RAJDEEP GHOSH versus STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 11 S.C.R. 329 · Decided: 17-08-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
329
  RAJDEEP GHOSH
               v.
                    STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.
    (Writ Petition (C) No. 766 of 2018)
     AUGUST 17, 2018
   [ARUN MISHRA AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Medical Colleges and Dental Colleges of Assam (Regulations
of Admission into 1st year MBBS/BDS Courses) Rules, 2017 –
r.3(1)(c) – Eligibility for State quota seats – r.3(1)(c) prescribing
condition of obtaining education from class VII to XII in the State
of Assam – Validity of r.3(1)(c) on the touchstone of Art.14 of the
Constitution – Whether the classification that has been made in
r.3(1)(c) is unreasonable and violative of the provisions contained
in Art.14 of the Constitution and students passing out or obtaining
education in other States have been illegally ousted from the
eligibility criteria prescribed for seats of State quota – Held: The
preference to the State residents cannot  be said to be unintelligible
criteria suffering from vice of arbitrariness in any manner whatsoever
–  r.3(1)(c) framed by the Government of Assam is based on an
intelligible differentia and cannot be said to be discriminatory and
in violation of Art.14 – It is permissible to lay down the essential
educational requirements, residential/domicile in a particular State
in respect of basic courses of MBBS/BDS/Ayurvedic – Thus, r.3(1)(c)
of the Rules is in consonance with the spirit of Art.14 of the
Constitution – Constitution of India – Art.14 – Education –
Admissions.
Dismissing the Petitions, the Court
HELD: 1. This Court has held in various decisions, that it
is permissible to lay down the essential educational requirements,
residential/domicile in a particular State in respect of basic courses
of MBBS/BDS/Ayurvedic. The object sought to be achieved is
that the incumbent must serve the State concerned and for the
emancipation of the educational standards of the people who are
residing in a particular State, such reservation has been upheld
by this Court for the inhabitants of the State and prescription of
  [2018] 11 S.C.R. 329
 329
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
330
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
the condition of obtaining an education in a State. The only
distinction has been made with respect to postgraduate and post-
doctoral super specialty course. [Para 32] [362-A-B]
2. Rule 3(1)(c) of the Medical Colleges and Dental Colleges
of Assam (Regulations of Admission into 1st year MBBS/BDS
Courses) Rules, 2017 lays down the requirement of obtaining
education in the State and relaxation has been given to the wards
of the State Government employees or Central Government
employees or to an employee of Corporation/Agency/
instrumentality under the Government of Assam or the Central
Government, whether on deputation or transfer on regular posting
from obtaining education from class VII to XII for the period his/
her father or mother is working outside the State. As urged on
behalf of the petitioners the employees of other State Government
but residents of Assam, similar relaxation ought to have been
made, cannot be accepted. Thus, their exclusion cannot be said
to be irrational and arbitrary. The wards of the employees in the
service of other States like Government employees of Arunachal
Pradesh, form a totally different class. When the wards are
obtaining education outside and the parents are working in
Arunachal Pradesh as Government employee or elsewhere, they
are not likely to come back to the State of Assam.  As such
Government of Assam holds that they should provide preference
to State residents/institutional preference cannot be said to
unintelligible criteria suffering from vice of arbitrariness in any
manner whatsoever, thus, Rule 3(1)(c) framed by the Government
of Assam is based on an intelligible differentia and cannot be said
to be discriminatory and in violation of Article 14.
[Para 33] [362-C-F]
3. With respect to the private employees also, the
submission was raised that wards of private employees working
outside the State ought to have been placed at the similar footing
as that of the wards of the State Government/Central Government
employees etc. When once parents have moved outside in a
private employment and wards obtaining education outside, they
are not likely to come back, thus, their exclusion as afore-stated
footing cannot be said to be irrational or illegal. [Para 34]
[362-G-H]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
331
4. It was urged that some of the students may obtain
admission in other States for the purpose of better coaching.
Relevant data ha

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.