Bombay High Court Upholds Post-Graduate Medical Admission Criteria For Domiciled Candidates Who Obtained MBBS Degree Outside Maharashtra

The admissions to post-graduate courses are 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 published a policy document “Procedure for Selection and Admission for Medical Postgraduate Courses at Maharashtra”, which set out the admission process for post-graduate courses.

Paragraph 8.2 of the document states that a MBBS graduate from a recognised medical college medical college situated in Maharashtra and who has completed one year internship training would be eligible for admission to post-graduate courses in Maharashtra under the State Quota irrespective of domicile.

Paragraph 8.3 of the document states that MBBS graduates who are domiciled in Maharashtra but have obtained the MBBS degree from a college situated outside Maharashtra would qualify for the State Quota if they had obtained admission to the MBBS course under the All-India Quota in any Government Medical College or the All India Institute of Medical Sciences or any other Central Government Institution.

The petitioner–who completed MBBS from the Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu (CMC Vellore), but is domiciled in Maharashtra–challenged these two provisions in the policy document on the ground that they are unreasonable, discriminatory and arbitrary, violating Article 14 of the Constitution.

With regards to Paragraph 8.2, the High Court noted that the policy objective of providing an environment of continuity and stability of location for students in their education path within the same State is well-known.

It remarked that the impugned provisions represent a reasonable exercise of local social considerations by the policy makers. It was of the view that it was neither unreasonable nor discriminatory.

“In our opinion, there is nothing wrong in such an approach in the policy. Policy-makers who draft subordinate legislation ought to be given reasonable play in the joints to address the local social considerations, and the Impugned Provisions represent a reasonable exercise of such policy formulation. 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.”

With regards to Paragraph 8.3, it stated the domicile factor is only being checked and balanced by 'an element of high merit' as an attendant condition.

The Court further opined that that excluding non-government colleges from the stipulation in Paragraph 8.3 was reasonably objective. On the choice of State policy, it remarked, “One may argue that the choice of leaving out non-government medical colleges is unwise and they ought to be treated on par with AIIMS, leaving intact the requirement of the All-India Quota for admission to the MBBS course that the candidate has graduated from. A view that a State policy measure is unwise would not stand elevated to that measure being unconstitutional. One must see manifest perversity and arbitrariness from the provision.”

It reiterated that since half of the postgraduate seats in Maharashtra are case left to graduates from outside Maharashtra, the condition in Paragraph 8.3 adds a condition of merit.

In the present case, the Court noted that the petitioner neither graduated from a Central Government Institution nor did she secure admission to CMV Vellore through the All-India Quota.

It noted that the petitioner secured admission to CMC Vellore only in her capacity as a member of the minority Christian community. It observed that even though All-India Quota was available for admission to CMC Vellore, the petitioner did not make the cut through it but secured admission in her capacity as a Christian.

It remarked that that the petitioner could have taken admission in any of the colleges referred to in Paragraph 8.3 through the All-India Quota or to any medical college in Maharashtra, but chose to enter CMC Vellore with a minority quota seat. In doing so, the petitioner forfeited her prospects of being considered eligible for a State Quota seat.

It further noted that the petitioner received offers of admission to MBBS courses back in 2016 even from colleges situated in Mumbai. However, she chose associate with a high ranking college and joined CMC Vellore.

The Court observed that the petitioner's grievance was a matter of “chance litigation” to widen her options to admissions in post-graduate college.

It remarked, “In making that choice, the Petitioner consciously chose not to be regarded as a State Quota candidate for her future post-graduate aspirations in Maharashtra. Indeed, even now, she can compete in the non- State Quota component of seats for the post-graduate course, and she has actually successfully done so. Therefore, her grievance on her entitlement being denied to her is purely a matter of “chance litigation” to bring in an element of constitutional invalidity to somehow widen the range of choices now available, shrugging off the consequences of choices already made in the educational path.”

The Court held that the impugned provisions were fair, reasonable and constitutionally valid. It thus dismissed the petition.

Case title: Anna Mathew vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Writ Petition (L) No. 33329 of 2024)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 623