NEET-PG| Every Differentiation Won’t Attract Vice Of Arbitrariness: Bombay HC Dismisses Plea Challenging Quota For Maharashtra College Graduates
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a Writ Petition challenging two facets of the regulatory framework governing admissions to the post-graduate Health Science (medical) courses in the State of Maharashtra.
The Petition was filed by an MBBS graduate from the Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, but domiciled in the State of Maharashtra.
A Division Bench of Justice B.P. Collabawalla and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan reiterated, “We are fortified in our views expressed above by how Courts have time and again emphasised that 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.”
Advocates V.M. Thorat and Pooja Thorat appeared for the Petitioner while Addl. G.P. Jyoti Chavan and Advocate Meghna Gowalani appeared for the Respondents.
Factual Background -
This Petition challenged two facets of the regulatory framework governing admissions to the post-graduate Health Science (medical) courses in the State of Maharashtra. The Petitioner had graduated from the MBBS course from the Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, but domiciled in the State of Maharashtra. Admissions to such post-graduate courses were split between two main ‘quotas’ – one for MBBS graduates from colleges situated within the State (State Quota); and another for MBBS graduates from colleges situated outside the State (All-India Quota). The State of Maharashtra had published a policy document titled Procedure for Selection and Admission for Medical Postgraduate Courses at Maharashtra (NEET-PG-2024), which sets out the admission process for post-graduate courses.
Paragraphs 8.2 and 8.3 of the NEET-PG-2004 (Impugned Provisions), which set out the terms on which a candidate would qualify for the State Quota, were challenged in the Petition as being unreasonable, discriminatory, and thereby arbitrary, violating the principle of equality before the law and equal protection of the law, guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. The Petitioner, having chosen to leave Maharashtra for pursuing MBBS in Tamil Nadu, was challenging the conditions imposed for belonging to the State Quota on the premise that she was subjected to discrimination among other domiciles.
The High Court in the above context of the case, said, “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 observed that, since the Petitioner has actually secured admission to a post-graduate course in the Seth G.S. Medical College, Mumbai, it is evident that the Petition is nothing but a form of “chance litigation” to gamble through litigation, a prospect of widening the scope for admission when competing with other candidates.
“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. … Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that neither of the Impugned Provisions is in the realm of manifest arbitrariness, requiring interference from us”, it held.
Furthermore, the Court noted that the underlying policy is reasonable, rational, justifiable, and defensible.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.
Cause Title- Anna Mathew v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-OS:19610-DB)
