A division bench of Justice Sunil P Deshmukh and Justice Shrikant D Kulkarni was hearing the girl’s petition filed through senior counsel Rajendra Deshmukh and advocate Nirmal Dayama on November 11.The Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad bench recently refused to interfere and direct the government to change a legislative decision taken in 2016 related to admissions in medical courses. In doing so, the court refused relief to the undergraduate medical course aspirant, desirous of a state quota seat for academic year 2020-21. She had passed her Class X (SSC) examination in 2018 from Madhya Pradesh.
The student had sought admission to a private medical college through state quota, on the ground that she was domiciled in Maharashtra and had appeared for Class XII (HSC) exam from the Maharashtra state board and thereafter appeared for National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) in June this year and secured 97.8 percentile. As she was refused a seat from state quota and was asked to apply in the all-India quota, she approached the HC seeking relief.
A division bench of Justice Sunil P Deshmukh and Justice Shrikant D Kulkarni was hearing the girl’s petition filed through senior counsel Rajendra Deshmukh and advocate Nirmal Dayama on November 11.
The petitioner told the court that she was a meritorious student and based on her high percentile, had sought a seat in the state quota for the medical course. However, as per rule mentioned in the information brochure issued by the state government on November 4 this year, it was stated that candidates wanting to apply for state quota had to have appeared for the SSC exam from Maharashtra board.
State government lawyer A R Kale opposed the plea and said that the 2016 decision was taken after due deliberation and as it was a legislative decision or policy, the court should not interfere.
Rejecting relief to the student, the court said in its order, “It would be worthwhile to note that time and again the apex court has observed that in academic matters the courts should not ordinarily interfere. Looking at the area in which we are called upon to tread, it is difficult for us to indulge into the request being made on behalf of the petitioner.”