No Reservation to Specialty and Super Specialty posts in AIIMS

The highly contentious issue of Reservation in favour of weaker sections of society in Specialty and Super-specialty Faculty posts/positions in the medical institution of national importance, the AIIMS came before the Supreme Court of India recently. The question before the Apex court 5 Judge Constitutional bench headed by Former Chief Justice of India Altamas Kabira rising out of appeal from Special Leave Petition was whether reservation was in applicable to Specialty and super-specialty Faculty posts in AIIMS.

The Apex Court disposed of the appeals with direction asking the Central and State Governments to take appropriate steps in accordance to the views expressed in a judgment pronounced by it in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [(1992) Supp (3) SCC 215] case where issue on similar lines was decided. The issue was with respect to the reservation in admission to specialty and super-specialty courses where the court had disallowed reservation in said courses. The Apex Court in this matter said that government should take steps keeping in mind provision of Article 335 of the Constitution that provides for claims of Scheduled caste and scheduled Tribe to the appointment to service and post.

The Petitioner in this case, the Faculty of AIIMS, had submitted that reservation should not be allowed at the specialty and super-specialty level and submitted further that introduction of concept of reservation at the specialty and super-specialty subjects or for the appointment of the Faculty in AIIMS, would defeat the very purpose for which the institute was established. Petitioner further submitted that to achieve excellence at the level of super-specialty, no compromise could be made in either imparting education or recruiting those persons who shall be imparting education at the level. The petitioner further submitted that the decision of the High Court was against the decisions rendered by Apex Court where it had been held that there should be no type of reservation at super-specialty stage.

The Supreme Court in series of its earlier decisions of Indra Sawhney, Jagdish Saran & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [(1980) 2 SCR 831], Dr. Pradeep Jain etc. v. Union of India & Ors. etc. [(1984) 3 SCR 942], Preeti Srivastava v. State of M.P [(1999) 7 SCC 120] have categorically held with respect to admission to medical courses at postgraduate level that there could be no compromise with merit at the super-specialty stage as this would defeat the very object of imparting the best possible training to the selected meritorious candidates who could contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the field of medical research and its application. The Apex Court in concurring judgment in Indra Sawhney case had also observed with respect to Article 335 of the constitution that it was not advisable to provide for reservation in certain services where merit alone counts. The Court had observed that there were certain services and posts where merit alone counts either on account of nature of duties attached to them or the level in the hierarchy where they stood. The court had also observed that application of the rule of reservation may not be advisable in regard to technical posts including super-specialty in medicine, engineering and other scientific and technical post.

The counsel for the institute on the other hand contended in the aforesaid matter that reservation should be allowed at all stages including at the super-specialty stage and submitted further that certain amount of reservation should be allowed since members of the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe and other backward classes were not adequately represented and therefore for the said purpose so as to have adequate representation of the said class, certain amount of reservation should be allowed. Union of India also submitted that there was no constitutional prohibition to impose reservation and submitted further that even Article 46 of the constitution is in the nature of guideline to the government for good governance so as to help the depressed classes. Article 46 of the constitution provides that state should promote educational and service interest of weaker sections of society including Scheduled tribes and Scheduled caste.

On 18th July 2013 the Apex Court thus after hearing the contentions from both sides and relying upon the observations of Indra Sawhney and the above mentioned judgments held that it could not take different view than that expressed in Indra Sawhney case even though it had been suggested that this observation was not binding on the court and was obiter in nature. The apex Court also observed in aforesaid matter that in Indra sawhney case, the Apex Court had provided a caution that it was not advisable to provide reservation in those services where only merit counts on account of nature of duties and hierarchy at which they are stood. The apex Court also said that very concept of reservation implied mediocrity and it shall have to take into consideration the observations laid down in Indra Sawhney case. The Apex Court thus upheld the decisions rendered in Indra Sawhney case.