2016 Supreme(MP) 893

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BENCH
R.S. Jha, C.V. Sirpurkar, JJ.
Rudrika Pushpraj Bhatele And Others - Petitioners
Versus
The State of M.P. and others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 14496, 14618, 14959, 15555 of 2016
Decided On : 26-09-2016

Reservation based on domicile/permanent residence for admission to MBBS/BDS courses is permissible under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, provided that there is a reasonable nexus between the classification and the object sought to be achieved, and that the classification is not arbitrary or irrational.

Headnote:

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 14 - EQUALITY - ADMISSION TO MBBS/BDS COURSES - REGULATION DISPENSING WITH REQUIREMENT OF DOMICILE/PERMANENT RESIDENCE CRITERIA IN RESPECT OF GENERAL CATEGORY CANDIDATES IN PRIVATE MEDICAL COLLEGES - VALIDITY - HELD, REGULATION VIOLATES ARTICLE 14 - STUDENTS OF STATE DENIED EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY AND LEVEL PLAYING FIELD - NO RECIPROCITY OF RESERVATION BY OTHER STATES - REGULATION DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, students who have passed their Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination (10+2) from various schools situated within the State of M.P and have also been placed in the select/merit list prepared pursuant to the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) for the purposes of selecting candidates for making admissions in the Under Graduate (MBBS/BDS) courses in various Medical Colleges, challenged the constitutional validity of Regulation-6 of the Madhya Pradesh Sahayata Na Paane Waale Niji Chikitsa Mahavidyalayon Evam Chikitsa Mahavidyalayon Mein M.B.B.S Tatha B.D.S Pathyakram Mein Pravesh Ki Patrata, Pravesh Ki Reeti Evam Sthanon Ke Aarakshan (Jismein Videsh Mein Rah Rahe Bharatiya Nagrikrikon Va Anivasi Bharatiya Abhyardhiyoin Ke Liyea Sthanon Ka Aarakshan Sammillit Hai) Ke Liye Viniyam, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulation of 2016), notified by the State in exercise of powers under section 13 of the Madhya Pradesh Niji Vavsaik Sikshan Sanstha (Pravesh Ka Viniman Evam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2007) which dispenses with the requirement of domicile/permanent residence criteria in respect of General Category candidates in Private Medical Colleges thereby throwing open the General Category seats in the MBBS and BDS courses in private medical and dental colleges situated within the State of M.P. to students who are not permanent residents or local residents of the State of M.P.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the impugned Regulation-6 of the Regulations of 2016, amounts to denial of equality of opportunity to the petitioners and is, therefore, violative of the equality principles enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Court also held that in view of the undisputed local needs and the readily available students of M.P. the State has failed to plead and establish the rationale, object or purpose for doing away with reservations in Private Medical Colleges or any nexus between the aforesaid object and the impugned regulation and, therefore, the classification between persons like the petitioners and others being irrational and not being based on intelligible differentia is contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issues: 1. Whether the Regulation-6 of the Regulations of 2016, which dispenses with the requirement of domicile/permanent residence criteria in respect of General Category candidates in Private Medical Colleges, violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the State has failed to plead and establish the rationale, object or purpose for doing away with reservations in Private Medical Colleges?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the impugned Regulation-6 of the Regulations of 2016, amounts to denial of equality of opportunity to the petitioners and is, therefore, violative of the equality principles enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Court relied on the following principles: a. The State could departure from the principles of selection on merits on two, amongst other, grounds namely; (I) the State interest in providing adequate medical services to the people of the State by imparting medical education to students who by reason of their residence in the State would be likely to settle down and serve the people of the State as doctors, and; (ii) backwardness of a particular region. b. A certain percentage of reservation on the basis of residence requirement may legitimately be made in order to equalise opportunities for medical admission on a broader basis and to bring about real and not formal, actual and not merely legal, equality. c. The criteria of merit does not mean obtaining higher marks in the entrance test alone and the fact that a particular candidate is willing to reside in the State and render medical and health services within the State is also to be treated as a merit criteria and on that basis such a person can be treated as more meritorious then those who have obtained more marks in the written examination but are not available for rendering services or providing health or medical services in the State concerned. d. The State has failed to demonstrate or place before the Court any reasonable, acceptable, object, purpose, rational or reason for throwing open the general category MBBS and BDS seats available in Private Medical Colleges to students of all other States and that this throwing open of seats is also apparently against and contrary to the very object sought to be achieved of producing local doctors who would be willing and available for serving the urban and rural population of the State. e. The impugned Regulation is not in the interest of the State specially in the absence of reciprocal availability of MBBS and BDS seats for admission to student of M.P. in other States. f. The impugned Regulation-6 of the Regulations of 2016, in its applicability to the petitioners, results in discrimination which is violative of the provision of Articles 14 & 15 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the impugned Regulation-6 of the Regulations of 2016 is, accordingly, declared unconstitutional as far as it excludes the applicability of the requirement of domicile/permanent residence for the purposes of granting admission to general category MBBS and BDS seats in Private Medical and Dental Colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh. 2. The Court held that in view of the undisputed local needs and the readily available students of M.P. the State has failed to plead and establish the rationale, object or purpose for doing away with reservations in Private Medical Colleges or any nexus between the aforesaid object and the impugned regulation and, therefore, the classification between persons like the petitioners and others being irrational and not being based on intelligible differentia is contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Final Decision: The Court declared Regulation-6 of the Regulations of 2016 as far as its applicability is restricted only to reserved category students as ultra vires and unconstitutional as it violates the equality clause contained under Articles 14 & 15 of the Constitution of India. The respondents were accordingly directed to apply the requirement of domicile/permanent residence as provided in the Rules to all students seeking admission under the General category seats in MBBS and BDS courses in Private Medical Colleges also without making any distinction or discrimination in that regard.