STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS versus DR. SHARVIL THATTE AND OTHERS

Citation: [2018] 3 S.C.R. 1008 · Decided: 05-04-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1008
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
v.
DR. SHARVIL THATTE AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 3612 of 2018)
APRIL 05, 2018
[ARUN MISHRA AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions – Medical Admissions –
Eligibility criteria – Domicile status – Notification issued by State
of Maharashtra for admission to Postgraduate Medical/Dental
Courses in unaided Private Educational Institutions in State of
Maharashtra – Condition No.(ii) in the eligibility criteria prescribed
in the notification stated that the candidate shall be a domicile of
State of Maharashtra – Writ petition filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to
9 challenging the same, allowed – On appeal, held: In the Judgment
of Supreme Court dtd. 04.04.2018 in Dr. Kriti Lakhina vs. The State
Of Karnataka, the challenge to similar condition incorporated in
Information Bulletin issued by State of Karnataka, for admission to
Postgraduate Medical/Dental Courses in Government Colleges and
in respect of Government quota seats in Private Medical/Dental
Colleges, has been accepted  – View taken by High Court is affirmed
and there is no reason to interfere.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. By this Court’s Judgment and Order dated
04.04.2018 in Dr. Kriti Lakhina vs. The State of Karnataka (Writ
Petition (Civil) No.204/2018), the challenge to similar condition
incorporated in Information Bulletin issued by State of Karnataka
for admission to Postgraduate Medical/Dental Courses in
Government Colleges and in respect of Government quota seats
in Private Medical/Dental Colleges, was accepted. [Para 6][1010-
C]
Dr. Kriti Lakhina v. The State of Karnataka [Decision
dated 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 of
Karnataka and Others (2014) 11 SCC 456– relied on.
[2018] 3 S.C.R. 1008
1008
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1009
Case Law Reference
[1984] 3 SCR 942
relied on
Para 5
(2014) 11 SCC 456
relied on
Para 5
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3612
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.02.2018 of the High Court
of 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, Shakul
R. 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 Judgment
and Order dated 22.02.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay in Writ Petition No.1814 of 2018.
3. Respondent Nos.1 to 9 herein had filed aforesaid writ petition
challenging condition No.(ii) in the eligibility criteria prescribed in the
Notification dated 30.01.2018 issued by State of Maharashtra for
admission to Postgraduate Medical/Dental Courses in unaided Private
Educational Institutions in State of Maharashtra.  Said condition read as
under:-
“(ii) The candidate shall be a domicile of State of Maharashtra.”
4. Similar such condition which was imposed by the State
Government for the academic year 2017-18 was stayed by the Division
Bench of the High Court vide Order dated 30.04.2017 in Writ Petition
No.5283 of 2017, which order was challenged by filing Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No.14447 of 2017 in this Court.  Said petition was however
not pressed by the State and was accordingly disposed of by this Court
on 05.05.2017.
5. The challenge to the aforesaid condition was accepted by the
High Court in its judgment under appeal relying principally on the decisions
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. DR. SHARVIL THATTE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1010
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
of this Court rendered in Dr. Pradeep Jain and Others v. Union of
India and Others1and in Vishal Goyal and Others v. State of
Karnataka and Others2.  While allowing the petition and setting aside
the condition, the High Court observed:-
“8] It could thus be seen that, it is a settled position in law that,
though it will be permissible to provide reservation on the ground
of institutional preference, the condition which requires a candidate
who has possessed a graduate degree also to be domiciled in that
State, would not be permissible.”
6. By our Judgment and Order dated 04.04.2018 in Writ Petition
(Civil) N
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.