Justice Eswaraiah, a former Acting Chief Justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and ex-Chairperson of the National Commission for Backward Classes, argued that the rules imposed unconstitutional restrictions on MRC candidates’ movement.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court questioned why a retired judge should advocate for someone else’s issue while hearing a petition challenging Telangana’s postgraduate (PG) medical admission rules. The Court emphasized that affected candidates should file petitions themselves.
The case involves a Writ Petition filed by retired Justice V. Eswaraiah, who challenged the rules governing the sliding mechanism for Meritorious Reserved Category (MRC) candidates in PG medical admissions.
Justice Eswaraiah, a former Acting Chief Justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and ex-Chairperson of the National Commission for Backward Classes, argued that the rules imposed unconstitutional restrictions on MRC candidates’ movement.
A bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran made key observations, with Justice Gavai stating,
“Why should a retired Judge espouse the cause of somebody else? If any candidate is aggrieved, they can go there.”
He also noted that the policy aligned with the precedent set in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India. The petitioner’s lawyer, AOR Krishna Kumar Singh, argued that Telangana was not following the law and sought two weeks to prepare. The Court granted the adjournment but indicated it was inclined to dismiss the petition and listed it high on the board.
ALSO READ: [NEET-PG 2024] Supreme Court to Hear Case Today (Dec 03)
The petition challenges Rule I(vii) and (viii) of G.O.Ms.No.43 (2013) and Rule 7(vi) and (xi) of the Telangana Medical Colleges (Admission into PG Medical Courses) Rules, 2017, issued under G.O.Ms.No.27. These rules regulate the sliding mechanism for MRC candidates, restricting their ability to change seats.
Under the current system, if an MRC candidate secures admission under the open category, they can only shift within the same specialty, with the vacated seat going to another reserved category candidate. If they switch specialties, their previous seat is given to an open category candidate. The petitioner argues this violates the fundamental rights of reserved category candidates and conflicts with Supreme Court rulings.
To support his case, the petitioner cited several key judgments, including Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), which held that reserved category candidates selected in open competition should not be counted against the reserved quota; Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul (1996), which clarified that MRC candidates should be treated as open category candidates; and Union of India v. Ramesh Ram (2010), which held that seats vacated by MRC candidates in the general category should go to general category candidates.
The petition also highlighted inconsistencies in medical admission policies, arguing that while OBC candidates get a 27% reservation in central institutions under the All India Quota (AIQ), state government institutions do not extend similar reservations.
The petitioner contends that Telangana’s PG medical admission rules are arbitrary, discriminatory, and violate constitutional equality principles. He urges the Supreme Court to declare the rules unconstitutional, restore the unrestricted sliding system for MRC candidates, and ensure compliance with precedents like Ritesh R. Sah.
