IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No 1817 of 2023

(Arising out of SLP(C) No 16456 of 2022)

Dr A Packia Raj & Ors .... Appellant(s)

Versus

The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors ....Respondent(s)

WITH

Civil Appeal Nos 1818-19 of 2023

(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos 18225-18226 of 2022)

ORDER

1 Leave granted.

2 The appeals arise from the judgments and orders dated 5 September 2022 of a

Single Judge of the Madurai Bench and 27 January 2022 of a Division Bench of

the High Court of Judicature at Madras.

3 The appellants sought to challenge GO(Ms) No 463 dated 7 November 2020.

The Government of Tamil Nadu directed that 50% of the state quota seats in

post-graduate degree courses in Tamil Nadu Government Medical colleges and

government seats in self-financing medical colleges affiliated to the Tamil Nadu

Dr MGR Medical University be reserved for in-service doctors serving in

government health institutions in the State. The State Government also directed
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
that the remaining 50% of seats would be open to both in-service and other
Sanjay Kumar
Date: 2023.03.22
15:05:53 IST
Reason:
candidates and, that the seats will be filled up on the basis of the criteria to be

defined by the State from time to time in terms of a decision of a committee

headed by a former Judge of the High Court.

 2

4 A challenge to the validity of the Government Order was rejected by a Single

Judge and was then considered by a Division Bench in Writ Appeal Nos 93 and

94 of 2022. On 27 January 2022, the Division Bench upheld the judgment of the

Single Judge which had rejected the writ petition challenging the post-graduate

admissions for 2021-22. The Division Bench held that this being the first year of

implementation of the policy, its wisdom could not be questioned at that stage.

However, the Division Bench observed that if the policy becomes unsustainable,

including on the doctrine of proportionality, and if any material was produced by

an aggrieved party, this question would be examined by the Court. In that

event, it was clarified that it would not be open to the State or any in-service

candidate to contend that the issue was concluded by the judgment of the

Division Bench. When a fresh petition was filed before the High Court, the Single

Judge, by a judgment dated 5 September 2022, declined to entertain the petition

on the ground that the Division Bench having declined to interfere for the

academic year 2021-22 which was the first year of the implementation of the

policy, a subsequent petition could not be entertained for the same year.

However, the Single Judge clarified that based on how the policy would work

itself out during academic year 2022-23, a fresh challenge could be instituted.

5 The above narration would indicate that the Division Bench, in the earlier round

of proceedings, which culminated in an order dated 27 January 2022, had

declined to interfere with the judgment of the Single Judge noting that the

challenge had been instituted during the course of the first year of the policy,

namely, 2021-22, and after the policy was given sufficient time to be worked

out, the impact could be considered in any fresh challenge. In the judgment

dated 5 September 2022, which is impugned, the Single Judge has declined to

entertain the subsequent petition. Since then admissions have already taken

place for the academic year 2022-23 and data would now be available in regard

to the impact of the implementation of the policy.

 3

6 Hence, it needs to be clarified that it would be open to the appellants to move a

fresh writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Madras based on the

working out of the policy, as clarified in the judgment of the Division Bench of

the High Court dated 27 January 2022. In such an event, neither the judgment

of the Division Bench dated 27 January 2022 nor the judgment of the Single

Judge dated 5 September 2022 will come in the way of a fresh adjudication on

merits.

7 All the rights and contentions of the appellants and of the State of Tamil Nadu

are kept open to be urged before the High Court on the validity of the policy, if it

is questioned. This Court has had no occasion to express any opinion on the

validity of the policy.

8 The appeals are disposed of.

9 Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

..…..…....…........……………….…........CJI.
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]

…..…..…....…........……………….…........J.
[Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha]

…..…..…....…........……………….…........J.
[J B Pardiwala]
New Delhi;
March 20, 2023
-S-
 4

ITEM NO.32 COURT NO.1 SECTION XII

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).16456/2022

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 05-09-2022

in WPMD No. 13028/2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Madras at Madurai)

DR. A. PACKIA RAJ & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS. Respondent(s)

(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.138237/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING

C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.138238/2022-EXEMPTION FROM
FILING O.T., IA No. 144107/2022 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

WITH
SLP(C) No. 18225-18226/2022 (XII)
(WITH IA No. 140742/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

Date : 20-03-2023 These petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Suhrith Parthasarathy, Adv.

Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, AOR
Ms. Amritha Sathyajith, Adv.
Ms. Remya Raj, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. K.V.Jagdishvaran, Adv.

Mr. Gandeepan, Adv.
Mr. Harnaman Singh, Adv.
Mr. Ashwini Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Ameena R.shaik, Adv.
Ms. G. Indira, AOR
Mr. Apoorv, Adv.

Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, A.A.G.

Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AOR
Mr. Shobhit Dwivedi, Adv.
Ms. Devyani Gupta, Adv.
Ms. Tanvi Anand, Adv.
 5

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

1 Leave granted.

2 The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.

3 Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

(SANJAY KUMAR-I) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)

DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)