NEET PG: Bombay High Court rejects challenge to quota for Maharashtra college grads

The Bombay High Court recently dismissed a challenge to Maharashtra’s NEET Post-Graduation (PG) admission policy which gives preference in medical college admissions under the State quota to students who graduated from the colleges in Maharashtra, even if they are from other States [Anna Mathew v State of Maharashtra]..The policy had been challenged for favoring such students over even candidates domiciled in Maharashtra but who had graduated from colleges outside the State.The petition filed by a NEET PG candidate Anna Mathew argued that the policy was arbitrary and discriminatory, violating her rights as a person domiciled in Maharashtra.A Bench of Justices BP Colabawalla and Somasekhar Sundaresan ruled that the policy was reasonable, rational, justifiable, and defensible. “Every differentiation and every perceived discrimination in treatment, would not attract the vice of arbitrariness. Whether the basis of being mindful and discriminating in the exercise of discretion is reasonable is the test to be followed," the Court added. .The petitioner, Anna Mathew, had graduated with an MBBS degree from the Christian Medical College (CMC) in Vellore, Tamil Nadu. She had sought admission to PG medical courses in Maharashtra under the State Quota. Despite being domiciled in Maharashtra, she was excluded from consideration due to the State’s policy which gives preference to graduates from medical colleges within Maharashtra. Mathew had hoped to increase her chances of admission to her preferred courses in Mumbai by availing the State Quota..Mathew’s counsel argued that the policy unfairly discriminated against her, even though she was domiciled in Maharashtra, by excluding her from the State quota based on where she graduated from. They claimed that the policy was unreasonable and violated the equality principle under Article 14 of the Constitution. They contended that the State’s policy was unconstitutional because it penalized students for pursuing education outside Maharashtra, despite their domicile status..The State countered that the provisions under challenge were necessary to ensure a fair admissions process and uphold local educational standards. The State maintained that the policy was designed to provide a stable educational pathway for candidates from Maharashtra, and that the classification of candidates was justifiable. It added that graduates who did not meet the State’s criteria for availing the State quota could still compete for seats through the All-India Quota..The Court ruled that the provisions under challenge were not manifestly arbitrary. “Every perceived hardship and inconvenience arising out of a legislation or policy, would not result in the legislative provision or policies being regarded as unconstitutional. So long as the policy measure is reasoned and objectively comprehensible, and the measures are commensurate with the objective, judicial review must be slow to make interventions,” the Court further stated. The Court emphasized that the policy represented a reasonable exercise of discretion, taking into account local social considerations while maintaining fairness in the admissions process..The Court also observed that the petitioner had already secured admission to a course at Seth G S Medical College in Mumbai through the All-India Quota and that she had pursued the petition only as a 'chance litigation' to widen her options. “We say nothing beyond noticing the deep sense of entitlement at every stage of choice being made in the course of the journey with education at premium institutions,” the Bench observed..Ultimately, the Court upheld the State’s policy, finding it to be rational, fair, and reasonable. “There is nothing perverse in the policy choice underlying the Impugned Provisions, and nothing unreasonable or discriminatory in the policy choice, which itself relates to a sub-class of candidates, i.e., the State Quota,” the Court observed. .Advocates VM Thorat and Pooja Thorat along with Advocates Amar Bodke, Kiran Singh, Trisha Chowdhari appeared for the petitioner.Additional Government Pleader Jyoti Chavan appeared for the State.Advocate Meghna Gowalani represented the Admission Regulatory Authority and Commissioner, State CET Cell..[Read Judgment]