Andhra Pradesh HC Backs State’s Discretion On PG Quota |Reservation Is Not A Fundamental Right | Upholds Revised In-Service Medical Seats Policy As Legally Tenable
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice R. Raghunandan Rao, in a recent judgment, dismissed a Writ Petition challenging the reduction of seats reserved for in-service candidates in P.G. Medical Courses. The petition also contested a specific provision within Section 15(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983. The court held that the State is not prohibited from altering the number of seats reserved for in-service candidates, particularly after considering factors such as the vacancy position of specialist posts and the availability of specialists within the medical services. The court found that the statistics presented clearly supported the reduction in available seats for in-service candidates. Consequently, the court directed that the Writ Petition stands dismissed, with no order as to costs, and any pending miscellaneous petitions shall be closed
The petitioners, Dr. A. Himabindu and four others, all serving as Civil Assistant Surgeons in the medical services of the State, filed Writ Petition No. 22643 of 2024. They challenged G.O.Ms.No.85, dated 20.07.2024, and G.O.Ms.No. 127, dated 01.10.2024, which reduced the percentage of seats reserved for in-service candidates in P.G. Medical Courses. Additionally, they challenged a specific part of sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983. The respondents in the case included the State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Health, Medical & Family Welfare Department, and Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, along with two other respondents.
The legal framework governing admissions to educational courses in Andhra Pradesh is established by the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983. Pursuant to Section 15 of this Act, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued The Andhra Pradesh Medical Colleges (Admission into P.G. Medical Colleges) Rules, 1997, through G.O.Ms.No.260, dated 10.07.1997, to regulate admissions into P.G. Medical Courses. These rules underwent several amendments up to 07.10.2022.
A committee was subsequently constituted by the Government to assess the impact of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers' Association & Others vs. Union of India & Others, reported in (2021) 6 SCC 568, which had affirmed reservations for in-service candidates in P.G. Medical Courses. Based on the recommendations of this committee, the admission rules were amended by G.O.Ms.No. 150, dated 11.12.2021. This amendment specifically reserved 30% of clinical seats and 50% of non-clinical seats within the State Government quota of P.G. Medical seats exclusively for in-service candidates, with defined eligibility criteria.
Following this, the Government formed another committee tasked with evaluating the suitability and appropriate percentage of reservation for in-service candidates. Acting on the report submitted by this new committee, G.O.Ms.No.85, dated 20.07.2024, was issued, which reduced the reservation for in-service candidates to 15% for clinical seats and 30% for non-clinical specialty seats. Objections were raised concerning this reduction, leading to a reconsideration by the Government. Consequently, G.O.Ms.No. 127, dated 01.10.2024, was issued, which increased the quota for clinical seats from 15% to 20%, while maintaining the 30% quota for non-clinical specialty seats.
The petitioners, aggrieved by this reduction, put forth several contentions. They argued that they had a legitimate expectation of entry into P.G. Medical Courses based on their services in the medical services of the State, and that this expectation was a factor in their decision to join the State medical services. They further contended that the committee responsible for the amendments was appointed with a predetermined objective to support the Government's decision to reduce the in-service quota, thereby invalidating its report as a basis for the reduction. The petitioners also asserted that the reasons provided by the committee for the reduction, specifically concerning in-service candidates not returning to work and those pursuing a second P.G. course, did not adequately justify the reduction of seats.
A significant part of the petitioners' argument revolved around the procedural aspect of the amendments. They claimed that the amended rules were being implemented without being placed before the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council, a requirement stipulated for legislative review and to prevent excessive delegation of legislative power to the executive. Furthermore, they challenged a specific portion of Section 15(1) of the Act, which states, "So however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule.". The petitioners argued that this provision effectively grants unbridled power to the executive, protecting actions taken under rules even if those rules are subsequently set aside by the legislature, thus constituting excessive delegation.
In response, the 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit, asserting that the impugned G.O. had indeed been placed before the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly on 13.11.2011, as evidenced by U.O.Note.No.226/Legn./2021, dated 05.12.2024. The 1st respondent maintained that the requirement of placing rules framed by the executive before the Legislature is directory, not mandatory, and that non-compliance would not render the rules ineffective or unimplementable. The report of the committee, which formed the basis for the impugned Government Orders, was also presented to the Court by the 1st respondent.
The committee's observations, as presented to the Court, stated several points. It was noted that the policy of reservation for in-service candidates was initially introduced due to a shortage of specialists, leading to vacant posts in medical services. However, through this reservation system, a substantial number of specialists are now available within the medical services, resulting in a significant reduction in specialist post vacancies. The committee also observed a substantial increase in P.G. seats in both Government and Private Medical Colleges, which has, in turn, increased the overall number of seats available to in-service candidates. Furthermore, the recruitment of specialists by the Andhra Pradesh State Medical Recruitment Board has contributed to a substantial decrease in specialist post vacancies. The report also pointed out that in certain specialties, the number of in-service candidates who have already obtained the necessary P.G. qualification or are currently pursuing such courses exceeds the number of available posts, making it difficult to accommodate all such qualified candidates.
The High Court observed that the primary purpose of reservations for in-service candidates is to ensure that the State's medical services are adequately staffed with specialists capable of maintaining high standards of medical assistance for patients in government hospitals. The court stated that “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 court further observed that “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.” The report, which was placed before the Court by the 1st respondent, detailed the number of seats that would be available. The court noted that “The statistics set out in this report clearly make a case for reduction of the seats that are made available to in-service candidates.”
Addressing the petitioners' contention regarding the committee's objective, the court stated that “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.” Regarding the challenge to Section 15(1) of the Act, the court observed that “The challenge to provision of section 15(1) of the Act, to the extent of the provision extracted above, would be academic in the present case as the requirement of placing the Rules before the legislature had been carried out.”
The court stated “For all the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed.” There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. P.V. Krishnaiah
For the Respondents: Mrs. S. Pranathi, Special Government Pleader, Mrs. Tata Venkata Sridevi, Learned Standing Counsel for Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences
Case Title: Dr. A. Himabindu & ors. Versus. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Case Number: WRIT PETITION No.22643 of 2024
Bench: Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur, Justice R. Raghunandan Rao
[Read/Download order]
