Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 757 (MP)

Vidhi Newalkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2016-08-31

S.C.SHARMA, VED PRAKASH SHARMA

body2016
ORDER : S.C. Sharma, J. The petitioners before this Court have filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the Regulation framed by the State Government published in the Official Gazette on 24th August, 2016 in respect of admissions to Private Medical Colleges. 2. The contention of the petitioners is that they appeared in the National Eligibility Entrance Examination (NEET), conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) and their result were declared on 16/8/2016. Petitioners belong to unreserved category. The petitioners have obtained Rank in the examination as detailed hereinunder : S.No. Name of the Student Rank Obtained 1 Vidhi D/o Dr. Prashant Newalkar 680 2 Himanshi D/o Dr. Ravi Masand 1065 3 Vedant S/o Ajay Maheshwari 632 4 Sanchita D/o Dr. Kapil Kochar 875 5 Vishan S/o Dr. Pankaj Bhandari 1325 6 Jahnavi D/o Dr. Ramesh Sehta 851 7 Madhura Upasni D/o Milind Upasni 2234 8 Nehil Shrivastav S/o Vivek Shrivastav 682 9 Ravleen Kaur D/o Dr. Sabarwal 1104 10 Nischay Bandi S/o Dr. Kush Bandi 1456 11 Prabhash Gangrade S/o Nitin Gangrade 1805 3. The contention of the petitioners is that the State Government has issued a Notification prescribing a procedure, eligibility, reservation etc., in respect of private medical colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh and Clause 6 of the aforesaid Notification reads as under : ^^6- ik=rk & 1- vH;FkhZ Hkkjr dk ukxfjd gks] 2- vkjf{kr oxZ ds vH;fFkZ;ksa dks e/; izns'k dk ewy fuoklh gksuk vfuok;Z gS rFkk e/; izns'k ds l{ke vf/kdkjh }kjk tkjh fd;k gqvk tkfr izek.k i= vfuok;Z gSA e/; izns'k lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx ea=ky; ds i= dzekad lh&3&7&2013&3&1 Hkksiky fnukad 25 flrEcj 2014 ds vuqlkj ¼ifjf'k"V&17½ e/;izns'k ds LFkkuh; fuoklh dh ik=rk ds fy;s fuEu esa ls fdlh ,d ekin.M dh iwfrZ vko';d gksxhA d & vkosnd e/; izns'k esa iSnk gqvk gks] [k & vkosnd e/; izns'k esa foxr de ls de 10 o"kZ ls fujUrj fuokljr gksA** 4. The petitioners' grievance is that by virtue of the aforesaid Notification, a student who is not a domicile of the State of Madhya Pradesh can be given admission in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioners' grievance is that by virtue of the aforesaid Notification, a student who is not a domicile of the State of Madhya Pradesh can be given admission in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Petitioners' have further stated that in some of the States, namely; State of Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Gujarat, the State has provided a Regulation to cater the needs of domicile students and they have protected the interest of students in their State and, therefore, Clause 6(1) of the Regulations of 2016 (Annexure P/2) which provides eligibility criteria in an unaided private medical college in the State of Madhya Pradesh, be quashed. The other prayer made is for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to issue a fresh Notification permitting the students who are domicile of the State of Madhya Pradesh to get preference for admission in unaided private medical colleges. 5. Mr. Subodh Abhyankar, learned counsel for the petitioner was heard at length. In sum and substance, his arguments were that a child who is born in the State of Madhya Pradesh, brought up in the State of Madhya Pradesh and is a domicile of the State of Madhya Pradesh should be given a preferential treatment. He has also raised various other grounds. 6. In the State of Madhya Pradesh in respect of Medical Colleges which are exclusively under the domain of the State Government, there is a requirement of domicile, however, in respect of private colleges, the requirement of domicile is not in existence for General Category candidates. The colleges of the State Government are exclusively funded by the State Government. The fee charged is very reasonable and as the State is having overall control over the Government Medical Colleges, is certainly free to adopt a procedure within the constitutional framework in respect of admission, meaning thereby, reservation can be done in respect Government Medical and Dental Colleges for students who are domicile of the State of Madhya Pradesh. 7. So far as the private medical colleges are concerned, they do not receive any financial aid from the State Government and to establish a private medical college, heavy expenditure is incurred. A child who is born in the State of Assam, Tripura and Manipur or in any of the North Eastern State has certainly got a right to study in the State of Madhya Pradesh. A child who is born in the State of Assam, Tripura and Manipur or in any of the North Eastern State has certainly got a right to study in the State of Madhya Pradesh. A tendency which is growing up in the society ie., regionalism, is a threat to democracy. People talk about my city, my caste and my State, which is certainly not permissible in a democratic set up. The reservation can certainly be done for people belonging to the weaker sections of the society, people belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, as per the Constitutional provisions. But, for General Category in respect of private colleges, as argued by the learned counsel, no such preferential treatment is desirable nor permissible under the law and a child from Arunachal is equally entitled to get admission in the State of Madhya Pradesh like any other child who belongs to the State of Madhya Pradesh and who has qualified National Eligibility Entrance Test. The State Government in its wisdom is certainly justified in issuing the Regulation and the Regulation permits a Citizen of India who has qualified the NEET Examination for grant of admission, subject to his placement in the Merit List. Such a Clause, by no stretch of imagination, can be treated as unconstitutional, nor it can be quashed by this Court. 8. It is true that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Mandamus lies to quash a Notification, Order, Rule, Scheme etc., or any other form of subordinate legislation, where it is ultra vires : (State of Karnataka v. Ganesh reported in AIR 1983 U.J.S.C. 345). However, the Rules in question, by no stretch of imagination, violates the fundamental rights or any other limitations imposed by the Constitution. It is not a case where Rules have been framed by an Authority not competent to do so, nor the Rules have been framed acting upon irrelevant considerations. It has also been argued before this Court that the State Government be directed to issue a fresh Notification providing reservation/ preferential treatment to the students who are domicile of the State of Madhya Pradesh. It has also been argued before this Court that the State Government be directed to issue a fresh Notification providing reservation/ preferential treatment to the students who are domicile of the State of Madhya Pradesh. In the case of Supreme Court Employees v. Union of India reported in (AIR 1990 SC 338) and in the case of Narinder v. Administrator reported in ( AIR 1971 SC 2399 ), the apex Court has held that a mandamus will not be issued to direct a subordinate legislative authority to enact or not to enact a Rule, Order or Notification which it is competent to enact. 9. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, admission is declined.