Introduction:

In the case of Sa. Sivasooryaa v. Union of India and Others [W.A.(MD) No.1046 of 2022], the Madras High Court considered an appeal concerning the discontinuation of the policy reserving two seats in MBBS and BDS courses for Pradhan Mantri Rashtriya Bal Puraskar (PMRBP) awardees. The division bench, comprising Justices RMT Teekaa Raman and N Senthuilkumar, acknowledged the government’s prerogative in policy decisions but recommended reinstating the reservation to encourage scientific temper among students. The appellant, Sa. Sivasooryaa, had been conferred with the Young Scientist Award and the PMRBP for his contributions in innovation. After clearing NEET in 2021, he sought admission under the Central Pool quota, only to discover that the scheme had been discontinued. His plea for nomination and recommendation by the Ministry of Women and Child Development was rejected, leading him to approach the High Court. The government justified the discontinuation by stating that the award itself was a sufficient recognition and that it lacked the expertise to identify beneficiaries. While the court upheld the government’s decision due to policy considerations, it rejected the Ministry’s reasoning and strongly recommended restoring the reservation for future awardees.

Arguments of the Appellant:

Sa. Sivasooryaa, the appellant, contended that he had excelled in both technical and academic fields, earning national recognition through the PMRBP. He argued that the reservation policy had been in place to support exceptional young achievers and that its sudden discontinuation deprived him of a well-deserved opportunity. He highlighted that his expectations were based on the precedent of previous years and that the cancellation of the scheme after he had already cleared NEET was unjust. His counsel, Mr. G.S. Vivekanandan, emphasized that the reservation was not a mere privilege but an initiative aimed at promoting scientific progress in India. The appellant urged the court to direct the Ministry of Women and Child Development to recommend his name for admission under the reserved category for the academic year 2021-22.

Arguments of the Respondent:

The government, represented by Assistant Solicitor General Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, defended the discontinuation as a policy decision made in consultation with the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. It was submitted that the scheme had been discontinued from the academic year 2022-23 because the Ministry of Women and Child Development found it difficult to identify eligible candidates for seat allocation. The Ministry argued that the PMRBP itself was a prestigious award, and no additional benefits were necessary. Furthermore, since the reserved seats had already been surrendered and reallocated, the government stated that it was too late to reverse the decision for the appellant.

Court’s Judgment:

The Madras High Court, while recognizing that policy decisions fall within the government’s domain, critically examined the reasoning behind the discontinuation of the scheme. The bench found the Ministry’s claim that it lacked expertise in identifying beneficiaries to be unconvincing, as eligibility was clearly defined—the awardees of PMRBP. The court also rejected the notion that the award itself was sufficient recognition, emphasizing that talented young achievers require further encouragement through tangible benefits such as educational opportunities. However, since the seats had already been surrendered, the court declined to intervene in favor of the appellant. Instead, it recommended that the government reconsider its decision and reinstate the reservation for future PMRBP awardees. The case was thus disposed of without granting relief to the petitioner but with a strong advisory for policy revision.