MBBS: Bombay HC quashes 3 percent reservation for Children of Govt, private employees

Highlighting the importance of merit for admission, the High Court bench further noted, "We must express that merit, and merit alone, must be allowed to explore the fullest extent, for every seat is to be filled in on merits, which receive relaxation by reservation contemplated by the Constitution or by a statute, i.e. an Act of Parliament or any law made by the State Legislature."

Also Read: NEET: Supreme Court reserves verdict on Telangana's domicile policy

The Director of Technical Education, Goa issued a common prospectus for the admission to the professional degree courses (including MBBS, BDS and other medical courses) for the academic session of 2025-2026. In the prospectus, there were various other categories for seat allocation, including the standard constitutional reservations for SC, ST, OBC etc. 

However, Clause 5.7 of the prospectus introduced a new category called "CSP" i.e. Children of Central/State Government and persons in private occupations. Under this category, 3% of the medical seats were reserved in Goa Medical College for applicants who did not meet the residential and other requirements of General Category but whose parents fell under specific sub-categories of government employees or private sector personnel.

The concerned Clause 5.7 stated the following:

“CATEGORY 7 - CSP (3%)

Applicants who don't meet the residential and other requirements of General Category, and whose either of the parents belong to one of the following subcategories, shall be eligible for seats reserved under this category.

(a) An employee of Central Government and Central Government Public Sector Undertakings, including Defence and Para-Military personnel, serving in the State of Goa in the academic year (June 24 onwards) preceding the year of admission or transferred to Goa till the date of submission of application form for admission. OR

(b) An employee of Goa State Government including those of Goa State Government Public Sector Undertakings and Educational Institutions recognised by Govt. of Goa, but not an employee on daily wages/ NMR/ work charged. OR

(c) A person residing in the State of Goa and the applicant must have studied and passed HSSC (Std. XIIth) examination from schools/colleges in the State of Goa.

(d) An employee of Central/State Government and Central/State Government Public Sector Undertaking, including Defence and Para-Military personnel who has served in Goa and has retired from their service, when posted in the State of Goa, and their wards continued to study in the schools in State of Goa, and pass the qualifying exam from schools in Goa.

The petitioner's daughter cleared the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) and wishes to get admitted to MBBS course. Challenging the Clause 5.7, the petitioner argued that it was constitutionally impermissible and violative of right to equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution. 

It was further argued that the said clause had effectively created an artificial classification exempting certain categories of applicants from stringent residential requirements of 10 years of continuous residence and education qualifications as mandated under General Category provisions in the Clause 5.1 of the prospectus.

Even though the HC bench agreed that Article 14 along with the Article 15(1), Article 15(4), Article 15(5) and Article 15(6) of the Constitutional have empowered the State to exercise the power of making any special provision for socially and educationally backward classes, it also observed that "This enabling power of reservation ensure genuine representation to the persons belonging to backward classes and Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, without offending the duty of the State to ensure equality as contemplated under Article 14. Thus, it is a combination of factors like social backwardness, economic status and the need to ensure representation from various communities which becomes the source of power for reserving the seats in favour of these classes as it would aim in promoting social justice and equitable access to professional education for the marginalised classes identified by the Constitution to be the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, Socially and Educationally backward classes and now even the Economically Weaker Sections of citizens. The reservation for these classes as specifically provided in Article 15, is an affirmative action based on the enabling power of the State and this achieves the overall object of ensuring representation of ‘Socially and Educationally backward classes of citizens or the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes.’"

Invoking provision in form of Article 132 of the Constitution, the counsel for the State, Advocate General, urged before the Court that the executive power of the State is co-extensive with its legislative power and it shall extend to the matters to which the legislature had the power to make laws.

However, addressing this, the HC bench noted, "...we must just observe that this power is ‘subject to the provisions of the Constitution’ and is hedged by the proviso appended thereto, which clearly state that, the Executive power of the State shall be subject to, and limited by, the Executive power expressly conferred by the Constitution or by any law made by the Parliament upon the Union or authorities thereof."

"There can be no quarrel about the proposition that as far as the field of education is concerned, the State Legislature, by virtue of Entry 25 in the Concurrent List, is empowered to make law in the field of education which shall include medical education. However, we do not find this power being exercised by the State as, had it been a case that it would have by law provided a reservation, it would have been tested on different parameters, of course subject to the power of Parliament under Entry No.66 in the Union List but 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. While permitting reservation of seats for all those clauses covered by clause (4), (5) and (6) of Article 15, other than that, if at all the State intend to provide for any reservation as a class, it may do so by enacting a law and once such law on the basis of reservation is held to be permissible, is the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and that is how there is PwD reservation in the Prospectus," it further noted.

The Court also observed that any reservation being a special privilege conferred, must satisfy the parameters of Article 14 of the Constitution. The bench referred to the well-established test of reasonable classification under Article 14 as laid down in the case of Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India, (2003) 11 SCC 146, which required that classification must be founded on intelligible differentia and must have the nexus with the object sought to be achieved by it.

"It is essential that there must be presence of nexus between the 0bject of segregating the two classes and the basis of the classification. When a reasonable basis do not exsit for a classification, then such classification shall be declared as discriminatory as it directly violate the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14," observed the Court.

It was observed by the Court that the clause, which was under challenge, failed on the requirements of the test and therefore, it was noted that the four sub-categories created under CSP reservation were not based on any intelligible differential that could distinguish the grouped persons from those left.

The Court, in particular, criticised the category (b) of the said Clause which created an artifical distinction between employees of State government, one class whose wards competed in General category and another whose eards got CSP reservation benefits despite both being State Government employees. Therefore, it was stated that the sub-categorisation was neither reasonable nor had any nexus with the object, of merit-selection, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution.

Even though the Court acknowledged the State's concern for employees facing fortuitous crucial distinction between providing relaxations and creating specific reservation, it also noted, "However, providing a specific reservation in form of 3% seats is totally unacceptable since we find that it is not so provided by law as contemplated under Article 15(5) and introducing the reservation for this category which creates subclassification which has no nexus with the object of offering medical education but on merit is definitely violative of Article 14 of the Constitution."

The Court opined that the State could have relaxed the requirement of continuous residence in favour of certain fortuituous circumstances, a similar approach that has been adopted by the State of Mahatrashtra in its NEET guidelines.

"Mr Kantak has invited our attention to the Rules of NEET UG2025 Information Brochure published by the Office of Commissioner State CET Cell, Maharashtra where relaxation is provided by marking out an exception for employees of Government of Maharashtra or its Undertakings and also for the children of employees of Government of India or its Undertakings despite the fact that they have not passed the SSC or HSSC or equivalent examination from the State as their parents were transferred to a place in Maharashtra and they could not comply with this stipulation and it offer relaxation in case of those employees of State of Maharashtra or its Undertaking who have joined their service since beginning at the place situated out of Maharashtra but transferred to a place situated within the State of Maharashtra and the children have passed SSC and/or HSSC or equivalent examination from institution situated outside the State of Maharashtra, subject to the condition that such an employee must have been transferred/deputed at a place of work located in State of Maharashtra and reported for duty before the last date of document verification. Relaxation is also provided to children of such employees who have been transferred or deputed to a place outside the State of Maharashtra or who have returned to Maharashtra after initial transfer/deputation and their wards have passed the qualifying examination from outside the State of Maharashtra. Similar concession is also provided in respect of the employees of Government of India or its Undertakings," observed the Court.

With these observations, the Court quashed and set aside Clause 5.7 of the prospectus which provided the 3% CSP reservation and emphasized on merit for medical admission.

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

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/bombay-hc-reservation-298236.pdf

Also Read:Bombay HC questions Govt over Prosecutor Removal in Payal Tadvi Suicide Case