Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High CourtDivision BenchAppeal dismissed; no order as to costs.

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS v. DR. SHARVIL THATTE AND OTHERS

Case / Petition Number:Civil Appeal No. 3612 of 2018
Neutral Citation:/null

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court
Hon'ble Judges
  • ARUN MISHRA
  • UDAY UMESH LALIT
Judgment Date
2018-04-05
Court Decision / Holding
Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
Final Disposition
Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • State of Maharashtra and Others

Respondents

  • Dr. Sharvil Thatte and Others
  • Respondent Nos. 1 to 9

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Tushar Mehta
  • • Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar
  • • Deepa M. Kulkarni

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Shyam Divan
  • • Pooja Thorat
  • • Satyajit A. Desai
  • • Anagha S. Desai
  • • Sudhanshu S. Choudhari
  • • Surabhi Guleria
  • • Shakul R. Ghatole

Case Synopsis & Summary

This civil appeal challenges condition (ii) of the Maharashtra information bulletin for admission to PG Medical/Dental Courses in unaided private institutions, which requires candidates to be domiciled in Maharashtra. Respondent Nos. 1 to 9 had challenged the domicile criterion in writ petitions, and the Bombay High Court struck it down. The State of Maharashtra challenged that decision before the Supreme Court. The Court examined authorities including Dr. Kriti Lakhina v. State of Karnataka (decided 04.04.2018), which accepted a challenge to a similar domicile restriction for admissions in Karnataka government and quota seats, and Dr. Pradeep Jain and Others v. Union of India and Others (1984) 3 SCC 654 and Vishal Goyal and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others (2014) 11 SCC 456, which the Court relied upon. It held that while institutional preference may justify some considerations, a blanket domicile requirement for graduate degree holders is not permissible. By judgments delivered by Justice Uday U. Lalit, the Court affirmed the High Court’s view and saw no reason to interfere, dismissing the appeal with no order as to costs. The decision reinforces equity and equality of opportunity in medical education and aligns with constitutional guarantees in admissions policy. Outcome: the appeal is dismissed; no order as to costs.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The State contends that the domicile criterion is a permissible aspect of institutional preference, aimed at ensuring local representation and alignment with state resources. It relies on earlier judgments, notably Dr. Kriti Lakhina v. State of Karnataka (04.04.2018) and the decisions in Dr. Pradeep Jain and Others v. Union of India and Others (1984) 3 SCC 654 and Vishal Goyal and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others (2014) 11 SCC 456, to justify maintaining the domicile condition in the information bulletin. The argument maintains that admissions policies may reflect local interests and administrative convenience within constitutional bounds.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents challenge the domicile condition on grounds of equality and non-discrimination, arguing that residency-based restrictions unnecessarily bar non-domiciled graduates from admission and violate fundamental principles of equal protection. They contend that the Karnataka decision (Kriti Lakhina) is a controlling authority to strike down such domicile requirements, and rely on the cited judgments (Dr. Jain and Vishal Goyal) to establish that domicile-based admissions constraints are impermissible as an overall policy in medical education.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Dr. Kriti Lakhina v. The State of KarnatakaWrit Petition (Civil) No.204/2018PositiveSupreme Court accepted a challenge to a similar domicile restriction in Karnataka, providing a controlling authority for striking down the Maharashtra domicile condition.
Dr. Pradeep Jain and Others v. Union of India and Others1984) 3 SCC 654; [1984] 3 SCR 942PositiveSupported the broader proposition that domicile or residency-based restrictions in admissions can be impermissible.
Vishal Goyal and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others2014) 11 SCC 456PositiveFavored the view that domicile-based restrictions in admissions may be invalid.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS v. DR. SHARVIL THATTE AND OTHERS and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

1008 SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2018] 3 S.C.R. 1008 [2018] 3 S.C.R. A ## STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS v. ## B DR. SHARVIL THATTE AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 3612 of 2018) APRIL 05, 2018 ## **[ARUN MISHRA AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]** _Education/Educational Institutions – Medical Admissions – Eligibility criteria – Domicile status – Notification issued by State of Maharashtra for admission to Postgraduate Medical/Dental Courses in unaided Private Educational Institutions in State of_ C _Maharashtra – Condition No.(ii) in the eligibility criteria prescribed in the notification stated that the candidate shall be a domicile of State of Maharashtra – Writ petition filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 9 challenging the same, allowed – On appeal, held: In the Judgment of Supreme Court dtd. 04.04.2018 in_ _**Dr. Kriti Lakhina vs. The State**_ D _**Of Karnataka** , 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, has been accepted – View taken by High Court is affirmed and there is no reason to interfere._ - E ## **Dismissing the appeal, the Court** **HELD: 1. By this Court’s Judgment and Order dated 04.04.2018 in Dr. Kriti Lakhina vs. The State of Karnataka (Writ Petition (Civil) No.204/2018), the challenge to similar condition incorporated in Information Bulletin issued by State of Karnataka** F **for admission to Postgraduate Medical/Dental Courses in Government Colleges and in respect of Government quota seats in Private Medical/Dental Colleges, was accepted. [Para 6][1010-** ## **C]** _Dr. Kriti Lakhina v. The State of Karnataka_ **[Decision** G **dated 04.04.2018 by Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.204/2018];** _Dr. Pradeep Jain and Others v. Union of India and Others_ **(1984) 3 SCC 654 : [1984] 3 SCR 942;** _Vishal Goyal and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others_ **(2014) 11 SCC 456– relied on.** - H 1008 1009 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. DR. SHARVIL THATTE **Case Law Reference** A **[1984] 3 SCR 942 relied on Para 5 (2014) 11 SCC 456 relied on Para 5** CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3612 of 2018. B From the Judgment and Order dated 22.02.2018 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1814 of 2018. Tushar Mehta, Sr. Adv., Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Ms.Deepa M. Kulkarni, Advs. for the Appellants. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv., Ms. Pooja Thorat, Satyajit A. Desai, Ms. Anagha S. Desai, Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Ms. Surabhi Guleria, Shakul R. Ghatole, Advs. for the Respondents. C The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ## **UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.** 1. Leave granted. D 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. 3. Respondent Nos.1 to 9 herein had filed aforesaid writ petition challenging condition No.(ii) in the eligibility criteria prescribed in the 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. E F G 5. The challenge to the aforesaid condition was accepted by the High Court in its judgment under appeal relying principally on the decisions H 1010 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 3 S.C.R. - A of this Court rendered in _**Dr. Pradeep Jain and Others**_ v. _**Union of India and Others[1]**_ and in _**Vishal Goyal and Others**_ v. _**State of Karnataka and Others[2] .**_ While allowing the petition and setting aside the condition, the High Court observed:- “8] It could thus be seen that, it is a settled position in law that, B 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 C (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). - D 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. E Divya Pandey Appeal dismissed. F G H 1 (1984) 3 SCC 654 2 (2014) 11 SCC 456