Supreme Court grants Maharashtra domicile candidate admission despite parent’s deployment.
Case title: Vansh S/O Prakash Dolas v. The Ministry of Education & The Ministry of Health & Family Welfare & Ors.
Case no.: Civil Appeal No(s). of 2024 (Arising out of SLP No(s). 26179-26180 of 2023)
Decided on: 20.03.2024
Quorum: Hon’ble Justice B R Gavai, Hon’ble Justice Sandeep Mehta, Hon’ble Justice Rajesh Bindal
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The case involved Vansh, the appellant, seeking admission under the OBC/NCL category as a domicile of Maharashtra. His admission was cancelled due to his father’s deployment outside Maharashtra as a paramilitary personnel. The appellant’s counsel argued that the cancellation was unjust and arbitrary, violating principles of natural justice. The appellant’s eligibility for admission was contested based on the deployment of his father, leading to a legal dispute regarding his rightful admission under the specified category.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
Interpretation of admission rules and guidelines under NEET-UG, 2023.
Application of principles of natural justice and equality under constitutional law.
Consideration of precedents related to admissions and reservations in educational institutions.
Examination of legal provisions regarding domicile and admission eligibility criteria.
APPELLANTS CONTENTION:
The appellant contended that he fulfilled the criteria for admission in the State quota under the OBC/NCL category as a domicile of Maharashtra. He argued that the cancellation of his admission was unjust and arbitrary, violating principles of natural justice. The appellant’s counsel also highlighted that the appellant’s father’s deployment outside Maharashtra should not have affected his admission eligibility.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:
The respondents contended that the appellant could not be considered for admission under the OBC/NCL category under the State quota because he did not meet the criteria specified in clauses 4.5, 4.6, and 4.8 of the Information Brochure. They also argued that the appellant did not stake a claim for admission in the defense personnel quota, so he could not have been given a seat under that category as per the guidelines in clause 9.4.4.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:
The judgment revolved around the appellant’s case of denial of admission in a medical course due to his father’s deployment outside Maharashtra. The court considered the constitutional duty to address injurious consequences arising from arbitrary and illegal actions, emphasizing the need for restitutive relief.The court discussed the challenges faced by candidates like the appellant, whose parents are in defense services and are deployed outside their domicile state. It highlighted the need to transcend the constraints of time and perform the primary duty of a constitutional court to control and regulate the exercise of power or arbitrary action.
In the judgment, the court found that the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court at Nagpur had erred in rejecting the writ petition filed by the appellant. The court held that the impugned judgment was unsustainable in facts and law, emphasizing the need to consider the case in the correct perspective. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that candidates born in Maharashtra with domicile parents should be entitled to a seat under the Maharashtra State quota, regardless of the parent’s place of posting. The court recommended changes in guidelines to ensure that meritorious candidates like the appellant are not unjustly denied admission due to circumstances beyond their control.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement reviewed by – Ayush Shrivastava