Exclusion from state quota medical seats of students schooled outside state due to parents' private employment there is not arbitrary; states may impose schooling requirements to prioritize locals likely to serve the state.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

As common issues of law and facts are involved in these petitions, therefore, the same are being disposed of vide common judgment.

2. The petitioners before this Court are Bonafide Himachali or children of the Bonafide Himachali, who have successfully participated in the current NEET Examination. They have been barred from seeking admission in the Medical Institutions in the State of Himachal Pradesh under the State Quota Seats on the ground that they have not passed at least two examinations (out of middle or equivalent/Matric or equivalent/10+1 or equivalent/10+2 or equivalent) from the recognized schools or colleges situated in the State of Himachal Pradesh and affiliated to ICSE/CBSE/HPBOSE or equivalent Boards/Universities established by law in India.

3. The petitioners herein are those students who have passed either of the two classes outside the Himachal Pradesh for the reason that their parent(s) is/are gainfully employed outside the Himachal Pradesh, that too, in the private sector. Meaning thereby that they are not the children of the employees of the State Government, Central Government or autonomous bodies owned and controlled by the Centre and State.

4. For completion of facts, it is relevant to mention here that these petitions were initially allowed by this Court on 29.07.2025 on the strength of the judgment of the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench passed in CWP No.1353 of 2018, titled Shivam Sharma versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others by holding that as the issue was squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench, therefore, the respondents were to treat the petitioners eligible for admission to MBBS/BDS courses in terms of the prospectus against the State quota seats and they shall not be treated as ineligible on account they are not having passed two of the exams referred to in the prospectus from outside the State of Himachal Pradesh.

5. The judgment of this Court was assailed by way of Letters Patent Appeal and the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in terms of the judgment passed in LPA No.625 of 2025 titled Arnav Tandon versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others and other connected matters was pleased to allow the appeals by returning the following findings:

“Counsel for the writ petitioners/respondents herein have now sought to argue on merits of the case to justify and sustain the order of the learned Single Judge. It is also been brought to our notice that apart from the observations made by us in the earlier order dated 11.09.2025, subsequently the Apex Court had also passed an order on 01.09.2025 in Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.21536-21588 of 2024, the State of Telangana & others vs. Kalluri Naga Narasimha Abhiram & others, wherein also the view taken is that students who study in other States are not liable to be adjusted in the State quota.
Reliance has also been made to the judgment in Rajdeep Ghosh (supra), which we had also referred to. Thus, it is apparent that pleadings were never complete as such before the learned Single Judge. The factual matrix has also been thrashed out by us in the order dated 11.08.2025, giving the reasoning that the judgment in Rajdeep Ghosh and Harshit Bansal (supra) had no