(Judgment) (1) W.P. No. 09157 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.
Writ Petition No. 09157 of 2017
District : Dhule
Jagdish Narayan Pawar,
Age : 19 years,
Occupation : Student,
R/o. Padhwad,
Taluka Shindhkheda,
District Dhule. .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India,
Through its Home Department,
New Delhi.
2. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Medical Education and
Health Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
3. The Directorate of Medical
Education and Research,
Government Dental College and
Hospital Building, St. Geroges
Hospital Compound,
Near V.T., Mumbai - 400 001.
4. The Commissioner, CET Cell,
Mumbai, for Maharashtra State,
Mumbai.
...............
::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2017 01:41:52 :::
(Judgment) (2) W.P. No. 09157 of 2017
Mr. Vinod P. Patil, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Bhushan B. Kulkarni, Standing Counsel, for
respondent no.01.
Mr. S.P. Sonpawale, Asst. Government Pleader, for
respondents no.02 and 03.
Mr. M.D. Narwadkar, Advocate, for respondent no.04.
.............
CORAM : R. M. BORDE &
SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. J.
Date of reserving
the judgment : 15th September, 2017
Date of pronouncing
the judgment : 18th September, 2017
JUDGMENT (Per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.) :
1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for 1 st respondent and learned AGP for 2 nd respondent. Considering the narrow controversy involved, the petition is taken up for final disposal.
2. Petitioner has come with a case that he has completed 12 th standard from science faculty from Kendriya Vidyalaya, Haldiya, West Bengal. His father is serving in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). The service of his father is transferable every four years, therefore, he was required to take education at the place of posting of his father. Now his father is transferred to Nagaland. His father worked at Indian Security ::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2017 01:41:52 ::: (Judgment) (3) W.P. No. 09157 of 2017 Press at Nasik in Maharashtra between 2008 to 2012. The native place of Petitioner is Padhawad, Tal. Shindkheda, Dist. Dhule. Petitioner appeared for NEET examination from Maharashtra State as he decided to opt from Maharashtra quota. He has therefore, collected 'domicile certificate' of State of Maharashtra. Directorate of Medical Education and Research (DMER) has published schedule for counselling for NEET 2017. Petitioner has decided to take admission for MBBS course. The brochure has been published by DMER. Rule No. 4 is regarding eligibility for admission. Rule 4.8 is regarding children of employees of Government of India. When Petitioner went for counseling and document verification, he was informed that he can not participate in the process in Maharashtra, as he has done his 10th and 12th standard from West Bengal. The rule is ambiguous. Respondent No. 1 should clarify whether the service of father of Petitioner is in defence or military or para military. Petitioner has secured 502 marks out of 720 in NEET examination. He has every chance in succeeding in securing admission to MBBS course. However, respondents No. 2 and 3 are not permitting him to participate in the process. Hence, present petition has been filed for issuance of writ to direct respondents to permit Petitioner to participate in counselling process of NEET from Maharashtra quota.
3. It has been argued on behalf of petitioner that Petitioner has secured good marks and confident about getting admitted to MBBS course in Maharashtra; however, as Petitioner has completed his 10 th and 12th standard from West Bengal, respondents are not allowing him to participate. Petitioner was constrained to take education from the place his father was posted. Petitioner has collected his domicile certificate, which shows that he is resident of Maharashtra. He relied on the decision in Dr. Pradeep Jain etc., v/s. Union of India and ors. reported in AIR 1984 SC 1420;
::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2017 01:41:52 :::(Judgment) (4) W.P. No. 09157 of 2017 wherein it has been held that, "The Constitution recognises only one domicile namely, domicile in India. It must be remembered that India is not a federal State in the traditional sense of that term. It is not a compact of sovereign States which have come together to form a federation by ceding a part of their sovereignty to the federal State......... Anyone anywhere humble or high agrestic or urban man or woman, whatever be his language or religion, place of birth or residence, is entitled to be afforded equal chance for admission to any secular educational course for cultural growth, training facility, specially or employment. It would run counter to the basic principle of equality before the law and equal protection of the law if a citizen by reason of his residence of State A, which ordinarily in the commonality of cases would be the result of his birth in a place situate within that State should have opportunity for education or advancement which is denied to another citizen because he happens to be resident in State B."
4. Per contra, it has been argued on behalf of respondents that the Petitioner is not fulfilling the criteria / qualification for admission and therefore, his petition can not be entertained.
5. Admission of a student to a course is dependent on the terms and conditions approved by various agencies such as University, Government, etc. Admission for the course of MBBS, BDS, BAMS, etc are governed by rules framed by Government through common entrance test. The Information Brochure of Preference System for Admission to Health Science Courses in the State Government has been produced by Petitioner. Rule 4.5 and 4.6 prescribes that the student should have passed 10 th as well as 12th standard examination i.e. S.C.C. and H.S.C. exam from Maharashtra. Petitioner has not passed these examinations from this State. It is not enough that he is domiciled of Maharashtra. In fact, we are not ::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2017 01:41:52 ::: (Judgment) (5) W.P. No. 09157 of 2017 supposed to go into the aspect whether the Petitioner was justified in collecting certificate of domicile, when he says that he has taken education from West Bengal taking into consideration length of his stay in the State.
6. Rule 4.8 in the said brochure prescribes for exception for S.C.C. (10th ) and H.S.C. (12th ) or equivalent examinations to the Children of employees of Government of India or its Undertaking. Rule 4.8.1 prescribes that "The children of the employees of Government of India or its Undertaking shall be eligible for admission even though they might have passed the S. S. C. and / or H. S. C. or equivalent exam from the recognized Institutions situated outside the State of Maharashtra, provided that such an employee of Government of India or its Undertaking must have been transferred from outside 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 State of Maharashtra". This rule though gives exception, yet it is with a rider or condition. The condition is that the parent of the child / student must have been transferred from outside State of Maharashtra to a place located in Maharashtra as on the last date of Document verification. Present Petitioner has not fulfilled this term. Petitioner's father was serving in West Bengal when Petitioner completed 10 th and 12th standard examinations. He is now transferred to Nagaland. Further, we do not find this rule to be discriminatory.
7. This Court in Writ Petition No. 5606 of 2013 ( Ipsa Singh Anil Kumar Singh v/s. State of Maharashtra and others ) decided on 17th July 2013 had considered challenges to the rule providing for institutional preference. Reliance has been placed on the decision in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and anther v/s. Nilaybhai R. Thakore and another ::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2017 01:41:52 ::: (Judgment) (6) W.P. No. 09157 of 2017 reported in AIR 2000 SC 114; wherein it has been observed that, "8. So far as the constitutionality of various Rules pertaining to admissions to undergraduate courses in educational institutions is concerned, it is now well settled in view of a large number of judgments of this Court in D. P. Joshi v. The State of Madhya Bharat (1955) 1 SCR 1215 : (AIR 1955 SC 334);
D. N. Chanchala v. State of Mysore, 1971 Suppl SCR 608 : (AIR 1971 SC 1762); Jagadish Saran and Dr. Pradeep Jain, (AIR 1980 SC 820), (AIR 1984 SC 1420), wherein it is held that so far as undergraduate courses are concerned, the reservations based on domicile, University or Institution are permissible provided the said reservations are not wholesale".
Based on these observations it has been held in Ipsa Singh's case (supra) that the Rules notified by the State prescribing qualification on the basis of institutional preferences are not discriminatory. For the afore-said reasons, in this case also we do not find Rule No. 4.8.1 to be discriminatory.
8. Another point that has been raised by the Petitioner about Rule 9.1.5.2, which is in respect of Children of Defence personnel. It prescribes that the seat reserved for Defence category, the vacancies that have remained unfilled will be filled by inter-se merit of the candidates from remaining two defence categories of the same region. Here in this case, the father of the Petitioner is in para-military force, which is different from 'Defence' category; and therefore Petitioner is not fulfilling this rule also.
9. There is no rule in the said brochure which says that fulfillment of any condition is sufficient for getting admission to the above ::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2017 01:41:52 ::: (Judgment) (7) W.P. No. 09157 of 2017 said courses. When the rules do not permit any relaxation, then we will not be justified in relaxing any rule just to make it suitable to the Petitioner. Nothing has been shown by the petitioner to show his eligibility. The rules formulated for admissions to the said courses are not discriminatory. Therefore, no case has been made out for interference. Accordingly, we pass the following order:-
ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby dismissed.
(ii) No order as to cost.
( Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi ) ( R.M. Borde )
JUDGE JUDGE
...........
puranik / WP9157.17
::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2017 01:41:52 :::