Supreme Court: In an appeal against the Bombay High Court order, wherein the Court held that since the appellant did not select specified reservation i.e., in the category of Children of Defence personnel, while submitting the online application form, he was precluded from raising such a claim at a belated stage, as being impermissible in view of the Information Brochure, the three-judge bench BR Gavai, Rajesh Bindal and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. while setting aside the impugned order, directed the College and State of Maharashtra to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1 lakh (Rs. 50,000/- each) to the appellant for deprivation of one year and harassment due to illegal and arbitrary cancellation of his admission.
Further, the Court directed that until a suitable rectification is made in the guidelines/rules, candidate(s) domicile of the Maharashtra having acquired SSC and/or HSC qualification from any recognized institution, whose parent(s) are domiciles of Maharashtra and employed in the Central Government or its Undertaking, defence services and/or in paramilitary forces, and such parent(s) are posted at any place in the country as on the last date of document verification, shall be entitled for a seat in MBBS Course in the Maharashtra State quota.
Background:
The appellant is a domicile of the Maharashtra, and his father is employed in the Border Security Force (BSF) as a Head Constable (General Duty). Owing to the deployment of his father outside Maharashtra, the appellant was compelled to complete his Secondary School Certificate (Standard X) (SSC) and Higher School Certificate (Standard XII)(HSC) education from a school outside Maharashtra. The appellant appeared in NEET-UG, 2023 craving admission in the undergraduate MBBS course against the State quota and upon being found meritorious, he was issued a provisional selection letter by the State Common Entrance Cell, Maharashtra in 2023 and was allotted a seat in College. The appellant completed the requisite formalities and paid the admission fees. The appellant had applied for admission under the Other Backward Class/Non-Creamy Layer (OBC/NCL) category as being domicile of Maharashtra.
However, without issuing notice and without providing any opportunity of being heard to the appellant, the College issued a letter/communication dated 9-08-2023 cancelling his admission.
Analysis:
The Court took note of the Information Brochure and noted that Clause 4.8 provides an exception/relaxation for claiming seat in the Maharashtra State quota to Children of employees of Government of India (‘GoI’) or its Undertaking who have passed SSC and/or HSC or equivalent examination from the recognized institutions situated outside the State of Maharashtra. However, this clause imposes a rider that the employee of Government of India or its Undertaking being the parent of the candidate should have been transferred back to the State of Maharashtra and also have reported for duty and must be working as on the last date of the document verification at a place located in Maharashtra.
The Court said that the appellant is qualified to seek admission in the State Domicile (OBC/NCL) category by virtue of clause 4.8 of the Information Brochure and also stands in merit. However, the proviso creates a situation which would be impossible for the appellant to surmount. The appellant, a domicile of Maharashtra, cannot control the place of deployment of his father serving in the paramilitary force. Further, the place of deployment cannot be the choice of the employee serving in the armed forces or a paramilitary force. Being the child of a soldier serving on the country’s frontiers, the discriminatory and arbitrary treatment meted out to the appellant under the guidelines cannot be permitted.
The Court said that this condition as imposed by the guidelines, creates a stipulation which would be impossible for the candidate or his parent to fulfill. Thus, the distinction drawn by the clause between two categories of employees in the Government of India services (i) those posted in Maharashtra and (ii) those posted outside Maharashtra has no nexus with the intent and purpose of the guidelines/rules and hence the same deserves to be read down to such extent.
Thus, the Court held that the candidate(s) who are born in Maharashtra and whose parents are also domicile of the State of Maharashtra and are employees of the Government of India or its Undertaking, such candidate(s) would be entitled to a seat under the Maharashtra State quota irrespective of the place of posting of the parent(s) because the place of deployment would not be under the control of the candidate or his parents.
The Court noted that the High Court, while denying relief to the appellant, held that he had not selected any specified reservation under the head of Children of Defence personnel as provided in Clause 9.4.4 of the Information Brochure. However, the Court said that the appellant had submitted his OBC/NCL credentials/certificates along with the application form and, his claim for admission was clearly against the Maharashtra State quota as being a domicile of Maharashtra.
The Court stated that the application was considered favourably and he was granted admission in College. He also paid the admission fees etc. However, without issuing any notice and without providing the opportunity of being heard to the appellant, the College issued the letter cancelling his admission in the course.
The Court, while setting aside the impugned order, said that the Bombay High Court fell into manifest error in not considering the case of the appellant in the correct perspective.
However, the Court noted that the current session of MBBS (UG) course has progressed significantly from August 2023. More than six months have passed by since the session started. No seat is lying vacant in any college in Maharashtra State quota as on date. The Court said it would not be desirable or justifiable to grant admission to the appellant in the MBBS’s ongoing session. However, it held that the appellant is entitled to restoration of his seat in the first year of MBBS(UG) course in the same college in the next session.
[Vansh v. Ministry of Education & The Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 342, decided on 20-03-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Counsel For Petitioner(s) Kshitij Kothale, Adv. Satyajit A Desai, Adv. Siddharth Gautam, Adv. . Abhinav K. Mutyalwar, Adv. Gajanan N Tirthkar, Adv.. Vijay Raj Singh Chouhan, Adv. Ananya Thapliyal, Adv Anagha S. Desai, AOR
Counsel For Respondent(s). Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR Rashmi Singhania, Adv. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Sourav Singh, Adv. Aditya Krishna, Adv.,Preet S. Phanse, Adv.
