DR. KRITI LAKHINA AND OTHERS versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS on 4 April 2018

DR. KRITI LAKHINA AND OTHERS

v.

STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 204 of 2018)

APRIL 4, 2018

[ARUN MISHRA AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]

Education/Educational Institutions: Medical education –Admission to Post Graduate courses – Clause 4 of the InformationBulletin issued by Directorate of Medical Education, Governmentof Karnataka and Karnataka Examinations Authority, Governmentof Karnataka – Imposition of condition of domicile for 10 years inKarnataka, for admission to MD, MS and Post-Graduate coursesin respect of 50% government quota seats in Medical/DentalColleges in the State of Karnataka – Writ petition by doctors whodid their MBBS/BDS Courses from State of Karnataka and havecleared the NEET-PG, 2018 examination, aspiring for admission toPost-Graduate Courses in Karnataka, seeking quashing of clause4 as invalid – Held: Clause 4.1 of the Information Bulletin (PGET-2018) is invalid to the extent it disqualifies petitioners-doctors andsimilarly situated candidates who completed their MBBS/BDS DegreeCourses from colleges situated in Karnataka from competing foradmission to Post-Graduate Medical/Dental Courses in GovernmentMedical Colleges and against government quota seats in non-governmental institutions – Issuance of direction to the State ofKarnataka and other respondents to suitably modify and amendthe Information Bulletin – Constitution of India – Art. 32.

Vishal Goyal and Others v. State of Karnataka andOthers (2014) 11 SCC 456 – relied on.

Dr. Pradeep Jain and Others v. Union of India andOthers (1984) 3 SCC 654 : [1984] 3 SCR 942; SaurabhChaudri and Others v. Union of India and Others (2003)11 SCC 146 : [2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 152; MaganMehrotra and Others v. Union of India and Others(2003) 11 SCC 186; Nikhil Himthani v. State ofUttarakhand and Others (2013) 10 SCC 237 : [2013]

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.204 of 2018.

GUnder Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

Amarendra Sharan, Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sr. Advs., AmitKumar, Shaurya Sahay, V. N. Raghupathy, Chinmay Deshpande,Ms. Ruchita Hiramath, Parikshit Angadi, Geet Ahuja, Gaurav Sharma, Dhawal Mohan, Prateek Bhatia, Ms. Mansi Sharma, H. Chandra Sekhar,Ms. Rekha Patil, Ranjay Kr. Dubey, Ms. Priya Puri, Swatantra Rai,Ms. Vijaya Laxmi, Advs. for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. 1. This petition under Article 32 ofthe Constitution of India has been filed by 44 Doctors who did theirMBBS/BDS Courses from State of Karnataka and have cleared theNEET-PG, 2018 examination with high merit position and are aspiringfor admission to Post-Graduate Courses in Karnataka. The principalprayer in the writ petition seeks issuance of an appropriate writ, order ordirection quashing Clause 4 of the Information Bulletin jointly issued byDirectorate of Medical Education, Government of Karnataka andKarnataka Examinations Authority, Government of Karnataka,Respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively.

2. The Information Bulletin in question lays down, inter alia,conditions for admission to Post-Graduate Medical and Dental Coursesin respect of government quota seats in Medical/Dental Colleges in Stateof Karnataka and was published on the website on 10.03.2018. Relevantportion of Clause 4 of this Information Bulletin deals with eligibilityconditions in following terms:

“4. ELIGIBILITY

4.1 ELIGIBILITY for Government seats (G) &GMP seats:

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

• He/she is a citizen of India, who is of Karnataka Origin andhas studied MBBS or BDS degree in a Medical or Dental Collegesituated in Karnataka or outside Karnataka and affiliated to anyUniversity established by law in India recognized by MedicalCouncil of India or Dental Council of India and Government ofIndia and has qualified in the NEET (National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test) for admission to post graduate medical or dentaldegree/diploma courses.

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

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

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

(Clause A)

i) A candidate who has studied and passed in one or moreBGovernment or Government recognized, educational institutionslocated in the State of Karnataka for a minimum period of TENacademic years as on the 31[st] March, 2018, commencing for 1[st]standard to MBBS/BDS and must have appeared and passed eitherSSLC/10[th] standard or 2[nd] PUC/12[th] standard examination fromKarnataka State. In case of the candidate who has taken moreCthan one year to pass a class or standard, the year of academicstudy is counted as one year only (Document to be produced)

(Clause B)

ii) The candidate should have studied and passed 1[st] and 2[nd] yearDPre-University Examination or 11[th] or 12[th] standard examinationwithin the State of Karnataka from an Educational Institution runor recognized by the State Government or MBBS/BDS from aprofessional educational institution located in Karnataka and thateither of the parents must have studied/resided in Karnataka forEa minimum period of 10 years. (Documents to be produced)”

3. It is submitted by the petitioners that this Information Bulletinissued by Respondent Nos.2 and 3, to the extent Clause 4.1 thereofimposes a condition of domicile for admission to MD, MS and Post-Graduate Diploma seats in State of Karnataka is invalid andFunconstitutional. According to the petitioners said Clause 4.1 arbitrarilyand illegally deprives the petitioners who had obtained MBBS/BDSDegrees from the Colleges situated in Karnataka from competing foradmission to Post-Graduate Medical/Dental Curses in GovernmentMedical Colleges and against Government quota seats in non-Governmental institutions. Reliance has been placed on the JudgmentGof this Court in Vishal Goyal and Others v. State of Karnataka andOthers[1] to submit that the controversy is no longer res-integra and theview taken in Vishal Goyal (supra) ought to have been adhered to byRespondent Nos. 2 and 3 while issuing the Bulletin.

1 (2014) 11 SCC 456H

1 (2014) 11 SCC 456H

4. Since the matter involves urgency and the career prospects ofthe petitioners and similarly situated candidates are in question, the matterwas taken up for hearing immediately. State of Karnataka enteredappearance and has filed its reply submitting inter alia, that under theeligibility conditions, only candidates of Karnataka origin could competefor admission to 50% government seats in government colleges andagainst government quota seats in private colleges. The reply furtherstated that these eligibility conditions were stipulated in order to ensurethat the State’s requirement of skilled human resource is met with andthat the Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulation 2000 (‘2000Regulations’ for short) of Medical Council of India do not prohibit theState from stipulating eligibility conditions for Post-Graduate courses.According to certain statistics given in the reply, candidates of Karnatakaorigin numbering 4093 candidates would be competing for admission to1828 seats while 10003 candidates of origin other than Karnataka whichnumber includes 1263 candidates from outside the State who had studiedand completed MBBS/BDS Courses from the colleges situated inKarnataka would be competing for admission to 2301 seats. The replyfurther submitted that the State was within its right to formulate eligibilityconditions to give preference to candidates who were most likely toserve the State.

5. In its reply, Medical Council of India (“MCI”, for short)submitted that the Information Bulletin (PGET-2014) issued by the Stateof Karnataka in the year 2014 contained similar eligibility criteria asprovided in Clause 4.1 of the present Information Bulletin (PGET-2018)which was challenged in the case of Vishal Goyal (supra) and that thisCourt held the preference based on domicile to be violative of the principle of equality and liable to be set aside. After referring to various Judgmentsof this Court the reply set out the emerging legal position as perceivedby MCI in following terms:- “a. Reservation of seats at the post graduate level has been inprinciple disapproved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court;

b. Reservation of seats at the post graduate level on the basis ofdomicile/ residence/ place of origin is impermissible and cannotbe done by the State;

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

CD

E

F

G

H

A

d. Institutional reservation/ preference can be invalidated on theground that the same is violative of the principle of equalityenshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India;

e. There cannot be any domicile requirement imposed by the Statewhile implementing institutional reservation; B

f. Institutional reservation/ preference disguised as domicilereservation has been held to be invalid and violative of Article 14of the Constitution.”

6. We heard Mr. Amrendra Sharan, learned Senior Advocate forthe petitioners, Mr. Basavaprabhu S. Patil, learned Senior Advocate forCState of Karnataka and official respondents and Mr. Gaurav Sharma,learned Advocate for MCI.

7. Mr. Sharan, learned Senior Advocate relied upon the decisionsof this Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain and Others v. Union of India andOthers[2], Saurabh Chaudri and Others v. Union of India and Others[3],DMagan Mehrotra and Others v. Union of India and Others[4], NikhilHimthani v. State of Uttarakhand and Others[5] and finally on the decisionof this Court in Vishal Goyal (supra). In his submission these decisionsas culminated in the decision in Vishal Goyal (supra) fully conclude thematter. These submissions were supported by Mr. Gaurav Sharma,learned Advocate for the MCI.E

8. Mr. Patil, learned Senior Advocate, on the other hand reliedupon the decision of this Court in D.P. Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharatand Another[6] and on paragraphs 6, 13 and 16 of the decision in Dr.Pradeep Jain (supra), in support of his submissions.

F

F9. After conclusion of hearing, written submissions were filed bythe parties. In their written submissions, petitioners inter alia submittedthat Clause 4.1 of the Information Bulletin in question was violative ofArticle 14 of the Constitution and was opposed to Regulation 9 of 2000Regulations. A chart was appended showing similarity between Clause2 of PGET-2014 which was subject matter of the decision in VishalGGoyal (supra) and the present Clause 4.1. In its written submissions 2 (1984) 3 SCC 654 paras 20, 22 and 243 (2003) 11 SCC 146 paras 29, 69 and 704 (2003)11 SCC 186 paras 3 and 85 (2013) 10 SCC 237 para 3H6 AIR 1955 SC 334 = 1955 (1) SCR 1215

DR. KRITI LAKHINA AND OTHERS v. STATE OFKARNATAKA AND OTHERS [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

MCI also relied upon 2000 Regulations and specially Regulation 9 thereof. It was further submitted:

“It is important to note that there are primarily two types of coursesat post-graduate level i.e. post-graduate diploma courses and postgraduate degree courses. On a close reading of Regulation 9(IV)and 9(VII) the distinction between post graduate diploma courseand post-graduate degree course is apparent. It needs to beemphasized that as per Regulation 9 and the amendments madetherein from time to time, reservation of seats for in-servicecandidates is only permissible in post-graduate diploma courses.Further, there is no provision under the IMC Act, 1956 and theRegulations framed thereunder which permits reservation in post-graduate degree courses.”

10. State of Karnataka in its written submissions sought to justifythe action 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 Institutionsmanaged by the Health and Family Department of the State. It isthe objective of the State to provide secondary and tertiary careservices too within the reach of common public. This objective issought to be fulfilled by setting up of new State of the art institutionsand strengthen the existing institutions through provisions ofequipments, up-gradation of infrastructure and recruitment ofskilled man power. Today, there are 3435 posts of specialistsabout which 1312 are vacant, underlying the deficiency of skilledmedical professional to address the health care needs of the State.In the medical and dental educational institutions out of 2700 postsof specialists, 517 are vacant highlighting the deficiency of skilledmedical teachers to address the medical teachers’ needs of theState. 16 out of 39 medical colleges in Karnataka are run by theState. There are 970 senior resident posts in these medicalcolleges, 524 of which are vacant. The State has to ensure thatthese posts are filled up at any given point of time as stipulated byMedical Council of India. If these remain vacant for want ofspecialist, de-recognition looms large with the risk of jeopardizingthe future of both undergraduate and post-graduate candidates’studying in these colleges. The posts of senior resident need tobe filled by fresh post graduates passing out every year. There is A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

Aa huge requirement of specialists to run these institutions. Hencethe State Government has to ensure availability of adequatenumber of post graduates to fill these posts.”

11. The decision of this Court in Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra) hadconsidered the Judgments rendered in Kumari N. Vasundara v. StateBof Mysore and Another[7], Minor P. Rajendran v. State of Madrasand Others[8], Minor A. Peeriakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu andOthers[9] and D.N. Chanchala v. The State of Mysore and Others[10] aswell as the decision in Dr. Jagadish Saran and others v. Union ofIndia[11] and finally concluded:

C“…. We unreservedly condemn wholesale reservation made bysome of the State Government on the basis of institutionalpreference for students who have passed the qualifyingexamination held by the university or the State excluding allstudents not satisfying this requirement, regardless of merit. Wedeclare such wholesale reservation to be unconstitutional and voidDas being in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.”12. During the course of its Judgment in Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra)this Court also considered the impact of submissions from the concernedStates as advanced in various Judgments that were considered inparagraphs 14 to 16, which submissions were similar to the ones advancedEbefore us by the State either in the reply or in the written submissions. Para 22 of the decision in Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra) finally summed upthe matter as regards post graduate courses as under:- “22. ….. The Medical Education Review Committee has alsoexpressed the opinion that “all admissions to the post-graduateFcourses in any institution should be open to candidates on an all-India basis and there should be no restriction regarding domicilein the State/Union Territory in which the institution is located”. Soalso in the policy statement filed by the learned Attorney General,the Government of India has categorically expressed the viewthat:G

7 (1971) Suppl. SCR 381 = (1971) 2 SCC 228 1968 (2) SCR 7869 1971 (2) SCR 430 = (1971) 1 SCC 38 = AIR 1971 SC 230310 (1971) Suppl SCR 608 = (1971) 2 SCC 293H11 (1980) 2 SCC 768= 1980 (2) SCR 831

“So far as admission to the institutions of post-graduate collegesand special professional colleges is concerned, it should beentirely on the basis of all-India merit subject to constitutionalreservations in favour of Scheduled Castes and ScheduledTribes.”

We are therefore of the view that so far as admissions topost-graduate courses, such as MS, MD and the like areconcerned, it would be eminently desirable not to provide for anyreservation based on residence requirement within the State oron institutional preference. But, having regard to broaderconsiderations of equality of opportunity and institutional continuityin education which has its own importance and value, we woulddirect that though residence requirement within the State shall notbe a ground for reservation in admissions to post-graduate courses,a certain percentage of seats may in the present circumstances,be reserved on the basis of institutional preference in the sensethat a student who has passed MBBS course from a medicalcollege or university, may be given preference for admission tothe post-graduate course in the same medical college or universitybut such reservation on the basis of institutional preference shouldnot in any event exceed 50 per cent of the total number of openseats available for admission to the post-graduate course…..”

13. In Vishal Goyal (supra) the challenge was to the validity ofClause 2.1 of the Information Bulletin for PGET-2014. The eligibilityconditions as laid down in said Clause 2.1 are identical to those stipulatedin 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 Information Bulletins, which isidentically worded for admissions to postgraduate medical andpostgraduate dental courses, is extracted hereinbelow:

“2.1. No candidate shall be admitted to a professionaleducational institution unless the candidate possesses thefollowing qualifications or eligibility to appear for the entrancetest namely:

(a) He is a citizen of India who is of Karnataka origin andhas studied MBBS/BDS degree in a medical/dental collegesituated in Karnataka or outside Karnataka, and affiliated to A

BCD

E

F

G

H

526SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Aany university established by law in India recognised byMedical Council of India and the Government of India.

Explanation.—‘A candidate of Karnataka Origin’ means acandidate found eligible under clause (i) or (ii) below, namely:

(i) A candidate who has studied and passed in one or moreBgovernment recognised educational institutions located in the Stateof Karnataka for a minimum period of TEN academic years ason the last date fixed for the submission of application form,commencing from 1st standard to MBBS/BDS and must haveappeared and passed either SSLC/10th standard or 2nd PUC/C12th standard examination from Karnataka State. In case of thecandidate who has taken more than one year to pass a class orstandard, the years of academic study is counted as one yearonly.

Documents to be produced, namely:

D(1) SSLC or 10th standard marks card.

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

(3) Candidates Study Certificate: A study certificate from the Headof educational institution where he or she had studied. Further,School Study Certificates should be countersigned by the BlockEEducation Officer (BEO)/Deputy Director of Public Instructions(DDPI) concerned COMPULSORILY in the proformaprescribed.

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

F(5) Domicile certificate issued by the Tahsildar in the prescribedproforma (Annexure I); and if claiming reservation 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-Bin Form F.

G(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 2ndyears Pre-University Examination or 11th and 12th standardexamination within the State of Karnataka from an educational H

institution run or recognised by the State Government or MBBS/BDS from a professional educational institution located inKarnataka and that either of the parents should have studied inKarnataka 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 prescribedproforma (Annexure I).

(5) If claiming reservation benefits: Caste/Caste IncomeCertificate 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 certificate for either of the parent having studiedfor at least 10 years in Karnataka from the Head of the educationalinstitution where he/she had studied. Further, school studycertificates should be countersigned by the Block EducationalOfficer (BEO)/Deputy Director of Public Instructions (DDPI)concerned COMPULSORILY in the proforma prescribed(Annexure III).

(b) The candidates study certificate for having studied both 1stand 2nd PUC or 11th and 12th standard in Karnataka issued bythe Head of the educational institution.

(7) MCI/DCI State Council Registration Certificate.

(8) Attempt Certificate issued by the college Principal concerned.”

…………

10. We have considered the submissions of the learned counselfor the parties and we find that the basis of the judgment of thisCourt in Pradeep Jain case is Article 14 of the Constitution whichguarantees to every person equality before the law and equalprotection of the laws. As explained by this Court in paras 12 and13 of the judgment in Nikhil Himthani v. State of Uttarakhand:(SCC pp. 244-45)

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

“12. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees to every personequality before law and equal protection of laws. In JagadishSaran v. Union of India, Krishna Iyer, J., writing the judgmenton behalf of the three Judges referring to Article 14 of theConstitution held that equality of opportunity for every personin the country is the constitutional guarantee and therefore meritmust be the test for selecting candidates, particularly in thehigher levels of education 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 anotherlimitation. The basic medical needs of a region or thepreferential push justified for a handicapped group cannotprevail in the same measure all the highest scales of specialitywhere the best skill or talent, must be handpicked by selectingaccording to capability. At the level of PhD, MD, or levels ofhigher proficiency, where international measure of talent ismade, where losing one great scientist or technologist in-the-making is a national loss, the considerations we have expandedupon a important lose their potency. Here equality, measuredby matching excellence, has more meaning and cannot bediluted much without grave risk.’

13. Relying on the aforesaid reasons in Jagadish Saran v.Union of India, a three-Judge Bench of this Court in PradeepJain case held that excellence cannot be compromised by anyother consideration for the purpose of admission to postgraduatemedical courses such as MD/MS and the like because thatwould be detrimental to the interests of the nation and thereforereservation based on residential requirement in the State willaffect the right to equality of opportunity under Article 14 ofthe Constitution….”

In Magan Mehrotra v. Union of India and SaurabhChaudri v. Union of India also, this Court has approved theaforesaid view in Pradeep Jain case that excellence cannot becompromised by any other consideration for the purpose ofadmission to postgraduate medical courses such as MD/MS and the like because that would be detrimental to the interests of thenation and will affect the right to equality of opportunity underArticle 14 of the Constitution.

11. Mr Mariarputham is right that in Saurabh Chaudri v. Unionof India this Court has held that institutional preference can begiven by a State, but in the aforesaid decision of Saurabh Chaudri,it has also been held that decision of the State to give institutionalpreference can be invalidated by the court in the event it is shownthat the decision of the State is ultra vires the right to equalityunder Article 14 of the Constitution. When we examine sub-clause(a) of Clause 2.1 of the two Information Bulletins, we find thatthe expression “A candidate of Karnataka origin” who only iseligible to appear for entrance test has been so defined as to excludea candidate who has studied MBBS or BDS in an institution in theState of Karnataka but who does not satisfy the other requirementsof sub-clause (a) of Clause 2.1 of the Information Bulletin forPGET-2014. Thus, the institutional preference sought to be givenby sub-clause (a) of Clause 2.1 of the Information Bulletin forPGET-2014 is clearly contrary to the judgment of this Court inPradeep 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 presentcircumstances, be reserved on the basis of institutionalpreference in the sense that a student who has passed MBBScourse from a medical college or university, may be givenpreference for admission to the postgraduate course in thesame medical college or university….”

13. Sub-clause (a) of Clause 2.1 of the two Information Bulletinsdoes not actually give institutional preference to students whohave passed MBBS or BDS from colleges or universities in theState of Karnataka, but makes some of them ineligible to take theentrance test for admission to postgraduate medical or dentalcourses in the State of Karnataka to which the Information Bulletinsapply.

…………

A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

A15. In the result, we allow the writ petitions, declare sub-clause(a) of Clause 2.1 of the two Information Bulletins for postgraduatemedical and dental courses for PGET-2014 as ultra vires Article14 of the Constitution and null and void. The respondent will nowpublish fresh Information Bulletins and do the admissions to thepostgraduate medical and dental courses in the governmentBcolleges as well as the State quota of the private colleges inaccordance with the law by the end of June 2014 on the basis ofthe results of the entrance test already held. We also order thatthe general time schedule for counselling and admissions topostgraduate medical courses in our order dated 14-3-2014 in FrazCNaseem v. Union of India[12] will not apply to such admissions inthe State of Karnataka for the academic year 2014-2015. Similarly,the general time schedule for counselling and admissions forpostgraduate dental courses will not apply to such admissions inthe State of Karnataka. The parties shall bear their own costs.”

D14. Paragraphs 13 and 15 of the Judgment of this Court in VishalGoyal (supra) are clear that the Information Bulletin for PGET-2014 didnot actually give institutional preference to students who had passedMBBS/BDS from Colleges or universities in State of Karnataka butmade some of them ineligible to take the entrance test for admission toPost-Graduate Medical or Dental Course in State of Karnataka and thatEsaid clause was held ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution and declarednull and void. The relevant clause under consideration, namely, Clause4.1 of the Information Bulletin for PGET-2018 is identical in substanceto the one that was considered in Vishal Goyal (supra). The matter isthus no longer res-integra and is completely covered by the decision inFVishal Goyal (supra). In the circumstances, we respectfully follow thedecision of this Court in Vishal Goyal (supra) and hold Clause 4.1 of theInformation Bulletin (PGET-2018) which was published on the websiteon 10.03.2018 to be invalid to the extent it disqualifies petitioners andsimilarly situated candidates who completed their MBBS/BDS DegreeCourses from colleges situated in Karnataka from competing forGadmission to Post-Graduate Medical/Dental Courses in GovernmentMedical Colleges and against government quota seats in non-governmental institutions.

12 (2014) 11 SCC 453H

15. This writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms. Stateof Karnataka and Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to suitably modifyand amend the Information Bulletin in question in keeping with theobservations made in this Judgment and re-publish the Calendar of Eventsin terms of this Judgment and complete the entire process within thetimeline stipulated by the concerned regulatory authorities.

Nidhi Jain

Writ Petition allowed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H