The Bombay High Court dismissed a challenge to Maharashtra’s NEET Post-Graduation (PG) admission policy which gives preference in medical college admissions under the State quota to students who graduated from the colleges in Maharashtra, even if they are from other States. The policy had been challenged for favoring such students over even candidates domiciled in Maharashtra but who had graduated from colleges outside the State.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has dismissed a challenge to Maharashtra’s NEET Post-Graduation (PG) admission policy, which prioritizes students graduating from medical colleges within the state under the State Quota, regardless of their domicile.
This decision reaffirms the state’s right to structure its educational policies to address local needs.
The Challenge to Maharashtra’s Policy
The policy faced criticism for allegedly favoring graduates of Maharashtra-based medical colleges over candidates domiciled in Maharashtra but who graduated from institutions outside the state.
The petitioner, Anna Mathew, a NEET PG candidate domiciled in Maharashtra, argued that the policy was arbitrary and discriminatory.
She claimed it violated her fundamental rights, as she was excluded from the State Quota due to her MBBS degree from Christian Medical College (CMC), Vellore, Tamil Nadu.
Court’s Reasoning
A Bench of Justices BP Colabawalla and Somasekhar Sundaresan upheld the policy, describing it as-
“reasonable, rational, justifiable, and defensible.”
They emphasized the importance of examining the policy’s rationale rather than labeling it discriminatory.
“Every differentiation and every perceived discrimination in treatment, would not attract the vice of arbitrariness. Whether the basis of being mindful and discriminating in the exercise of discretion is reasonable is the test to be followed,”
-the Court observed.
Arguments Presented
Petitioner’s Perspective
Mathew argued that the policy unfairly penalized her for pursuing medical education outside Maharashtra, even though she was domiciled in the state.
Her counsel contended that this violated Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.
They described the policy as “unreasonable and unconstitutional,” asserting that it denied equal opportunities to domiciled students based solely on their place of graduation.
State’s Defense
The Maharashtra government defended the policy, asserting that it aimed to maintain educational standards and prioritize local candidates.
According to the state, the classification of candidates was justified to provide a stable educational pathway for Maharashtra-based graduates.
The state further highlighted that students excluded from the State Quota could still compete for seats through the All-India Quota.
This provision, they argued, ensured a balanced and fair admissions process.
Court’s Verdict
The Court concluded that the policy was not arbitrary and adhered to the principles of fairness.
“Every perceived hardship and inconvenience arising out of a legislation or policy, would not result in the legislative provision or policies being regarded as unconstitutional. So long as the policy measure is reasoned and objectively comprehensible, and the measures are commensurate with the objective, judicial review must be slow to make interventions,”
-the Court stated.
The Court recognized the policy as a legitimate exercise of discretion, addressing local considerations while preserving the fairness of the admissions process.
Key Observations
The Bench noted that Mathew had already secured admission to a PG medical course at Seth G S Medical College, Mumbai, through the All-India Quota. They described her petition as “chance litigation” aimed at broadening her options.
“We say nothing beyond noticing the deep sense of entitlement at every stage of choice being made in the course of the journey with education at premium institutions,”
-the Court remarked.
Ultimately, the Bench upheld the policy, concluding that it was rational and reasonable:
“There is nothing perverse in the policy choice underlying the Impugned Provisions, and nothing unreasonable or discriminatory in the policy choice, which itself relates to a sub-class of candidates, i.e., the State Quota,”
-the Court stated.
Legal Representation
- Petitioner: Advocates VM Thorat, Pooja Thorat, Amar Bodke, Kiran Singh, and Trisha Chowdhari.
- State: Additional Government Pleader Jyoti Chavan.
- Admission Regulatory Authority: Advocate Meghna Gowalani.
This judgment reinforces the principle that states can design policies reflecting their unique educational and social needs while ensuring fairness in implementation.
CASE TITLE:
Anna Mathew v State of Maharashtra
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on NEET PG 2024
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
