The State Of Maharashtra vs Dr. Sharvil Thatte

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3612 /2018 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.7432 of 2018)

State of Maharashtra and Others ..……Appellants

VERSUS

Dr. Sharvil Thatte and Others ....…. Respondents

JUDGMENT

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.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NEELAM GULATI

3. Respondent Nos.1 to 9 herein had filed aforesaid writ petition Date: 2018.07.07 11:35:00 IST Reason:

challenging condition No.(ii) in the eligibility criteria prescribed in the 2

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 of

this Court rendered in Dr. Pradeep Jain and Others v. Union of India and

Others1 and in Vishal Goyal and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others2.

While allowing the petition and setting aside the condition, the High Court

observed:-

1 (1984) 3 SCC 654 2 (2014) 11 SCC 456 3

“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)

No.204/2018, we have accepted 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. We have principally relied on the Judgments of this Court in Dr.

Pradeep Jain (supra) and Vishal Goyal (supra).

7. In the circumstances, we affirm the view taken by the High Court in

the present matter and see no reason to interfere. The appeal is thus

dismissed with no order as to costs.

………………………J. (Arun Mishra)

…………………..……J. (Uday Umesh Lalit)

New Delhi, April 5, 2018