Minority status applicable only for TN students

Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana made this observation while dismissing the plea moved by Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS) challenging the Government Order dated March 7 indicating that for admissions of students in Post Graduate Medical Courses, minority institutes are bound to admit 50 per cent of the total intake from the religious minority (Christian) students from the Union Territory of Puducherry.

PIMS had contended that from its inception it has been admitting students into the PG medical course from across the country without any restriction on the domicile, as long as they are eligible to be admitted as per the regulations of the Medical Council of India (MCI). But the Puducherry government has imposed a condition that the institute should admit only Christian students within the State of Puducherry, the plea said.

Senior Counsel A L Somayaji appearing for PIMS submitted that the Puducherry government has no power to direct PIMS to fill 50 per cent of the seats from the Christian minority students from Puducherry as the same would amount to reservation of seats based on residence, which has been specifically barred by Supreme court.

Hence, the impugned seat matrix issued by the Puducherry government is contrary to law and deserves to be set aside, he said.

On the contrary, senior counsel T P Manoharan appearing for Puducherry government contended that as per Rule 9 (VI) of the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations 2000, in non-governmental medical colleges, 50 per cent of the total seats shall be filled by the State government and the remaining 50 seats shall be filled by the medical colleges concerned on the basis of the merit list prepared as per the marks obtaining in National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Seat (NEET).

Based on this, Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana in her order observed that when the PG medical education regulations specifically directs that the merit list be prepared as per marks obtained in NEET examination, the petitioner’s claim to expand the scope of admitting minority students outside the Union Territory would defeat the above said provision.

“It has been categorically held that though the minority institute is free to admit students of its own religion, the institute cannot admit students from neighbouring States, wherein the same religion may not be a minority. It cannot be generally stated that the Christians are minorities throughout the length and breadth of the country and that the petitioner should be permitted to admit the students from across the Country,” she added.