bleSupreme Court. The learned Senior counsel also pointed that theProspectus itself confined its scope of selection only to theseats which were specified in Annexure-II to the Prospectus andtherefore, the present stand of the respondent-State that theselection made on that basis could be extended to fill up theseats in the petitioner institution cannot be permitted.22. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, Ifind that the question that arises for consideration in these WritPetitions is, as to 'whether the admission procedure adopted bythe petitioner Institution in respect of Super Speciality Coursesoffered by it is valid and can be said to be in consonance withthe Judgments of the Hon'ble Suprme Court rendered in "T.M.A.PaiFoundation Case" and "Islamic Academy of Education Case" andWhether the State Government is entitled to sponsor the candidateswhose merits was tested pursuant to the stipulations contained inits Prospectus of 2004-2005 in respect of 3 Year High SpecialityCourses"23. At the out set, it will have to be stated that the reputationof the petitioner institution as claimed by it in the field ofadministering treatment to the cancer patients and also impartingeducation in the field of Oncology can never be doubted. In fact,it is common knowledge that any person affected by cancer in thispart of the State will immediately think of the kind of treatmentthat is being extended in the petitioner institution. It is thus awell known fact that the petitioner institution is a PremierInstitution in the field of Oncology. According to thepetitioner, it makes the selection for the Super Speciality https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ courses as well as the other P.G.Courses on an all India basis byconducting a rigorous test of the candidates. It is also not indispute that in the process of selection, no preference is shownto anybody. Therefore, there can be no two opinion that theselection made by the petitioner for the four different coursesavailable in its institution is far superior and cannot be equatedto the method of selection made by the third respondent as per theProspectus issued by it. In this context, it will not be out ofplace to refer to the letter dated 5-10-2004 placed before thisCourt by the learned Addl.Advocate General said to have beensubmitted by one Dr.P.Arul Raj who is stated to have been selectedby the State government for one of the Super Speciality course,i.e., M.Ch.(Surgical Oncology) in the Government Institution. Thesaid candidate has expressed his desire that but for the pendencyof this Writ Petition, he would have preferred the CancerInstitute seat in the foremost and that in the event of the saidseat being made available, it should be offered to him. Such isthe reputation of the petitioner institution in the field ofcancer treatment and education. 24. Even in the previous years, it is not disputed that thepetitioner institution was permitted to carry on its admissionsfor all the seats on its own in the Super Speciality courses. Infact, it was brought to the notice of this Court that by orderdated 13-6-1997, the first respondent itself deleted thepetitioner institution from the list of institutions mentioned inG.O.Ms.No.119 dated 26-3-1997 in which Government reserved itsright to admit to the extent of 50% of the seats in P.G.Courses.Therefore, going by the name and fame of the petitionerinstitution, there is no doubt that the petitioner institution andits admission process to the various P.G.Courses and SuperSpeciality courses would run far ahead of any other test orprocess of selection that may be made by any State or any otherbody. However superior may be the claim of the petitioner inregard to the selection process conducted by it for such SuperSpeciality courses, the question that remains to be considered isas to 'whether such a special status enjoined and retained by thepetitioner can be interfered with in the present prevailingsituation'.25. For considering the said question, a reference tothe judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Dr.Preeti Srivastavacase', 'T.M.A.Pai Foundation case' and Islamic Academy ofEducation case' are required to be stated.26. In 'Dr.Preeti Srivastava case', the question that was posedfor consideration was stated in para 2 as under:"The question is whether apart fromproviding reservation for admission to the Post- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Graduate Courses in Engineering and Medicine forspecial category candidates, it is open to theState to prescribe different admission criteria, inthe sense of prescribing different minimumqualifying marks, for special category candidatesseeking admission under the reserved category."27. Thereafter in para 10, it was stated as under:"10. We have, therefore, to considerwhether for admission to the Post Graduate MedicalCourses, it is permissible to prescribe a lowerminimum percentage of qualifying marks for thereserved category candidates as compared to thegeneral category candidates. We do not propose toexamine whether reservations are permissible at thePost Graduate level in medicine. That issue wasnot debated before us, and we express no opinion onit. We need to examine only whether any specialprovision in the form of lower qualifying marks inthe PGMEE can be prescribed for the reservedcategory."28. In para 22 of the above said Judgment, the Hon'bleSupreme Court observed as under:"22. ....... At the level of higher post-graduate university education, however, apart fromthe individual self interest of the candidate, orthe national interest in promoting equality, a moreimportant national interest comes into play. Thefacilities for training or education at this level,by their very nature, are not available inabundance. It is essential in the nationalinterest that these special facilities are madeavailable to persons of high calibre possessing thehighest degree of merit so that the nation canshape their exceptional talent that is capable ofcontributing to the progress of human knowledge,creation and utilisation of new medical, technicalor other techniques, extending the frontiers ofknowledge through research work-in fact everythingthat gives to a nation excellence and ability tocompete internationally in professional, technicaland research fields."29. It will also be appropriate to refer to what hasbeen stated in paras 23 and 24 of the above said Judgment, which https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ reads as under:"23. This Court has repeatedly said thatat the level of super-specialisation there cannotbe any reservation because any dilution of meritat this level would adversely affect the nationalgoal of having the best possible people at thehighest levels of professional and educationaltraining. At the level of a Super Speciality,something more than a mere professional competenceas a doctor is required. A super-specialistacquires expert knowledge in his speciality and isexpected to possess exceptional competence andskill in his chosen field, where he may even makean original contribution in the form of newinnovative techniques or new knowledge to fightdiseases. It is in public interest that wepromote these skills. Such high degrees of skilland expert knowledge in highly specialised areas,however, cannot be acquired by anyone or everyone.For example, specialised sophisticated knowledgeand skill and ability to make right choices oftreatment in critical medical conditions and evenability to innovate and device new lines oftreatment in critical situation, requires highlevels of intelligent understanding of medicalknowledge or skill and a high ability to learnfrom technical literature and from experience.These high abilities are also required forabsorbing highly specialised knowledge which isbeing imparted at this level. It is for thisreason that it would be detrimental to thenational interest to have reservations at thisstage. Opportunities for such training are fewand it is in the national interest that these aremade available to those who can profit from themthe most viz., the best brains in the country,irrespective of the class to which they belong."24. At the next below stage of post-graduateeducation in medical specialities, similarconsiderations also prevail though perhaps to aslightly lesser extent than in the superspecialities. But the element of public interestin having the most meritorious students at thislevel of education is present even at the stage ofpost-graduate teaching. Those who havespecialised medical knowledge in their chosenbranch are able to treat better and moreeffectively, patients who are sent to them forexpert diagnosis and treatment in their https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ specialised field. For a student who enrols forsuch speciality courses, an ability to assimilateand acquire special knowledge is required. Noteveryone has this ability. Of course intelligenceand abilities do not know any frontiers of casteor class or race or sex. They can be foundanywhere, but not in everyone. Therefore,selection of the right calibre of students isessential in public interest at the level ofspecialised post-graduate education. In view ofthis supervening public interest which has to bebalanced against the social equity of providingsome opportunities to the backward who are notable to qualify on the basis of marks obtained bythem for post-graduate learning, it is for anexpert body such as the Medical Council of India,to lay down the extent of reservation, if any, andthe lowering of qualifying marks, if any,consistent with the broader public interest, inhaving the most competent people for specialisedtraining, and the competing public interest insecuring social justice and equality. Thedecision may perhaps, depend upon the expertbody's assessment of the potential of the reservedcategory candidates at a certain level of minimumqualifying marks and whether those who secureadmission on the basis of such marks to post-graduate courses, can be expected to be trained intwo or three years to come up to the standardsexpected of those with post-graduatequalifications."30. Ultimately in the concluding para 62 of the above saidJudgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-"62. In the premises, we agree with thereasoning and conclusion in 'Dr.Sadhna Devi Vs.State of U.P. (AIR 1997 SC 1120)' and we overrulethe reasoning and conclusions in 'Ajay Kumar SinghVs. State of Bihar (1994 AIR SCW 2515)' and 'PostGraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research,Chandigarh Vs. K.L.Narasimhan (1997 AIR SCW 2274).To conclude:1. We have not examined the question whetherreservations are permissible at the post-graduatelevel of medical education.2. A common entrance examination envisagedunder the regulations framed by the Medical Councilof India for post-graduate medical education https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ requires fixing of minimum qualifying marks forpassing the examination since it is not a merescreening test.3. Whether lower minimum qualifying marks for thereserved category candidates can be prescribed atthe post-graduate level of medical education is aquestion which must be decided by the MedicalCouncil of India since it affects the standards ofpost-graduate medical education. Even if minimumqualifying marks can be lowered for the reservedcategory candidates, there cannot be a widedisparity between the minimum qualifying marks forthe reserved category candidates and the minimumqualifying marks for the general categorycandidates at this level. The percentage of 20%for the reserved category and 45% for the generalcategory is not permissible under Article 15(4),the same being unreasonable at the post-graduatelevel and contrary to the public interest.4. At the level of admission to the super-speciality courses, no special provisions arepermissible, they being contrary to the nationalinterest. Merit alone can be the basis ofselection."31. In 'T.M.A.Pai Foundation Case', in para 54, the Hon'bleSupreme Court has pointed out that while regulating the right ofprivate management to establish an educational institution, suchregulatory measures must, in general, be to ensure the maintenanceof proper academic standards, atmosphere and infrastructureincluding qualified staff and the prevention of mal-administrationby those in charge of management. In the same breadth, it hasbeen pointed out that fixing of rigid fee structure, dictating theformation and composition of a governing body, compulsorynomination of teachers and staff for appointment or nominatingstudents for admission would be unacceptable restrictions.32. Again in para 58 of the above said Judgment, the Hon'bleSupreme Court highlighted the importance of merit in the matter ofadmission to any professional institution and that meritoriouscandidates are not unfairly treated or put at a disadvantage bypreferences shown to less meritorious. Further it was held thatexcellence in professional education would require that greateremphasis be laid on the merit of a student seeking admission andthat appropriate regulations for this purpose are to be madekeeping in view the other observations made in the judgment in thecontext of admissions to unaided institutions. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

33. In para 65 of the above said Judgment, the Hon'ble SupremeCourt again highlighted the importance to be attached to thereputation of an educational institution by virtue of the qualityof its faculty and its students and the other facilities it offersand also the recognition to be accorded to such privateeducational institutions who have personality of their own inorder to maintain their atmosphere and tradition and the necessityfor them to have the right to choose and select the students whocan be admitted to their courses of study. At the same time, theHon'ble Supreme Court also cautioned that such extraordinaryrecognition shown to such reputed institutions should not imposeunreasonable restriction and that in setting up their own processof selection, rejection of admission should not be whimsical orfor extraneous reasons. Ultimately in para 68, the Hon'bleSupreme Court directed as to how some uniform method or meritbased selection are to be made in the private unaided professionalinstitutions while at the same time providing certain amount ofseats to take care of poor and backward sections of the society.34. In the 'Islamic Academy of Education case' at the very outset, the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated as to the necessity toclarify certain doubts and anomalies which cropped up after the 11Judges Bench Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'T.M.A.PaiFoundation case'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated in the veryopening paragraph, as under:"After the judgement was delivered on 31-10-2002, the Union of India, various StateGovernments and the educational institutionsunderstood the majority judgement in differentperspectives. Different statutes/regulations wereenacted/framed by different State Governments.These led to litigations in several courts.Interim orders passed therein have been assailedbefore this Court. When these matters came upbefore a Bench of this Court, the parties to thewrit petitions and special leave petitionsattempted to interpret the majority decision intheir own way as suited to them and therefore attheir request all these matters were placed beforea Bench of five Judges. It is under thesecircumstances that this Bench has constituted sothat doubts/anomalies, if any, could be clarified."35. Again in para 2 of the above said Judgment, while referring tothe submissions made on behalf of the petitioners that anyobservation made in the body of the judgment had to be read in thecontext of the answers given, it was stated that the ratiodecidendi of a judgment has to be found out only on reading the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ entire judgment and that the ratio of the Judgment is what is setout in the judgment itself. It was further stated that in case ofdoubt as regards any observations, reasons and principles, theother part of the judgment has to be looked into and that byreading a line here and there from the judgment, one cannot findout the entire ratio decidendi of the judgment.36. In para 6 of the above said Judgment, the questionthat arose for consideration were framed and question Nos. 3 and 4are relevant for our present purpose, which are as under:"6.(1). ...."6.(2). ...."6.(3). Whether private unaidedprofessional colleges are entitled to fill intheir seats, to the extent of 100%, and if not, towhat extent; and"6.(4). Whether private unaidedprofessional colleges are untitled to admitstudents by evolving their own method ofadmission."37. In para 16 of the above said Judgment, whileinterpreting paragraph 68 in 'T.M.A.Pai Foundation case', theHon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:"16. ..... Paragraph 68 provides thatadmission by the management can be by a commonentrance test held by "itself or by theState/University". The words "common entrancetest" clearly indicate that each institute cannothold a separate test. We thus hold that themanagement could select students, of their quota,either on the basis of the common entrance test,conducted by the State or on the basis of a commonentrance test to be conducted by an association ofall colleges of a particular type in that Statee.g. Medical, engineering or technical etc. Thecommon entrance test, held by the association, mustbe for admission to all colleges of that type inthe State. The option of choosing, between eitherof these tests, must be exercised before issuing ofprospectus and after intimation to the concernedauthority and the Committee set up hereinafter. Ifany professional college chooses not to admit fromthe common entrance test conducted by theassociation then that college must necessarilyadmit from the common entrance test conducted bythe State. After holding the common entrance testand declaration of results the merit list willimmediately be placed on the notice-board of allcolleges which have chosen to admit as per this https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ test. A copy of the merit list will also beforthwith sent to the concerned authority and theCommittee. Selection of students must then bestrictly on the basis of merit as per that meritlist."38. In para 17 of the above said Judgment, the Hon'bleSupreme Court dealt with a contention raised on behalf of certaininstitutions who had their own admission procedure and had statedas under:"17. At this juncture it is brought toour notice that several institutions, have sincelong, had their own admission procedure and thateven though they have been raised against them andno complaints have been made regarding fairness ortransparency of the admission procedure adopted bythem. These institutions submit that they havespecial features and that they stand on a differentfooting from other minority non-aided professionalinstitutions. It is submitted that their cases arenot based only on the right flowing from Article 30(1) but in addition they have some special featureswhich require that they be permitted to admit inthe manner they have been doing for all theseyears. A reference is made to few suchinstitutions i.e. Christian Medical College,Vellore, St.John's Hospital, Islamic Academy ofEducation etc. The claim of these institutions wasdisputed. However, we do not think it necessary togo into those questions. We leave it open to theinstitutions which have been established and whohave had their own admission procedure for, atleast, the last 25 years to apply to the Committeeset out hereinafter."39. In para 19 of the above said Judgment, whiledirecting the respective State Governments to constitute apermanent Committee to ensure that the tests conducted by theAssociation of Colleges is fair and transparent, has also providedscope for the Committee to permit a institution to adopt its ownprocedure. It was however, stated there in that no institute whichhas not been established and does not follow its own admissionprocedure for the last, at least, 25 years, should be permitted toapply or granted exemption from admitting students in the mannerset out earlier."40. In para 21, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed thatthe seats to be filled up by the State should be in the ratio of50:50.41. In the subsequent judgment reported in "2004(8) SCC139 (P.A.INAMDAR AND OTHERS versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ OTHERS)" (hereinafter referred to as "P.A.Inamdar case") in para13 and 14, while dealing with the claim of 'Islamic Academy ofEducation case' that there should not be a restriction on itsright to hold its own form of admission which had been inexistence in 25 years or more, the Hon'ble Supreme Court orderedas under in para 13."13. .... We need not go into thesesubmissions at this stage, as it would require usto go into the question whether the restriction of25 years or more would apply in all casesirrespective of the merits of the institutions orits back ground or whether such a restriction wascontrary to the decision in 'T.M.A. Pai. By wayof an interim measure, we permit the IslamicAcademy Education colleges to hold separateentrance examinations in terms of the order dated18-8-1993....""14. It is made clear that this order islimited to Islamic Academy Education Collegesalone."42. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Courtreported in "1986 (3) SCC 727 (DR.DINESH KUMAR AND OTHERS (II)versus MOTILAL NEHRU MEDICAL COLLEGE, ALLAHABAD AND OTHERS)", theHon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under in paragraph 12(4), asunder:"12(4). We are of the view that whenselection of candidates is being made for admissionon an all India basis, no factor other than meritshould be allowed to tilt the balance in favour ofa candidate. We must remember that what we areregulating are admissions to post-graduate coursesand if we want to produce doctors who are MD or MS,particularly surgeons who are going to operate uponhuman beings, it is of the utmost importance thatthe selection should be based on merit. ....." "....We are therefore, of the view thatno weightage should be given to a candidate forrural service rendered by him so far as admissionsto post graduate courses are concerned...." 43. In the subsequent judgment reported in "(1992) 2 SCC26 (DR.SNEHELATA PATNAIK AND OTHERS versus STTE OF ORISSA ANDOTHERS)", the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while referring to theobservations found in '1986(3) SCC 727' (cited supra), has statedas under in para 2:"2. In our opinion, this observation https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ certainly does not constitute the ratio of thedecision. The decision is in no way dependent uponthese observations. Moreover, those observationsare in connection with All India Selection and donot have equal force when applied to selection froma single State. These observations, however,suggest that the weightage to be given must be thebare minimum required to meet the situation. Inthese circumstances, we are of the view that theauthorities might well consider giving weightage upto a maximum of 5 per cent of marks in favour ofin-service candidates who have done rural servicefor five years or more. The actual percentagewould certainly have to be left to the authorities.We also clarify that these suggestions do not inany way confer any legal right on in-servicestudents who have done rural service nor do thesuggestions have any application to the selectionof the students up to the end of this year."44. In yet another judgment reported in "AIR 2001 SC 717(K.DURAISAMY AND ANOTHER ETC.,ETC., versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU ANDOTHERS)", a question arose as to 'the scheme for admission toSuper Speciality courses envisaging admission from two sources,namely, in-service candidates and non-service candidates by fixing50% of seats exclusively to each of them' came up forconsideration, wherein, it was held that the quota for in-servicecandidates cannot be worked out after excluding those in-servicecandidates who got admitted on the basis of merit. Though theHon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with a case relating toadmission of candidates to Super Speciality and P.G.Courses, theearlier Constitution Bench Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,reported in 'Dr.Preeti Srivastava case' was not cited before theHon'ble Supreme Court.45. In the light of the above stated legal position in the variousjudgments, the submissions of the learned senior counsel for therespective parties are to be considered. As far as the submissionthat G.O.Ms.No.130 dated 17-6-2003 is not applicable to SuperSpeciality course, I am afraid that such a contention cannot beaccepted for more than one reason. In the first place, as pointedout by Mr.K.Subramanian, learned senior counsel appearing for thefifth respondent, Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations-2000points out that even super specialities would fall within thecategory of P.G.Courses. Both while dealing with the generalconditions as well as the period of training to be prescribed, itis specifically mentioned that both D.M. And M.Ch. are covered bythe above said Regulations. That apart, in the Constitution BenchJudgment reported in 'Dr.Preeti Srivastava case' which dealt withthe Super Speciality courses, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ referred to Super Speciality course as a specialisedP.G.education. Abbreviation to the nomenclature, viz., M.D.- M.S.P.G. Courses and D.M.-M.Ch. Super Speciality courses, as could beseen from the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations 2000 areas under:"M.D.- Doctor of Medicine M.S.- Master of Surgery D.M.- Doctor of Medicine M.Ch.- Master Chirurgiae"46. The Super Speciality courses over and above aMaster Degree is being undertaken as a 'study' with reference to aspecialised subject. A reference to Annexure-I to the 'Prospectus2004-2005 of the 3 years Higher Speciality courses' disclose thatwhile a minimum Masters Degree in any particular field can eitherbe on General Medicine or General Surgery or Paediatric and so on,the Super Speciality is with reference to an exclusive subjectsuch as Neurology or Cardiology or Neuro Surgery or CardioThoraicic Surgery, and so on. Therefore, in effect, the SuperSpeciality course can only be construed as part and parcel of yetanother Higher Post Graduation over and above a Masters Degree.Further even the petitioner has understood the course only as aP.G.Degree or Diploma as could be seen from its ownrepresentations, namely, the one dated 23-4-1997/7-5-1997 as wellas 17-9-2003. In the former, the petitioner itself has claimed atpage 2 as under:"We may point out that we offer only a fewpost graduate seats viz., 3 for D.M., 3 for M.Ch.And one for M.D.(RT). From a practical point ofview, allotment of 50 percent by Government tooutside candidates will not significantly increasethe availability of seats for them while it willseriously reduce the limited opportunitiesavailable for merit candidates."47. Again in its representation dated 17-9-2003, thepetitioner has stated at page 3 as under:"There are only 3 seats for DM and 3seats for the M.Ch. And 1 seat in the MD RadiationOncology sanctioned to the Institute. Werepresent that it will be very unfair to take 50%away from this scanty number of sets by theGovernment when it has its own M.Ch.course in theGovernment Royapettah Hospital and DM in theGovernment General Hospital, which are both 100%Government controlled. ..."48. Therefore, merely because in the fixation of cut of date for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ various courses in the communication dated 14-1-2004 the thirdrespondent dealt with Super Speciality courses and HigherSpeciality Courses as a separate category, I am unable to concludethat that alone would mean that such Super Speciality courseswould not come within the category of P.G.Courses. In any case,even in G.O.Ms.No.130 dated 17-6-2003, the Higher SpecialityCourses have been dealt with as a separate category, though itcalls for allocation of 50% of seats for State Governmentallotment. I, therefore, reject the said submission so made onbehalf of the petitioner.49. As far as the submission made based on the Judgmentin 'Dr.Preeti Srivastava case', I find considerable force in thesaid submission made on behalf of the petitioner. In fact, thevarious extracted portions of the said judgments in this orderdefinitely supports the claim of the petitioner. It cannot besaid that those observations contained in paras 22 and 23 of thesaid Judgment are to be read only in the context of application ofcommunal reservation alone. The observations such as, "...it is essential in the national interestthat these special facilities are made available topersons of high calibre possessing the highest degreeof merit so that the nation can shape theirexceptional talent that is capable of contributing tothe progress of human knowledge, creation andutilisation of new medical, technical or othertechniques, extending the frontiers of knowledgethrough research work—in fact everything that givesto a nation excellence and ability to competeinternationally in professional, technical andresearch fields..."and further observations found in para 23 to the effect that- "...a super-specialist acquires expertknowledge in his speciality and is expected topossess exceptional competence and skill in hischosen field, where he may even make an originalcontribution in the form of new innovativetechniques or new knowledge to fight diseases. Itis in public interest that we promote these skills.Such high degrees of skill and expert knowledge inhighly specialised areas, however, cannot beacquired by anyone or everyone. ..."and further, "...Opportunities for such training are few and itis in the national interest that these are madeavailable to those who can profit from them themost viz., the best brains in the country,irrespective of the class to which theybelong....".Further, in para 34, it has been stated, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "...Not everyone has this ability. Of courseintelligence and abilities do not know anyfrontiers of caste or class or race or sex. Theycan be found anywhere, but not in everyone.Therefore, selection of the right calibre ofstudents is essential in public interest at thelevel of specialised post-graduate education...". 50. The above observations found in the said Judgmentdoes disclose that as between the national interest and providingany quota for admission to such Super Speciality courses, thenational interest should prevail and there should be norestrictions or limitations in the selection process for suchspecialised Post Graduate courses. 51. In the above said background when the case on hand isanalysed, I am able to appreciate the stand of the petitioner thatin the light of the extraordinary reputation gained by thepetitioner institution at the National level in the field ofcancer treatment, it is entitled to claim some special status inthe matter of selection. The petitioner has acquired the statusof Regional Centre for Cancer patients. The institution deals onlywith cancer patients and the number of cancer patients healed bythe petitioner is not comparable with any other MedicalInstitutions whether private or public. It is nobody's case thatso far in the matter of admission to such courses, the petitionerhad resorted to any unfair means or non-grant of admission are forany whimsical or for any extraneous reasons. That apart, as perthe Prospectus issued by the State Government, the selection forvarious Super Speciality courses would involve sufficientexpenditure such as payment of fees, by way of tuition fee andspecial fee to the tune of Rs.50,000/- per annum apart from therequirement of the selected service candidates to execute a bondfor a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with two sureties in Tamil NaduMedical Service in the same rank or Medical Officers of Higherrank, undertaking to the effect that they would serve theGovernment till the date of their superannuation. In respect ofnon-service candidates, they have to execute a bond for a sum ofRs.10,00,000/- to the Government, that they would serve theGovernment at least for a minimum period of two years. Whereas, inthe petitioner institution, the selected candidates would not onlybe provided free academic training, but they would also be paidstipend of Rs.9000/- per month during the course of study period.The selection is also stated to be on an All India basis while theselection made by the third respondent is confined to the State ofTamil Nadu alone. The process of selection does not provide forany preference to any category.52. Therefore, when the selection process of the petitionerinstitution is viewed from the stand point of its reputation, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ faculties, the range of selection on All India basis, freeeducation provided by it apart from payment of stipend, would goto show that the petitioner institution stands on a differentpedestal than that of any other institution, leave alone theGovernment institutions. Viewed in that respect, certainly theproduct of the petitioner institution in such Super Specialitycourses would provide a further more care and intensive service tothe needy cancer patients and such a special status of thepetitioner institution cannot be equated with any other ordinaryunaided private professional institution. I am therefore of theview that there would be every justification in the petitioner'sclaim in contending that its selection process at least in so faras it related to the Super Speciality courses, leave alone theother P.G.Courses, namely, D.M. (RT) and M.D.(RT) should not betouched or allowed to be interfered with by attempting to inductany other candidate whose merit was tested for the purpose ofadmission to such Super Speciality courses in the State Governmentinstitutions. 53. In this context, at the risk of repetition, it canbe stated that the very fact that one of the candidates, namely,Dr.P.Arul Raj, who is selected for one of the seats in the Stateowned medical institutions aspiring to get himself admitted in thepetitioner institution itself is proof positive about theextraordinary reputation and stature maintained by the petitionerinstitution. In my view such a reputation maintained by thepetitioner institution should never be attempted to be diluted. 54. Further, even applying the ratio of the differentJudgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, viz., "T.M.A.PaiFoundation Case", "Islamic Academy of Education Case" as well as"P.A.Inamdar Case", I do not find any conflict. It is commonground that all along, the State Government was permitting thepetitioner Instituion to have its own process of admission to bothGraduate as well as Super-speciality Courses. In fact, apart fromallowing the petitioner to have its own process of selection on anAll India Basis, the State Government also exempted the petitionerfrom the application of G.O.Ms.No.469 dated 18-9-1996 providingfor 50% of seats to be filled up by the State Government bydeleting the name of the petitioner institution from the list ofColleges mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.119 dated 26-3-1997. At the riskof repetition, it will have to be stated that till date, the StateGovernment was consciously permitting the petitioner to have itsown method of selection on an All India Basis in respect of thefilling up of all the seats, both Post Graduate as well as SuperSpeciality Courses. Apparently, the approach of the StateGovernment on this aspect cannot also be faulted, inasmuch as thesame is in consonance with what has been stated by the Hon'bleSupreme Court in para 65 of "T.M.A.Pai Foundation Case", whereinthe Hon'ble Supreme Court highlighted the importance of an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Educational Institution, by virtue of its reputation gained due tothe quality of its faculty, the quantity of students, thefacilities offered who have personality of their own in order tomaintain their standard and tradition. Further, in para 17 of"Islamic Academy of Education Case" the Hon'ble Supreme Court,while referring to various Institutions who have since long theirown admission procedure by virtue of certain special features, hasstated to the effect that-"17. .... However, we do not think itnecessary to go into those questions. We leave itopen to the Institutions, which have beenestablished and who have had their own admissionprocedure for, at least, the last 25 years to applyto the Committee set out hereinafter."Again in the "P.A.Inamdar Case", while permitting the IslamicAcademy of Education to adopt its own process of selection, hasobserved in para 13 to the effect that-"13. .... we need not go into thesesubmissions at this stage, as it would require usto go into the question whether the restriction of25 years or more would apply in all casesirrespective of the merits of the institutions orits back ground. ...."Thus, by applying the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court asstated in "Islamic Academy of Education Case" that the "RatioDecidendi" of a Judgment has to be found out only on reading theentire Judgment and that the ratio of the Judgment is, what is setout in the Judgment itself, it will have to be held that the StateGovernment has rightly permitted the petitioner to have its ownprocess of selection of candidates for filling up the seats inPost Graduate as well as Higher Speciality Courses. The StateGovernment thus having understood the legal position laid down inthe above referred to Judgments and permitted the petitioner toadopt its own method of selection, it cannot now be permitted totake a sudden 'U' turn at the time of filling up of the seats andtry to interfere with the admissions made by the petitioner.55. On a close reading of "Dr.Preeti Srivastava Case",I find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court made it clear that they didnot examine the question as to permissibility of reservation atthe Postgraduate level of medical education. The Hon'ble SupremeCourt, however, held that the prescription of lower minimumqualifying marks for the reserved category candidates at the post-graduate level of medical education must be decided by the MedicalCouncil of India. The Hon'ble Suprme Court, however, made ittacitly clear that at the level of super-speciality course, nospecial provisions are permissible, they are being contrary to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ national interest where merit alone can be the basis of theselection. In the said Judgment, it is true that super-specialitycourse has been characterised as a higher post-graduate course ashas been described in para 22 of the said Judgment. Therefore,even while holding that the super-speciality course can only becharacterised as a 'higher post-graduate course' yet, in the lightof greater stress laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as to theimportance of the said course in the sense that any dilution ofmerit at the level of super-specialization would adversely affectthe national goal having the best possible pupil at the highestlevel of professional and educational training, I am of the viewthat the consideration of the question relating to admission tosuch a super-speciality course can be safely weighed based on theratio of the decision rendered in "Dr.Preeti Srivastava Case". Inthis context, it would be worthwhile to refer to what has beenstated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "2002(1) SCC 428 (citedsupra), wherein, in para 59, the importance of All India merit hasbeen highlighted in the following words:"59. .... In the case of institutions ofnational significance such as AIIMS, additionalconsiderations against promoting reservations orpreference of any kind destructive of merit becomerelevant. ..."56. In the case on hand, in the petitioner institutionin so far as it sought to fill up 50% of the seats at the highersuper-speciality course has not been faulted by the firstrespondent-State. It is not the case of the respondent-State thatthe selection process of the petitioner institution was contraryto any statute or the prescriptions made in the decision of theHon'ble Supreme Court in "T.M.A.Pai Foundation Case", "IslamicAcademy of Education Case" or even for that matter "P.A.InamdarCase". The attempt of the respondent State is only to ensure itsshare of 50% of seats in the super-speciality courses. Therefore,it cannot be said that the petitioner committed any serious errorin the process of selection made by it for the super-specialitycourse. If the stand of the respondent-State was that the wholeselection process of the petitioner was not inconsonance with thedecisions rendered in "T.M.A.Pai Foundation Case", "IslamicAcademy of Education Case", etc., there is no question of therespondent-State restricting its claim only to 50% of the seats inthose courses. The very fact that the respondent-State is notseeking to interfere with the selection made by the petitioner inso far as 50% of the seats itself establishes that the selectionprocess adopted by the petitioner institution on its own formaking the selection to the super-speciality courses wasacceptable. Therefore, I am unable to see how the respondent-State can be permitted to contend that the selection made by thepetitioner in respect of the other 50% seats alone of the super-speciality courses was not inconsonance with the ratio of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ decisions rendered in "T.M.A.Pai Foundation Case" and "IslamicAcademy of Education Case". As far as I could see, the fallacy inthe submission of the State as well as that of the 5th respondentis that while, there can be fault in the method of selection madeby the petitioner, yet for the purpose of allotment of seatsalone, the criteria fixed in the above referred to judgmentsshould be followed. When once the State Government thought it fitto permit the petitioner to continue to follow its own method ofselection, thereafter, there would be no scope for it to turnaround and insist that there should be sharing of seats alone.Even in para 16 of the "Islamic Academy of Education Case", theHon'ble Supreme Court has made it clear that the Common EntranceTest for making the selection should be either by the 'Consortium'or 'State' and not both. Therefore, in a special case like thiswhere, the petitioner Institution is only one of its kind in thisRegion which was following its own pattern of admission from thevery inception which method of selection was also consciouslypermitted by the State up to the present selection, there is noscope to hold that there can be sharing of seats based on theInstitutional Selection as well as that of the State. Such anapproach if permitted to take place that would be in conflict withwhat has been stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "IslamicAcademy of Education Case". I am of the view that applying theratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Dr.PreetiSrivastava Case", when merit is the sole criteria of admission asmade by the petitioner institution for filling up of the seats,there would be very little scope for the respondent-State to seekfor filling up of the other 50% of the seats as of right. In thiscontext, the contention of Mr.Sri Ram Panchu, learned seniorcounsel in highlighting the process of selection made by thepetitioner as against the selection procedure prescribed by therespondent-State in its Prospectus would certainly weigh in favourof the petitioner institution's method of selection which would inturn certainly entitle the petitioner to insist that such a meritbased selection made in the national interest should always bepreferred.57. Further as pointed out by the learned senior counsel for thepetitioner, the respondent-State never intended to make theselection for the super-speciality courses available in thepetitioner institution at the time when it issued its Prospectus.In para 12 of the Prospectus, while in Annexure-I, "CodeNumber/Discipline/ Duration/Eligibility" are provided, inAnnexure-II, the distribution of seats in different institutionsof the State are mentioned which are to be referred by thecandidates applied for the courses based on the Prospectus.Significantly, in the said Annexure-II, the name of the petitionerinstitution, the number of seats available therein have not beenmentioned. Therefore, when the candidates who applied for thesuper-speciality courses as per the above said Prospectus issued https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ by the State Government, I am unable to accept the contention ofthe respondents that such selection made based on theprescriptions stipulated in the Prospectus would also include thesuper-speciality courses of the petitioner institution. Thepresent stand of the respondent-state that based on the paperpublication dated 27-7-2004 such a stand of the respondent-Stateshould be accepted, is, in my opinion, purely an after-thought.The stand of the petitioner cannot also be said to be incontravention of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in"T.M.A.Pai Foundation Case", "Islamic Academy of Education Case"and "P.A.Inamdar Case" inasmuch as it is not the case of any ofthe respondents that the petitioner compromised on merits whilemaking the selection. In none of the counter affidavits filed onbehalf of the respondents 1 to 5, any specific allegation has beenmade as against the petitioner to the effect that merit was givena go bye and that the selection of the sixth respondent was basedon any special consideration or preference. In the above referredto judgments also, what has been repeatedly emphasized is that'merit' alone should be the criteria. It is not the case of therespondent-State that the selection process of the petitioner forfilling up of the super-speciality courses or even for that matterthe Post-graduate courses was unethical or by showing anypreferences. Therefore, on that ground, there is no scope forinterfering with the selection of the sixth respondent inasmuchas, as held by me earlier, the Hon'ble Supreme Court itself haslaid greater emphasis that merit alone should be the criteria forany selection to the super-speciality course. In suchcircumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the selection madeby the petitioner to any of the super-speciality courses much lessin the selection of the sixth respondent.58. In view of my reasoning as above, it will have tobe held that the quota of 50% seats to be filled in by therespondent-State as claimed by the state based on G.O.Ms.No.130dated 17-6-2003 cannot be extended to the super-speciality coursesto the petitioner Premier Institution and consequently, therejection of the petitioner's claim for filling up of the seats inthe super-speciality courses by the State Government in its orderin Ref.No.1215/SCS II (1)/2003, dated 3-2-2004 cannot also bejustified.In the result, a) Both the Writ Petitions stand allowed; b) The Order of the third respondent in Ref.No.1215/SCSII (1)/2003, dated 3-2-2004 is hereby set aside;c) It is hereby declared that the provisions ofG.O.Ms.No.130 dated 17-6-2003 will have no application insofar aspetitioner Institution is concerned regarding admission to Super-speciality Courses offered by it;d) There shall be no order as to costs; ande) All the connected W.P.M.Ps. are closed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Health and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.2. The Registrar, The Tamil Nadu Dr.MGR Medical University, No.69, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.3. Director of Medical Education, 162, Periyar E.V.R.Salai, Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010.4. Union of India, rep. by Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi-110 611.one cc to the Govt. Pleader SR.1787.One cc to Mr.G.Thilakavathi, Advocate SR.1654.Two ccs to Mr.Azhagu shivanandan, Advocate SR.1606.WPNOS.16572&16573 OF 2004JK [co] MK