9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of Rule C(6)(ii) of the 1985-86 Rules for admission to medical colleges in Maharashtra. Detailed Analysis: The judgment by the Supreme Court of India involved an appeal against the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court's decision to dismiss a writ petition seeking admission to a medical college in Nagpur under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appellant, a student who fulfilled the conditions of the 1985-86 Rules, applied for admission based on Rule C(6)(ii), which provided an exemption for children of Central Government servants transferred to Maharashtra from outside the state. The key issue revolved around the interpretation of Rule C(6)(ii) and the availability of seats for such candidates in government medical colleges in Maharashtra. The appellant contended that each government medical college in Maharashtra should have two seats for candidates falling under the exemption category specified in Rule C(6)(ii). On the other hand, the respondents argued that the total number of seats for such candidates in all government medical colleges combined should not exceed two. The High Court favored the respondents' interpretation, leading to the appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, after a detailed analysis of Rule C(6)(ii) and its historical context, disagreed with the High Court's interpretation. The Court clarified that the rule intended each government medical college to admit children of Central Government servants not exceeding two in number, provided they met the qualifications specified. The Court emphasized that the phrase "at the respective medical colleges" in the rule indicated that the two seats were allocated per college, not in total across all colleges in Maharashtra. Furthermore, the Court compared Rule C(6)(ii) in the 1985-86 Rules with similar provisions in previous years, highlighting the change in wording to support the interpretation that each government medical college should reserve two seats for such candidates. The Court emphasized the logical necessity of providing educational opportunities for children of Central Government servants transferred between states. Additionally, the appellant raised a constitutional challenge against Rule C(5), which required candidates to pass certain examinations from recognized schools in Maharashtra for admission to medical colleges. However, due to subsequent events leading to the appellant's admission to the Nagpur Medical College, the Court did not delve into the constitutional validity of Rule C(5, leaving the question open for future consideration. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, reversed the High Court's judgment, and set aside the order dismissing the writ petition. The Court directed the first respondent to pay the costs of the appeal to the appellant. The appellant's admission to the Nagpur Medical College was confirmed, rendering further orders unnecessary in the matter.
|
