AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(PER: ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) :
. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, these Writ Petitions are heard finally at the stage of admission.
Since the common questions of fact and law are involved in both the Petitions, the same are being decided by this common Judgment.
By these Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners who are aspiring to take admission to the medical course, seek direction that, Clause Nos.4.5 and 4.6 of the NEET UG Information Brochure (hereinafter called as ‘said Brochure’) published by Respondent No.2, the Commissioner, State Common Entrance Test Cell, Maharashtra State, so far as it mandates passing of SSC (10th Std) examination from the institution within Maharashtra State is not applicable to the Petitioners. The Petitioners are also seeking direction that Respondent No.2 be directed to treat the Petitioners as eligible from 85% State quota for admission to the MBBS course.
In Writ Petition No.12434 of 2026, father of the Petitioner is working in a private sector namely Sahaj Milk Producer Company Ltd. and was posted at Agra for the period 2015 to 2021. The Petitioner, therefore, was required to complete his SSC examination from Sachdeva Millennium School, Dehtora, Agra, Uttar Pradesh. She, however, has completed her HSC (12th Std) from Dr. Vitthalrao Vikhe Patil Foundation, Ahilyanagar, Maharashtra State.
Similarly, in Writ Petition No.12902 of 2026, father of the Petitioner is serving in private sector viz. VE Commercial Vehicles Ltd. at Surat in Gujarat State. He, therefore, completed his SSC (10th Std) from CBSE Board, Gujarat State. He too completed his HSC (12th Std) from Shahu Maharaj Junior College, Doithan, Tal. Ashti, Dist. Beed in Maharashtra State.
Both the Petitioners appeared for the NEET-UG 2026 examination in the State of Maharashtra and secured 472 and 553 marks, respectively, out of 720 marks and stood in merit in NEET All India Ranking. However, the Petitioners are held to be ineligible for admission to the MBBS course in view of clause no.4.5 of the said Brochure, since the Petitioners have completed their SSC examinations outside the State of Maharashtra. The Petitioners, therefore, have approached this Court.
Learned Counsel appearing for respective Petitioners submit that, clause 4.5 and 4.6 of the said Brochure, insofar as they mandate that a candidate must have passed the SSC or an equivalent examination from an institution situated in the State of Maharashtra, while granting exceptions to children belonging to certain categories of employees, is discriminatory. It is submitted that, since the Petitioners possess a certificate of domicile and they have cleared their HSC (12th Std) from the State of Maharashtra, they should be treated as a candidate from State of Maharashtra. It is further submitted that, this Court has taken a sympathetic view in case of similarly circumstanced students. Reliance is placed on the Judgments of this Court in the case of Rajiv Purshottam Wadhwa vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors, reported in 2000 (8) SLR 378 and Apurva Manohar Kumbhalkar vs. State of Maharashtra and Others in Writ Petition No.4883 of 2023 decided on 10.11.2023 and in the case of Priya Kedar Gokhale and Anr vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors, in Writ Petition No.8539 of 2022 decided on 12.09.2022. To buttress his submission that, the classification laid down in the said Clause 4.5 and 4.6 is unreasonable and discriminatory, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Meenakshi Malik vs. University of Delhi and Others reported in (1989) 3 SCC 112 and Deepak Sibal vs. Punjab University and Another reported in (1989) 2 SCC 145. It is, therefore, urged that, the Writ Petitions deserve to be allowed.
Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 by inviting our attention to Clauses 4.2, 4.5 and 4.6 of the said Brochure submits that, the Petitioners’ cases cannot be treated as that of a candidate from State of Maharashtra for eligibility under the 85% quota, the Petitioners, at the most, could be considered as candidates from outside Maharashtra State (OMS) and can compete against the 15% Institutional Quota or the 15% All India Quota. It is submitted that this Court has dismissed the Writ Petitions where the challenge was raised to analogues rules. Reliance is placed on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Yash Kumar Waghmare vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others dated 23.12.2021 in Writ Petition No.12210 of 2021 and in the case of Maimuna Jawed Quazi vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, decided on 31.07.2025 in Writ Petition No.9290 of 2025. It is submitted that, undergraduate and post-graduate admissions to the medical courses are now governed by the rules viz; The Maharashtra Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission to the Full Time Professional Undergraduate Medical and Dental Courses) Rules, 2026 (hereinafter called as the ‘Rules of 2026’). Rule ‘A’ and ‘B’ of the Rules of 2026 mandates the candidate to pass SSC and HSC or equivalent examination from an institution situated in the State of Maharashtra which is affiliated to recognized board. He, therefore, urged that, there is no substance in the Writ Petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed.
Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be apt to reproduce Clauses 4.5 and 4.6 of the said Brochure which read thus:
“4.5.The candidate must have passed the SSC or equivalent examination from an Institution situated in the State of Maharashtra. (please refer 4.1.3, 4.1.4, 4.7, 4.8, Annexure “C” & Annexure “E” for exception).
Exemption: Candidate who has passed SSC or equivalent examination in 2017 or prior to that, from an institute outside the State of Maharashtra is also eligible to seek admission, provided he has passed HSC or qualifying examination from an institute in the State of Maharashtra and also possess Domicile Certificate issued by the authority, who is competent to issue such certificate in the State of Maharashtra for educational purpose gazette no. MED-1018/C.R. 405/18/Edu-2 dated 20/04/2019.
4.6.The candidate must have passed the qualifying examination i.e. Higher Secondary Certificate (HSC/12th Standard) or equivalent examination, from an Institution situated in the State of Maharashtra (Please refer 4.1.3, 4.1.4, 4.7, 4.8, Annexure “C” & Annexure “E” for exception) with English, Physics, Chemistry and Biology (Botany & Zoology) / Biotechnology before the last date of registration.”
The above clauses mandate the candidate to pass SSC examination from any institution situated in the State of Maharashtra. The only exceptions carved out are to the children of employees of the Government of India, All India Services, defence personnel and employees of Government of Maharashtra and its undertakings as per Clauses 4.7 and 4.8 of the said brochure.
Even otherwise, Rules ‘A’ and ‘B’ of Rules of 2026 lay down similar criteria unlike Clause No.4.5 and 4.6 of the said Brochure mandating candidates to pass SSC and HSC or equivalent examinations from an institution situated in the State of Maharashtra as well as providing exceptions. The relevant Rules read thus :
“A) (i) The candidate must be an Indian National (ii) Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) Candidate will be eligible provided such candidate have obtained the OCI status on or before 04/03/2021 and also have passed 10th and 12th Standard from the State of Maharashtra and should be domicile in Maharashtra or staying in State of Maharashtra for minimum period of 10 years.
(iii)The candidate should be Domicile of the State of Maharashtra.
(iv)The candidate must have completed 17 years of age on or before 31st December of the year of admission for the course. The Birth certificate indicating name of the candidate. Secondary School Certificate examination ie. SSC or equivalent examination certificate or School Leaving Certificate endorsing the date of birth shall constitute a valid proof of age. (The eligibility of age shall be as prescribed by NMC and NDC from time to time).
(v)The candidate must be medically fit and should possess a Medical Certificate issued by registered Medical Practitioner.
(vi)The candidate must have passed, the SSC or equivalent examination and HSC or equivalent examination from an Institution situated in the State of Maharashtra which is affiliated to recognized Board.
(vii)The candidate must have passed the qualifying examination.
(B) Exception for clause (A) (iii) and (vi) for SSC and HSC or equivalent examinations for children of employees of the
Government of Maharashtra or its Undertakings:-
(i)The Children of such employees of the Government of Maharashtra or its undertaking who have joined service since beginning at a place situated outside the State of Maharashtra but who have been transferred to a place situated within the State of Maharashtra shall be eligible for admission even though such children might have passed the SSC or HSC or equivalent examination from the recognized Institutions situated outside the State of Maharashtra: Provided that, such employee of the Government of Maharashtra or its Undertaking must have been posted or transferred or deputed at a place of work located in the State of Maharashtra and also must have reported for duty i.e. joined the duty before the last date of registration;
(ii)The candidates belonging to the aforesaid category at (i) above shall be required to produce the requisite certificate from the office at which such employee of Government of Maharashtra or its Undertakings has reported for duty, as a proof that such employee has joined the office or reported for duty before the cut-off date for eligibility, i.e. the last date of registration. The certificate shall contain full name of the employee, designation, transfer or posting order number and date, date of joining and present status of posting. A copy of transfer or posting order should also be produced at the time of registration.
(iii)The children of such employees of Government of Maharashtra or its Undertakings who have been transferred or deputed to a place situated outside the State of Maharashtra or who have returned to the State of Maharashtra after initial transfer or deputation shall be eligible for admission even though such children might have passed the SSC or HSC or equivalent examinations from the recognized Institutions situated outside the State of Maharashtra.
(iv)The candidates belonging to the aforesaid category at (iii) above shall be required to produce the requisite certificate from the office at which such employee of Government of Maharashtra or its Undertakings has reported for duty, as a proof that such employee has joined the office or reported for duty before the cut-off date for eligibility, i.e. the last date of registration. The certificate shall contain full name of the employee, designation, transfer or posting order number and date, date of joining and present status of posting. A copy of transfer or posting order should also be produced at the time of registration.”
Admittedly, the Petitioners are not covered by any of the exceptions since their fathers are working in private establishments. So far as the judgments relied upon by learned Counsel for the Petitioners in the cases of Rajiv Purshottam Wadhwa (supra), Apurva Manohar Kumbhalkar (supra) and Priya Kedar Gokhale (supra) are concerned, those cases pertain to the children of either defence or army officers. We, thus, find that, the said Judgments are clearly distinguishable.
On the contrary, we find that, the Judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 in the case of Yash Kumar Waghmare (supra) is squarely applicable to the cases in hand, wherein this Court after considering the aforesaid judgments held thus:
“17.The requirement for claiming benefit of State quota as appearing herein was subject matter of consideration before the Apex Court in a case of Yellamalli Venkatapriyanka and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others (supra). In the said judgment, the Division Bench also referred to the judgment of the coordinate Division Bench of this Court delivered in a case of Rajiv Purshottam Wadhwa vs State Of Maharashtra and Ors. (supra) and had observed that, Division Bench in a case of Rajiv Purshottam Wadhwa (supra) was not considering the Rule 4.5 of the said Rule. It was further observed that, after Rajiv Wadhwa (supra) judgment there has been a complete change in the Rules and each of the Rules after Wadhwa's case have been prescribing the eligibility criteria on both counts, namely, residential / domicile and obtaining educational qualifications, in both 10th and 12th standard examinations, cleared from within the State of Maharashtra. It also observed as under:
77.Thus, there is Entry A in the earlier Rule which is substituted by Entry A with its sub-clauses and when it makes a substitution in sub-clause (vii) what it says is notwithstanding anything contained in clause 1 to 5 and 6 for academic year 2016- 17, the candidates complying with the following eligibility conditions shall also be eligible to seek admission for this category. Clause B which has been referred by the Division Bench is without noticing its non obstante clause at all. With its sweep had the clause been noticed or the attention of the Division Bench been invited to it, possibly it would not have rendered a conclusion even at the interlocutory stage as has been rendered and relied upon. Thus, the order of the Division Bench, without noticing a statutory prescription in its entirety, can safely be termed as per curiam and not binding on us. It could not have also been held to be binding on the State and the respondents before us even though acting in furtherance thereof, they may have granted admissions to some students It is only for the academic year 2016-17 that the non obstante clause enables the candidates to comply with the eligibility condition in sub-clauses (a) and (b) of clause 7 of Entry A that the relaxation or exemption would apply. It can have no application to the admissions for the academic year 2018-19 when there is a set of Rules as noticed by us hereinabove and firmly in place. It is in these circumstances that the concession of the learned Assistant Government Pleader given or made before the Nagpur Bench of this Court would not bind the State at all. That is a concession on law. No amount of concession and on a question of law can bind the State Government. It is well settled that in matters of constitutional provisions or interpreting of a law or legal provision, it is only the stand of the Advocate General which would ordinarily bind the State. No other counsel, much less, an Assistant Government Pleader can make any statement of this nature which would bind the State.
21.In the present case, Rule in question lay down the requirements of obtaining education in the State and relaxation has been given to the children of the employee of the Government of Maharashtra or its undertaking who have joined services since beginning at a place situated outside the State of Maharashtra, but who have been transferred to a place situated within the State of Maharashtra shall be eligible for admission, even though such children might have passed HSC or SSC or equivalent examination from the recognized institution situated outside the State of Maharashtra. The relaxation is also provided to the children of the employee of the Government of Maharashtra or its undertaking who have been posted or transferred or deputed to the place situated outside the Maharashtra. Exception granted to these employees would be reasonable.
22.The policy is formulated by the experts in the educational field. This Court would normally not interfere with the educational policy framed by the experts, unless it is shown that, the policy is manifestly unjust, irrational or arbitrary.
23.The Rules do not appear to be arbitrary or unreasonable. Such Rules have also undergone scrutiny of the Apex Court in the case of Rajdeep Ghosh Vs. State of Assam and Others (supra) and the Division Bench of this Court in a case of Yellamalli Venkatapriyanka and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others (supra). The similar rules are held to be violating these judgments.
Similar view is taken by this Court in the case of Maimuna Jawed Quazi (supra) while interpreting selfsame clauses, the relevant observations read thus:
“13.We find that an OMS candidates is one who has passed either 10th Standard (SSC Examination) or 12th Standard (HSC Examination) or both from outside the State of Maharashtra. The complication has occurred because of the use of the word ‘and’ in the said clause before the words ‘who is not domicile of Maharashtra’. In the present case, a copy of the certificate of domicile placed on record indeed shows that the petitioner has a domicile certificate of the State of Maharashtra, but at the same time, it is also an admitted position that she did not pass her 10th Standard (SSC Examination) from the State of Maharashtra. In fact, she passed such examination from outside the State of Maharashtra. Therefore, even if ideally, the word ‘or’ should have existed in the place of ‘and’ in Clause 3(w), that in itself cannot benefit the petitioner, for the simple reason that she does not satisfy the specific requirement of clauses 4.2, 4.5 and 4.6, read together, to be treated as a candidate from the State of Maharashtra.
14.Reliance placed on judgment of this Court in the matter of Miss Anagha Rajesh Naik Vs. State of Goa (supra) and the Supreme Court in the case of Vansh S/o Prakash Dolas Vs. Ministry of Education & the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (supra) can be of no assistance to the petitioner. The facts in those cases are clearly distinguishable. The case of Miss Anagha Rajesh Naik Vs. State of Goa (supra) concerned a different set of rules pertaining to the State of Goa, while the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vansh S/o Prakash Dolas Vs. Ministry of Education & the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (supra) pertained to child of an armed forces employee. As noted hereinabove, the petitioner admittedly does not fall within any of the exceptions as per the Clause 4.7 and 4.8 of the information brochure and therefore she cannot derive any benefit from the said judgment.”
In view of aforesaid discussion and in light of decisions rendered by this Court in the cases of Yash Kumar Waghmare (supra) and Maimuna Jawed Quazi (supra) as well as taking into consideration Rules ‘A’ and ‘B’ of the Rules of 2026, we are of the considered view that, the Petitioners are not eligible for being admitted to the MBBS Course from 85% State quota, since the Petitioners have completed SSC qualification outside the State of Maharashtra. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the Writ Petitions. In the result, the Writ Petitions deserve to be dismissed. Hence, we pass the following order.
ORDER
Both the Writ Petitions are dismissed.
Rule stands discharged.