Bombay HC upholds state rules for medical admissions
Other students then filed petitions claiming the same benefit in the Bombay high court too.
Mumbai: The Bombay high court has rejected the petitions of 15 students who had applied for admission to medical courses through the state quota though they did not fulfil one of the three criteria for admission. The criteria were of domicile and passing both the SSC and HSC exams from Maharashtra. The students had come to court claiming that the criteria was implemented by the state in 2016 while they had appeared for the SSC exam in 2015 and hence sought relief against the criteria for this year only.
However, the court dismissed the petitions on the grounds that the state could frame rules and adhere to it in the best interest of the larger student community. As a result of the order, 30 students who had earlier secured seats without fulfilling one of the three criteria based on a June order of the Nagpur bench have also lost their seat.
A division bench of Justices S.C. Dharmadhikari and Bharti Dangre was hearing petitions filed by around 15 aspirants who had applied for admission to medical courses.
After the state CET cell started the first round of admissions in June, the names of around 67 students who did not fulfil one of the three criteria had featured in the merit list. However, they were all rejected on the grounds of not fulfilling the criteria. Hence they went to court wherein the court directed the state to admit them as an interim relief.
Other students then filed petitions claiming the same benefit in the Bombay high court too.
When the hearing started, advocates of various petitioning students argued that the domicile rule was not valid and discriminated against the students by not allowing them to participate in the state quota even though they had been domiciled in the state except when appearing for the SSC or HSC exam.
The state had, however, argued that the students had resorted to such tactics to gain an edge over the competition, hence could not claim any relief.
After hearing all arguments, the court passed the order on Thursday stating that the rule implemented by the state in 2016 was valid as the Supreme Court had also upheld it in other cases. The court, however, chided the state for not having a clear stand over such rules as a result of which the students were harassed.