Bombay High Court: In a writ petition filed by an MBBS aspirant challenging clause 5.7 of the prospectus issued by Director of Technical Education, Goa, which reserved 3% seats in favour of Children of Central/State Government Employees and Persons in Private Occupations, the Division Bench comprising of Bharati Dangre* and Nivedita P. Mehta, JJ., quashed the reservation provided in the said clause. The Court held that the said clause did not withstand the scrutiny of Article 14 of Constitution as it was not based on any intelligible differentia nor it had any nexus with the object of the selection process, i.e. to have admission on merit. Additionally, it was held that merit alone, must be allowed to for the process of admission for every seat, which received relaxation by reservation contemplated only by the Constitution or by a statute, or any law made by the State Legislature.
Background
The Director of Technical Education, Goa issued a common prospectus for the admission to the professional degree courses for the academic session of 2025-2026 covering various courses including MBBS, Dentistry, BDS, and other medical courses. The prospectus had established various other categories for seat allocation, including the standard constitutional reservations for SC, ST, OBC etc. However, the contentious provision was Clause 5.7, had introduced a new category called “CSP” (children of Central/ State Government and persons in private occupations), reserving 3% of seats, in Goa Medical College, for the applicants who did not meet the residential and other requirements of General Category but whose parents fell under specific sub-categories of government employees or private sector personnel.
The Clause 5.7 had specifically carved out four distinct sub-categories under CSP reservation which conferred benefits to the applicants whose either of the parents fell in any of the following sub-categories-
-
an employee of Central Government/Central Government Public Sector Undertaking including Defence and Paramilitary personnel, serving in the State of Goa in the academic year preceding the year of admission or transfer to Goa till submission of application form for admission;
-
an employee of Goa State Government including that of Goa State Government Public Sector Undertaking and educational institutions recognised in State of Goa;
-
a person residing in State of Goa and the applicant/ child studied and passed XII Standard from school/college in Goa;
-
an employee of Central/State Government and Central Government Public Sector Undertaking including Defence and Para-military who have served in Goa and have retired from its service, when posted in the State of Goa;
when posted in the State of Goa, and their wards continued to study in the schools in State of Goa and pass the qualifying exam from schools in Goa.
The petitioner, whose daughter had cleared National Eligibility Entrance Test (NEET) and was an aspiring MBBS candidate, challenged the Clause 5.7 on the ground of being constitutionally impermissible and violative of right to equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution. It was contended that the said clause had effectively created an artificial classification which exempted certain categories of applicants from stringent residential requirements of 10 years of continuous residence and education qualifications as mandated under General Category provisions in the Clause 5.1 of the prospectus.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court pointed out that the Article 15(4), Article 15(5) and Article 15(6) of Constitution provided enabling provisions to the State to make special provision for socially and educationally backward classes, but any reservation beyond the categories carved out in the constitution required legislative backing. The Court emphasised that the State possessed no inherent power to carve reservation through executive action alone and had distinguished CSP category from constitutionally permissible reservations like those for Persons with Disabilities (PwD), which is backed by the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
The Court opined the claim of the State, that it had the power under Article 162 of the Constitution to make such reservation, was misconceived and explained that while the executive power of the State was co-extensive with legislative power, such power was expressly subjected to the provisions of the Constitution, and was limited to the power conferred by the Constitution or by any law made by the Parliament. The Court further observed that, though the State legislature had power under Entry 25 of the concurrent list, to make laws in the field of education, the State had not exercised this power to provide CSP reservation as per provisions contemplated under Article 15(5) of the Constitution, instead the State had simply introduced the reservation through the executive fiat in the prospectus which was constitutionally impermissible.
Furthermore, it was observed by the Court that any reservation being a special privilege conferred, must be satisfy the parameters of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court applied the well-established test of reasonable classification under Article 14 as laid down in the case of Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India, (2003) 11 SCC 146, which required that classification must be founded on intelligible differentia and must have the nexus with the object sought to be achieved by it. The Court opined that the Clause under challenge failed on both the requirements of the test. Therefore, it was stated that the four sub-categories created under CSP reservation were not based on any intelligible differentia that could distinguish the grouped persons from those left out.
The Court particularly, criticised the category (b) of the said Clause which created an artificial distinction between employees of State government, one class whose wards competed in General Category and another whose wards were given CSP reservation benefits despite both being State Government employees. Therefore, it was stated that the sub-categorisation was neither reasonable nor had any nexus with the object, of merit-based selection, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution.
While acknowledging the State’s concern for employees facing fortuitous crucial distinction between providing relaxations and creating specific reservation. The Court noted that the situations contemplated in Clause 5.7 (a) to (d) were indeed fortuitous circumstances that could warrant consideration but opined that providing a specific reservation of 3% was totally unacceptable. It would have been permissible for the State to relax the requirement of continuous residence in favour of certain fortuitous circumstances, similar to the approach adopted by Maharashtra in its NEET guidelines. The Court emphasised that such relaxation should be incorporated within General Category provisions rather than creating an artificial separate category.
Accordingly, based on these observations, the Court quashed and set aside Clause 5.7 of the prospectus which provided the 3% CSP reservation and held that merit and merit alone must be allowed for the selection of professional medical course which could not be compromised through administrative provisions that diluted merit as the Constitution prohibits discrimination on various specific grounds set out in Article 15(1) and if at all a preferential treatment in form of reservation is contemplated by the State, then it needs to have constitutional and statutory backing which was lacking in the said Clause, thus, making it violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
[Niyan Joseph Savio Marchon v. State of Goa, W.P. No. 1822 of 2025, decided on: 12-8-2025]
*Judgement authored by- Justice Bharati Dangre
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Advocate for the Petitioners- S. S. Kantak, Senior Advocate; Neha Kholkar and Saicha Desai, Advocates
Advocate for the Respondents- Devidas J. Pangam, Advocate General; Shubham S. Priolkar, Additional Government Advocate
Buy Constitution of India HERE
