Chattisgarh High Court
Nisha Sarah Ekka vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 July, 2021
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPC No. 2974 of 2020
1. Sifatpal Singh Arora S/o Shri Kunwardeep Singh Arora Aged About 20 Years
R/o B-1, Aishwarya Windmil, Near Bsnl Office, Shankar Nagar, Raipur
District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Deepanshi Solanki D/o Shri Kuldeep Kumar Solanki Aged About 18 Years
R/o Hig C35, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh
3. Aaysha Memon D/o Arif Memon Aged About 19 Years R/o Memon Nursing
Home, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4. Sourabh Chandravanshi S/o Sukhi Ram Chandravanshi Aged About 21 Years
R/o 251, Neurgoankalan Balod, Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Health And Family Welfare
Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar
Nawa Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Director Of Medical Education State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Director,
Medical Education, Old Nurses Hostel, Dks Bhawan, Campus, Raipur District
Raipur Chhattisgarh
3. National Medical Commission Through Its Secretary General, Pocket-14,
Sector-8, Dwarka, Phase-I, New Delhi, Pin Code 110077
4. Ishita Mandal D/o Tapan Kumar Mandal Neet Roll No. 4608133085,
Through Director Of Medical Education, State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Its
Director, Medical Education, Old Nurses Hostel, Dks Bhawan Campus,
Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ....(Address Not Khown To The
Petitioners, Therefore They Have Impleaded Through Director Of Medical
Education)
5. Amit Adittya Dey S/o Amal Dey Neet Roll No. 2207004266, Through Director
Of Medical Education, State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Its Director, Medical
Education, Old Nurses Hostel, Dks Bhawan Campus, Raipur District Raipur
Chhattisgarh ....(Address Not Khown To The Petitioners, Therefore They
Have Impleaded Through Director Of Medical Education)
6. Dharamveer Kumar S/o Pawan Kumar Jaiswal Neet Roll No. 3905119108,
Through Director Of Medical Education, State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Its
-2-
Director, Medical Education, Old Nurses Hostel, Dks Bhawan Campus,
Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ....(Address Not Khown To The
Petitioners, Therefore They Have Impleaded Through Director Of Medical
Education)
7. Bipul Pandey S/o Abhay Raj Pandey Neet Roll No. 4402023305, Through
Director Of Medical Education, State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Its Director,
Medical Education, Old Nurses Hostel, Dks Bhawan Campus, Raipur District
Raipur Chhattisgarh ....(Address Not Khown To The Petitioners, Therefore
They Have Impleaded Through Director Of Medical Education)
---- Respondents
WPC No. 3315 of 2020
Ishita Mandal D/o Shri Tapan Kumar Mandal Aged About 20 Years R/o D-10,
Vinayaka Vihar, Ddu Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family
Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal
Nagar, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2. The Directorate Of Medical Education State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its
Director Old Nurses Hostel, Dks Bhawan Campus, Raipur, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
3. National Medical Commission Through Its Secretary General, Pocket -14,
Sector -8, Dwarka, Phase -1, New Delhi, Pincode 110077.
4. The Dean Bharat Ratna Swargiya Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee Smriti Chikitsa
Mahavidyalaya, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
5. President Mbbs Admission Committe Year 2020, Bharat Ratna Swargiya Shri
Atal Bihari Vajpayee Smriti Chikitsa Mahavidyalaya, Rajnandgaon,
Chhattisgarh.
6. Sifatpal Singh Arora S/o Shri Kunwardeep Singh Arora Aged About 20 Years
R/o Capital B-1, Aishwarya Wind Mill, New Bsnl Officer, Shankar Nagar,
Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
7. Deepanshi Solanki D/o Shri Kuldeep Kumar Solanki Aged About 18 Years
R/o Hig-C-35, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
8. Aaysha Memon D/o Arif Memon Aged About 19 Years R/o Memon Nursing
-3-
Home, Shailendra Nagar Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
9. Sourabh Chandrawanshi S/o Sukhi Ram Chandrawanshi Aged About 21
Years R/o 251 Neurgaonkalan, Kawardha, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
WPC No. 3332 of 2020
Arushi Sharma D/o Shri Vineet Kumar Sharma, Aged About 18 Years
Through Natural Guardian Father Shri Vineet Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri
Ramveer Sharma, Aged About 39 Years, R/o. C-8, Nspl Colony, Taraimal
Tahsil Tamnar, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Health And Family Welfare,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Director Of Medical Education, State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Director,
Medical Education, Old Nurses Hostel, Dks Bhawan Campus, Raipur, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. National Medical Commission, Through Its Secretary General, Pocket-14,
Sector-8, Dwarka, Phase-1, New Delhi, Pin Code 110077, District : New
Delhi, Delhi
4. Dean, Government Medical College, Ambikapur, District Ambikapur
(Surguja), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
WPC No. 3333 of 2020
Anzheli Alokivna Pal D/o Dr. Alok Pal Aged About 20 Years R/o House No.
41/470, Jalgrih Marg, Tikrapara, Pal Complex, Raipur District Raipur
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Medical
Education Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur Chhattisgarh.,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Director Medical Education Directorate Of Medical Education, Old Nurses
Hostel, D.K.S. Bhawan Premises, Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
-4-
3. Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Overseas Affairs, North
Block New Delhi 110001., District : New Delhi, Delhi
---- Respondent
WPC No. 3337 of 2020
S. Adithya D/o Shivakumar M. Aged About 20 Years R/o 106/2, Railway
Colony, 25 District And Tahsil Durg Chhattisgarh 491001
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Medical
Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District
Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. The Director Medical Education, Old Nurses Hostel, D. K. S. Bhawan
Premises, Raipur Chhattisgarh
3. The National Medical Commission Pocket-14, Sector-8, Dwarka Phase-1,
New Delhi-110077
4. The President Mbbs Admission Council Year 2020, Bharat Ratna Late Shri
Atal Bihari Bajpayee Memorial Medical College, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh
5. The Dean Bharat Ratna Late Shri Atal Bihari Bajpayee Memorial Medical
College, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
WPC No. 3339 of 2020
Manjari Agrawal D/o Shri Ramesh Kumar Agrawal Aged About 17 Years
(Minor) Through Mother And Natural Guardian Smt. Seema Devi Agrawal @
Seema Agrawal W/o Shri Ramesh Kumar Agrawal , Aged About 45 Years ,
R/o Ward No. 24, Gali No. 02 , Ramnagar, Gokul Nagar, Gudhiyari, Raipur ,
Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Pin 492 011 Email
[email protected], District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary , Higher Education , Mahanadi
Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur , Tahsil And District Raipur , Chhattisgarh.,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Director Medical Education, Chhattisgarh Old Nurses Hostel , D.K.S.
Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Pin 495 2001, Email [email protected],
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
-5-
3. Dean Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Medical College , Jail Road, Raipur ,
Chhattisgarh, Pin 495 2001, Email [email protected], District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
WPC No. 3345 of 2020
Om Ankit Sahu S/o Sakharam Sahu, Aged About 20 Years R/o Md- 2, Vikash
Nagar, Near Bicon School, Kusmunda, District Korba Chhattisgarh.
Permanent R/o Village Nariyara, Tahsil Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa
Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health And
Family Welfare, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2. Director Medical Education, Chhattisgarh, Old Nurses Hostel, Dsk Campus,
Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. National Medical Commission, Dada Dev Mandir Road, Block P, Sector-8,
Dwarka, New Delhi 110077, District : New Delhi, Delhi
4. Dean, Pandi Jawahar Lal Nehru Medical College, Raipur Chhattisgarh.,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
WPC No. 3358 of 2020
Jaishree Markam D/o Somaru Ram Markam Aged About 20 Years R/o Village
Haddigaon, Tahsil Makdi, District Kondagaon, C.G., District : Kondagaon,
Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of C.G. Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District-
Raipur, C.G., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. The Directorate Of Medical Education State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its
Director Old Nurses Hostel, Dks Bhawan Campus, Raipur, District- Raipur,
C.G., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. National Medical Commission Through Its Secretary General, Pocket-14,
-6-
Sector-8, Dwarka, Phase-1, New Delhi, Pincode-110077., District : New
Delhi, Delhi
4. The Dean Chhattisgarh Institute Of Medical Science, Bilaspur, District-
Bilaspur, C.G., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
5. Sifatpal Singh Arora S/o Shri Kunwardeep Singh Arora Aged About 20 Years
R/o Capital B-1, Aishwarya Wind Mill, Near Bsnl Officer, Shankar Nagar
Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
6. Deepanshi Solanki D/o Shri Kuldeep Kumar Solanki Aged About 18 Years
Hig-C-35, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
7. Aaysha Memon D/o Arif Memon Aged About 19 Years R/o Memon Mursing
Home, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G., District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
8. Sourabh Chandrawanshi S/o Sukhi Ram Chandrawanshi Aged About 21
Years R/o 251 Neurgaonkalan, Kawardha, District- Kabirdham, C.G., District :
Kawardha (Kabirdham), Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
WPC No. 3363 of 2020
Nisha Sarah Ekka D/o Shri Gilbert Ekka Aged About 20 Years R/o Village-
Girla, Post Pilkhi, Tahsil- Jashpur, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh., District :
Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Health And Family Welfare,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur,
District- Raipur, (C.G.), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Director Of Medical Education State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Director,
Medical Education, Old Nurses Hostel, Dks Bhawan Campus, Raipur,
District- Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. National Medical Commission Through Its Secretary General, Pocket- 14,
Sector- 8, Dwarka, Phase- I, New Delhi, Pin Code- 110077, District : New
Delhi, Delhi
4. Dean Pt. J.N.M. Medical Collage, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.), District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
-7-
WPC No. 3378 of 2020
Aryan Kushwaha S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Kushwaha, Aged About 17 Years
And 5 Months, Through His Father Ashok Kumar Kushwaha S/o Sahdev
Kushwaha, Aged About 48 Years, R/o 7 Galaxy Enclav, Shivaji Marg,
Tikrapara, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of
Health, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Director Of Medical Education, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District
: Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Dean, Chhattisgarh Institute Of Medical Science (Cims), Bilaspur, District
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Respective Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Mr. Rakesh Pandey,
Mr. Shashank Thakur, Mr. Awadh Tripathi,
Mr. Ishan Verma, Mr.Rajkamal Singh,
Mr. Ashwin Panickar, Mr. Varun Sharma,
Advocates
For Respective Respondents : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Dy. Govt. Advocate,
Mr. Rajkamal Singh, Mr.Manoj Paranjpe,
Mr. R.S. Marhas, Mr. Sourabh Dangi, Mr. K.
Rohan and Mr. Tushar Diwan, Advocates
D.B. : Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava &
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vimla Singh Kapoor
CAV Judgment
16/07/2021
Per Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.
1. The aforesaid writ petitions are being decided by this common order as all
the petitions involve identical issue for consideration and decision relating
to admission to State quota seats in Medical Colleges/Dental colleges in the
State of Chhattisgarh.
2. National Testing Agency (NTA) conducted National Eligibility Entrance Test
(for short "NEET"), a common all India Basis examination for admission to
MBBS and BDS Courses in the Medical Colleges and Dental Colleges in the
country, on 13th September 2020 and the result was declared on
16.10.2020. It is undisputed position that under the scheme of admission,
85 per cent of the seats in the colleges are earmarked for State quota,
whereas 15 per cent of seats were to be filled-up on the basis of All India
merits, known as Central Pool Quota. 85 per cent of seats are reserved for
the residents of the respective State. The State quota seats are filled-up by
the State Govt. according to their own rules of admission applicable in
respective State. Present batch of petitions relates to admission against
State quota seats in the medical and dental colleges in the State of
Chhattisgarh.
3. The petitioners in WPC No.2974 of 2020 also participated in the
examination and on the basis of marks secured by them in the NEET, were
awarded rank as disclosed in paragraph 8(4) of the petition. The petitioners
claimed that they are the domicile of the State of Chhattisgarh and domicile
certificate was issued in their favour. On the basis of merit list published by
admission authority, 15 per cent of the seats reserved for Central Quota
were filled- up and a State wise merit list was also published. List in the
State of Chhattisgarh was also published. Thereafter, counselling started as
per notification dated 31.10.2020 for State quota seats. The counselling was
conducted on on-line basis, for grant of admission against State quota seats
i.e. 85 per cent of seats. Last date for submission of on-line form was
15.11.2020. The first and second round of counselling were held and
completed in the month of November 2020. As per the scheme of
counselling, if any seats still remain vacant, the same was required to be
filled-up by third round of counselling i.e. mop-up round.
4. At this stage, when counselling was going on, the petitioners in WPC
No.2974 of 2020 filed petition raising a grievance that while admitting
candidates on the basis of State merit list against State quota seats, the
State Govt. failed to properly verify the domicile of the candidate and those
candidates who, at the time of filling of application form declared their
State of domicile other than the State of Chhattisgarh, claimed admission
against State quota of 85 per cent though they were not domicile of State of
Chhattisgarh. According to petitioners, respondent No.4 Ishita Mandal,
respondent No.5 Amit, respondent No.6 Dharamveer and respondent No.7
Bipul belong to other State of West Bengal, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh
respectively, but they were granted admission against the State quota seats
of 85 per cent in the State of Chhattisgarh on false claim of they being
domicile of State of Chhattisgarh. According to the petitioner, these
respondents had declared their State of domicile other than the State of
Chhattisgarh. Therefore, they could not claim nor could be granted
admission against State quota in the State of Chhattisgarh. This adversely
affected the admission of the petitioners and the petitioners were deprived
of admission in State quota seats because of admission to respondents No.
4,5,6 and 7 against State quota seats. The petitioners aggrieved by
admission to respondents No. 4 to 7, filed petition praying for reliefs that
direction be issued to conduct detailed inquiry with regard to
true/actual/bonafide residence certificate submitted by candidates/private
respondent who were granted admission under State quota seats and to
conduct fresh counselling strictly according to the Chhattisgarh Chikitsa,
Dant Chikitsa evam Bhautik Chikitsa Snatak Pravesh Niyam, 2018 (for short
"Admission Rules of 2018"). The petitioners also prayed for direction to the
authority to conduct detailed enquiry against erring officials who were
involved in the process of admission of students in the Govt. Medical
Colleges.
5. In the aforesaid writ petition, an interim order was passed by this Court on
7.12.2020, relying upon judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the
case of Tarishi Verma and Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors ,
passed on 24.8.2017. By the interim order, the Director Medical Education
was directed to strictly follow rules framed for admission while making
admission and that the State authority shall conduct counselling, draw up
the list of candidates eligible under the State quota by taking into
consideration and treating as final, the option and information regarding
the State to which the candidate belongs that has been furnished by him in
the NEET form submitted by him. It was also made clear that on
information given by a candidate in the NEET form in respect of his
residence shall be treated as final in terms of Rules 6 & 7 of the Admission
Rules 2018, and thereafter, the authority shall proceed further in the
matter by re-drawing the merit list.
6. In compliance of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, merit list was re-
drawn by the admission authority in the State. As a result of re-drawl of
merit list as per the interim direction of this Court, private respondents as
well as many other candidates who were earlier granted admission were
affected as orders were passed cancelling their admissions. These affected
candidates filed connected writ petitions challenging cancellation of their
admission. They were Ishita Mandal (WPC No.3315 of 2020), S. Adithya
(WPC No.3337 of 2020), Om Ankit Sahu (WPC No.3345 of 2020), Nisha Sarah
Ekka (WPC No.3363 of 2020), Manjari Agrawal (WPC No.3339 of 2020),
Aryan Kushwawha (WPC No.3378 of 2020), Anzheli Alokivna Pal (WPC
No.3333 of 2020), Jaishree Markam (WPC No.3358 of 2020) and Arushi
Sharma (WPC No.3332 of 2020). It is relevant to mention that Ishita and
Amit Adittya Dey are impleaded as respondents No. 4 & 5 respectively in
the first petition WPC No.2974 of 2020 filed by Sifatpal Singh Arora and Ors.
wherein interim direction for re-drawl of merit list was passed by this Court
on 7.12.2020.
7. In WPC No.2974 of 2020 and connected petitions, reply, rejoinder have
been filed by respective parties and intervention applications has also been
filed opposing the relief sought in the petition. However, respondent No.6-
Dharamveer Kumar did not take admission though allotted a seat at
Ambikapur Medical College. Respondent No.7- Bipul Pandey who had taken
admission in Raigarh Medical College subsequently withdrew his
admission. Respondent No.6 & 7 have not contested the case.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WPC No.2974 of 2020
argued that the admission offered to respondents No. 4 to 7 in the State
quota of 85 per cent is illegal as respondents No. 4 to 7 are not entitled to
domicile status as true and actual resident of State of Chhattisgarh as
contemplated under the Admission Rules of 2018. Referring to Rule 2 (x) of
the Admission Rules of 2018, which defines "actual resident", it is
contended that provisions contained in the Rules envisaged that the State
quota seats of 85 per cent in medical and dental colleges are meant only to
those who are bonafide and true resident of the State of Chhattisgarh,
fulfilling any of the criteria as described in Schedule-I appended to the
Rules alone can claim admission against 85 per cent State quota. It is
contended that provision contained in Rule 3 (v) is clear in this regard. As
per Rule 6 (2) of the Admission Rules of 2018, a candidate having given
various declaration and information in NEET on-line application form
including his name, father's name and other details are final and no
changes are permissible. Referring to the format of application form filed
by the State as Annexure R-3, it is further contended that the requirement
of domicile of State of Chhattisgarh is essential. Further, referring to Rule 7
(xxi), it is further argued that documents which are required to be
submitted at the time of counselling included domicile certificate also.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, after referring to requirement of rules,
referred to the declaration given by respondents No. 4 to 7 in their on-line
application form of NEET examination submitted before NTA, vehemently
contended that these respondents declared some other State as the State
of their domicile in order to take admission in those respective State which
is other than the State of Chhattisgarh, but, later on, they started claiming
State quota seats of State of Chhattisgarh by obtaining certificate from
certifying authority which could not be validly issued in their favour as they
are actual resident of some other State and not Chhattisgarh. Various
complaints were also made to the authority but the complaints were not
brought to its logical conclusion. Therefore, the petitioners who are the
domicile of State of Chhattisgarh and entitled to admission against 85 per
cent of State quota, have filed this petition as they have been illegally
deprived of admission due to admission offered to respondent No. 4 to 7
against State quota to which they are not legally entitled to. It is submitted
that the private respondents after having declared themselves as domicile
of other State could not claim domicile of State of Chhattisgarh. Learned
counsel for the petitioners argued that the issue involved in this petition
was examined in identical fact situation by the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh in the case of Tarishi Verma & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh &
Ors., wherein an interim order was passed directing the State authority to
treat the declaration given in the NEET on-line examination form with
regard to domicile status as final and to allow admission against State
quota only to those candidates who in their NEET on-line examination
application form had declared them domicile of the State of Madhya
Pradesh. The interim order passed by the Court was challenged in the
Supreme Court but the interim order was maintained. Thereafter, the writ
petition filed by Tarishi Verma was finally allowed by the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh vide order dated 23.3.2018 holding that the candidates
desirous of seeking admission in medical and dental colleges against State
quota are bound by their respective declaration made with regard to their
domicile status in the NEET on-line examination form and only those who
have declared themselves as the domicile of State of Madhya Pradesh are
entitled to admission against State quota and they cannot be permitted to
claim domicile status in the State of Madhya Pradesh and they are bound
by their own declaration. Finally, order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High
Court was challenged in the Supreme Court but the petition was also
dismissed. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the issue thus
finally stands decided. Learned counsel for the petitioners further
submitted pursuant to the detailed order passed by this Court in the
present petition on 7.12.2020, merit list of State quota was re-drawn taking
into consideration the declaration given by the candidates in their NEET
on-line form, leading to cancellation of admission of respondents No. 4 & 5.
He would also submit that the admission were granted to these candidates
and many other who have subsequently joined petition before this Court
on the basis of a false claim of domicile status, which have been rightly
cancelled and as the issue already stands decided in other cases referred to
herein above, it is a case of forgone conclusion and no opportunity of
hearing is necessary to any of these candidates including respondents No.
4 & 5 whose admission were cancelled pursuant to re-drawl of merit list for
State quota in compliance of order passed in the present case on 7.12.2020
by this Court. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, interim
order dated 7.12.2020, though, was passed at initial stage of petition, was
in the nature of final order. In support of his contention, learned counsel
for the petitioners placed reliance upon the judgment of the High Court of
Madhya Pradesh in the case of Tarishi Verma Vs. State of M.P & Ors.
2018 (3) MPLJ 475, Union of India and Anr. Vs. Raghuwar Pal Singh
(2018) 15 SCC 463, Maharishi Dayanand University Vs. MLR Saraswati
College of Education (2000) 7 SCC 746, M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India &
Ors. (1999) 6 SCC 237, State of U.P. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh & Ors. 2020
SCC Online 847, Shraddha d/o Sanjay Varshney and Ors. Vs. Union of
India & Ors. 2015 (4) MPLJ 670 and Indian Bank Vs. Godhara Nagrik
Cooperative Credit Society Limited and Anr. (2008) 12 SCC 541.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would argue that the
admission of private respondents and petitioners in other connected writ
petitioners were granted on the basis of claim of domicile status of the
respective candidates supported by domicile certificate issued in favour of
those candidates by the competent authority of the State. He would submit
that according to the Admission Rules of 2018, a candidate can claim
domicile status of the State of Chhattisgarh if fulfills the criteria as
prescribed in Schedule -I appended to the Admission Rules of 2018. The
admission authority are not competent to decide the issue of domicile
status,but they have to act upon the certification given by the concerned
authority. Admission against State quota to the extent of 85 per cent of
seats in the medical and dental colleges has been made only of those
candidates who, in support of their claim for admission against State quota,
produced domicile certificate issued by the competent authority of the
State and not on any other basis. Further submission is that pursuant to
the interim order passed by this Court on 7.12.2020, the admission
authority had re-drawn the merit list for admission to the State quota of 85
per cent seats in medical and dental colleges. The merit list has been re-
drawn strictly according to interim order passed by this Court on 7.12.2020,
offering admission only to those candidates who declared Chhattisgarh as
the State to which they belong /State of their choice in NEET examination
form.
10. Learned counsel for respondents No. 4 & 5 and petitioners in all connected
petition argued that respondent No. 4 & 5 and writ petitioners in connected
petitions were granted admission against State quota seats in medical and
dental colleges of State on the basis of domicile certificate which was
granted in favour of these candidates by the State authority upon due
verification and enquiry with regard to their domicile status in terms of the
provision contained in the Admission Rules of 2018 and Schedule-I
appended to the Rules. Respondents No. 4 & 5 and other petitioners in
connected petitions referred to their domicile certificates issued by the
State authority and submitted that these certificates have not been
challenged nor there is any order of competent authority cancelling their
domicile certificates and hence the domicile certificate stand in favour of
respondent No.4 & 5 and other petitioners in connected writ petition .
Therefore, they are entitled to be admitted against the State quota seats
on the basis of their merit. Respondents No. 4 & 5 in WPC No.2974 of 2020
and petitioners in connected writ petitions namely Om Ankit Sahu, Nisha
Sarah Ekka, Manjari Agrawal, Aryan Kushwaha, Jaishree Markam, Anzeli
Alokivna Pal, Arushi Sharma all are possessed of domicile certificates
issued by the competent authority in the State of Chhattisgarh and only on
that basis, they are granted admission against State quota seats in medical
and dental colleges, which have been wrongly cancelled without affording
them any opportunity of hearing while their domicile certificates are still
valid and not cancelled by any of the authority.
11. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 4 & 5 in WPC No.2974 of
2020 and counsel for the petitioners in the connected writ petition named
hereinabove further submitted that the declaration given in the NEET
examination on-line form was only statement of their choice against 15 per
cent central pool quota and there is nothing represented to these
candidates either in the examination format or Act or Rule, guidelines
regulating conduct of examination that the declaration given in the NEET
form would be treated as the declaration of domicile status. It is common
submission of learned counsel for respondents No. 4 & 5 and petitioners in
all the connected petition that clarification was also issued by the NTA on
18.12.2019 which makes it very clear that the declaration of choice of State
is confined only to 15 per cent central pool quota. It is next submitted that
judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Tarishi Verma
(supra) was based on different rule whereas the Admission Rules of 2018
applicable in the State of Chhattisgarh are different. It is further contended
that at the time when matter was decided by the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh in the case of Tarishi Verma (supra), NEET form earlier required
domicile status declaration, but later on such clause was removed and a
clarification was also issued by the NTA on 18.12.2019 and therefore,
judgment of M.P. High Court in Tarishi Verma is distinguishable. It is further
argued that the order passed by this Court on 7.12.2020, though a detailed
one, but was only an interim order and only because by interim
arrangement, list has been re-drawn, respondents No. 4 & 5 and the
petitioners in connected writ petitions are not deprived of admission and
interim order is subject to final order that may be passed in the case. An
argument has also been raised that the NTA was a necessary party which
has not been arrayed as respondent in WPC No.2974 of 2020 and,
therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-
joinder of necessary party. It is further contended by learned counsel for
respondents No. 4 & 5 and counsel for the petitioners in connected writ
petitions that in any case, the issue with regard to domicile status, required
an enquiry and all such candidates who were offered and granted
admission against such quota on the basis of their domicile certificate were
entitled to opportunity of hearing before cancellation of their admission.
The interim direction for re-drawl of merit list could not be made a basis to
cancel the admission without affording opportunity of hearing.
12. Learned counsel appearing for Medical Council of India (MCI) made short
submission. Referring to the provision contained in the Medical Council of
India Regulation 1997, as amended from time to time, specifically referring
to Rule 5 to submit that admissions are to be made by the authority strictly
in accordance with provision of the regulation.
13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused
the records, pleadings and documents as filed by respective parties in WPC
No.2974 of 2020 and all connected writ petition.
14. Before proceeding to deal with the issue involved in this petition and
respective contention of counsel for respective petitioners, it is relevant to
refer to, at this juncture, that initially writ petition WPC No.2974 of 2020
was filed by four unsuccessful candidates challenging admission of private
respondents No. 4 to 7 on the ground that they were not entitled to
admission against State quota as they are domicile of other State. The
interim order was passed on 7.12.2020, relying mainly on the order passed
by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh that State authority shall conduct
counselling, draw up the list of candidates eligible under the State quota by
taking into consideration and treating as final the option and information
regarding the State to which the candidate belongs that has been furnished
by him in NEET form submitted by him. The interim order also clarify that
all information given by the candidate in NEET form in respect of his
residence shall be treated as final in terms of Rules 6 & 7 of the Admission
Rules of 2018 and thereafter the authority shall proceed further in the
matter by re-drawing the merit list.
15. It is also relevant to mention here that Manjari Agrawal filed intervention
application in WPC No.2974 of 2020 opposing relief sought in the petition
though Manjari Agrawal also filed writ petition WPC No.3339 of 2020
aggrieved by cancellation of her admission as a result of re-drawl of merit
list pursuant to interim order dated 7.12.2020 passed in WPC No.2974 of
2020. According to this intervener Manjari Agrawal, who has also filed
separate writ petition as referred to above, it has been stated that
declaration in NEET on line examination, is not declaration of domicile
status. The judgment of M.P. High Court is not binding as dismissal of SLP
by the Supreme Court is not affirmation or confirmation of order passed by
High Court of M.P. The interim order dated 7.12.2020 could not have
affected admission which are already made as there is no direction that
those who have been admitted, their admission should also be cancelled
and therefore re-drawl of merit list ought not to have affected those who
have already been granted admission like the intervener. Those like the
intervener were already granted admission by the time the interim order
was passed. Petitioner -Sifatpal Singh Arora in WPC No.2974 of 2020 and
some other candidates have filed intervention applications in other
connected petitions also opposing the relief sought in those petitions.
16. In compliance of the interim order passed by this Court on 07.12.2020, the
admission authority in the State/official respondent, proceeded to re-draw
the list resulting in cancellation of admission of respondent No.4 Ishita
Mandal and respondent No.5 Amit Adittya Dey in WPC No. 2974 of 2020 as
also exclusion from merit list and cancellation of admission of petitioners
in connected petition. Respondent No.4 Ishita Mandal and respondent
No.5- Amit Adittya Dey filed their separate respective petition challenging
the order of cancellation of their admission. In the aforesaid petitions,
interim order were passed staying effect and operation of order cancelling
their admission, by virtue of which, respondent No. 4 & 5 in WPC No.2974
of 2020 and petitioners in connected writ petitions are continuing as their
admissions are protected by interim order passed in respective petition
from time to time.
17. As far as objection with regard to non-joinder of Examination Conducting
Agency namely National Testing Agency (NTA) is concerned, we are not
inclined to dismiss the petition WPC No.2974 of 2020 on this ground
because in this petition, mode and procedure of examination or
correctness of the merit list prepared by NTA is not under challenge nor
any of their action has been called in question in so far as preparation of
merit list is concerned. The issue involved in the petition is with regard to
entitlement of candidate for admission to State Quota seats. As no relief
has been sought against NTA nor can it be said that it is not possible to
pass an effective order without impleadment of NTA, applying well settled
principles embodied under Order -I Rule 10 CPC, objection with regard to
non-joinder of NTA is not sustainable.
18. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner in WPC No.2974 of 2020
that as the SLP preferred against the judgment of High Court of Madhya
Pradesh in the case of Tarishi Verma (supra) was dismissed by the
Supreme Court, the judgment of High Court of Madhya Pradesh has been
affirmed and is, therefore, binding on all Courts under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India is liable to be rejected in view of judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of P. Singaravelan and Ors. Vs. District
Collector, Tiruppur and DT and Ors. 2020 (3) SCC 133 wherein the
settled legal position in this regard has been reiterated as below :----
"6. It is evident that all the above orders were non-
speaking orders, inasmuch as they were confined
to a mere refusal to grant special leave to appeal
to the petitioners therein. At this juncture, it is
useful to recall that it is well-settled that the
dismissal of an SLP against an order or judgment
of a lower forum is not an affirmation of the same.
If such an order of this Court is non-speaking, it
does not constitute a declaration of law under
Article 141 of the Constitution, or attract the
doctrine of merger. The following discussion on
this proposition in Kunhayammed v. State of
Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359, is relevant in this regard:
"(i) Where an appeal or revision is provided
against an order passed by a court, tribunal or any
other authority before superior forum and such
superior forum modifies, reverses or affirms the
decision put in issue before it, the decision by the
subordinate forum merges in the decision by the
superior forum and it is the latter which subsists,
remains operative and is capable of enforcement
in the eye of law.
(ii) The jurisdiction conferred by Article 136 of the
Constitution is divisible into two stages. The first
stage is up to the disposal of prayer for special
leave to file an appeal. The second stage
commences if and when the leave to appeal is
granted and the special leave petition is converted
into an appeal.
(iii) The doctrine of merger is not a doctrine of
universal or unlimited application. It will depend
on the nature of jurisdiction exercised by the
superior forum and the content or subject-matter
of challenge laid or capable of being laid shall be
determinative of the applicability of merger. The
superior jurisdiction should be capable of
reversing, modifying or affirming the order put in
issue before it. Under Article 136 of the
Constitution the Supreme Court may reverse,
modify or affirm the judgment-decree or order
appealed against while exercising its appellate
jurisdiction and not while exercising the
discretionary jurisdiction disposing of petition for
special leave to appeal. The doctrine of merger
can therefore be applied to the former and not to
the latter.
(iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may
be a non-speaking order or a speaking one. In
either case it does not attract the doctrine of
merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal
does not stand substituted in place of the order
under challenge. All that it means is that the Court
was not inclined to exercise its discretion so as to
allow the appeal being filed.
(v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a
speaking order i.e. gives reasons for refusing the
grant of leave, then the order has two
implications. Firstly, the statement of law
contained in the order is a declaration of law by
the Supreme Court within the meaning of Article
141 of the Constitution. Secondly, other than the
declaration of law, whatever is stated in the order
are the findings recorded by the Supreme Court
which would bind the parties thereto and also the
court, tribunal or authority in any proceedings
subsequent thereto by way of judicial discipline,
the Supreme Court being the Apex Court of the
country. But, this does not amount to saying that
the order of the court, tribunal or authority below
has stood merged in the order of the Supreme
Court rejecting the special leave petition or that
the order of the Supreme Court is the only order
binding as res judicata in subsequent proceedings
between the parties.
(vi) Once leave to appeal has been granted and
appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court has
been invoked the order passed in appeal would
attract the doctrine of merger; the order may be
of reversal, modification or merely affirmation.
(vii) On an appeal having been preferred or a
petition seeking leave to appeal having been
converted into an appeal before the Supreme
Court the jurisdiction of the High Court to
entertain a review petition is lost thereafter as
provided by sub-rule (1) of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC."
(emphasis added).
This view has also been adopted in a plethora of
decisions of this Court, including the recent
decision in Khoday Distilleries v. Sri
Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd .,
(2019) 4 SCC 376."
19. Relying upon Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Ajay
Jagarnath Gupta Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (ILR 2017
Chhattisgarh 378), it has been argued that order dated 7.12.2020 is an
interim judgment and also an order of final nature which has decided the
lis between the parties. This argument cannot be accepted because order
dated 7.12.2020 was only an interim arrangement considering that the
admission procedure were being drawn to close soon and a strong prima
facie case was found in favour of the petitioners in view of the order passed
by High Court of Madhya Pradesh in similar circumstance in the case of
Tarishi Verma (supra). If the argument of learned counsel for the
petitioner in WPC No.2974 of 2020 were to be accepted, nothing remained
to be decided in the writ petition and the petition would not have been
kept pending . It is not a case where during pendency of the petition, issue
with regard to maintainability has been considered and decided by an
order which cannot be said to be of interlocutory nature but more in the
nature of interim judgment. The argument that main issue involved in the
writ petition itself was decided by interim order dated 7.12.2020, therefore,
is liable to be rejected.
20. Learned counsel appearing of respondent No.4 & 5 in WPC No.2974 of
2020 and learned counsel for respective petitioners in all connected writ
petitions have sought to challenge the order of cancellation of their
admission on the ground that before cancellation of their admission they
were not afforded any opportunity of hearing. We, however, find that the
cancellation of admission of such candidates was pursuant to judicial order
dated 7.12.2020 passed by this Court and the authority was left with no
discretion but to re-draw the merit list which has the necessary
consequence of cancellation of admission of those who were excluded
from the merit list in the fresh exercise. In any case, it has become
necessary to decide the issue raised by the petitioner in WPC No.2974 of
2020, correctness and validity of the orders of cancellation of admission of
respondents No. 4 & 5 in WPC No.2974 of 2020 and in connected writ
petitions whose admission were cancelled pursuant to interim order dated
7.12.2020, needs to be decided on merits of the case. Therefore, it is not
necessary for us to dwell into this aspect any more by referring to number
of decisions cited by learned counsel for respective parties at the bar with
regard to legal position as to the effect of non compliance of principles of
natural justice.
21. Core issue arising for consideration in this batch of petitions is whether a
declaration given by respondent No. 4 to 5 in WPC No.2974 of 2020
(petitioners in WPC No.3315 of 2020 and WPC No.3337 of 2020) and other
petitioners in the NEET application form against the description " State to
which the applicant belongs/desires to apply (Appendix- V) " as specified in
Chapter-7 (particulars to be filled in online application form), as provided in
the guidelines/bulletin published by NTA for NEET (UG) 2020 is a
declaration of domicile status of particular State by the candidate/applicant
and for that reason, the candidate having declared a particular State
against the said description/desired information could not claim admission
against State quota in the State of Chhattisgarh under the Admission Rules
of 2018 even if they fulfilled the condition of True/bonafide resident in
terms of criteria contained in Schedule-I appended to Admission Rules of
2018.
22. The case of the petitioner in WPC No.2974 of 2020 is that the private
respondents therein, while filling the online application form for NEET (UG
courses 2020) declared some other State and not the State of Chhattisgarh
against the desired information "State to which the applicant
belongs/desires to apply" was a conscious declaration by the private
respondents and many other candidates (petitioners in connected
petitions) regarding their domicile status and having given such a
declaration in the NEET online application form, they could only claim
admission against State quota in that very State for which declaration has
been given and not for any other State much less State of Chhattisgarh.
Thus, the entire case of the petitioner in WPC No.2974 of 2020 revolves
around this particular clause and the declaration given by private
respondents in which private respondents and petitioners in connected
petitions have declared State other than State of Chhattisgarh as the State
of their choice. According to the petitioners, the private respondents, in
order to somehow get admission against State quota in more than one
State started taking chance by claiming domicile status not only in the State
of Chhattisgarh but in other State also and tried their luck to get admission
against State quota wherefrom they could get admission. In support of this
contention, reliance has been placed on the order passed by High Court of
Madhya Pradesh in the case of Tarishi Verma (supra). The petitioners, as
aforesaid, have placed on record various lists issued by respective State to
demonstrate that the private respondents in WPC No.2974 of 2020 were
placed in the merit list of State quota in different Stats also and at the same
time, while claiming domicile status in other State, simultaneously they also
obtained domicile certificate in the State of Chhattisgarh and claimed as
also secured admission against State quota seats in the medical college in
the State of Chhattisgarh.
23. To appreciate the aforesaid submission which is bone of contention before
this Court, it would be apposite to refer to relevant parts of the guidelines
issued by the NTA for admission to UG courses 2020. A part of that
guideline/bulletin issued by NTA has been filed by respondents No. 1 & 2
along with their return as Annexure R-1 in WPC No.2974 of 2020.
Respondent No.4 has placed on record, the said guidelines as Annexure- R-
4/1. In the introductory part under Chapter-1, it has been provided inter
alia that the objectives of NTA include conduct of efficient, transparent and
international standard tests in order to assess the competency of
candidates for admission. The scheme of examination and role of NTA in
NEET-UG entrance exam, instructions, pattern, mode of examination,
syllabus, eligibility and qualifications, particulars to be filled in the online
application form, barred items and dress code, instructions for
counselling , post examination activity and declaration of result and details
regarding common service centers/facilitation centers have been
exhaustively provided in the guidelines which has as many as 16
appendices appended to the aforesaid guidelines.
24. Clause 2.2 under Chapter-2 delineates the role of NTA in NEET (UG) and it
clearly states that the responsibility of NTA is limited to inviting online
application, conduct of the entrance test, declaration of result and
providing All India Rank to the Directorate General of Health Services,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of India. Chapter-3 deals with
general information regarding entrance examination. Chapter-4 deals with
eligibility and qualifications. Chapter-5 deals with admission and
reservation. Clause 5.1 of Chapter-5 again provides that NTA will only
provide All India Rank to candidates, while Admitting Authorities will invite
applications for counselling and merit list shall be drawn based on All India
Rank by the Admitting Authorities. It further provides that admission to
Undergraduate Medical Courses within the respective categories shall be
based solely on All India Rank as per merit list of NEET (UG)-2020.
Importantly, this clause also provides that admission to 15 per cent of All
India Quota shall be as per the provision of the statutory regulation of
MCI/NMC/DCI, the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and
the procedure prescribed by the MCC under the DGHS. It further makes it
clear that admission to 85 per cent State quota shall be as per the
provision of the statutory regulation of MCI/NMC/DCI, the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the prescribed rules and regulations
by the State/Union Govt. or its designated authority. As far as admission in
State Medical Colleges/Universities/Institutions/Private Medical Colleges for
seats other than 15 per cent All India Quota is concerned, clause(a)
provides that admission under State quota shall be subject to reservation
policy and eligibility criteria prevailing in the State/Union Territory as
notified by the respective State/Union Territory from time to time.
Chapter -6 deals with submission of application form and payment of fee.
Clause-4 of Step II of Chapter -6 provides that candidate have to submit
their State/UT Code as per Appendix-V during the online registration for
NEET (UG)-2020.
Chapter-7 provides for the particulars to be filled in in the online
application form and one of the said particulars is "State to which the
applicant belongs/desires to apply ". Thereafter, number of provisions are
contained in different Chapters.
25. In the entire guidelines, as described herein-above, there is no specific
provision that particulars as specified in Chapter-7 shall be treated as
declaration of candidates claiming for admission against State quota of any
particular State or that such declaration shall be treated as declaration
regarding the candidates to seek admission against the State quota of a
particular State much less with reference to desired particulars " State to
which the applicant belongs/desires to apply ". On the other hand, the
guidelines clearly state that the role of NTA is to conduct National Level
Examination and prepare the list of candidates in order of merit. It further
states that admission to 15 per cent seat in the central pool or admission
against 85 per cent of seats in the State quota shall be governed by the
rules in that regard framed by respective authority. That means the NEET
online application form did not seek declaration with regard to claim of
domicile status for seeking admission against State quota in any particular
State. On the contrary, the proforma of online NEET application form
clearly states that the particulars with regard to the State of eligibility is
with reference to 15 percent All India Quota. This is clear from online
registration form (Annexure R-4/3) filed by respondent No.4 in WPC
No.2974 of 2020. It clearly recites " State of eligibility (for 15% All India
Quota)".
26. As number of queries were being received by the NTA regarding filling up of
choice under State of Eligibility (for 15 % All India Quota) in the application
form of NEET (UG)-2020, a clarification was, therefore, issued by NTA vide
Public Notice dated 18th December 2019, copy of which has been placed on
record as Annexure R-4/2 filed by respondent No.4, the text of which is
reproduced herein below:
" Public Notice
(18 December, 2019)
Queries are being received regarding filling up of choice
under "State of Eligibility (for 15% All India Quota)"
column in the Application Form of NEET (UG) -2020.
It is clarified that all the candidates are eligible for this
quota independent of their choice under State of
Eligibility. Therefore, the candidates can fill in any
State/UT (e.g. State/UT of their Class XII School, Home
State/UT etc.) against this choice.
However, the candidates from erstwhile state of J & K
(now known as UTs of J & K and Ladakh) are NOT ELIGIBLE
for 15 % all India quota seats as the erstwhile State of J &
K had opted out of All India Scheme since its inception. If
they claim eligibility, they must submit online Self-
Declaration which will be generated and printed
automatically along with confirmation page for record and
to present the same during counselling /admission. The
format/content of self-declaration is given in Appendix-III
of the Information Bulletin of NEET (UG) 2020.
The above is applicable to 15% All India Quota seats only.
For State/UT quota and other seats falling under the ambit
of State/UTs, the domicile will be governed by the
respective State rules and will be required at the time of
Counselling by the State/UT Authorities.
It is also reiterated that under various categories, State list
Category Candidates who are not in Central List must
Choose General. "
27. Thus, from the guidelines of the NTA, various information sought,
registration form, clarificatory Public Notice dated 18 th December 2019, it is
vividly clear that the declaration of particulars " State to which the
applicant belongs/desires to apply" with reference to Appendix-V was
intended and confined for the purpose of 15 per cent All India Quota and
there is nothing therein that this was to be used as a declaration of the
candidate regarding their claim for State quota of any particular State on
the claim of domicile status in a particular State.
28. It is relevant to state here that as far as True/bonafide resident status is
concerned, it is open for the State to prescribe their own policy with regard
to grant of True/bonafide status.
29. Admission to seats in medical colleges in the State of Chhattisgarh are
admittedly governed by Admission Rules of 2018. A copy of the same has
been placed as Annexure P-9 along with the petition in WPC No.2974 of
2020. Rule 3 lays down the eligibility as below:-
"3- ik=rk%&
¼v½- 'kkldh; fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;] 'kkldh; nar fpfdRlk
egkfo|ky;] futh fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; rFkk futh nar fpfdRlk
egkfo|ky; ds 'kkldh; fu;rka'k dh lhVksa ds fy, ik=rk%&
dsoy mlh vH;FkhZ dks izos'k gsrq ik=rk gksxh tks Hkkjr dk
ukxfjd gks] NRrhlx< dk okLrfod fuoklh gks vkSj ftlus ijh{kk
o"kZ ds 31 fnlEcj dks U;wure 17 o"kZ dh vk;q iw.kZ djrk gks rFkk
vf/kdre vk;q 25 o"kZ ¼dsUnz 'kklu }kjk fu/kkZfjr vk;q ykxw gksxh½A
rFkk
ftlus NRrhlx<+ ek/;fed f'k{kk e.My dh ckjgoha d{kk
dh ijh{kk ;k NRrhlx<+ 'kklu }kjk lE;d :i ls ekU;rk izkIr
vU; jkT;ksas ds ek/;fed f'k{kk e.Myksa dh led{k ijh{kk vaxszth]
HkkSfrdh] jlk;u ,oa tho [email protected] tSo&izkS|ksfxdh fo"k;ksa esa
mRrh.kZ dh gks rFkk fo"k; HkkSfrdh] jlk;u ,oa tho [email protected]
tSo&izkS|ksfxdh esa vukjf{kr Js.kh esa dqy vad U;wure 50 izfr'kr
rFkk vkjf{kr Js.kh esa dqy vad U;wure 40 izfr'kr vftZr fd, gkasA
rFkk
fpfdRlk ,oa nar fpfdRlk ikB~;dzeksa esa izos'k gsrq ftlus izos'k ijh{kk
(NEET) fu;e 02 (d) ([k) ds vuq:i esa vukjf{kr Js.kh ds vH;FkhZ
ds fy;s U;wure 50 izfr'kred (Percentile)] vkjf{kr Js.kh ds
vH;FkhZ ds fy;s U;wure 40 izfr'kred (Percentile) rFkk vukjf{kr
Js.kh ds fnO;kaxtu laoxZ ds vH;FkhZ ds fy;s 45 izfr'kred
(Percentile) vad vftZr fd;s gksa vFkok NEET izos'k ijh{kk }kjk
fu/kkZfjr Js.khokj U;wure vgZrk vad] tk Hkh U;wure gksxk og ekU;
fd;k tk;sxk A HkkSfrd fpfdRlk ikB~;dze esa izos'k gsrq dksbZ U;wure
vgZrkdkjh vad ugha gksaxs ;fn NEET ds leLr [email protected] Js.kh esa
izfr'kred (Percentile) esa dsUnz 'kklu }kjk deh dh tkrh gS rks og
ekU; gksxh A
(c) futh fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; ds izc/a ku fu;rka'k dh lhVks ds
fy, ik=rk %& fu;e 03 (v) ds vuqlkj lHkh Js.kh ds vH;FkhZ ik=
gksaxs rFkk NRrhlx<+ jkT; ds ckgj ds vH;FkhZ ik= gksaxs A tks fd
fu;e 03 (v) jkT; ds ewy fuoklh ds vfrfjDr vU; lHkh ;ksX;rk
iw.kZ djrs gks A fdUrq jkT; ds ckgj ds vkjf{kr Js.kh ds vH;FkhZ dks
vgZrdkjh izfr'kred (Percentile) rFkk vkjf{kr Js.kh ds vkj{k.k
dk ykHk ugha fn;k tk;sxk ,oa ijLij leku izkoh.;rk dzekuqlkj
(Common Merit List) gh vkcaVu izkIr dj ldsaxs A
(l) futh fpfdRlk ,oa nar fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; ds vizoklh
Hkkjrh; (NRI) fu;rka'k dh lhVksa ds fy, ik=rk %& 'kklu ds
izpfyr fu;ekuqlkj ykxw gksxk rFkk fu;e 3 (v) ik=rk ds ewy
fuoklh ds vfrfjDr vU; lHkh ;ksX;rk iw.kZ djrk gks A fu;ekuqlkj
vizoklh Hkkjrh; (NRI) lhVksa ds fjDr jgus ij izca/ku fu;rka'k dh
lhVksa esa ifjofrZr fd;k tk ldsxk A"
30. The aforesaid rule provides for admission against seats of Govt. Medical
Colleges, Govt. Dental Colleges, Private Medical Colleges and Private Dental
Colleges in the State. This rule provides for admission against 85 per cent
as State Quota seats. Thus, amongst other eligibility conditions to secure
admission against State quota seats, candidate must be okLrfod fuoklh
(True/bonafide Resident) of the State of Chhattisgarh. okLrfod fuoklh (True
Resident) has been defined in clause 2 (x)of the Admission Rules of 2018, as
below :-
"2- ifjHkk"kk;s a %&
x x x
x x x
(x) "okLrfod fuoklh"" ls vfHkizsr gS] ,slk vH;FkhZ tks
NRrhlx<+ 'kklu }kjk le;≤ ij tkjh fd, x, funsZ'kksa ds
vuqlkj] NRrhlx<+ jkT; dk okLrfod fuoklh gks
(izk:i&vuqlwph&,d)"
31. According to this definition clause, a True/bonafide resident is such
candidate who fulfills requirement as per guidelines issued by the Govt of
Chhattisgarh from time to time which is referred to in Schedule-I appended
to the Rules. Schedule-I provides the eligibility for a candidate to claim
status of okLrfod fuoklh (True/bonafide Resident).The text of the said
schedule is as below-
" NRrhlx<+ ds okLrfod fuoklh gsr q iz k :i
dzekad------------- fnukad-----------------------------
izekf.kr fd;k tkrk gS fd [email protected]
[email protected]@iRuh------------------------------------------------fuoklh----------------------------------------
rglhy---------------------------------------------------ftyk-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NRrhlx<+ dk okLrfod fuoklh gS] D;ksafd % og fuEufyf[kr 'krkZs esa ls
fdlh ,d 'krZ dh iwfrZ djrk gS %
1- og ¼O;fDr½ NRrhlx<+ essa iSnk gqvk gS @gqbZ gS A
2- ¼d½ og ¼O;fDr½
vFkok
¼[k½ mlds ikydksa esa ls ;fn dksbZ thfor u gks] rks mldk oS/k vfHkHkkod
xkftZ;u NRrhlx<+ esa fujarj de ls de 15 o"kZ ls jg jgk gS A
3- mlds ikydksa esa ls dkbZ Hkh &
¼d½ jkT; 'kklu dk lsokjr lk lsokfuo`r deZpkjh gS]s
vFkok
¼[k½- dsUnzh; 'kklu dk deZpkjh gS] tks NRrhlx< jkT; esa dk;Zjr gS]
4- ¼d½ og Lo;a ¼O;fDr½
vFkok
¼[k½ mlds ikyd jkT; esa fiNys ikap o"kkZas ls dksbZ vpy laifRr] m|ksx
vFkok O;olk; j[krs gS A
mijksDr 'krZ ds iwfrZ gksus ds ckn] O;fDr] uhps fn;s x;s de ls de ,d 'kRkZ
dh iwfrZ Hkh djsxk %
5-a mlus NRrhlx<+ jkT; vFkok vfoHkkftr e/;izns'k ds ftyksa esa fLFkr
fdlh Hkh f'k{k.k laLFkk tks orZeku esa NRrhlx< jkT; esa lfEefyr gS] esa de
ls de 3 o"kZ rd viuh f'k{kk izkIr dh gS A
6- mlus NRrhlx<+ ds fdlh Hkh f'k{k.k laLFkk ls fuEu fyf[kr ijh{kk,a
mrhZ.kZ dh gksa] vFkkZr
¼d½ ;fn fdlh laLFkk esa izos'k ds fy;s ;k fdlh 'kkldh; laxBu esa lsok ds
fy;s vissf{kr U;wure 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk] ekU;rk izkIr fo'ofo|ky; dh
Lukrd ;k mlls mPprj mikf/k fu/kkZfjr gks] rks mPprj ek/;fed ijh{kk ;k
8oh d{kk dh ijh{kk A
¼[k½ ;fn fdlh laLFkk esa izos'k ds fy;s ;k fdlh 'kkldh; laxBu esa lsok ds
fy, visf{kr U;wure 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk] fdlh Hkh fo'ofo|ky; ;k cksMZ dh
baVjehfM;V gk;j lsds.Mjh ;k dksbZ vkSj led{k ijh{kk fu/kkZfjr dh xbZ gks]
rks vkBoh d{kk dh ijh{kk A
¼x½ vU; ekeyks esa ikapoh d{kk dh ijh{kk A
7- vU; lHkh ekeyksa ds fy;s mijksDr ds vykok fuEufyf[kr esa ls
fdlh Js.kh ds O;fDr Hkh NRrhkx<+ ds okLrfod fuoklh gksaxs %
¼d½ NRrhlx<+ jkT; dks fu;qDr vf[ky Hkkjrh; lsokvksa ds vf/kdkfj;ksa dh
[email protected] vFkok larku A
¼[k½ NRrhlx<+ 'kklu ds vf/kdkfj;[email protected];ksa dh [email protected] vFkok larku A
¼x½ NRrhlx<+ jkT; esa laoS/kkfud ;k vU; fof/kd inks ij jk"Vzifr }kjk
fu;qDr O;fDr;ksa dh [email protected] vFkok larku A
¼?k½ NRrhlx<+ jkT; ds v/khu LFkkfir laLFkkvksa ;k fuxe eaMy ;k vk;ksx esa
inLFk inkf/[email protected]/[email protected]] mudh [email protected] vFkok larku A
,sls ckcr~ tks mijksDr ekin.Mksa ds vuqlkj okLrfod fuoklh gS]
mldh [email protected] vFkok larku Hkh] NRrhlx<+ ds okLrfod fuoklh ekus
tk;saxs A
"
32. From the reading of the aforesaid Schedule, it is clear that if a candidate
fulfills the requirement of eligibility as provided in any of the clause 1, 2, 3
or 4 and in addition, fulfills at least one of the conditions as prescribed in
clause -5 or 6 or 7, he would be entitled to status of okLrfod fuoklh
(True/bonafide Resident) .
The scheme of rules with regard to admission against State quota to those
who are entitled to claim status of okLrfod fuoklh (True/bonafide Resident)
shows that the admission against State quota can be granted to any
candidate who fulfills the condition as prescribed in Schedule-I, quoted
herein above. It is not in dispute that private respondents No. 4 & 5 in WPC
No.2974 of 2020 (writ petitioners in WPC No.3315 of 2020 and WPC
No.3337 of 2020) and petitioners in all other connected petitions are those
who have been issued okLrfod fuoklh (True Resident) certificates (domicile
certificate) by the State authority and on the basis of those certificates, they
all claimed admission against State quota seats and were actually granted
admission, but were ousted and their admission cancelled on account of
re-drawl of merit list pursuant to interim order dated 7.12.2020 passed in
this case. No material could be placed on record by the petitioners or by
State authority that any of these candidates obtained domicile certificate of
any other State and on that basis claimed admission against State Quota in
other State. Therefore, the declaration given in the NEET examination form
regarding "State to which the applicant belongs/State of their choice which
otherwise intended for other purpose would not dis-entitle admission of
candidates against State quota in State of Chhattisgarh if they are
possessed of the domicile certificate, having fulfilled the conditions of
okLrfod fuoklh (True/bonafide Resident) as prescribed in Schedule -I
appended to the Admission Rules of 2018. At the cost of repetitious, it has
to be stated that in fact, NTA itself had to issue a clarificatory public notice
on 18.12.2019 that declaration with regard to State eligibility is meant only
for All India Quota of 15 per cent. The said notice clearly state that number
of queries were also being raised.
There is no specific provision contained in the guidelines/bulletin issued by
the NTA which deals with domicile aspect for the purposes of admission
against State quota obviously because Chapter-5 of the guidelines clearly
state that admission against State quota would be governed by rules
framed by the concerned State. As long as a candidate has not obtained
domicile status certificate of another State meaning thereby that he intends
to seek admission against State quota of another State, his claim for
admission against State quota in State of Chhattisgarh by fulfilling
conditions of okLrfod fuoklh (True/bonafide Resident) status as prescribed
under Admission Rules of 2018, would be permissible under the Admission
Rules of 2018 for the purpose of admission against State quota of 85 per
cent.
33.Eligibility for admission against State Quota has been prescribed under the
Admission Rules of 2018. The definition of "True/bonafide Resident" under
Rule 2 (x) read along with criteria specified in Schedule -I nowhere requires
that the candidate should necessarily be born in the State of Chhattisgarh
or that their parents should have the State of Chhattisgarh as the State of
origin. In other words, for the purposes of admission to State quota in the
State of Chhattisgarh, domicile in the sense of origin or place of birth is not
required to be possessed. Domicile, for the purpose of admission to State
quota in the State of Chhattisgarh, has to be understood, not in common
parlance as State of origin or place of birth but a specific status as
True/bonafide resident. If a candidate fulfills the criteria of True/bonafide
resident as prescribed in Schedule -I, he is entitled to claim admission
against State quota seat, subject to furnishing such certificate issued by the
Competent Authority notwithstanding that he has origin or place of birth in
another State.
Therefore, merely because a candidate gives the information regarding the
State to which he belongs, on assumption that his roots are in that
particulars State as he was born there or he has a permanent address
because his parents reside there as he has properties situated therein,
keeping in mind that their declaration is being sought or because he has
been asked to specify the State where he desires to apply, for 15 per cent
All India Quota, there being no stipulation that it shall be treated as his
choice of State quota for a particular State, his claim of admission against
State quota cannot be defeated, if he otherwise fulfills the criteria of
True/bonafide resident under Schedule -I, referable to definition of
True/bonafide resident under Rule 2 (x) of Admission Rules of 2018, as long
as he has not claimed such bonafide resident/domicile/local resident of any
other State for admission against State quota seat of that State. It is worth
noticing that in the Admission Rules of 2018 in the State of Chhattisgarh,
there is nothing to show that even if criteria under Schedule -I is fulfilled,
candidate will not be entitled to admission against State quota if he has
another State of origin or birth.
34.It is pertinent to note that while framing rule providing for admission to
State quota, the Rule Making Authority has not incorporated the domicile
concept, as understood in private International Law but requirement of
candidate being True/bonafide resident, upon fulfillment of certain criteria
because for the purpose of admission against State quota seats in the
State, domicile concept under international law has no application. In this
regard, observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr.
Pradeep Jain & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (1984) 3 SCC 654 are
pertinent, as quoted below:
"7. Now there are in our country in almost all States
residence requirements for admission to a medical
college. Sometimes the requirement is phrased by
saying that the applicant must have his domicile in
the State. We must protest against the use of the
word `domicile' in relation to a State within the union
of India. The word `domicile' is to identify the
personal law by which an individual is governed in
respect of various matters such as the essential
validity of a marriage, the effect of marriage on the
proprietary rights of husband and wife, jurisdiction in
divorce and nullity of marriage, illegitimacy,
legitimation and adoption and testamentary and
intestate succession to moveables. `Domicile' as
pointed out in Halsbury's laws of England (Fourth
Edition) Volume 8 paragraph 421, "is the legal
relationship between an individual and a territory
with a distinctive legal system which invokes that
system as his personal law." "(Emphasis supplied.) It
is well settled that the domicile of a person is in that
country in which he either has or is deemed by law to
have his permanent home "By domicile" said Lord
Cranworth in Wicker v. Homes we mean home, the
permanent home.' The notion which lies at the root of
the concept of domicile is that of permanent home."
But it is basically a legal concept for the purpose of
determining what is the personal law applicable to an
individual and even if an individual has no permanent
home, he is invested with a domicile by law. There are
two main classes of domicile: domicile of origin that is
communicated by operation of law to each person at
birth, that is the domicile of his father or his mother
according as he is legitimate or illegitimate and
domicile of choice which every person or full age is
free to acquire in substitution for that which he
presently possesses. The domicile of origin attaches
to an individual by birth while the domicile of choice
is acquired by residence in a territory subject to a
distinctive legal system, with the intention to reside
there permanently or indefinitely. Now the area of
domicile, whether it be domicile of origin or domicile
of choice, is the country which has the distinctive legal
system and not merely the particular place in the
country where the individual resides. This position is
brought out clearly and emphatically in paragraph
422 of Halsbury's Laws of England (Fourth Edition)
Volume 8 where it is stated: "Each person who has, or
whom the law deems to have, his permanent home
within the territorial limits of a single system of law is
domiciled in the country over which the system
extends; and he is domiciled in the whole of that
country even though his home may be fixed at a
particular spot within it." What would be the position
under a federal polity is also set out in the same
paragraph of volume 8 of Halsbury's Laws of England
(Fourth Edition): "In federal states some branches of
law are within the competence of the federal
authorities and for these purposes the whole
federation will be subject to a single system of law
and an individual may be spoken of as domiciled in
the federation as a whole; other branches of law are
within the competence of the states or provinces of
the federation and the individual will be domiciled in
one state or province only." This being the true legal
position in regard to domicile, let us proceed to
consider whether there can be anything like a
domicile in a state forming part of the Union of India.
8. Now it is clear on a reading of the Constitution that
it recognises only one domicile namely, domicile in
India. Article 5 of the Constitution is clear and explicit
on this point and it refers only to one domicile,
namely, "domicile in the territory of India." Moreover,
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 states. It has undoubtedly
certain federal features but it is still not a federal state
and it has only one citizenship, namely, the citizenship
of India. It has also one single unified legal system
which extends throughout the country. It is not
possible to say that a distinct and separate system of
law prevails in each State forming part of the Union of
India. The legal system which prevails through-out the
territory of India is one single indivisible system with
a single unified justicing system having the Supreme
Court of India at the apex of the hierarchy, which lays
down the law for the entire country. It is true that
with respect to subjects set out in List II of the
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, the States have
the power to make laws and subject to the over-riding
power of Parliament, the States can also make laws
with respect to subjects enumerated in List III of the
Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, but the legal
system under the rubric of which such laws are made
by the States is a single legal system which may truly
be described as the Indian Legal system. It would be
absurd to suggest that the legal system varies from
State to State or that the legal system of a State is
different from the legal system of the Union of India;
merely because with respect to the subjects within
their legislative competence, the States have power to
make laws. The concept of `domicile' has no
relevance to the applicability of municipal laws,
whether made by the Union of India or by the States.
It would not, therefore, in our opinion be right to say
that a citizen of India is domiciled in one state or
another forming part of the Union of India. The
domicile which he has is only one domicile, namely,
domicile in the territory of India. When a person who
is permanently resident in one State goes to another
State with intention to reside there permanently or
indefinitely, his domicile does not undergo any
change: he does not acquire a new domicile of choice.
His domicile remains the same, namely, Indian
domicile. We think it highly deterimental to the
concept of unity and integrity of India to think in
terms of State domicile. It is true and there we agree
with the argument advanced on behalf of the State
Governments, that the word `domicile' in the Rules of
some of the State Governments prescribing
domicilary requirement for admission to medical
colleges situate within their territories, is used not in
its technical legal sense but in a popular sense as
meaning residence and is intended to convey the idea
of intention to reside permanently or indefinitely.
That is, in fact the sense in which the word 'domicile'
was understood by a five Judge Bench of this Court in
D. P. Joshi's case (supra) while construing a Rule
prescribing capitation fee for admission to a medical
college in the State of Madhya Bharat and it was in the
same sense that word 'domicile' was understood in
Rule 3 of the Selection Rules made by the State of
Mysore in Vasundra v. State of Mysore. We would
also, therefore, interpret the word 'domicile' used in
the Rules regulating admissions to medical colleges
framed by some of the States in the same loose sense
of permanent residence and not in the technical
sense in which it is used in private international law.
But even so we wish to warm against the use of the
word 'domicile' with reference to States forming part
of the Union of India, because it is a word which is
likely to conjure up the notion of an independent
State and encourage in a subtle and insidious manner
the dormant sovereign impulses of different regions.
We think it is dangerous to use a legal concept for
conveying a sense different from that which is
ordinarily associated with it as a result of legal usage
over the years. When we use a word which has come
to represent a concept or idea, for conveying a
different concept or idea it is easy for the mind to
slide into an assumption that the verbal identity is
accompanied in all its sequences by identity of
meaning. The concept of domicile if used for a
purpose other than its legitimate purpose may give
rise to lethal radiations which may in the long run
tend to break up the unity and integrity of the
country. We would, therefore, strongly urge upon the
State Governments to exercise this wrong use of the
expression 'domicile' from the rules regulating
admissions to their educational institutions and
particularly medical colleges and to desist from
introducing and maintaining domiciliary requirement
as a condition of eligibility for such admissions."
35.In a subsequent decision in the case of Yogesh Bhardwaj Vs. State of UP
and Ors. (1990) 3 SCC 355, the applicability of status of bonafide resident,
as defined under the rules, as distinguished from the concept of domicile
understood in private International Law, in the matter of claim for
admission to MDS courses in Dental College was explained. The candidate
in that case had come from another State to the State of UP to get
admission in BDS course, which he pursued and completed in five years.
Thereafter, he applied for MDS course in Dental College at Lucknow. The
applicable Clause -4 under the admission criteria comprised of domicile or
residence for five years.
Even though, the candidate fulfilled requirement of bonafide resident of
five years, he was not given benefit of reservation as his father was not
domicile of UP. The question required to be answered in that case was
formulated as below:-
"16. In the present case, the appellant came to the
State of Uttar Pradesh with a predetermined mind,
namely, to complete the chosen course of studies
and return to the State which had nominated him for
the purpose. Having regard to the time and duration,
the object and obligation, and the un-controverted
facts, the appellant was undoubtedly a bona fide
student who resided in Uttar Pradesh for over five
years, but whose residence did not acquire the
attributes of 'domicile' within the meaning of clause
4(a). The question then is whether the appellant is a
'bona fide resident of Uttar Pradesh' within the
meaning of clause 4(b)."
It was then held that even though petitioner could not claim domicile of his father
for eligibility, nevertheless he was bonafide resident in terms of sub-clause (b) of
Clause 4, as below:
"22. Clause 2, which we have set out above, refers to
a 'bonafide' resident and such a person is defined
under clause 4 to include a person who has resided
in Uttar Pradesh for not less than five years at the
time of making his application. These two clauses
indicate that a person should have resided in Uttar-
Pradesh for the requisite period lawfully and
bonafide. The converse of bonafide being mala fide,
meaning lack of good faith, in the absence of any
allegation that the appellant's residence in that State
was in any manner opposed to the law of the land, or
tainted by lack of good faith, and in the light of the
undisputed fact that his residence was neither casual
nor fleeting, but in excess of the minimum period of
five years, and for the definite purpose of education,
he satisfies the definition of a 'bonafide resident'.
Any other construction of the clauses would, in our
view, be unreasonably restrictive and thus conflict
with the appellant's constitutional rights.
23. Viewed in this light, we have no doubt that the
construction placed by the High Court upon sub-
clause (b) of clause 4 of the Notification is
unsustainable. In our opinion, a person, such as the
appellant, who resided in the State of Uttar Pradesh
specifically for the purpose of undergoing a course of
studies for not less than five years, albeit with the
intention of finally returning to his home State, also
comes within the meaning of the expression 'bona
fide resident' as defined in the said clause."
36. In view of our discussions and conclusion as above, we respectfully beg to
differ with the view taken in the case of Tarishi Verma Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (2018) 3 MPLJ 475. It is also relevant to note that
Rule applicable in the State of Madhya Pradesh i.e. Rule 3 (5) of the
Regulations of 2017 was differently worded. It is apt to notice that in that
case, the Testing Agency had taken clear stand that declaration " State to
which candidate belongs" was only limited to 15 % seat of Central Quota.
37. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners in WPC No.2974 of
2020 that in view of provision contained in Rule 6 of the Admission Rules of
2018, applicable herein-above, a candidate having given declaration in
NEET examination form was bound by the declaration made therein does
not advance their challenge in view of our discussion herein above that the
declaration made in the NEET examination form by the candidate related to
their choice only in respect of 15 percent of All India Seats and even if such
declaration stands, it does not come in the way of the candidate seeking
admission against State quota seat on the basis of their claim as okLrfod
fuoklh (True/bonafide Resident) upon fulfillment of conditions prescribed in
Schedule -I appended to the Admission Rules of 2018 provided the said
candidate has not obtained similar status certificate of domicile from any
other State.
38. In view of our discussions as above, WPC No.2974 of 2020 ( Sifatpal Singh
Arora & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors .) is dismissed. The impugned
orders passed in all other connected petitions cancelling admission of
petitioners therein are set aside and the petitions of Ishita Mandal (WPC
No.3315 of 2020), S. Adithya (WPC No.3337 of 2020), Om Ankit Sahu (WPC
No.3345 of 2020), Nisha Sarah Ekka (WPC No.3363 of 2020), Manjari
Agrawal (WPC No.3339 of 2020), Aryan Kushwawha (WPC No.3378 of 2020),
Anzheli Alokivna Pal (WPC No.3333 of 2020), Jaishree Markam (WPC
No.3358 of 2020) and Arushi Sharma (WPC No.3332 of 2020) are allowed.
These petitioners are continuing to pursue their respective courses by
virtue of interim orders passed in their respective petitions staying the
effect of order of cancellation of their admission.
39. No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/--/-/-----
(Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) (Vimla Singh Kapoor)
40. Judge Judge
Praveen
