Reservation for Govt Employees' Children in Medical Admissions Not Enacted by 'Law' Violates Article 14: Bombay High Court - 2025-08-12

Bombay High Court Strikes Down 3% Quota for Government Employees' Children in Goa Medical Admissions, Upholds Merit

PANAJI: In a significant ruling on educational reservation policies, the Bombay High Court at Goa has quashed a clause in the state's medical admission prospectus that reserved 3% of seats for children of Central/State Government employees and persons in private occupations (CSP). The division bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Nivedita P. Mehta held that the reservation, introduced via an executive decision, violates the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution and was not established by "law" as required.

The court emphasized that for professional courses like MBBS, merit must be the primary consideration, with deviations only permissible for constitutionally or statutorily mandated reservations.

---

The Case Background

The writ petition was filed by Niyan Joseph Savio Marchon, whose daughter was an aspirant for an MBBS seat after clearing the NEET-UG 2025. The petitioner challenged Clause 5.7 of the common prospectus issued by Goa's Director of Technical Education, which carved out a 3% quota (amounting to 5 seats) for the CSP category.

This category was designed for applicants who did not meet the standard eligibility criteria for the General Category, such as the 10-year residency requirement in Goa, due to their parents' service-related mobility.

Arguments at the Bar

Petitioner's Submissions: Senior Advocate S. S. Kantak, representing the petitioner, argued forcefully that selection for professional courses must be governed by "merit and merit alone." He contended that any reservation is an exception and must be explicitly permitted by the Constitution (under Article 15(4), (5), and (6) for socially and educationally backward classes, SC/ST, and EWS) or by a specific statute, like the reservation for Persons with Disabilities (PwD).

Mr. Kantak submitted that the CSP quota created an "artificial classification" and diluted merit. He argued that creating a sub-classification among government employees—some qualifying under the General Category and others under the special CSP quota—lacked an intelligible differentia and had no rational nexus to the objective of selecting the most meritorious candidates.

State's Defence: Advocate General Devidas J. Pangam, appearing for the State of Goa, defended the policy as a measure to prevent the exclusion of deserving candidates whose parents' service mobility was beyond their control. He argued that the CSP quota was a "conscious policy decision" founded on an intelligible differentia to ensure equitable access for children of public servants. He also raised a preliminary objection regarding the petitioner's locus standi, suggesting the petitioner's ward would not secure a seat even if the quota was struck down.

---

Court’s Analysis and Constitutional Scrutiny

The High Court undertook a detailed analysis of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The bench noted that while Article 14 guarantees equality, it permits reasonable classification. However, such classification must be based on an "intelligible differentia" and have a "rational relation" to the objective sought to be achieved.

Merit as the Cornerstone: Citing a series of Supreme Court judgments, including Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India , the Court reiterated that the primary consideration in medical college admissions must be merit.

"Exclusion of more meritorious students on the ground that they are not resident within the State would be likely to promote sub-standard candidates and bring about fall in medical competence, injurious in the long run to the very region," the Court observed, quoting the apex court.

Reservation Must Be Backed by 'Law': A crucial finding of the judgment was that special provisions for reservation must be enacted through legislation, not by executive fiat.

"When the State attempt to create reservation in favour of any class which is not covered by the Constitution, then it would be necessary for it to introduce it by law and not because it feels it appropriate to do so... the State has not provided the reservation by ‘law’ as contemplated under Article 15(5) and it has simply introduced the reservation, maybe by executive fiat in Clause 5.7, which in our view, is impermissible."

The bench contrasted the CSP quota with the constitutionally valid reservations for SC, ST, OBC, EWS, and the statutorily provided quota for PwD.

Classification Found Arbitrary: The court found the sub-categories within the CSP quota to be vague and arbitrary. It held that the provision created an unreasonable distinction between the wards of government employees who met residency norms and those who did not, without a clear nexus to the goal of meritorious selection. The court suggested that such fortuitous circumstances could be addressed through relaxations in the general eligibility criteria, as done in states like Maharashtra, rather than by creating a separate reservation.

---

The Final Verdict

The High Court allowed the writ petition, striking down Clause 5.7 of the prospectus.

"Being satisfied that the provision for reservation of 3% seats to the Central/State Government employees and persons in private occupations... do not withstand the scrutiny of Article 14 of the Constitution... we quash and set aside the said Clause," the bench ruled.

Dismissing the State's objection to the petitioner's standing, the court noted that the petitioner's ward, as an aspirant, had sufficient locus to challenge the rules. The decision clears the way for the 5 seats previously reserved under the CSP category to be added to the general pool, to be filled based on merit.