Supreme Court Allows Admission for Son of BSF Personnel: Vansh vs. Ministry of Education (2024)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a candidate, domiciled in Maharashtra, whose parent is employed with the Border Security Force (BSF) and posted outside the state, can be denied admission to a state quota medical seat, despite meeting all other eligibility criteria.
CASE TYPE: Education Law, specifically relating to medical admissions.
Case Name: Vansh S/O Prakash Dolas vs. The Ministry of Education & The Ministry of Health & Family Welfare & Ors.
[Judgment Date]: March 20, 2024

Date of the Judgment: March 20, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 235
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., Rajesh Bindal, J., and Sandeep Mehta, J. The judgment was authored by Sandeep Mehta, J.

Can a student be denied a medical seat simply because their parent’s job requires them to be posted outside their home state? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving a student whose father serves in the Border Security Force (BSF). This judgment clarifies the rights of children of central government employees, particularly those in the armed forces, regarding state domicile and admission to educational institutions. The Court’s decision emphasizes fairness and the need to avoid arbitrary discrimination in educational admissions.

Case Background

Vansh, the appellant, is a resident of Maharashtra. His father is a Head Constable in the BSF. Due to his father’s postings outside Maharashtra, Vansh completed his 10th and 12th standard education from schools outside the state. He applied for the NEET-UG 2023 exam, seeking admission to an MBBS course under the Maharashtra state quota, specifically in the Other Backward Class/Non-Creamy Layer (OBC/NCL) category. Vansh was initially selected and allotted a seat at a college (respondent No. 6) on August 4, 2023, after which he paid the admission fees. However, on August 9, 2023, the college cancelled his admission without prior notice or a hearing.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Vansh challenged the cancellation of his admission by filing a writ petition before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. He argued that he was eligible for an exception under clause 4.8 of the NEET UG-2023 Information Brochure, which pertains to children of employees of the Government of India. The High Court dismissed his petition, stating that he did not meet the requirements of clauses 4.8 and 9.4.4 of the brochure because he did not apply under the “Children of Defence Personnel” category. Vansh then filed a review application, which was also rejected. Subsequently, he appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of clause 4.8 of the NEET UG-2023 Information Brochure, which provides an exception for children of employees of the Government of India or its Undertakings. It states:

“4.8.1 The children of the employees of Government of India or its Undertaking shall be eligible for admission even though they might have passed the S.S.C. (Std.X) and/or H.S.C. (Std. XII) or equivalent exam from the recognized Institutions situated outside the State of Maharashtra, provided that such an employee of Government of India or its Undertaking must have been transferred from outside State of Maharashtra at a place of work, located in the State of Maharashtra and also must have reported for duty and must be working as on the last date of Document verification at a place located in Maharashtra.”

The Supreme Court noted that while this clause provides a relaxation for children of central government employees, it also imposes a condition that the employee must be transferred to and working in Maharashtra at the time of document verification. This condition, the Court observed, creates a situation that is impossible for many candidates to meet, especially those whose parents are in the armed forces or paramilitary forces.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the High Court wrongly categorized his claim under the “Children of Defence Personnel” category. Instead, he sought admission under the OBC/NCL category as a domicile of Maharashtra.
• He contended that he fulfilled all the criteria for admission under the state quota and was wrongly denied admission.
• He relied on previous judgments of the Bombay High Court, specifically Archana Sudhakar Mandulkar v. Dean, Govt. Medical College, Nagpur and others and Rajiv Purshottam Wadhwa v. State of Maharashtra, which had provided relief to similarly situated candidates.
• He argued that the requirement of the parent being posted in Maharashtra was arbitrary and discriminatory, as the place of deployment of a BSF personnel is not in their control.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the appellant was not eligible for admission under the OBC/NCL category because he did not meet the criteria of clauses 4.5, 4.6, and 4.8 of the Information Brochure.
• They contended that since the appellant did not apply under the “Children of Defence Personnel” quota, he could not be considered for admission under that category.
• The respondents relied on clause 9.4.4 of the guidelines, which stated that candidates cannot claim a category of reservation that they did not select in their application form.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the main issue before the Court was:

1. Whether the condition in clause 4.8.1 of the Information Brochure, requiring the parent to be transferred to and working in Maharashtra, is arbitrary and discriminatory, particularly for children of central government employees serving in paramilitary forces.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court dealt with the issue:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Archana Sudhakar Mandulkar v. Dean, Govt. Medical College, Nagpur and others [1986 SCC OnLine Bom 262]: The Court followed the reasoning of this case, where the High Court had read down a similar rule.
• Rajiv Purshottam Wadhwa v. State of Maharashtra [2000 SCC Online Bom 359]: The Court noted that this case had examined a similar set of rules and provided relief to the candidates therein who were similarly circumstanced as the appellant.
• Manoj Kumar v. Union of India and Others [2024 SCC OnLine SC 163]: The Court relied on this case to discuss the concept of restitutive relief and the duty of the court to address the consequences of arbitrary actions.
• S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others [(2017) 4 SCC 516]: The Court used this case to examine the issue of wrongful denial of admission in a medical course and the theory of ‘restitutive justice’.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Arbitrariness of the Condition: The Court found the condition in clause 4.8.1 of the Information Brochure, requiring the parent to be transferred to and working in Maharashtra, to be arbitrary and discriminatory. It noted that the place of posting for a parent in the armed forces is not within their control.
• Discrimination: The Court observed that the condition created an invidious distinction between two classes of central government employees: those posted in Maharashtra and those posted outside. This distinction had no nexus with the object of the rules.
• Domicile: The Court emphasized that the appellant was a domicile of Maharashtra and was eligible for admission under the state quota, but for the arbitrary condition.
• Principles of Natural Justice: The Court noted that the college had cancelled the appellant’s admission without providing a notice or a hearing, which violated the principles of natural justice.
• Restitutive Justice: The Court considered the concept of restitutive justice, as discussed in Manoj Kumar v. Union of India and Others and S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, to provide relief to the appellant for the wrongful denial of admission.

The Court’s reasoning was driven by the need to ensure fairness and prevent arbitrary discrimination in educational admissions. The Court recognized that the appellant was a meritorious candidate who had been wrongly denied admission due to a condition that was beyond his control.

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered the argument that the appellant did not apply under the “Children of Defence Personnel” category. However, the Court noted that the appellant had applied under the OBC/NCL category as a domicile of Maharashtra. The Court also noted that the condition in clause 4.8.1 created a situation that was impossible for the appellant to meet, as the place of posting of his father was not within his control.

The Court rejected the argument that the appellant was not eligible for admission under the OBC/NCL category. The Court held that the appellant was eligible for admission but for the arbitrary condition in clause 4.8.1.

The Court relied on the previous judgments of the Bombay High Court in Archana Sudhakar Mandulkar and Rajiv Purshottam Wadhwa, which had provided relief to similarly situated candidates. The Court also relied on the principles of restitutive justice, as discussed in Manoj Kumar v. Union of India and Others and S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, to provide relief to the appellant.

The Court concluded that the appellant was entitled to restoration of his seat in the first year of the MBBS (UG) course in the same college in the next session, i.e., NEET UG-2024.

The Supreme Court stated, “We feel that this condition as imposed by the guidelines, creates a stipulation which would be impossible for the candidate or his parent to fulfill. It may be reiterated that the place of posting is not within the control of the employee or the candidate. Thus, the distinction drawn by the clause between two categories of employees in the Government of India services (i) those posted in Maharashtra and (ii) those posted outside Maharashtra has no nexus with the intent and purpose of the guidelines/ rules and hence the same deserves to be read down to such extent.”

The Court further stated, “Thus, this Court has no hesitation in providing that the candidate (s) who are born in Maharashtra and whose parents are also domicile of the State of Maharashtra and are employees of the Government of India or its Undertaking, such candidate (s) would be entitled to a seat under the Maharashtra State quota irrespective of the place of posting of the parent (s) because the place of deployment would not be under the control of the candidate or his parents.”

The Court also observed, “Undisputably, the appellant has been illegally deprived from his rightful admission in the first year of the MBBS course owing to the insensitive, unjust, illegal and arbitrary approach of the respondents and so also on account of the delay occasioned in the judicial process.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has clarified that children of central government employees, particularly those in the armed forces or paramilitary forces, cannot be denied state quota admissions solely based on their parent’s place of posting.
• The Court emphasized that arbitrary conditions in admission guidelines that create impossible situations for candidates are not permissible.
• The principle of restitutive justice was applied to provide relief to the appellant for the wrongful denial of admission.
• The Court directed the creation of an additional seat for the appellant in the next academic session to ensure that no other candidate is deprived of their seat.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• The impugned orders of the Bombay High Court were set aside.
• The appellant was to be provided admission in the ‘OBC category domicile of State of Maharashtra child of person serving the Government of India’ in the first year of the MBBS (UG) course commencing from the year 2024 by creating an additional seat.
• The Court directed that until suitable rectification is made in the guidelines/rules, candidates who are domiciles of Maharashtra and whose parents are domiciles of Maharashtra and employed in the Central Government or its Undertaking, defence services, and/or paramilitary forces, and are posted anywhere in the country, shall be entitled to a seat in the MBBS course under the Maharashtra State quota.
• Respondent No.6-College and respondent No.5-State of Maharashtra were directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1 lakh (Rs. 50,000 each) to the appellant for the deprivation of one year and harassment due to the illegal and arbitrary cancellation of his admission.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a candidate who is a domicile of Maharashtra and whose parents are also domiciled in Maharashtra and are employees of the Government of India or its Undertaking, is entitled to a seat under the Maharashtra State quota irrespective of the place of posting of the parent(s). This judgment clarifies and expands the scope of clause 4.8 of the NEET UG-2023 Information Brochure by reading down the condition that the parent must be transferred to and working in Maharashtra at the time of document verification. This decision ensures that meritorious candidates are not denied admissions due to factors beyond their control, thus promoting fairness and equal opportunity in education. The Supreme Court has also reaffirmed the principle of restitutive justice, which aims to provide relief to those who have been wronged by arbitrary or illegal actions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Vansh S/O Prakash Dolas vs. The Ministry of Education & The Ministry of Health & Family Welfare & Ors. is a significant step towards ensuring fair and equitable access to education for children of central government employees, especially those serving in the armed forces. By reading down the arbitrary condition in the NEET UG-2023 Information Brochure, the Court has protected the rights of meritorious candidates and upheld the principles of justice and equality. This decision also emphasizes the importance of avoiding discriminatory practices in educational admissions.