NEET-UG | Domicile Entitled To MBBS Seat In Maharashtra Even If Parent Serving Union Is Posted Outside State: Supreme Court

In a notable judgment, the Supreme Court granted a major relief to a candidate who was wrongfully denied medical admission last year in the state quota in Maharashtra in NEET-UG 2023. The Court directed that he should be accommodated in the first year of MBBS(UG) course in the same college in the next session, i.e., NEET UG-2024.

Further, the Court directed the College and Maharashtra Government to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1 lakhs (Rs. 50,000/- each) to the candidate on account of illegal and arbitrary cancellation of his admission.

The candidate was denied admission because of a condition in the admission regulations that his father was posted outside the State of Maharashtra at the time of document verification. The Court read down the rule to hold that admission for a domicile in State MBBS seat can't be denied just because the parent, who is serving the Union, is posted outside the State at the time of document verification.

The candidate was a domicile of the State of Maharashtra and his father was in the service of the Border Security Force. Owing to the deployment of his father outside the State of Maharashtra, the appellant passed his SSC and HSC exams from an institution outside the State of Maharashtra.

Rule 4.8.1. prevailing in Maharashtra for admission in NEET-UG, 2023 makes the children of the Union Government employee eligible to take admission to the NEET-UG course in Maharashtra despite passing the SSC (10th) and HSC (12th) exams outside of Maharashtra. However, the condition was imposed that the admission could be only claimed where the parents/employee of the Union Government have been transferred from outside the State to the place of work located in the State of Maharashtra and also must have reported for duty and must be working as on the last date of Document verification (during college admission) at a place located in Maharashtra.

The candidate's admission was cancelled by respondent no.6/college on the note that he didn't fulfill the condition prescribed under Rule 4.8.1. to become eligible for admission to the NEET-UG course. The reason provided by the college was that during the document verification for admission, the candidate's father was posted outside Maharashtra making him ineligible to claim admission to the NEET-UG course.

The High Court upheld the admission cancellation of the Appellant/candidate, following which he preferred a plea before the Supreme Court.

Reversing the findings of the High Court which had upheld the decision of the college denying admission to the student/appellant, the Bench Comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Rajesh Bindal, and Sandeep Mehta read down Rule 4.8.1. stating that the place of posting is not within the control of the employee or the candidate, to make the employee/parents present and working in Maharashtra at the time of document verification of his/her ward.

“the distinction drawn by the clause between two categories of employees in the Government of India services (i) those posted in Maharashtra and (ii) those posted outside Maharashtra has no nexus with the intent and purpose of the guidelines/rules and hence the same deserves to be read down to such extent.”, the Judgment authored by Justice BR Gavai said.

After noting that the place of deployment is beyond the control of the children and employee/parent, the court observed that irrespective of the place of posting of the parent the candidate would be entitled to a seat under the Maharashtra state quota.

"Being the child of a soldier serving on the country's frontiers, the discriminatory and arbitrary treatment meted out to the appellant under the guidelines cannot be countenanced," the Court observed.

“Thus, this Court has no hesitation in providing that the candidate(s) who are born in Maharashtra and whose parents are also domicile of the State of Maharashtra and are employees of the Government of India or its Undertaking, such candidate(s) would be entitled to a seat under the Maharashtra State quota irrespective of the place of posting of the parent(s) because the place of deployment would not be under the control of the candidate or his parents.”, the court said.

Restitutive Relief Provided To Candidate

The court provided restitutive relief to the appellant/candidate against the illegal deprivation from his rightful admission in the first year of the MBBS course owing to the insensitive, unjust, illegal, and arbitrary approach of the respondents and so also on account of the delay occasioned in the judicial process.

After finding it to be neither desirable nor justifiable to grant admission to the appellant in the ongoing session of the MBBS(UG) course, the court decided that the appellant is entitled to restoration of his seat in the first year of MBBS(UG) course in the same college in the next session, i.e., NEET UG-2024.

Direction For Rectification in Rule 4.8.1.

Not only this, the court directed that until a suitable rectification is made in the guidelines/rules, candidate(s) domicile of the State of Maharashtra having acquired SSC and/or HSC qualification from any recognized institution: -

(i) “Whose parent(s) are domiciles of Maharashtra and employed in the Central Government or its Undertaking, defence services and/or in paramilitary forces viz. CRPF, BSF, etc. and;

(ii) Such parent(s) are posted at any place in the country as on the last date of document verification,

shall be entitled for a seat in MBBS Course in the Maharashtra State quota.”

Conclusion

“the appellant shall be provided admission in the 'OBC category domicile of State of Maharashtra child of person serving the Government of India' in the first year of the MBBS(UG) course commencing from the year 2024 by creating an additional seat so as to ensure that there is no reduction in the quota of seats to the candidates who succeed in the NEET UG2024.”, the court said.

Further, respondent No.6-College and respondent No.5- State of Maharashtra was directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1 lakh (Rs. 50,000/- each) to the appellant for the deprivation of one year and harassment on the account of illegal and arbitrary cancellation of his admission.

The appeal was allowed accordingly.

Counsel For Petitioner(s) Mr. Kshitij Kothale, Adv. Mr. Satyajit A Desai, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Gautam, Adv. Mr. Abhinav K. Mutyalwar, Adv. Mr. Gajanan N Tirthkar, Adv. Mr. Vijay Raj Singh Chouhan, Adv. Mr. Ananya Thapliyal, Adv. Ms. Anagha S. Desai, AOR

Counsel For Respondent(s) Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR Mrs Rashmi Singhania, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv.

Case Title: VANSH S/O PRAKASH DOLAS VERSUS THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION & THE MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE & ORS.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 250

Click here To Read/Download The Judgment