SC: Reserving of seats in Institutions by State is not a violation of the right to equality (Read Judgment)

The Apex Court on 17.08.2018, in  Rajdeep Ghosh v Stte of Assam & Ors[1], dismissed the petition challenging  the constitutional validity of    Rule   3(1) (c)   of   the   Medical   Colleges  and   Dental   Colleges   of   Assam Rules , 2017  requiring  that a concerned  candidate must be  studying  in every  class starting from seventh to twelfth standard in Assam ,also must be qualified from an institute in the same State. There exists an exception for cases where the parents  are posted somewhere outside the State as an employee of the Assam State /Central Government/Corporation/Agency falling under the State or Union. The petitioners submitted that despite being residents of the State and having studied there for a reasonable period of time, yet they did not stand eligible as per the above mentioned rules, rather had been denied admission based upon the NEET Examination thus claiming such classification being in violation of Art 14 of the Indian Constitution.

The amendment of 2016 made in Rule 3(1) (c), was thus contested, before the High Court of Guwahati. The Court concluded that the State has the authority to settle any criteria on eligibility based on domicile pertaining to admission falling under the purview of quota seats regarding medical courses.  A review petition was similarly dismissed. New Rules of 2017 were enacted that recommended the preceding principle regarding study mentioned in Rule 3(1) (c).

It was contended from the petitioner’s side that the State in no way could hold back their claims regarding the quotas and it was unreasonable to lay down a rider to obtain an education for particular years in the state itself. Further it was arbitrary, to deprive candidates from admissions whose parents were posted in other adjoining states merely because the parents were staying in other states.

The issue concerning was whether  such classification prescribed under  Rule   3(1)(c)   to   the  Rules of 2017 stands as unreasonable and in violation of Art 14 of the  Constitution and that such students who were attaining education in other states had been illegally deprived from the criteria of eligibility?

The Court dismissed the writ petition by upholding that it is usually the State that runs the Universities, spending money in providing education to medical students,  considering that  Post Graduate students are also paid stipend, thus reserving of few seats if done reasonably, shall not be in violation of the right to equality.   However, the Court also opined that reservation must not exceed seventy percent of total number of seats in open category after giving regard to various types of reservations.Further, a direction would be made to the Indian Medical Council for considering the outer limit concerning   whether such percent that is fixed requires a  reduction  and if a shorter limit is determined then that shall prevail upon the States and Union territories. The main objective being that admission shall be purely granted  on merit. Thus, confirming that the concerned rule being not arbitrary  and based upon intelligible differentia in consonance with Art 14 of the Constitution.

[1] Read Judgment

[embeddoc url=”https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2018/23521/23521_2018_Judgement_17-Aug-2018.pdf” download=”all”]