Supreme Court of India
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS versus DR. SHARVIL THATTE AND OTHERS on 5 April 2018
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
3
Decisions referred to
In this index
2
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1008
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
A
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
v.
DR. SHARVIL THATTE AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 3612 of 2018)
APRIL 05, 2018
B
[ARUN MISHRA AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions – Medical Admissions –Eligibility criteria – Domicile status – Notification issued by Stateof Maharashtra for admission to Postgraduate Medical/DentalCourses in unaided Private Educational Institutions in State ofCMaharashtra – Condition No.(ii) in the eligibility criteria prescribedin the notification stated that the candidate shall be a domicile ofState of Maharashtra – Writ petition filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to9 challenging the same, allowed – On appeal, held: In the Judgmentof Supreme Court dtd. 04.04.2018 in Dr. Kriti Lakhina vs. The StateDOf Karnataka, the challenge to similar condition incorporated inInformation Bulletin issued by State of Karnataka, for admission toPostgraduate Medical/Dental Courses in Government Colleges andin respect of Government quota seats in Private Medical/DentalColleges, has been accepted – View taken by High Court is affirmedand there is no reason to interfere.E
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. By this Court’s Judgment and Order dated04.04.2018 in Dr. Kriti Lakhina vs. The State of Karnataka (WritPetition (Civil) No.204/2018), the challenge to similar conditionincorporated in Information Bulletin issued by State of KarnatakaFfor admission to Postgraduate Medical/Dental Courses inGovernment Colleges and in respect of Government quota seatsin Private Medical/Dental Colleges, was accepted. [Para 6][1010- C]
Dr. Kriti Lakhina v. The State of Karnataka [DecisionGdated 04.04.2018 by Supreme Court in Writ Petition(Civil) No.204/2018]; Dr. Pradeep Jain and Others v.Union of India and Others (1984) 3 SCC 654 : [1984]3 SCR 942; Vishal Goyal and Others v. State ofKarnataka and Others (2014) 11 SCC 456– relied on.
H
Case Law Reference
[1984] 3 SCR 942relied onPara 5(2014) 11 SCC 456relied onPara 5
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3612of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.02.2018 of the High Courtof Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1814 of 2018.
Tushar Mehta, Sr. Adv., Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar,Ms.Deepa M. Kulkarni, Advs. for the Appellants.
Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv., Ms. Pooja Thorat, Satyajit A. Desai, Ms.Anagha S. Desai, Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Ms. Surabhi Guleria, ShakulR. Ghatole, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave seeks to challenge the Judgmentand Order dated 22.02.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature atBombay in Writ Petition No.1814 of 2018.
3. Respondent Nos.1 to 9 herein had filed aforesaid writ petitionchallenging condition No.(ii) in the eligibility criteria prescribed in theNotification dated 30.01.2018 issued by State of Maharashtra foradmission to Postgraduate Medical/Dental Courses in unaided PrivateEducational Institutions in State of Maharashtra. Said condition read asunder:- “(ii) The candidate shall be a domicile of State of Maharashtra.”
4. Similar such condition which was imposed by the StateGovernment for the academic year 2017-18 was stayed by the DivisionBench of the High Court vide Order dated 30.04.2017 in Writ PetitionNo.5283 of 2017, which order was challenged by filing Special LeavePetition (Civil) No.14447 of 2017 in this Court. Said petition was howevernot pressed by the State and was accordingly disposed of by this Courton 05.05.2017.
5. The challenge to the aforesaid condition was accepted by theHigh Court in its judgment under appeal relying principally on the decisions A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Aof this Court rendered in Dr. Pradeep Jain and Others v. Union ofIndia and Others[1]and in Vishal Goyal and Others v. State ofKarnataka and Others[2]. While allowing the petition and setting asidethe condition, the High Court observed:-
“8] It could thus be seen that, it is a settled position in law that,Bthough it will be permissible to provide reservation on the groundof institutional preference, the condition which requires a candidatewho has possessed a graduate degree also to be domiciled in thatState, would not be permissible.”
6. By our Judgment and Order dated 04.04.2018 in Writ PetitionC(Civil) No.204/2018, we have accepted the challenge to similar conditionincorporated in Information Bulletin issued by State of Karnataka foradmission to Postgraduate Medical/Dental Courses in GovernmentColleges and in respect of Government quota seats in Private Medical/Dental Colleges. We have principally relied on the Judgments of thisCourt in Dr. Pradeep Jain (supra) and Vishal Goyal (supra).D
7. In the circumstances, we affirm the view taken by the HighCourt in the present matter and see no reason to interfere. The appealis thus dismissed with no order as to costs.
E
Divya Pandey
Appeal dismissed.
F
G
H
2 (2014) 11 SCC 456