A policy-based fiscal classification that distinguishes between groups based on geographical criteria is valid under Article 14 if it has a rational nexus to its object; additionally, a party cannot accept government benefits under an order and subsequently challenge its validity.

ORDER:

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Gunaranjan)

In the present writ petition, petitioners assail G.O.Rt.No.110, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (C1) Department, dated 12.02.2019, insofar as 1st respondent deciding to reimburse B-category medical fee only for one year on the pretext that the petitioner students got admitted to MBBS courses outside the State of Andhra Pradesh, being discriminative in comparison to such of those students who were admitted to MBBS courses within the State of Andhra Pradesh, to be unreasonable classification and therefore, is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently, to set aside the same and direct the 1st respondent to extend the benefit uniformly to all the students irrespective of their place of study.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

(a) 5th respondent college is a private unaided educational institution established by the 4th respondent society for the purpose of imparting education in medical courses. It was granted Letter of Permission to establish medical college for undergraduate courses with an intake of 100 students, vide Letter of Permission, dated 13.07.2010. The same came to be renewed till the academic year 2014–15. For the academic year 2015–16, based on successive inspections conducted by the Medical Council of India (“M.C.I.”), as it was felt that the 5th respondent college was not in compliance with the requisite norms, the Executive Council of the M.C.I. had made recommendation to the Government of India not to accord renewal of Letter of Permission.

(b) The same eventually was assailed in W.P.No.31371 of 2015. An interim order came to be passed on 29.09.2015 allowing provisional admissions, however, it was made clear that the students, who sought admissions, were directed to be notified that such admissions would be subject to further orders of the Court and that they can not claim any equities in future. The 5th respondent appears to have also preferred W.P.No.9215 of 2015 before the Delhi High Court for the very same relief and later has been withdrawn. Eventually, upon M.C.I. assailing the said interim order before the Division Bench, both the writ petition and as well as writ appeal came to be heard together, and by judgment and order, dated 20.04.2016, the writ petition came to be dismissed. The admissions so made by the 5th respondent college came to be cancelled. Even the review preferred against the aforesaid judgment also came to be dismissed, and so also the Special Leave Petition (SLP) was dismissed.

(c) In that background, all the students who were admitted to the 5th respondent college under B-category management seats made a request to the Hon’ble Chief Minister to do justice, as they had lost valuable time and opportunity in securing admissions to MBBS courses. It is stated that petitioners had later been successful in securing admissions under B-category management seats for the academic year 2018–19 in different colleges situated outside the State of Andhra Pradesh. Acceding to request of the students, who suffered in the hands of 5th respondent college, the 1st respondent had issued G.O.Ms. No.110, dated 12.02.2019, deciding to reimburse B-category fees to the students, however, in respect of students who got admitted in B and C-categories within the State of Andhra Pradesh were provided reimbursement of two years' fee, whereas students who got admitted in colleges outside the State of Andhra Pradesh under same categories were provided reimbursement of only one year. Being dissatisfied with