SC ‘Again’ Quashes Condition of Domicile for Admission to MD, MS & Post-Graduate Diplomas In Karnataka Colleges [Read Judgment]

akanksha jain

5 April 2018 12:17 PM GMT

  • SC ‘Again’ Quashes Condition of Domicile for Admission to MD, MS & Post-Graduate Diplomas In Karnataka Colleges [Read Judgment]

    Reiterating that imposing a ‘condition of domicile’ for admission to MD, MS and post-graduate diploma seats in State of Karnataka is invalid and unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has quashed Clause 4.1 of the Information Bulletin (PGET-2018) to be invalid to the extent that it disqualifies candidates who completed their MBBS/BDS degree courses from colleges situated in Karnataka...

    Reiterating that imposing a ‘condition of domicile’ for admission to MD, MS and post-graduate diploma seats in State of Karnataka is invalid and unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has quashed Clause 4.1 of the Information Bulletin (PGET-2018) to be invalid to the extent that it disqualifies candidates who completed their MBBS/BDS degree courses from colleges situated in Karnataka from competing for admission to post-graduate medical/dental courses in Government Medical Colleges and against government quota seats in non-governmental institutions.

    Forty-four doctors had approached the apex court challenging Clause 4 of the Information Bulletin published recently, contending that the said clause arbitrarily and illegally deprives them who had obtained MBBS/BDS degrees from the colleges situated in Karnataka from competing for admission to post-graduate medical/dental courses in Government Medical Colleges and against government quota seats in non-governmental institutions.

    Referring to the apex court judgment in Vishal Goyal and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others, they contended that the state ought to have followed the said decision while issuing the bulletin. The state defended the criteria and contended that the decision in Vishal Goyal case would not be applicable in the present case.

    In the Vishal Goyal case, the Supreme Court had quashed a similar condition in Information Bulletin for PGET-2014. Referring to the said decision, the bench of Justice UU Lalit observed: “In Vishal Goyal (supra) the challenge was to the validity of Clause 2.1 of the Information Bulletin for PGET-2014. The eligibility conditions as laid down in said Clause 2.1 are identical to those stipulated in the present clause, namely, Clause 4.1 of PGET-2018.”

    The bench then observed: “Paragraphs 13 and 15 of the Judgment of this Court in Vishal Goyal (supra) are clear that the Information Bulletin for PGET-2014 did not actually give institutional preference to students who had passed MBBS/BDS from Colleges or universities in State of Karnataka but made some of them ineligible to take the entrance test for admission to Post Graduate Medical or Dental Course in State of Karnataka and that said clause was held ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution and declared null and void. The relevant clause under consideration, namely, Clause 4.1 of the Information Bulletin for PGET-2018 is identical in substance to the one that was considered in Vishal Goyal (supra). The matter is thus no longer res Integra and is completely covered by the decision in Vishal Goyal (supra). In the circumstances, we respectfully follow the decision of this Court in Vishal Goyal (supra) and hold Clause 4.1 of the Information Bulletin (PGET-2018) which was published on the website on 10.03.2018 to be invalid to the extent it disqualifies petitioners and similarly situated candidates who completed their MBBS/BDS Degree Courses from colleges situated in Karnataka from competing for admission to Post-Graduate Medical/Dental Courses in Government Medical Colleges and against government quota seats in non-governmental institutions.”

    The bench directed the state to suitably modify and amend Information Bulletin in question in keeping with the observations made in this judgment and re-publish the calendar of events in terms of this judgment and complete the entire process within the timeline stipulated by the regulatory authorities concerned.

    Read the Judgment Here

    Next Story