The court affirmed the eligibility of a domicile student for MBBS admission despite SSC completion outside Maharashtra due to parental employment, confirming the applicability of exception clauses in educational rules.

JUDGMENT :

BHARATI DANGRE, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the action of the Maharashtra State Common Entrance Test Cell, Mumbai- the respondent no.3 and N. K. P. Salve Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre and Lata Mangeshkar Medical College, respondent no.4, in not considering the petitioner in the State quota for under graduate MBBS course and by holding him ineligible as per Rules framed under NEET Health Science Brochure-2024, the petitioner - Adwait Sanjay Kamdi has approached this Court, seeking the following reliefs:

‘(i) Hold and declare that the action and decision on part of the respondents, and specially, the MHCET Cell in holding the petitioner not eligible for being admitted in the state government quota at NKPSMC in terms of the Provisional Selection Letter and not permitting the petitioner to seek admission through the state government quota for the MBBS course in the academic year 2024-25 is arbitrary and illegal, and by holding so;

(ii) quash and set aside the decision of the MHCET Cell reflected from the emails dated 04.09.2024 at ANNEXURE Z, and through the remarks of the ‘Scrutiny/Admission Committee’ through a letter received on 04.09.2024, at ANNEXURE Z1 and direct the respondents to finalise and grant permanent/final admission to the Petitioner in the MBBS course for the academic year 2024-25 from the state quota in NKPSMC Nagpur, as per the Provisional Selection Letter dated 31.08.2024, at ANNEXURE Y, in the interest of justice;’

By way of an ad-interim relief, a direction is sought to the respondents not to finalize the process of admission of the MBBS course for the year 2024-25 and admit the petitioner provisionally in the respondent no.4-College in terms of Provisional Selection Letter issued in his favour for keeping one seat vacant in the College of respondent no.4, in the interest of justice.

2. On 09.09.2024 by recording the factual background to the following effect, by way of an ad-interim order, the respondent nos. 3 and 4 were directed to grant admission to the petitioner provisionally in the 85% State quota, subject to result of the petition.

The factual background was recorded in the order to the following effect:

“2. The father of the Petitioner who was employed with the Government of India undertaking/BPCL, on account of which since his posting was in Bina, District Sagar in Madhya Pradesh, the Petitioner cleared his SSC examination from the Madhya Pradesh Education Board. The father of the Petitioner thereafter has resigned and taken up employment in the Private Company in Maharashtra.”

3. It is not disputed, that both the Petitioner and his father are domiciled in the State of Maharashtra. The Petitioner is being denied consideration for MBBS admission by the Respondent 'No.3, though the Petitioner has been provisionally selected for admission by the Respondent No.4, on the ground that in terms of clause 4.5 of the brochure (page 51), the Petitioner did not pass his SSC examination from an institution situated in the State of Maharashtra.”

3. We have heard learned counsel Shri Ashutosh Dharmadhikari for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri Neeraj Patil for the respondent nos. 1 and 2, learned counsel Shri Nikhil Gaikwad for respondent no.3 and learned counsel Shri Atharva Manohar, for the respondent no.4.

In the wake of the urgency expressed and by consent, we have taken up the petition for hearing at the stage of admission by issuing ‘Rule’. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

Shri Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner while narrating the factual background