1. Admission to MBBS course under state quota — Cancellation based on residency/schooling requirements for children of Central Government employees — Challenge to arbitrary guidelines. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 14 , 15 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 260
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, RAJESH BINDAL, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Vansh S/o Prakash Dolas – Appellant
Versus
The Ministry Of Education & The Ministry Of Health & Family Welfare & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 4427-4428 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 26179-26180 of 2023)
Decided on : 20-03-2024
Important Points
The Supreme Court held that requiring children of Government of India/Defence/Paramilitary employees to have parents posted within Maharashtra to qualify for the state quota is arbitrary. Such rules are read down to allow Maharashtra domicile candidates regardless of their parents' place of posting, as deployment is beyond their control.
Subject
Admission - State Quota
Act Referred
Rules for admission (M.B.B.S.) 1986–87: R.C(6)(iv), R.B(3), R.B(5), R.C(3)(ii)
Headnote
Admission - State Quota - NEET-UG, 2023 - Children of employees of Government of India or its Undertaking - 4.8, 9.4.4 - The court held that the appellant, a domicile of Maharashtra, was entitled to admission in the OBC/NCL category under the State quota as per clause 4.8 of the Information Brochure. The court found the cancellation of the appellant's admission to be illegal and arbitrary due to the discriminatory and arbitrary treatment meted out to the appellant under the guidelines. The court directed the creation of an additional seat for the appellant in the ongoing session of the MBBS course and awarded compensation for the deprivation and harassment caused by the illegal cancellation of admission.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a domicile of Maharashtra, sought admission in the MBBS course against the State quota under the OBC/NCL category. His admission was cancelled without notice or opportunity to be heard. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the appellant did not satisfy the requirements of the Information Brochure.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the cancellation of the appellant's admission to be illegal and arbitrary due to the discriminatory and arbitrary treatment meted out to the appellant under the guidelines. The court directed the creation of an additional seat for the appellant in the ongoing session of the MBBS course and awarded compensation for the deprivation and harassment caused by the illegal cancellation of admission.
Issues: The issues revolved around the appellant's entitlement to admission in the OBC/NCL category under the State quota as per clause 4.8 of the Information Brochure, the legality and arbitrariness of the cancellation of the appellant's admission, and the availability of restitutive relief for the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant, being a domicile of Maharashtra, was entitled to admission in the OBC/NCL category under the State quota as per clause 4.8 of the Information Brochure. The court also emphasized the discriminatory and arbitrary treatment meted out to the appellant under the guidelines, leading to the illegal cancellation of admission. The court further provided restitutive relief by directing the creation of an additional seat for the appellant in the ongoing session of the MBBS course and awarded compensation for the deprivation and harassment caused by the illegal cancellation of admission.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned orders, allowed the appeals, directed the creation of an additional seat for the appellant in the ongoing session of the MBBS course, and awarded compensation to the appellant for the deprivation and harassment caused by the illegal cancellation of admission.
Judgement Key Points
Please provide the legal document content (replace {content} with the actual text) so I can extract and summarize the key points with proper references (e.g., (!) (!) ).
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Kshitij Kothale, Adv. Mr. Satyajit A Desai, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Gautam, Adv. Mr. Abhinav K. Mutyalwar, Adv. Mr. Gajanan N Tirthkar, Adv. Mr. Vijay Raj Singh Chouhan, Adv. Mr. Ananya Thapliyal, Adv. Ms. Anagha S. Desai, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR Mrs. Rashmi Singhania, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Kshitij Kothale, Adv. Mr. Satyajit A Desai, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Gautam, Adv. Mr. Abhinav K. Mutyalwar, Adv. Mr. Gajanan N Tirthkar, Adv. Mr. Vijay Raj Singh Chouhan, Adv. Mr. Ananya Thapliyal, Adv. Ms. Anagha S. Desai, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR Mrs. Rashmi Singhania, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Eligibility for state quota based on domicile versus strict adherence to guidelines requiring parents to be currently posted within the state. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
3. Requirement for parents of domiciles to be posted within the state is arbitrary, lacks nexus to the rule's object, and is beyond the candidate's control. (Para 16 , 20 , 21 )
4. Domiciles of a state whose parents are Central Government or Defence employees are entitled to state quota regardless of the parent's place of posting. (Para 21 )
5. Admission granted for the subsequent academic year via an additional seat — Compensation awarded for illegal deprivation of admission. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 )
6. Are children of Central Government employees who studied outside their home state eligible for state quota admission?
Yes, provided they and their parents are domiciles of the state. The court held that requiring the parent to be currently posted within the state is arbitrary and should be read down to ensure eligibility regardless of the place of posting. (Para 21 )
7. What remedy is available when a meritorious candidate is illegally denied medical admission and the current session has progressed significantly?
The court may provide restitutive relief, such as granting admission in the next academic year by creating an additional seat to avoid reducing existing quotas, and awarding monetary compensation for the lost academic year and harassment. (Para 25 , 27 , 28 , 30 , 32 )
8. Can admission be denied to a domicile's child because the parent's service posting is outside the state?
No. Since service deployment in armed or paramilitary forces is not within the control of the employee or candidate, such a condition is arbitrary, invidious, and lacks nexus with the intent and purpose of the admission guidelines. (Para 16 , 20 , 21 )
JUDGMENT :
Mehta, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant has approached this Court for assailing orders dated 5th September, 2023 and 26th October, 2023 passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court Bench at Nagpur in Writ Petition No. 5141 of 2023 and Misc. Civil Application (Review) No. 980 of 2023 in Writ Petition No. 5141 of 2023, respectively.
3. The appellant is a domicile of the State of Maharashtra and his father is employed in the Border Security Force (BSF) as a Head Constable (General Duty) [HC(GD)]. Owing to the deployment of his father outside the State of Maharashtra, the appellant was compelled to complete his Secondary School Certificate (Standard X)(SSC) and Higher School Certificate (Standard XII)(HSC) education from a school outside the State of Maharashtra.
4. The appellant appeared in NEET-UG, 2023 craving admission in the undergraduate MBBS course against the State quota and upon being found meritorious, he was issued a provisional selection letter (CAP1) by the State Common Entrance Cell, Maharashtra on 4th August, 2023 and was allotted a seat in respondent No.6-College. The appellant completed the requisite formalities and paid an amount of Rs.13,500/-by way of admission fees. It may be noted that the appellant had applied for admission under the Other Backward Class/Non-Creamy Layer (OBC/NCL) category as being domicile of the State of Maharashtra.
5. However, without issuing notice and without providing any opportunity of being heard to the appellant, respondent No.6-College issued a letter/communication dated 9th August, 2023 cancelling the admission of the appellant.
6. The letter/communication cancelling the admission was challenged by the appellant by filing Writ Petition No. 5141 of 2023 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench raising a pertinent ground that the appellant was entitled to the exception as provided under clause 4.8 of the NEET UG-2023 Information Brochure (hereinafter referred to as ‘Information Brochure’) which pertains to the ‘Children of employees of Government of India or its Undertaking’ and that cancellation of his admission was totally illegal and arbitrary.
7. The High Court, after considering the entirety of facts and circumstances dismissed the Writ Petition No. 5141 of 2023 vide order dated 5th September, 2023 holding that the appellant did not satisfy the requirements of clauses 4.8 and 9.4.4 of the Information Brochure. It was held that since the appellant did not select specified reservation i.e., in the category of Children of Defence personnel(DEF), while submitting the online application form, he was precluded from raising such a claim at a belated stage, as being impermissible in view of the rider contained in clause 9.4.4 of the Information Brochure.
8. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 5th September, 2023, the appellant filed Misc. Civil Application (Review) No. 980 of 2023 which too was rejected vide order dated 26th October, 2023. These two orders are assailed in the present appeals.
9. Mr. Kshitij Kothale, learned counsel representing the appellant urged that the High Court misconstrued the appellant’s claim to be one under Children of Defence personnel(DEF) category because the appellant had sought admission under the OBC/NCL category as being domicile of the State of Maharashtra.
10. He contended that the appellant and his parents are domicile of the State of Maharashtra. The appellant fulfils the requisite criteria for being admitted in the State quota and stood in merit and was allotted a seat in the OBC/NCL category as a domicile of the State of Maharashtra and, thus, cancellation of appellant’s admission by the order dated 9th August 2023 is absolutely unjust and arbitrary in addition to being in gross violation of principles of natural justice.
11. Learned counsel urged that two Division Benches of the Bombay High Court, one at Nagpur Bench in Archana Sudhakar Mandulkar v. Dean, Govt. Medical College, Nagpur and others , 1986 SCC OnLi
