SC nixes Maharashtra, Karnataka domicile rule for PG medical seats

It was a day of big relief for medical post-graduate aspirants in Maharashtra and Karnataka on Wednesday in the Supreme Court. The apex court quashed a discriminatory notification issued by Karnataka making a minimum 10-year study in the state mandatory to qualify for government seats in PG medical courses and declined to interfere with a Bombay high court order that had quashed a similar eligibility criteria for aspirants in Maharashtra.
The SC dismissed the Maharashtra government's plea seeking to challenge the February high court order that had quashed a new rule which barred non-domiciled medical graduates from state colleges from seeking admission to post-graduate (PG) courses in the state.

This is the second setback for the state in its attempt to bring in domicile as an eligibility criterion for medical PG seats.

Last year, too, the HC's vacation bench had stayed a notification that overnight rendered more than 700 candidates ineligible for admissions just three days before merit lists were put up. Then, too, the SC had refused to intervene when the state had turned to it.

The SC also struck down a Karnataka-origin criterion and asked the state to issue a fresh notification for NEET-PG admissions to make out-of-state candidates who have completed their undergraduate courses there and are seeking state quota PG seats in medical or dental colleges, eligible for seats as per NEET rankings.

"We've convened a meeting of stakeholders on Thursday, and will soon issue a fresh notification," said Dr Sachidanand, director of medical education department later in Karnataka. The SC observed that the Karnataka notificate violates Article 14-right to equality.

The state had brought in the new rule through a government resolution (GR) in November 2017, hoping that the ample time before admissions would work in its favour.

But students, along with Dr Sharvil Thatte from Madhya Pradesh who had done his MBBS from Maharashtra, challenged the new rule and succeeded in having it set aside.

On February 22, the HC bench of Justices Bhushan Gavai and B P Colabawalla quashed the January 29 and 30, 2018, notifications that rendered non-domiciled, out-of-state medical PG candidate ineligible for admission in government, civic and private institutions for medical education. The HC held, "It is a well-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 post-graduate degree also to be domiciled in that state, would not be permissible."

Not willing to give up, though, the state moved SC in a bid to restore the domicile condition for admissions to the forthcoming academic year.

Its main argument was that out-of-state students were unlikely to serve the state public health system after completing medical PG courses in Maharashtra, which is facing a shortage of doctors.

After hearing counsel Tushar Mehta with Nishant Katneshwarkar for the state government and counsel Shyam Divan with Pooja Thorat for Dr Sharvil Thatte and other non-domiciled students who were petitioners in the HC, an SC bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Uday Lalit said, "We do not see any reason to interfere. The SLP is dismissed."

From April 2017, the state government has been trying to bring in domicile as a criterion for admissions to PG medical courses. While state-run medical colleges have 50% state and 50% all India quota, private institutions have 50% state and 50% institutional quota, which includes 15% for NRIs.

A November 15, 2017, notice issued by the Director of Medical Education & Research (DMER) made all non-domiciled students graduating from Maharashtra "ineligible for admission to post-graduate courses in government as well as private medical colleges". Subsequently, Dr Thatte and eight other medical graduates who were rendered ineligible to apply for PG seat within the state quota approached the high court. The petition annexed a list of 150 affected students. They argued that the rule was unconstitutional and breached the right to equality.

Maharashtra advocate general Ashutosh Kumbhakoni had sought to justify the need for the domicile criterion, saying the government spends huge amounts of public money on medical education but faces an acute shortage of doctors in rural areas and primary healthcare. He further said that since there is already 50% state and 50% institutional quota in private institutions, it is necessary to ensure availability of seats for domiciled students.