ORAL ORDER : PER ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. Rule. Mr. S.K. Shinde, Government Pleader waives notice for the Respondents-State. 2. The Petitioners have challenged clause 4.6 of MHCET 2014 Information Brochure for admission to Health Science Courses in the State of Maharashtra issued by the Directorate of Medical Education and Research which reads as under: “4.6. Domicile of Maharashtra: Candidates seeking admission to Health Science Course should be Domicile of Maharashtra (Please refer 4.7, 4.8 Annexure “C” & Annexure “E” for exception.)” 3. In view of the urgency expressed that on 25th June, 2014 a list of selected candidates will be published (first round), this order is being passed. 4. Both these Petitions revolve around the challenge to the Rule referred to above as the same is brought out by publishing the same in the Brochure in March, 2014. 5. Both the Petitioners, in view of migration of their parents from different States to the State of Maharashtra sometime in the year 2007, have taken education in Maharashtra State from Standard VII to Standard XII and passed Standard XII Examinations in March, 2013. Both the Petitioners have passed their Standard X Examination in May, 2011. 6. Similar Brochure for admission for the courses in question which were published for earlier years nowhere mentions the requirement of Domicile Certificate of the State of Maharashtra and only requires the candidate to have passed Standard X and Standard XII in State of Maharashtra. Even while taking admission to Standard X, Standard XI and even Standard XII there is no requirement of submitting such Domicile Certificate. 7. The Petitioners, for the purpose of illustration have annexed to the Petitions a copy of Notification issued by the Government of Maharashtra dated 3rd March, 2011 with sets out a Table showing Eligibility for Health Science Courses of Candidates who have passed SSC (10th Standard) and/or HSC (12th Standard) or equivalent Examination from the State of Maharashtra and/or from outside Maharashtra, the relevant portion of which is produced below: S.No. HSC SSC Domicile in State of Maharashtra Eligibility Exceptions 1 M M Not Required Eligible for Health Science Courses Not Applicable 2 M O Yes (Candidate's Domicile Certificate Required) Eligible for Health Science Course (Rule 4.6) Not Applicable . . . M = From Maharashtra, O = From Outside Maharashtra. 8. . . M = From Maharashtra, O = From Outside Maharashtra. 8. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents – State conceded to the position that such Rule was in existence for more than 20 years and there was thus no requirement of submission of Domicile Certificate for candidates who have passed Standard X and Standard XII in the State of Maharashtra, earlier. 9. Therefore, there was a consistent practice and representation made to the people at large and basically to the students on who are interested in pursuing their career in this field that for getting admission for this course, the basic eligibility criterion is that the student must pass SSC Examination from an institution of the State of Maharashtra and so also the last qualifying Examination i.e. Standard XII. Both the Petitioners fulfill this eligibility as they have passed their Examinations from State of Maharashtra. 10. The Petitioners, as per the existing Information Brochure and Circular, applied for MHCET (Maharashtra Common Entrance Test) for Health Science Courses and they appeared for the Examination on 8th May, 2014. The results are also declared on 5th June, 2014. A statement is also made that both the Petitioners are in the zone of consideration. 11. The Petitioners filed present Writ Petition No.4555 of 2014 on 17th April, 2014 and Writ Petition No.4557 of 2014 on 28th April, 2014 respectively. By order dated 16th June, 2014, pursuant to the statement recorded on instructions, we had permitted the Petitioners to participate in counselling. 12. The Respondents by separate Reply dated 23rd June, 2014 resisted the Petitions as well as grant of any reliefs, principally on the ground that the Government has power to bring any policy and/or to change/ amend the rules in question. Submission is also made that in view of judgment in the case of Dr. Pradeep Jain and Others vs. Union of India and others, [ (1984) 3 SCC 654 ], the policy which they have brought is within the framework of law. Therefore, there is no question of accepting the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the Respondents are bound by the principles of “promissory estoppel” and/or “legitimate expectation”. Pradeep Jain and Others vs. Union of India and others, [ (1984) 3 SCC 654 ], the policy which they have brought is within the framework of law. Therefore, there is no question of accepting the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the Respondents are bound by the principles of “promissory estoppel” and/or “legitimate expectation”. The Petitioners having participated in the MHCET 2014 Examination on 8th May, 2014 itself shows that they were fully aware of the rules and so also for the reasons that the same were already published in March, 2014. 13. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners relied upon the following judgments: i) Nikhil Himthani vs. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 10 SCC 237 ; ii) Dr. Dinesh Kumar and others vs. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad and others, (1985) 3 SCC 22 ; iii) Rajiv Purushottam Wadhwa vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2002 (Supp.) Bom. C.R. 508. 14. Learned Government Pleader also relied upon the decisions in the case of Dr. Pradeep Jain and Others vs. Union of India and others, [ (1984) 3 SCC 654 ] and Monnet Ispat and Energy Limited vs. Union of India and others, (2012) 11 SCC 1 . 15. The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court need no discussion as it is settled position of law. So also the Respondents' power. We are concerned with the facts and circumstances of the instant case which are apparent, distinct and distinguishable in view of above admitted position itself. 16. For want of required material on record, we are not inclined to adjudicate on the reason for the State Government to amend the rules at this stage which affects the prospects of such students who had opted and made a choice of selecting a career atleast from Standard VIII or Standard IX or Standard X. That will be considered after filing detailed additional affidavit by the Respondents. The reasons for bringing such policy/amendment to the rules which is detrimental to the students like the Petitioners who based on the earlier rules/brochures, have taken education in State of Maharashtra and passed the Standard X and Standard XII Examinations. In the present case, there is no denial to the fact that there was no such condition put earlier by the Respondents for such admission to Health Science Courses. In the present case, there is no denial to the fact that there was no such condition put earlier by the Respondents for such admission to Health Science Courses. There was neither any express representation and/or notice to the people/students at large by the Respondents, that for getting a admission to Health Science Courses, the candidates, should be Domicile of Maharashtra for last 15 preceding years. In the State of Maharashtra, by the impugned amended rule even the candidates like Petitioners require such Domicile Certificate of Maharashtra, though they are otherwise eligible for the course based on their qualifications to appear for MHCET Examination. Both these Petitioners are not in a position to get the said Domicile Certificate as according to the learned Government Pleader for getting such Domicile Certificate, it is necessary that a citizen of India should have 15 years of continuous stay in the State of Maharashtra and evidence should be placed on record that he has intention to acquire Domicile of the State of Maharashtra and he has relinquished his original domicile acquired by birth or otherwise. The term 'Domicile' has various facets based upon the respective provisions of different Acts. 17. Though a reference is made to this criterion, there is nothing satisfactory placed on record to justify 15 years criterion as a necessary and essential condition for issuance of Domicile Certificate so as to procure admission to medical course. The Petitioners, when appeared in the Examinations of Standard X and Standard XII nothing was mentioned and pointed out even earlier years that they would never get such admissions in such courses for want of 15 years of stay in Maharashtra. The Petitioners like persons were eligible to get the admission in Maharashtra for such course till last year. Therefore, to put such abrupt condition, in our view, is definitely causing great injustice and hardship to the Petitioners as they are not entitled and/or qualified to get admission for such courses in the State of Maharashtra for the year 2014-15. The situation is further worsened as, now, they will not be in a position, as contended, to participate in any of the admission process in any State including their parent State for the medical course. 18. The Petitioners are residing in the State of Maharashtra since last more than 7 to 8 years. The situation is further worsened as, now, they will not be in a position, as contended, to participate in any of the admission process in any State including their parent State for the medical course. 18. The Petitioners are residing in the State of Maharashtra since last more than 7 to 8 years. Their parents have already migrated and have bought property in the State of Maharashtra and they have definite intention to stay in Maharashtra, as contended. The Petitioners have studied in the State of Maharashtra atleast from Standard VII. In view of the above, they cannot be made to suffer their future career by bringing in such abrupt condition which is just not possible for them to comply with. The situation would have been different, had the Respondents by giving proper notice and advertisement/circulation to people/students at large that whosoever wants such admission in the State of Maharashtra basically in Medical courses, must have 15 years of stay in the State of Maharashtra. They should have made the same known to the Petitioners atleast at the time of admission to Standard X and Standard XII Examinations which are essential conditions for getting admission to this course. On the contrary, till the impugned Rule, the representation was always that whosoever complies with the eligibility, as recorded above, will be considered for this course. To say now therefore that they have never made any representation and there is no question of breach of doctrine of 'promissory estoppel' and/or 'legitimate expectation' in our view, is unacceptable. The Petitioners based on the earlier rule and consistent representations so made have acted upon and completed their education of Standard X and Standard XII from an institution in the State of Maharashtra and opted for Science stream in the hope of becoming doctor. Now it is difficult for them to reverse the position and/or restore the position by any means. 19. We just cannot overlook the fact of life and basically the younger generation and/or young students, who decide their future career based on their existing position, as well as, rules and regulations declared from time to time by the authorities like the Respondents. 19. We just cannot overlook the fact of life and basically the younger generation and/or young students, who decide their future career based on their existing position, as well as, rules and regulations declared from time to time by the authorities like the Respondents. It is common knowledge that for getting admission in Medical College, the preparation begins even prior to getting admission to Standard X. This position/situation therefore, in our view, is a sufficient reason to consider the case of the Petitioners at this stage and if no appropriate relief and order is passed, the Petitioners would suffer great injustice and hardship which just cannot be compensated in terms of money as they just cannot reverse the position and the time they spent for studying this course. 20. The Respondents being concerned with higher standard of education in medical field, from time to time, based on the material and reasons available to them, declare the policies. But such policy/Rules should not have the affect of destroying the career of the students in such fashion. Therefore, in the guise of the power and authority, we are inclined to record that such policy and amendment to the Rules, if any, in view of the above facts, cannot create hurdle in permitting the Petitioners from pursuing any medical course in this academic year 2014-15. 21. This action on the part of the Respondents which, in our view, basically from the point of view of the Petitioners who are the persons aggrieved, is nothing but use of unreasonable and arbitrary power. This is basically for the reason that they have brought in such Rule abruptly without giving proper communication and notice to the people/students at large to enable them to take the course of their choice. 22. It is relevant to note that both the Petitioners had given MHCET Examination in the year 2013 also, and though selected for BDS and MBBS courses in private Medical colleges, they did not take the admission and had taken a drop for admission to better/suitable colleges as at that time those Rules were not in existence. Now they are faced with a situation where they are permanently denied admission in the medical course in the State of Maharashtra for want of such Domicile Certificate, which was never the requirement till last year. 23. Now they are faced with a situation where they are permanently denied admission in the medical course in the State of Maharashtra for want of such Domicile Certificate, which was never the requirement till last year. 23. It is also relevant to note as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners that for getting admission even in the respective parent States, they have to pass Standard X and Standard XII Examination which is not possible for them and, therefore, the situation is that they are not in a position to get the admission in any part of the country because of such abrupt policy declared by the Respondents for the year 2014. It is not possible for them now to get Domicile Certificate of the parent State also. Therefore, at this stage, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the following order is passed by way of interim relief: ORDER i) The Respondents are directed to consider the case of the Petitioners for admission to Health Science Course as applied in the State merit list, if otherwise eligible, without insisting for Domicile Certificate and their case be considered according to merit. ii) The Respondents to file detailed additional affidavit on or before 22nd July, 2014. iii) It is made clear that there is no question of claiming any equity and the admission of the Petitioners shall be subject to further orders. iv) Stand over to 22nd July, 2014. v) Parties to act upon the authenticated copy of this order. vi) The concerned Respondents/officers are present in Court and for want of a copy of this order should not be reason for not considering the case of the Petitioners for admission.