NEET PG: Bombay HC upholds admission criteria for domicile candidates who completed MBBS outside state

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court recently upheld the PG medical admission rule as per which domiciled candidates who obtained MBBS degree outside the State will be eligible for State Quota seats only if they have secured admission to the MBBS course under the All-India Quota in any Government Medical College or the All India Institute of Medical Sciences or any other Central Government Institution. 

While upholding this criteria for PG medical admission domiciled candidates, the HC bench comprising Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan observed that such a condition underscored that such a condition helps in filtering of strong credentials and merit for an outside MBBS graduate to be let into the State Quota in Maharashtra.

"On the contrary, it becomes clear that since a Maharashtra-domiciled student seeking to secure admission to an MBBS course in a college outside Maharashtra would need to be a high-performing and top-ranking student to secure admission in a government institution under the All-India Quota, imposing such a requirement constitutes imposing a standard of merit. In our opinion, such a condition stipulates a filter of strong credentials and merit for an outside graduate to be let into the State Quota in Maharashtra. Indeed, even such a candidate is not ineligible to pursue post-graduation in Maharashtra," noted the Court.

"It must not be forgotten that all these considerations are only for the sole and narrow purpose of a candidate being treated as eligible for the State Quota. Candidates who do not meet these stipulations would nevertheless have access to the admissions process in Maharashtra from the All-India Quota component. They would fall in the other 50%, which caters to the non-State Quota graduates. In our opinion, there is nothing wrong in such an approach in the policy. Policy-makers who draft subordinate legislation ought to be given reasonable play in the joints to address the local social considerations, and the Impugned Provisions represent a reasonable exercise of such policy formulation. There is nothing perverse in the policy choice underlying the Impugned Provisions, and nothing unreasonable or discriminatory in the policy choice, which itself relates to a sub-class of candidates i.e. the State Quota," it further observed.

Also Read: 550 vacant posts in Government Medical Colleges: Bombay HC Orders Continuous Recruitment to Fill Vacancies

Therefore, the Court opined that allowing non-Maharashtra candidates who are domiciled in Maharashtra to apply for postgraduate courses in Maharashtra, provided that they had adopted the All-India Quota route of securing admission to MBBS in government medical colleges outside Maharashtra, is an objective, reasonable and defensible requirement.

"Of course, it may naturally follow that only a few highly meritorious candidates may make the cut for admission to an institution such as AIIMS. That would mean that the factor of domicile is only being checked and balanced by infusing an element of high merit as an attendant condition for allowing such factor," observed the Court.

The admission to post-graduate medical courses is split between two main quotas- one for MBBS graduates from colleges situated within the State (State Quota) and another for MBBS graduates from colleges situated outside the State (All-India Quota).

Releasing the "Procedure for Selection and Admission for Medical Postgraduate Courses at Mahrashtra", the State laid down the admission process for post-graduate medical courses.

As per Paragraph 8.2 of the said document, an MBBS graduate from a recognised medical college situated in Maharashtra and who has completed the mandatory internship would be eligible for admission to post-graduate courses in Maharashtra under the State Quota irrespective of domicile.

On the other hand, Paragraph 8.3 of the document mentions that MBBS graduates who are domiciled in Maharashtra but pursued their MBBS from any college outside of Maharashtra would qualify for the State Quota if they had obtained admission to the MBBS course under the All-India Quota in any Government Medical College or from AIIMS or any other Central Govt Institute.

The plea before HC was filed by the petitioner, who completed MBBS from the Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu (CMC Vellore), but is domiciled in Maharashtra. The petitioner challenged these above-mentioned provisions arguing that they were unreasonable, discriminatory, and arbitrary, violating Article 14 of the Constitution.

While considering the plea, the HC bench noted in respect to Paragraph 8.2 that "...even for admission to the MBBS course, there is a preference for students who have passed out of secondary school and higher secondary school examinations in the same State, to be regarded as a local student. We allude to the under-graduate criteria, not for stating that it would have a bearing on the constitutional validity of NEET-PG 2024, but to point out that the policy objective of providing an environment of continuity and stability of location for students in their education path within one State, graduating at each stage from within the same State, is well known and regarded."

"Paragraph 8.2, in fact, is a provision which only stipulates that MBBS graduates from a college within Maharashtra would be eligible for the State Quota seats for post-graduate courses in Maharashtra. Consequently, an MBBS graduate from a college in Maharashtra, regardless of his domicile, would be eligible to pursue post-graduate courses in Maharashtra colleges under the State Quota. All other students from all over India are eligible to apply in the All-India Quota for post-graduate studies in Maharashtra. This is a rational, fair and reasonable framework, with nothing perverse or manifestly arbitrary in it, to warrant an intervention by way of judicial review. The policy simply applies the same principle of providing stability and continuity in opportunity for graduates of colleges within Maharashtra," the Court noted while holding that there was no basis to hold that the provisions of Paragraph 8.2 of the NEET PG 2024 contain any unreasonable classification to render it unconstitutional or manifestly arbitrary, warranting any interference by the Court.

Therefore, the Court opined that there was nothing wrong in such an approach in the policy, adding that the Policy-makers who draft subordinate legislation ought to be given reasonable play in the joints to address the local social considerations, and the Impugned Provisions represent a reasonable exercise of such policy formulation. 

"There is nothing perverse in the policy choice underlying the Impugned Provisions, and nothing unreasonable or discriminatory in the policy choice, which itself relates to a sub-class of candidates i.e. the State Quota," noted the Court.

Regarding Paragraph 8.3, the HC bench mentioned that the domicile factor is only being checked and balanced by 'an element of high merit' as an attendant condition. 

Further, the Court opined that excluding the non-government colleges from the stipulation in Paragraph 8.3 was reasonably objective, Regarding the choice of State policy, the HC bench remarked, "One may argue that the choice of leaving out non-government medical colleges is unwise and they ought to be treated on par with AIIMS, leaving intact the requirement of the All-India Quota for admission to the MBBS course that the candidate has graduated from. A view that a State policy measure is unwise would not stand elevated to that measure being unconstitutional. One must see manifest perversity and arbitrariness from the provision."

The HC bench reiterated that since half of the postgraduate seats in Maharashtra are case left to graduates from outside Maharashtra, the condition in Paragraph 8.3 adds a condition of merit.

In this case, the Court noted that the petitioner neither graduated are case left to graduates from outside Maharashtra, the condition in Paragraph 8.3. adds a condition of merit. However, the Court noted that the petitioner neither graduated from a Central Government Institute nor did she secure admission to CMC Vellore through the All-India Quota.

The bench took note of the fact that the petitioner secured admission to CMC Vellore only in her capacity as a member of the minority Christian Community. It further observed that even though All-India Quota was available for admission to CMC Vellore, the petitioner did not make the cut through it, but was granted admission as a Christian.

Therefore, the bench remarked that the petitioner could have taken admission in any of the colleges referred to in Paragraph 8.3 through the All-India Quota or to any medical college in Maharashtra. However, she chose to get admitted to CMC Vellore with a minority quota seat. And while doing so, the petitioner forfeited her prospects of being considered eligible for a State Quota seat.

The HC bench further noted that the petitioner received offers of admission to MBBS course in 2016 even from the colleges situated in Mumbai. However, she chose to associate with a high-ranking college and therefore joined CMC Vellore. Therefore, the Court observed that the petitioner's grievance was a matter of "chance litigation" to widen her options to admissions in post-graduate college.

"In making that choice, the Petitioner consciously chose not to be regarded as a State Quota candidate for her future post-graduate aspirations in Maharashtra. Indeed, even now, she can compete in the non- State Quota component of seats for the post-graduate course, and she has actually successfully done so. Therefore, her grievance on her entitlement being denied to her is purely a matter of “chance litigation” to bring in an element of constitutional invalidity to somehow widen the range of choices now available, shrugging off the consequences of choices already made in the educational path," observed the HC bench, while holding that these provisions were fair, reasonable and constitutionally valid and therefore dismissed the plea.

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/bombay-hc-pg-admission-263832.pdf

Also Read: Plea in Bombay HC challenges MBBS seat allotment, claims State used different rules for reservations