In Brief
Tamil Nadu and other states sought a declaration that Regulation 9 of the MCI Post-Graduate Medical Education Regulations 2000 does not prevent States from providing a separate entry channel for in-service medical candidates in post-graduate degree courses. They also sought interim relief to implement such a policy. The Supreme Court refused interim relief, holding that Regulation 9 is a self-contained code regulating admissions under the exclusive domain of Entry 66, List I (coordination of higher education standards). While Entry 25, List III (medical education) exists concurrently, it is subject to Entry 66. The regulation provides only incentive marks for in-service candidates in degree courses but reserves 50% seats for in-service candidates only in diploma courses, reflecting the regulators' intentional distinction. The Court found this consistent with the binding three-judge Bench decision and Constitutional Bench precedent.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.