The court disagreed with the Medical Council of India’s allegation that approving a reservation in AIQ seats would affect earnings, and said the argument was watered down because the NEET exams are now clearly designed to only admit such candidates that ensure a minimum income.
“Therefore, the application of a reservation rule at the instigation of country-specific law or under a central government reservation policy for AIQ seats will not affect performance,” the court said. However, the bank refrained from issuing a mandamus against the center to raise the reservation regarding a political decision.
“Interference with a political matter, if it has already been taken, can be permitted to a limited extent through a judicial review, but it is also questionable whether a policy set out in the form of a proposal and not implemented can be implemented in the absence of a crystallized right. The court announced that it issued instructions that are neither a policy statement nor a mandamus to explain a policy statement.
The promised proposal (to provide an OBC reservation) is already in effect, as explained by the central government and legally supported by a state law.
Since the seats are AIQ, a decision involving the authorities is required, taking into account that the central government and MCI take control of setting coordinated university standards on constitutional bank affairs. In Saurabh Chaudri’s case, the court added .
To apply this fundamentally, the matter must be resolved between the state and the center with the participation of the MCI and the Dental Council.
“We therefore consider it appropriate that the matter be referred to a committee to set the conditions required by the petitioners to implement such a reservation,” added the court.
The court also made it clear that any decision by the committee would only apply to future academic years and not to that academic year.