Medical Colleges and Dental Colleges of Assam (Regulations of Admission into 1 st year MBBS/BDS Courses) Rules, 2017 – r.3(1)(c) – Eligibility for State quota seats – r.3(1)(c) prescribing condition of obtaining education from class VII to XII in the State of Assam – Validity of r.3(1)(c) on the touchstone of Art.14 of the Constitution – Whether the classification that has been made in r.3(1)(c) is unreasonable and violative of the provisions contained in Art.14 of the Constitution and students passing out or obtaining education in other States have been illegally ousted from the eligibility criteria prescribed for seats of State quota – Held: The preference to the State residents cannot be said to be unintelligible criteria suffering from vice of arbitrariness in any manner whatsoever – r.3(1)(c) framed by the Government of Assam is based on an intelligible differentia and cannot be said to be discriminatory and in violation of Art.14 – It is permissible to lay down the essential educational requirements, residential/domicile in a particular State in respect of basic courses of MBBS/BDS/Ayurvedic – Thus, r.3(1)(c) of the Rules is in consonance with the spirit of Art.14 of the Constitution – Constitution of India – Art.14 – Education – Admissions.
Dismissing the Petitions, the Court
HELD: 1. This Court has held in various decisions, that it is permissible to lay down the essential educational requirements, residential/domicile in a particular State in respect of basic courses of MBBS/BDS/Ayurvedic. The object sought to be achieved is that the incumbent must serve the State concerned and for the emancipation of the educational standards of the people who are residing in a particular State, such reservation has been upheld by this Court for the inhabitants of the State and prescription of the condition of obtaining an education in a State. The only distinction has been made with respect to postgraduate and postdoctoral super specialty course. [Para 32] [362-A-B]
2. Rule 3(1)(c) of the Medical Colleges and Dental Colleges of Assam (Regulations of Admission into 1st year MBBS/BDS Courses) Rules, 2017 lays down the requirement of obtaining education in the State and relaxation has been given to the wards of the State Government employees or Central Government employees or to an employee of Corporation/Agency/instrumentality under the Government of Assam or the Central Government, whether on deputation or transfer on regular posting from obtaining education from class VII to XII for the period his/her father or mother is working outside the State. As urged on behalf of the petitioners the employees of other State Government but residents of Assam, similar relaxation ought to have been made, cannot be accepted. Thus, their exclusion cannot be said to be irrational and arbitrary. The wards of the employees in the service of other States like Government employees of Arunachal Pradesh, form a totally different class. When the wards are obtaining education outside and the parents are working in Arunachal Pradesh as Government employee or elsewhere, they are not likely to come back to the State of Assam. As such Government of Assam holds that they should provide preference to State residents/institutional preference cannot be said to unintelligible criteria suffering from vice of arbitrariness in any manner whatsoever, thus, Rule 3(1)(c) framed by the Government of Assam is based on an intelligible differentia and cannot be said to be discriminatory and in violation of Article 14. [Para 33] [362-C-F]
3. With respect to the private employees also, the submission was raised that wards of private employees working outside the State ought to have been placed at the similar footing as that of the wards of the State Government/Central Government employees etc. When once parents have moved outside in a private employment and wards obtaining education outside, they are not likely to come back, thus, their exclusion as afore-stated footing cannot be said to be irrational or illegal. [Para 34] [362-G-H]
4. It was urged that some of the students may obtain admission in other States for the purpose of better coaching. Relevant data has not been placed on record by the petitioners that in Assam coaching is not available. Apart from that, when they can afford to obtain coaching in other States, they stand on a different footing, they are the one who belongs to an affluent class who can afford expensive education in other States and it is not necessary that they should be adjusted in State quota seat, they can stake claim for All India Quota Seats for the State of Assam. They can stake their claim with respect to open seats within the State of Assam. The exclusion is not total for them. However, with respect to the State-quota seats, since it is open to the State Government to lay down the educational as well as domicile requirement, incumbents must fulfill the criteria. The criteria so laid down in Rule 3(1)(c) of Rules of 2017, cannot be said to be ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Rule 3(1)(c) of the Rules of 2017 is in consonance with the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. [Para 35, 36] [363-A-D]
Dr. Pradeep Jain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1984) 3 SCC 654 : [1984] 3 SCR 942 ; Anant Madaan v. State of Haryana and Ors. (1995) 2 SCC 135 – relied on.
Dr. Jagadish Saran & Ors. v. Union of India (1980) 2 SCC 768 : [1980] 2 SCR 831 ; D.P. Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat & Anr., AIR 1955 SC 334 :
[1955] SCR 1215 ; Kumari N. Vasundara v. State of Mysore & Anr. (1971) 2 SCC 22 ; Dr. Jagadish Saran and Ors. v. Union of India (1980) 2 SCC 768 : [1980] 2 SCR 831 ; Saurabh Chaudri & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2003) 11 SCC 146 : [2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 152 ; Nikhil Himthani v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. (2013) 10 SCC 237 : [2013] 14 SCR 23 ; Vishal Goyal & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.(2014) 11 SCC 456 ; Magan Mehrotra v. Union of India
(2003) 11 SCC 186 ; Dr. Kriti Lakhina & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. [2018] 3 SCR 517 ; E.V.
Chinnaiah v. State of A.P. & Ors. (2005) 1 SCC 394 : [2004] 5 Suppl. SCR 972 ; Deepak Sibal v. Punjab University & Anr. (1989) 2 SCC 145 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.