HC upholds exclusion of students educated outside state due to parents' private employment from MBBS state quota

"Thus, in terms of the aforesaid judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court was inter alia pleased to hold that it was permissible to lay down the essential educational requirements, residential/domicile in a particular State in respect of the basic courses of MBBS/BDS/Ayurvedic etc., and the object sought to be achieved was that the incumbent must serve the State concerned and for the emancipation of the educational standards of the people who were residing in a particular State, such reservation has been upheld by this Court for the inhabitants of the State and prescription of the condition of obtaining an education in a State. Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that with respect to the private employees, once parents have moved outside in a private employment and wards obtaining education outside, they are not likely to come back and thus, their exclusion could not be said to be irrational or illegal," observed the HC bench.

It further noted that,

 "Thus, this Court is of the considered view that in the light of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajdeep Ghosh versus State of Assam and others, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that the exclusion of those students for being considered against State Quota Seats for admission in MBBS course, who were admitted in Schools out of the State of Assam on account of their parents being privately employed outside the State of Assam was not arbitrary, this Court cannot hold that the exclusion of this Class in terms of the prospectus in issue is either arbitrary or discriminatory or unconstitutional."

The HC bench made these observations while considering a batch of pleas filed by bona fide Himachali students, or children of bona fide Himachalis, who were denied eligibility to compete for the State Quota MBBS seats on the ground that they had not passed the requisite two qualifying examinations from schools situated within the State of Himachal Pradesh.

After qualifying for the NEET-UG examination, the petitioners had sought admission to MBBS courses under the State Quota seats in Himachal Pradesh. However, they were rendered ineligible under the eligibility criteria prescribed in the prospectus for the academic year 2025-2026. According to the eligibility criteria, the candidates are required to have passed at least two qualifying examinations from recognised institutions situated within the State.

Such petitioners had studied outside the State of Himachal Pradesh due to their parents being employed in the private sector outside the State. Previously, bona fide Himachali students were allowed to compete for State Quota seats irrespective of place of schooling. However, in the current prospectus, this relevant exemption was deleted.

Therefore, they challenged the revised eligibility criteria, terming it as arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of their constitutional rights on the ground that the change in the prospectus adversely affected their legitimate expectations.

Observations by the HC bench:

After examining the eligibility criteria contained in the prospectus, the HC bench noted that while exemptions were carved out in favour of children of government employees and certain other categories, no such exemption was provided for children of bona fide Himachalis whose parents were privately employed outside the State.

The Court placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Rajdeep Ghosh v. State of Assam to note that the Apex Court had upheld similar eligibility conditions requiring candidates to have studied within the State, while granting limited exemptions in favour of the children of government employees posted outside the State.

Apart from this, the High Court also relied upon its earlier Division Bench judgment in the case of Harshit Bansal v. State of Himachal Pradesh, as well as the subsequent reaffirmation of Rajdeep Ghosh's case by the Supreme Court in State of Telangana v. Kalluri Naga Narasimha Abhiram, to hold that States are entitled to prescribe domicile and educational criteria for admissions to State Quota seats, provided that classification bears a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.

Accordingly, the HC bench dismissed the petitions, holding that the petitioners' exclusion under the present prospectus could not be struck down as unconstitutional merely because a different eligibility regime existed in earlier years.

However, the bench also asked the State Government and the University to be consistent regarding the eligibility of students under the State Quota. At this outset, the bench observed, "

"Before parting this Court would like to make an observation that the State of Himachal Pradesh and the respondent-University should be somewhat consistent as to who or are to be treated as eligible students under the State Quota. Though, this Court is not suggesting that the eligibility criteria should be in a watertight compartment, but including a category of students in one year prospectus and then excluding it in the other year, obviously, has a negative impact on students like the petitioners, who are at the stage of their life, which is going to shape their career forever. This Court would also like to observe that what this Court has held is that the non-inclusion of the petitioners in the prospectus of the present year cannot be held as bad by the Court, but it should not be construed as if this Court has returned a finding that said category for all times to come stands excluded."

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/himachal-pradesh-hc-mbbs-eligibility-317482.pdf

Also Read: Himachal HC quashes order revoking appointment of contractual nurse