Dr. Kriti Lakhina and Others vs State of Karnataka and Others

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1.This pe(cid:28)(cid:28)on under Ar(cid:28)cle 32 of the Cons(cid:28)tu(cid:28)on of India has been filed by 44 Doctors who did their MBBS/BDS Courses from State of

Karnataka and have cleared the NEET-PG, 2018 examination with high merit position and are aspiring for admission to Post-Graduate Courses in

Karnataka. The principal prayer in the writ pe(cid:28)(cid:28)on seeks issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direc(cid:28)on quashing Clause 4 of the

Informa(cid:28)on Bulle(cid:28)n jointly issued by Directorate of Medical Educa(cid:28)on, Government of Karnataka and Karnataka Examina(cid:28)ons Authority,

Government of Karnataka, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively.

2.The Informa(cid:28)on Bulle(cid:28)n in ques(cid:28)on lays down, inter alia, condi(cid:28)ons for admission to Post-Graduate Medical and Dental Courses in respect

of government quota seats in Medical/Dental Colleges in State of Karnataka and was published on the website on 10.03.2018. Relevant por(cid:28)on

of Clause 4 of this Information Bulletin deals with eligibility conditions in following terms:

“4.ELIGIBILITY 4.1ELIGIBILITY for Government seats (G) &GMP seats:

A candidate who fulfills the following criteria is eligible to appear for the online seat allotment process, namely:-

He/she is a ci(cid:28)zen of India, who is of Karnataka Origin and has studied MBBS or BDS degree in a Medical or Dental College situated in Karnataka

or outside Karnataka and affiliated to any University established by law in India recognized by Medical Council of India or Dental Council of

India and Government of India and has qualified in the NEET (Na(cid:28)onal Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test) for admission to post graduate medical or

dental degree/diploma courses.

Note: Children for the purpose of the rule means natural born son/daughter and not adopted son/daughter and not grandson/grand daughter.

Explanation: A candidate of Karnataka Origin: means, a candidate found eligible under clause A or B below.

(Clause A)

i)A candidate who has studied and passed in one or more Government or Government recognized, educa(cid:28)onal ins(cid:28)tu(cid:28)ons located in the State

of Karnataka for a minimum period of TEN academic years as on the 31st March, 2018, commencing for 1st standard to MBBS/BDS and must have

appeared and passed either SSLC/10th standard or 2nd PUC/12th standard examina(cid:28)on from Karnataka State. In case of the candidate who has

taken more than one year to pass a class or standard, the year of academic study is counted as one year only (Document to be produced)

(Clause B)

ii)The candidate should have studied and passed 1st and 2nd year Pre-University Examina(cid:28)on or 11th or 12th standard examina(cid:28)on within the

State of Karnataka from an Educa(cid:28)onal Ins(cid:28)tu(cid:28)on run or recognized by the State Government or MBBS/BDS from a professional educa(cid:28)onal

ins(cid:28)tu(cid:28)on located in Karnataka and that either of the parents must have studied/resided in Karnataka for a minimum period of 10 years.

(Documents to be produced)â€​

3.It is submi(cid:70)ed by the pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oners that this Informa(cid:28)on Bulle(cid:28)n issued by Respondent Nos.2 and 3, to the extent Clause 4.1 thereof imposes a

condition of domicile for admission to MD, MS and Post-Graduate Diploma seats in State of Karnataka is invalid and unconstitutional. According

to the pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oners said Clause 4.1 arbitrarily and illegally deprives the pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oners who had obtained MBBS/BDS Degrees from the Colleges

situated in Karnataka from compe(cid:28)ng for admission to Post-Graduate Medical/Dental Curses in Government Medical Colleges and against

Government quota seats in non-Governmental ins(cid:28)tu(cid:28)ons. Reliance has been placed on the Judgment of this Court in Vishal Goyal and Others

v. State of Karnataka and Others (2014) 11 SCC 456 to submit that the controversy is no longer res-integra and the view taken in Vishal Goyal

(supra) ought to have been adhered to by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 while issuing the Bulletin.

4.Since the ma(cid:70)er involves urgency and the career prospects of the pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oners and similarly situated candidates are in ques(cid:28)on, the ma(cid:70)er

was taken up for hearing immediately. State of Karnataka entered appearance and has filed its reply submi(cid:74)ng inter alia, that under the

eligibility condi(cid:28)ons, only candidates of Karnataka origin could compete for admission to 50% government seats in government colleges and

against government quota seats in private colleges. The reply further stated that these eligibility condi(cid:28)ons were s(cid:28)pulated in order to ensure

that the State’s requirement of skilled human resource is met with and that the Post-Graduate Medical Educa(cid:28)on Regula(cid:28)on 2000 (‘2000

Regulations’ for short) of Medical Council of India do not prohibit the State from stipulating eligibility conditions for Post-Graduate courses.

According to certain sta(cid:28)s(cid:28)cs given in the reply, candidates of Karnataka origin numbering 4093 candidates would be compe(cid:28)ng for admission

to 1828 seats while 10003 candidates of origin other than Karnataka which number includes 1263 candidates from outside the State who had

studied and completed MBBS/BDS Courses from the colleges situated in Karnataka would be compe(cid:28)ng for admission to 2301 seats. The reply

further submi(cid:70)ed that the State was within its right to formulate eligibility condi(cid:28)ons to give preference to candidates who were most likely

to serve the State.

5.In its reply, Medical Council of India (“MCIâ€, for short) submi(cid:70)ed that the Informa(cid:28)on Bulle(cid:28)n (PGET-2014) issued by the State of

Karnataka in the year 2014 contained similar eligibility criteria as provided in Clause 4.1 of the present Informa(cid:28)on Bulle(cid:28)n (PGET-2018) which

was challenged in the case of Vishal Goyal (supra) and that this Court held the preference based on domicile to be viola(cid:28)ve of the principle of

equality and liable to be set aside. A(cid:79)er referring to various Judgments of this Court the reply set out the emerging legal posi(cid:28)on as perceived

by MCI in following terms:-

“a. Reservation of seats at the post graduate level has been in principle disapproved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court;

b.Reserva(cid:28)on of seats at the post graduate level on the basis of domicile/ residence/ place of origin is impermissible and cannot be done by

the State;

c.Institutional reservation/ preference for reserving seats at the post graduate level is permissible subject to an outer limit of 50%;

d.Ins(cid:28)tu(cid:28)onal reserva(cid:28)on/ preference can be invalidated on the ground that the same is viola(cid:28)ve of the principle of equality enshrined under

Article 14 of the Constitution of India;

e.There cannot be any domicile requirement imposed by the State while implementing institutional reservation;

f.Ins(cid:28)tu(cid:28)onal reserva(cid:28)on/ preference disguised as domicile reserva(cid:28)on has been held to be invalid and viola(cid:28)ve of Ar(cid:28)cle 14 of the

Constitution.â€​

6.We heard Mr. Amrendra Sharan, learned Senior Advocate for the pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oners, Mr. Basavaprabhu S. Pa(cid:28)l, learned Senior Advocate for State of

Karnataka and official respondents and Mr. Gaurav Sharma, learned Advocate for MCI.

7.Mr. Sharan, learned Senior Advocate relied upon the decisions of this Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain and Others v. Union of India and Others,

Saurabh Chaudri and Others v. Union of India and Others3, Magan Mehrotra and Others v. Union of India and Others, Nikhil Himthani v. State of

U(cid:70)arakhand and Others and finally on the decision of this Court in Vishal Goyal (supra). In his submission these decisions as culminated in the

decision in Vishal Goyal (supra) fully conclude the ma(cid:70)er. These submissions were supported by Mr. Gaurav Sharma, learned Advocate for the

MCI.

8.Mr. Pa(cid:28)l, learned Senior Advocate, on the other hand relied upon the decision of this Court in D.P. Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat and

Another6 and on paragraphs 6, 13 and 16 of the decision in Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra), in support of his submissions.

9.A(cid:79)er conclusion of hearing, wri(cid:70)en submissions were filed by the par(cid:28)es. In their wri(cid:70)en submissions, pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oners inter alia submi(cid:70)ed that

Clause 4.1 of the Informa(cid:28)on Bulle(cid:28)n in ques(cid:28)on was viola(cid:28)ve of Ar(cid:28)cle 14 of the Cons(cid:28)tu(cid:28)on and was opposed to Regula(cid:28)on 9 of 2000

Regula(cid:28)ons. A chart was appended showing similarity between Clause 2 of PGET-2014 which was subject ma(cid:70)er of the decision in Vishal Goyal

(supra) and the present Clause 4.1. In its wri(cid:70)en submissions MCI also relied upon 2000 Regula(cid:28)ons and specially Regula(cid:28)on 9 thereof. It was

further submitted:

“It is important to note that there are primarily two types of courses at post -graduate level i.e. post-graduate diploma courses and post

graduate degree courses. On a close reading of Regula(cid:28)on 9(IV) and 9(VII) the dis(cid:28)nc(cid:28)on between post graduate diploma course and post-

graduate degree course is apparent. It needs to be emphasized that as per Regula(cid:28)on 9 and the amendments made therein from (cid:28)me to (cid:28)me,

reserva(cid:28)on of seats for in-service candidates is only permissible in post -graduate diploma courses. Further, there is no provision under the

IMC Act, 1956 and the Regulations framed thereunder which permits reservation in post-graduate degree courses.â€​

10.State of Karnataka in its wri(cid:70)en submissions sought to jus(cid:28)fy the ac(cid:28)on but did not explain how the decision in Vishal Goyal (supra) would

not be applicable in the present case. It was however submitted:-

“The State of Karnataka has 11615 Public Health Care Ins(cid:28)tu(cid:28)ons managed by the Health and Family Department of the State. It is the

objec(cid:28)ve of the State to provide secondary and ter(cid:28)ary care services too within the reach of common public. This objec(cid:28)ve is sought to be

fulfilled by se(cid:74)ng up of new State of the art ins(cid:28)tu(cid:28)ons and strengthen the exis(cid:28)ng ins(cid:28)tu(cid:28)ons through provisions of equipments, up-

grada(cid:28)on of infrastructure and recruitment of skilled man power. Today, there are 3435 posts of specialists about which 1312 are vacant,

underlying the deficiency of skilled medical professional to address the health care needs of the State. In the medical and dental educa(cid:28)onal

ins(cid:28)tu(cid:28)ons out of 2700 posts of specialists, 517 are vacant highligh(cid:28)ng the deficiency of skilled medical teachers to address the medical

teachers’ needs of the State. 16 out of 39 medical colleges in Karnataka are run by the State. There are 970 senior resident posts in these

medical colleges, 524 of which are vacant. The State has to ensure that these posts are filled up at any given point of (cid:28)me as s(cid:28)pulated by

Medical Council of India. If these remain vacant for want of specialist, de-recogni(cid:28)on looms large with the risk of jeopardizing the future of

both undergraduate and post-graduate candidates’ studying in these colleges. The posts of senior resident need to be filled by fresh post

graduates passing out every year. There is a huge requirement of specialists to run these ins(cid:28)tu(cid:28)ons. Hence the State Government has to

ensure availability of adequate number of post graduates to fill these posts.â€​

11.The decision of this Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra) had considered the Judgments rendered in Kumari N. Vasundara v. State of Mysore and

Another7, Minor P. Rajendran v. State of Madras and Others8, Â Minor A.

 Peeriakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others9 and D.N. Chanchala v. The State of Mysore and Others10 as well as the decision in Dr.

Jagadish Saran and others v. Union of India11 and finally concluded:

“We unreservedly condemn wholesale reserva(cid:28)on made by some of the State Government on the basis of ins(cid:28)tu(cid:28)onal preference for

students who have passed the qualifying examina(cid:28)on held by the university or the State excluding all students not sa(cid:28)sfying this

requirement, regardless of merit. We declare such wholesale reserva(cid:28)on to be uncons(cid:28)tu(cid:28)onal and void as being in viola(cid:28)on of Ar(cid:28)cle 14 of

the Constitution.â€​

12.During the course of its Judgment in Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra) this Court also considered the impact of submissions from the concerned

States as advanced in various Judgments that were considered in paragraphs 14 to 16, which submissions were similar to the ones advanced

before us by the State either in the reply or in the wri(cid:70)en submissions. Para 22 of the decision in Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra) finally summed up

the matter as regards post graduate courses as under:-

“22. ….. The Medical Educa(cid:28)on Review Commi(cid:70)ee has also expressed the opinion that “all admissions to the post-graduate courses

in any ins(cid:28)tu(cid:28)on should be open to candidates on an all-India basis and there should be no restric(cid:28)on regarding domicile in the State/Union

Territory in which the ins(cid:28)tu(cid:28)on is locatedâ€. So also in the policy statement filed by the learned A(cid:70)orney General, the Government of India

has categorically expressed the view that:

“So far as admission to the institutions of post-

graduate colleges and special professional colleges is concerned, it should be en(cid:28)rely on the basis of all-India merit subject to cons(cid:28)tu(cid:28)onal

reserva(cid:28)ons in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes We are therefore of the view that so far as admissions to post-graduate

courses, such as MS, MD and the like are concerned, it would be eminently desirable not to provide for any reserva(cid:28)on based on residence

requirement within the State or on ins(cid:28)tu(cid:28)onal preference. But, having regard to broader considera(cid:28)ons of equality of opportunity and

ins(cid:28)tu(cid:28)onal con(cid:28)nuity in educa(cid:28)on which has its own importance and value, we would direct that though residence requirement within the

State shall not be a ground for reserva(cid:28)on in admissions to post-graduate courses, a certain percentage of seats may in the present

circumstances, be reserved on the basis of ins(cid:28)tu(cid:28)onal preference in the sense that a student who has passed MBBS course from a medical

college or university, may be given preference for admission to the post-graduate course in the same medical college or university but such

reserva(cid:28)on on the basis of ins(cid:28)tu(cid:28)onal preference should not in any event exceed 50 per cent of the total number of open seats available for

admission to the post-graduate course…..â€​

13.In Vishal Goyal (supra) the challenge was to the validity of Clause 2.1 of the Informa(cid:28)on Bulle(cid:28)n for PGET-2014. The eligibility condi(cid:28)ons as

laid down in said Clause 2.1 are iden(cid:28)cal to those s(cid:28)pulated in the present clause, namely, Clause 4.1 of PGET-2018. Paragraphs 4, 10 to 13 and

15 of the decision in Vishal Goyal (supra) were as under:

“4. The said Clause 2.1 of the two Informa(cid:28)on Bulle(cid:28)ns, which is iden(cid:28)cally worded for admissions to postgraduate medical and

postgraduate dental courses, is extracted hereinbelow:

“2.1. No candidate shall be admitted to a professional educational institution unless the candidate possesses the following qualifications or

eligibility to appear for the entrance test namely:

(a)He is a ci(cid:28)zen of India who is of Karnataka origin and has studied MBBS/BDS degree in a medical/dental college situated in Karnataka or

outside Karnataka, and affiliated to any university established by law in India recognised by Medical Council of India and the Government of

India.

Explanation.â€"‘A candidate of Karnataka Origin’ means a candidate found eligible under clause (i) or (ii) below, namely:

(i)A candidate who has studied and passed in one or more government recognised educa(cid:28)onal ins(cid:28)tu(cid:28)ons located in the State of Karnataka

for a minimum period of TEN academic years as on the last date fixed for the submission of applica(cid:28)on form, commencing from 1st standard to

MBBS/BDS and must have appeared and passed either SSLC/1t0h  standard or 2nd PUC/12th standard examina(cid:28)on from Karnataka State. In

case of the candidate who has taken more than one year to pass a class or standard, the years of academic study is counted as one year only.

Documents to be produced, namely:

(1)SSLC or 10th standard marks card.

(2)2nd PUC or 12th standard marks card of the candidate.

(3)Candidates Study Cer(cid:28)ficate: A study cer(cid:28)ficate from the Head of educa(cid:28)onal ins(cid:28)tu(cid:28)on where he or she had studied. Further, School

Study Cer(cid:28)ficates should be countersigned by the Block Educa(cid:28)on Officer (BEO)/Deputy Director of Public Instruc(cid:28)ons (DDPI) concerned

COMPULSORILY in the proforma prescribed.

(4)Qualifying degree certificate and all phases marks card.

(5)Domicile cer(cid:28)ficate issued by the Tahsildar in the prescribed proforma (Annexure I); and if claiming reserva(cid:28)on benefits: Caste/Caste

Income Certificate issued by Tahsildar concerned, for SC/ST in Form D, Category 1 in Form E and 2-A, 2-B, 3-A and 3-B in Form F.

(6)MCI/DCI State Council Registration Certificate.

(7)Attempt Certificate issued by the college Principal concerned.

(ii)The candidate should have studied and passed 1st and 2nd years Pre-University Examina(cid:28)on or 11th and 12th standard examina(cid:28)on within

the State of Karnataka from an educa(cid:28)onal ins(cid:28)tu(cid:28)on run or recognised by the State Government or MBBS/BDS from a professional

educational institution located in Karnataka and that either of the parents should have studied in Karnataka for a minimum period of 10 years.

Documents to be produced, namely:

(1)SSLC or 10th standard marks card.

(2)2nd PUC or 12th standard marks card of the candidate.

(3)Qualifying degree certificate and all phases marks card.

(4)Domicile certificate issued by the Tahsildar in the prescribed proforma (Annexure I).

(5)If claiming reserva(cid:28)on benefits: Caste/Caste Income Cer(cid:28)ficate issued by Tahsildar concerned, for SC/ST in Form D, Category 1 in Form E and

2-A, 2-B, 3-A and 3-B in Form F; and

(6)(a) A study cer(cid:28)ficate for either of the parent having studied for at least 10 years in Karnataka from the Head of the educa(cid:28)onal ins(cid:28)tu(cid:28)on

where he/she had studied. Further, school study cer(cid:28)ficates should be countersigned by the Block Educa(cid:28)onal Officer (BEO)/Deputy Director

of Public Instructions (DDPI) concerned COMPULSORILY in the proforma prescribed (Annexure III).

(b)The candidates study cer(cid:28)ficate for having studied both 1st and 2nd PUC or 11th and 12th standard in Karnataka issued by the Head of the

educational institution.

(7)MCI/DCI State Council Registration Certificate.

(8)Attempt Certificate issued by the college Principal concerned.â€​

…………

We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the par(cid:28)es and we find that the basis of the judgment of this Court in

Pradeep Jain case is Ar(cid:28)cle 14 of the Cons(cid:28)tu(cid:28)on which guarantees to every person equality before the law and equal protec(cid:28)on of the laws.

As explained by this Court in paras 12 and 13 of the judgment in Nikhil Himthani v. State of U(cid:70)arakhand: (SCC pp. 244-45) “12. Ar(cid:28)cle 14 of

the Cons(cid:28)tu(cid:28)on guarantees to every person equality before law and equal protec(cid:28)on of laws. In Jagadish Saran v. Union of India, Krishna Iyer,

J., wri(cid:28)ng the judgment on behalf of the three Judges referring to Ar(cid:28)cle 14 of the Cons(cid:28)tu(cid:28)on held that equality of opportunity for every

person in the country is the cons(cid:28)tu(cid:28)onal guarantee and therefore merit must be the test for selec(cid:28)ng candidates, par(cid:28)cularly in the higher

levels of educa(cid:28)on like postgraduate medical courses, such as MD. In the language of Krishna Iyer, J.: (SCC pp. 778-79, para 23) ‘23. Flowing

from the same stream of equalism is another limita(cid:28)on. The basic medical needs of a region or the preferen(cid:28)al push jus(cid:28)fied for a

handicapped group cannot prevail in the same measure all the highest scales of speciality where the best skill or talent, must be handpicked

by selec(cid:28)ng according to capability. At the level of PhD, MD, or levels of higher proficiency, where interna(cid:28)onal measure of talent is made,

where losing one great scien(cid:28)st or technologist in-the-making is a na(cid:28)onal loss, the considera(cid:28)ons we have expanded upon a important lose

their potency. Here equality, measured by matching excellence, has more meaning and cannot be diluted much without grave risk.’

Relying on the aforesaid reasons in Jagadish Saran v. Union of India, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Pradeep Jain case held that

excellence cannot be compromised by any other considera(cid:28)on for the purpose of admission to postgraduate medical courses such as MD/MS

and the like because that would be detrimental to the interests of the na(cid:28)on and therefore reserva(cid:28)on based on residen(cid:28)al requirement in

the State will affect the right to equality of opportunity under Article 14 of the Constitution….â€​

In Magan Mehrotra v. Union of India and Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India also, this Court has approved the aforesaid view in Pradeep Jain

case that excellence cannot be compromised by any other considera(cid:28)on for the purpose of admission to postgraduate medical courses such as

MD/MS and the like because that would be detrimental to the interests of the na(cid:28)on and will affect the right to equality of opportunity under

Article 14 of the Constitution.

11.Mr Mariarputham is right that in Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India this Court has held that ins(cid:28)tu(cid:28)onal preference can be given by a State,

but in the aforesaid decision of Saurabh Chaudri, it has also been held that decision of the State to give ins(cid:28)tu(cid:28)onal preference can be

invalidated by the court in the event it is shown that the decision of the State is ultra vires the right to equality under Ar(cid:28)cle 14 of the

Cons(cid:28)tu(cid:28)on. When we examine sub-clause (a) of Clause 2.1 of the two Informa(cid:28)on Bulle(cid:28)ns, we find that the expression “A candidate of

Karnataka origin†who only is eligible to appear for entrance test has been so defined as to exclude a candidate who has studied MBBS or BDS

in an ins(cid:28)tu(cid:28)on in the State of Karnataka but who does not sa(cid:28)sfy the other requirements of sub-clause (a) of Clause 2.1 of the Informa(cid:28)on

Bulle(cid:28)n for PGET-2014. Thus, the ins(cid:28)tu(cid:28)onal preference sought to be given by sub-clause (a) of Clause 2.1 of the Informa(cid:28)on Bulle(cid:28)n for

PGET-2014 is clearly contrary to the judgment of this Court in Pradeep Jain case.

12.To quote from para 22 of the judgment in Pradeep Jain case: (SCC p. 693)

“22. … a certain percentage of seats may in the present circumstances, be reserved on the basis of ins(cid:28)tu(cid:28)onal preference in the sense

that a student who has passed MBBS course from a medical college or university, may be given preference for admission to the postgraduate

course in the same medical college or university….â€​

13.Sub-clause (a) of Clause 2.1 of the two Informa(cid:28)on Bulle(cid:28)ns does not actually give ins(cid:28)tu(cid:28)onal preference to students who have passed

MBBS or BDS from colleges or universi(cid:28)es in the State of Karnataka, but makes some of them ineligible to take the entrance test for admission

to postgraduate medical or dental courses in the State of Karnataka to which the Information Bulletins apply.

…………

In the result, we allow the writ pe(cid:28)(cid:28)ons, declare sub-clause (a) of Clause 2.1 of the two Informa(cid:28)on Bulle(cid:28)ns for postgraduate medical and

dental courses for PGET-2014 as ultra vires Ar(cid:28)cle 14 of the Cons(cid:28)tu(cid:28)on and null and void. The respondent will now publish fresh Informa(cid:28)on

Bulle(cid:28)ns and do the admissions to the postgraduate medical and dental courses in the government colleges as well as the State quota of the

private colleges in accordance with the law by the end of June 2014 on the basis of the results of the entrance test already held. We also order

that the general (cid:28)me schedule for counselling and admissions to postgraduate medical courses in our order dated 14-3-2014 in Fraz Naseem v.

Union of India 12 will not apply to such admissions in the State of Karnataka for the academic year 2014-2015. Similarly, the general (cid:28)me

schedule for counselling and admissions for postgraduate dental courses will not apply to such admissions in the State of Karnataka. The

parties shall bear their own costs.â€​

14.Paragraphs 13 and 15 of the Judgment of this Court in Vishal Goyal (supra) are clear that the Informa(cid:28)on Bulle(cid:28)n for PGET-2014 did not

actually give ins(cid:28)tu(cid:28)onal preference to students who had passed MBBS/BDS from Colleges or universi(cid:28)es in State of Karnataka but made

some of them ineligible to take the entrance test for admission to Post-Graduate Medical or Dental Course in State of Karnataka and that said

clause was held ultra vires Ar(cid:28)cle 14 of the Cons(cid:28)tu(cid:28)on and declared null and void. The relevant clause under considera(cid:28)on, namely, Clause

4.1 of the Informa(cid:28)on Bulle(cid:28)n for PGET-2018 is iden(cid:28)cal in substance to the one that was considered in Vishal Goyal (supra). The ma(cid:70)er is thus

no longer res-integra and is completely covered by the decision in Vishal Goyal (supra). In the circumstances, we respec(cid:89)ully follow the

decision of this Court in Vishal Goyal (supra) and hold Clause 4.1 of the Informa(cid:28)on Bulle(cid:28)n (PGET-2018) which was published on the website

on 10.03.2018 to be invalid to the extent it disqualifies pe(cid:28)(cid:28)oners and similarly situated candidates who completed their MBBS/BDS Degree

Courses from colleges situated in Karnataka from compe(cid:28)ng for admission to Post-Graduate Medical/Dental Courses in Government Medical

Colleges and against government quota seats in non-governmental institutions.

15.This writ pe(cid:28)(cid:28)on stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. State of Karnataka and Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to suitably modify and

amend the Information Bulletin in question in keeping with the observations

made in this Judgment and re-publish the Calendar of Events in terms of this Judgment and complete the en(cid:28)re process within the (cid:28)meline

stipulated by the concerned regulatory authorities.