Domicile entitled for MBBS seat Even if Parent is Posted Outside State, SC slaps compensation on Maha Govt, Medical college

New Delhi: The State of Maharashtra and Shri Vasantrao Naik Government Medical College, Yavatmal have been directed by the Supreme Court to pay Rs 1 lakh compensation to a student, whose MBBS admission was cancelled due to which he faced the loss of one academic year.

The appellant, a domicile of Maharashtra and whose father is employed in the Border Security Force (BSF), completed his Secondary School Certificate (Standard X)(SSC) and Higher School Certificate (Standard XII)(HSC) education from a school outside the State of Maharashtra. His admission under the Other Backward Class/Non-Creamy Layer (OBC/NCL) category as a domicile of Maharashtra was cancelled by the authorities.

While granting relief to the aspirant, the Apex Court also 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."

Further, the top court bench directed the authorities to provide the student 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, ensuring that the quota of seats for the candidates successful in the NEET UG 2024 does not get reduced.

After clearing the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test Undergraduate (NEET-UG) 2023 examination, the concerned student was issued a provisional selection letter by the State Common Entrance Cell, Maharashtra on 4th August 2023 and he was allotted a seat in Shri Vasantrao Naik Government Medical College. Although he completed the requisite formalities and paid Rs 13,500 as admission fees, his admission under Other Backward Class/Non-Creamy Layer (OBC/NCL) category as being domicile of the State of Maharashtra was cancelled by the college through a communication dated 9th August, 2023.

Challenging this, the aspirant approached the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court on the ground that the appellant was entitled to the exception as provided under clause 4.8 of the NEET UG 2023 Information Brochure which pertains to the 'Children of employees of Government of India or its Undertaking'. He argued that the cancellation of his admission was totally illegal and arbitrary.

However, the HC dismissed the plea holding that the appellant did not satisfy the requirements laid down in the Information Brochure. It was held that since the appellant did not select a specified reservation i.e. in the category of Children of Defence personnel, while submitting the application form, he was precluded from raising such a claim at a belated stage.

Thereafter, the aspirant approached the Supreme Court bench and his counsel argued that the appellant and his parents are domiciles of Maharashtra and the appellant fulfills the requisite criteria for being admitted in the State quota; based on merit he was allotted a seat in the OBC/NCL category as a domicile of Maharashtra. Therefore, the cancellation of his admission was unjust and arbitrary in addition to being in gross violation of principles of natural justice.

On the other hand, the counsel for the State and the medical college submitted that the appellant could not have been considered for admission under OBC/NCL category under the State quota because he is not covered under clauses 4.5, 4.6, and 4.8 of the Information Brochure.

It was argued that since the appellant did not stake a claim for admission in defence personnel quota and hence, he could not have been given a seat under the said category by virtue of the stipulations in clause 9.4.4 of the guidelines. On these grounds, the State sought dismissal of the appeals.

While considering the appeal, the Supreme Court bench noted that it was undisputed that the appellant and his parents were domicile of the State of Maharashtra and the appellant's father is employed in the BSF. However, because of the deployment of his father outside Maharashtra, the appellant passed his SSC and HSC exams from institutions outside the State.

The bench noted that Clause 4.8 of the Information Brochure provides an exception/relaxation for claiming seat in the Maharashtra State quota to Children of employees of Government of India or its Undertaking who have passed SSC and/or HSC or equivalent examination from the recognized institutions situated outside the State of Maharashtra. However, this clause imposes a rider that such employee of Government of India or its Undertaking being the parent of the candidate seeking admission in the course under the State quota "must have been transferred from outside the State of Maharashtra at a 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 at a place located in the State of Maharashtra".

Since the appellant's father was deployed outside the State in connection with service of the nation and therefore, the authorities relied on Clause 4.8 while cancelling admission granted to the appellant. 

At this outset, the Court observed,

"Undisputably, but for the above rider in the guidelines, the appellant is qualified to seek admission in the State Domicile (OBC/NCL) category by virtue of clause 4.8 of the Information Brochure and also stands in merit. However, the proviso creates a situation which would be impossible for the appellant to surmount. The appellant who is a domicile of the State of Maharashtra, cannot control the place of deployment of his father who is serving in the paramilitary force i.e., Border Security Force(BSF). Needless to state that the place of deployment cannot be the choice of the employee serving in the armed forces or a paramilitary force. 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 bench observed that the HC while denying relief to the appellant held that he had not selected any specified reservation under the head of Children of Defence personnel (DEF) as provided in Clause 9.4.4 of the Information Brochure. However, the bench observed that the appellant had submitted his OBC/NCL credentials/certificates along with the application form and, his claim for admission was clearly against the Maharashtra State quota as being a domicile of the State of Maharashtra whose father was deployed as a Head Constable(General Duty)[HC(GD)] in BSF.

The Apex Court referred to the guidelines/rules of admission and noted,

"In the extant admission process, a slight modification has been made in the guidelines inasmuch as, now as per clause 4.8.1 of Information Brochure, the children of employees of the Government of India or its Undertaking have been made eligible for admission even though they might have passed SSC and/or HSC or equivalent exam from a recognised institution situated outside the State of Maharashtra. However, while making such relaxation, a condition has been imposed that the employee of Government of India or its Undertaking being the parent of the candidate should have been transferred back to the State of Maharashtra and also have reported for duty and must be working as on the last date of the document verification at a place located in Maharashtra."

"We feel that this condition as imposed by the guidelines, creates a stipulation which would be impossible for the candidate or his parent to fulfill. It may be reiterated that the place of posting is not within the control of the employee or the candidate. Thus, 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. 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," further opined the Apex Court bench.

The bench observed that the HC made an error in its order and said,

"The Division Bench of Bombay High Court at Nagpur while rejecting the writ petition filed by the appellant, fell into manifest error in not considering case of the appellant in the correct perspective. For that reason, the impugned judgment is unsustainable in facts as well as in law. A fortiori, the letter/communication dated 9th August, 2023 issued by respondent No. 6 cancelling the admission granted to the appellant against the Maharashtra State quota in CAP1 without giving opportunity to show cause is also illegal and arbitrary and deserves to be quashed and set aside."

However, the bench noted that the practical problem that comes in the way is that the MBBS course in the current session has significantly progressed from August 2023 as more than six months have passed by since the commencement of the session. Further, the bench observed that as per the submission by the State, no seat is lying vacant in any college in Maharashtra State quota as on date.

The bench further noted that undisputably the appellant has been illegally deprived of 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."

Referring to the Supreme Court order in the case of S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, the Court opined that it would neither be desirably nor justifiable to grant admission to the appellant in the on-going session of the MBBS course. "However, considering the fact that the order cancelling the admission of the appellant herein was issued on 9th August, 2023 and the writ petition came to be filed before the High Court promptly i.e. on 10th August, 2023, without any delay whatsoever, 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," the court noted.

"...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 UG 2024," the court ordered.

"We also direct respondent No.6-College and respondent No.5- State of Maharashtra 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," it added.

To view the court order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/supreme-court-medical-admission-234791.pdf

Also Read: HC Relief to MBBS Aspirant Wrongfully Denied Seat, orders Rs 1 Lakh Compensation, Future Admission