NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday reiterated the constitutional validity of 27% OBC reservation in all-India quota seats in the NEET for undergraduate, postgraduate and dental courses, noting that merit cannot be reduced to narrow definitions of performance in an open competitive examination.
The top court observed that certain classes may perform better in such examinations thanks to their social, economic, and cultural advantage. “Competitive examinations assess basic current competency to allocate educational resources but are not reflective of excellence, capabilities and potential of an individual which are also shaped by lived experiences, subsequent training and individual character. Crucially, open competitive examinations do not reflect the social, economic and cultural advantage that accrues to certain classes and contributes to their success in such examinations,” the court added.
A bench of judges D Y Chandrachud and A S Bopanna in a brief order on January 7 had already upheld the constitutional validity of the OBC reservation while setting `8 lakh annual income limit for the quota for economically weaker section.
While giving its detailed order on Thursday, the bench noted that the country is still in the midst of a pandemic and any delay in the recruitment of doctors would impact the ability to manage the pandemic. “Due to this, we hold that the reservation for OBC candidates in the All India Quota seats for UG and PG medical and dental courses is constitutionally valid,” the bench said.
Citing the delay in the counselling process due to the pendency of this petition, the bench said: “The petitioners challenged the very criteria for the determination of the EWS, which would not only require us to hear the matter at length but would also entail us to hear all interested parties. We deem it necessary to allow the counselling session to begin with the existing criteria.”
Wary of interim order on EWS quota
While dealing with EWS quota separately, the SC declined to pass an interim order staying the criteria. ”In matters involving challenge to the constitutionality of a legislation or a rule, the Court must be wary to pass an interim order, unless the Court is convinced that the rules are prima facie arbitrary,” it said