{"id":265022,"date":"2022-04-05T13:00:16","date_gmt":"2022-04-05T07:30:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=265022"},"modified":"2022-04-08T16:08:17","modified_gmt":"2022-04-08T10:38:17","slug":"sc-allowed-tamil-nadu-to-grant-50-reservation-for-in-service-doctors-in-super-specialty-medical-courses","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/05\/sc-allowed-tamil-nadu-to-grant-50-reservation-for-in-service-doctors-in-super-specialty-medical-courses\/","title":{"rendered":"SC allows Tamil Nadu to grant 50% reservation for in-service doctors in Super Specialty Medical Courses"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court<\/strong>: In the issue relating to the reservation of 50% Super Specialty seats for in-service candidates in Government Medical Colleges in the State of Tamil Nadu, the bench of L. Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai<\/strong>*, JJ has refused to extend the interim protection which was granted for the academic year 2020-2021<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court had, on 27th November, 2020 directed that counselling for admission to Super Specialty medical courses for the academic year 2020-2021 shall proceed without providing for reservation to in-service candidates\/doctors. The Court had specifically observed that the process for admissions to Super Specialty medical courses started on 3rd August, 2020, and it was made clear to all the competing candidates that there shall be no reservation to Super Specialty medical courses.<\/p>\n

The impugned G.O. was issued on 7th November, 2020, i.e., after the admission process had begun.\u00a0 Hence, what weighed with this Court while passing the interim order dated 27th<\/sup> November, 2020 was that the rules of the game were changed after the admission process had begun. However, the Court had specifically clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the validity of said G.O. It also made amply clear that the said direction would be operative only for the academic year 2020-2021.<\/p>\n

The Court, hence, held that no case was made out for continuing the interim protection which was granted for the academic year 2020-2021 vide interim order dated\u00a0 27th 24 November, 2020. The State of Tamil Nadu would, however, be at liberty to continue the counselling for academic year 2021-2022 by taking into consideration the reservation provided by it as per the said G.O.<\/p>\n

[N. Karthikeyan v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 331<\/b><\/a>, decided on 16.03.2022]<\/p>\n

\n

*Judgment by: Justice BR Gavai<\/h4>\n
\n

Counsels<\/strong><\/p>\n

For appellants: Senior Advocates Dushyant Dave, Shyam Divan and Gopal Sankaranarayanan<\/p>\n

For UOI: ASG Aishwarya Bhati<\/p>\n

For State of Tamil Nadu: Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan and AAG Amit Anand Tiwari<\/p>\n

For In-service Doctors: Senior Advocate P. Wilson<\/p>\n

\n

Also read<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

No reservation for in-service doctors in Super Specialty Medical Courses for the academic year 2020-2021; holds SC<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n