Summary
A Maharashtra-domiciled NEET candidate could not be denied State-quota eligibility because his BSF-employed father was posted outside Maharashtra and he studied there. The return-posting condition was read down; his OBC claim had wrongly been treated as a belated defence-quota claim. Cancellation without a hearing was illegal. As the academic session had substantially progressed, the Court directed admission through an additional seat in the same college in 2024 and awarded Rs.1 lakh compensation for losing a year.
Issues
- Whether the parent’s posting outside Maharashtra could defeat the domiciled candidate’s State-quota eligibility.
- Whether the claim involved a late change to the defence reservation category.
- What restitution was appropriate after the ongoing session had progressed.
Provisions considered
- Clause 4.8.1, Maharashtra NEET-UG 2023 Information BrochureThe requirement that a Central Government-employed parent be transferred back and working in Maharashtra by document verification was read down for the specified domiciled candidates and parents. (¶¶ 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 29)
- Clause 9.4.4, Maharashtra NEET-UG 2023 Information BrochureThe bar on a late specified-reservation claim did not answer the appellant’s actual claim under the Maharashtra domicile OBC/NCL category; he was not seeking a late defence-quota change. (¶¶ 7, 9, 16, 22)
- Equality and natural justice, Constitution of IndiaA posting outside the family’s control could not justify the discriminatory eligibility distinction. Cancellation without notice or an opportunity to show cause was also illegal and arbitrary. (¶¶ 16, 20, 21, 22)
Held
- The appellant and his parents were Maharashtra domiciles. His schooling outside the State resulted from his father’s BSF deployment, which neither could control. Making eligibility turn on a return posting by document verification created an arbitrary distinction unrelated to the admission rules’ purpose. The return-posting condition therefore required reading down. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 20, 21)
- The appellant had submitted OBC/NCL credentials and obtained admission on merit under the Maharashtra State quota. The High Court wrongly treated his case as an attempt belatedly to invoke the children-of-defence-personnel reservation. The college’s cancellation without notice and a hearing was independently unlawful. (¶¶ 16, 17, 22)
- Until suitable rectification of the guidelines, the Court directed eligibility for Maharashtra-domiciled candidates with recognised SSC and/or HSC qualifications whose Maharashtra-domiciled parents served the Central Government or its undertakings, defence services or paramilitary forces, irrespective of their posting anywhere in the country at document verification. This addressed the posting and schooling barrier within the State-quota framework. (¶ 29)
- Constitutional relief should address the consequences of illegal administrative action even when time makes the original relief unavailable. The candidate promptly challenged cancellation the next day, but the session had advanced more than six months and no State-quota seat remained vacant. Current-session admission was therefore inappropriate; next-session restoration was warranted. (¶¶ 17, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28)
- The appellant was to receive first-year MBBS admission in the same college in the 2024 session through an additional seat in the specified Maharashtra-domicile OBC category, protecting seats available to successful NEET-UG 2024 candidates. The college and State were each directed to pay Rs.50,000, totalling Rs.1 lakh compensation. (¶¶ 28, 30, 32)
- The impugned orders were set aside and the appeals allowed. The admission and compensation directions were restitutive relief for this wrongful cancellation. (¶¶ 30, 31, 32)
Result
Appeals allowed; impugned orders set aside. Additional-seat admission in the same college directed for the 2024 MBBS session, with Rs.1 lakh compensation payable equally by the college and Maharashtra. Interim eligibility directions issued pending correction of the guidelines.