1. Challenge to the constitutional validity of Rule 3(1)(c) of the Medical Colleges and Dental Colleges of Assam Rules, 2017, regarding schooling requirements for state quota admissions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 815
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Arun Mishra, S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.
RAJDEEP GHOSH – PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF ASSAM & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
WRIT PETITION [C] NO. 766 OF 2018 WITH WRIT PETITION [C] NO. 795, 831, 768, 763, 758, 771, 767, 759, 765, 760, 776, 781, 780, 813, 835, 800 812 & 821 of 2018 S.L.P. [C] No. 16200 of 2018
Decided On : 17-08-2018
Advocates Appeared:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Rahul Pratap, Amit Pawan, V. Giri, K.N. Choudhury, Manish Goswami, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Azim H. Laskar, Sachin Das, Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Advs.
For Respondent(s): Debojit Borkakati, M. Balashivudu, Maninder Singh, Nalin Kohli, Prabhas Bajaj, Ankit Roy, Inderjeet Singh, Shuvodeep Roy, Gaurav Sharma, Advs.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Rahul Pratap, Amit Pawan, V. Giri, K.N. Choudhury, Manish Goswami, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Azim H. Laskar, Sachin Das, Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Advs.
For Respondent(s): Debojit Borkakati, M. Balashivudu, Maninder Singh, Nalin Kohli, Prabhas Bajaj, Ankit Roy, Inderjeet Singh, Shuvodeep Roy, Gaurav Sharma, Advs.
IMPORTANT POINT
Law is not absolute logic but handmaid of current social facts of life.
It is open to the State Government to lay down the educational as well as domicile requirement for basic courses MBBS/Dental.
Headnote:(a) Jurisprudence – Law – Not absolute logic – But handmaid of current social facts of life. (Para 22)
(1980) 2 SCC 768 – Relied upon
(b) Medical Colleges and Dental Colleges of Assam (Regulations of Admission into 1st year MBBS/BDS Courses) Rules, 2017 – Rule 3(1)(c) – State quota seats – Eligibility criteria – Open to the State Government to lay down the educational as well as domicile requirement – Cannot be said to be ultra vires Article 14, Constitution of India – Incumbents must fulfill the criteria. (Para 35)
AIR 1955 SC 334; (1971) 2 SCC 22; (1984) 3 SCC 654; (1995) 2 SCC 135; (1980) 2 SCC 768; (2003) 11 SCC 146 – Relied upon
(1980) 2 SCC 768; (2003) 11 SCC 186 – Referred
(2013) 10 SCC 237; (2014) 11 SCC 456; WP [C] No. 204/2018; (2005) 1 SCC 394; (1989) 2 SCC 145 – Distinguished
Facts of the case:
The writ petitions have been preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India questioning the constitutional validity of Rule3(1)(c) of the Medical Colleges and Dental Colleges of Assam (Regulations of Admission into 1st year MBBS/BDS Courses) Rules, 2017.
Finding of the Court:
It is open to the State Government to lay down the educational as well as domicile requirement for basic courses MBBS/Dental.
Result: Writ petitions/SLP dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- education law
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners allege the schooling requirement violates Article 14 and is arbitrary; State contends it is a reasonable classification to ensure medical services in remote areas. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 )
3. The court found that residence and institutional preference for basic medical courses are permissible to ensure local service and address regional medical shortages. (Para 12 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 )
4. Residential and institutional preference for admission to basic medical courses is constitutionally valid if it has a rational nexus with the objective of serving the state. (Para 32 , 33 )
5. Writ petitions dismissed; Rule 3(1)(c) of the Rules of 2017 held to be constitutionally valid and consistent with Article 14. (Para 36 )
6. Is residence-based reservation for MBBS admissions constitutional?
Yes, reservation based on residence or institutional preference for basic medical courses (MBBS/BDS) is permissible to ensure that doctors serve the state's needs and address regional disparities. (Para 12 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 32 )
7. Does the distinction between basic and postgraduate medical courses affect the validity of residential preference?
Yes, while residential preference is permissible for basic courses, it is generally impermissible or subject to stricter scrutiny for postgraduate and postdoctoral super-specialty courses to maintain high merit standards. (Para 21 , 22 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 )
8. Is the exclusion of children of private employees from schooling relaxations arbitrary?
No, the court held that excluding children of private employees or employees of other states from relaxations is not irrational, as they are less likely to return and serve the state. (Para 33 , 34 )
9. What is the test for validity of classification under Article 14 in educational admissions?
Classification must be based on an intelligible differentia and have a rational nexus with the objective sought to be achieved, such as correcting regional imbalances or ensuring local service. (Para 1 , 32 , 33 )
JUDGMENT
ARUN MISHRA, J.
1. The writ petitions have been preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India questioning the constitutional validity of Rule3(1)(c) of the Medical Colleges and Dental Colleges of Assam (Regulations of Admission into 1st year MBBS/BDS Courses) Rules, 2017 (in short referred to as ‘the Rules of 2017’). The petitioners have come with the case that though State can provide for preference in the matter of admission, however, such classification must be based upon objective criteria and must have a rational nexus with the objective it seeks to achieve.
2. Rule 3 of the Rules of 2017 provides for eligibility for the State quota seats. Same is extracted hereunder :
“Rule 3 – Eligibility for State Quota Seats:
The following conditions must be fulfilled:
1.(a) The candidate must be a citizen of India.
(b) The candidate must be a permanent citizen of Assam. The father/ mother or the candidate must be residing in the State of Assam continuously for not less than a period of 20 years. (The certificate at Annexure – I in Application Form at Schedule – I of these rules must be submitted if a candidate is called for counseling): Provided that this shall not be applicable to the sons/ daughters of officers of All India Services allotted to Assam (certificate regarding the service of father/ mother of the candidate from the concerned authority/department of Government of Assam must be submitted if a candidate is called for counseling.
(c) The candidate must study in all the classes from class VII to XII in the State of Assam and must pass the Qualifying Examination or its equivalent examination from any Institute situated in the State of Assam. (Certificate at Annexure-II in Application Form at Schedule – I of these rules must be submitted if a candidate is called for counseling.)
Provided that if a candidate studies outside Assam from Class – VII onwards because his/her father/ mother is posted outside Assam as a Assam State Government Employee or as a Central Government employee or as an employee of a Corporation/ Agency/ instrumentality under Government of Assam or Central Government whether on deputation or transfer or regular posting then the period for which the said father/mother is working outside the State shall be relaxable for such candidate. (Certificate of employment of father/mother outside the State indicating the period of service from the concerned authority must be submitted if a candidate is called for counseling.)
(d) Candidate’s age should not be below 17 years and above 25 years of age on the 31st December of the year in which the admission is sought for: Provided that the maximum age limit is relaxable by 3 years in case of candidates belonging to SC/ST(P)/ST(H)/ OBC/MOBC category.”
3. The petitioners have questioned aforesaid Rule 3(1)(c) which requires that a candidate must study in all the classes from Class VII to XII in the State of Assam and must pass the qualifying examination or its equivalent examination from any Institute situated in the State of Assam. The exception has been carved out in case father or mother is posted outside Assam as an Assam State Government employee or Central Government employee or as an employee of a Corporation/Agency/instrumentality under the Government of Assam or Central Government.
4. The petitioners submit that they have not passed Class XII. Some of the petitioners have not passed both Class XI and Class XII. They are residents of the State of Assam. They claim that they have studied in Assam for sufficient period. However, they are not eligible as per the aforesaid criteria prescribed under Rule 3(1)(c) of the Rules of 2017.
5. The petitioners have urged that classification made is violative of Article 14. No expert study has been done so as to find out the candidates who have studied from Class VII to XII outside the State of Assam are likely not to serve the State after they acquire their MBBS degree. In the absence of such study and collection
