MP: Jabalpur HC bench gives preference to Domicile Candidates
Indore: Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Jabalpur bench is reported to have passed a judgement in favour of domicile preference being given to students for admission to private medical colleges of the state. A directive to this effect was issued to the Directorate of Medical Education.
The division bench comprising of Justice Ravi Shankar Jha and Justice CV Sirpurkar, made it clear to the Directorate Medical Education and Research, that Rule 6 of MP Private Medical College Admission ultra vires (beyond the scope or in excess of legal power or authority) violates article 14 of the Constitution (right to equality). Therefore, it instructed the educational body to ensure that students fulfilling the domicile criterion were allowed to be part of the counselling sessions and given preference of allotment in various medical institutions of the state, based on their NEET rankings.
"The court observed that state has dual admission policy for government medical colleges and private medical colleges. In state government colleges, the government is filling seats giving preference to domicile candidates whereas in private colleges admission was open for all. Finding it contradictory, the court declared Rule 6 ultra vires and directed state to fill seats on the basis of state domicile merit list," said advocate Aditya Sanghi, counsel of one of the petitioners,Abhinav Dubey.
Mr. Dubey informed the court that the first counselling conducted by the state of Madhya Pradesh had student from other states filling in their choices; an option that was not available to students of Madhya Pradesh in other states ,as all others were giving preference to domicile aspirants.
The petitioners had therefore filed appeals challenging the validity of Regulation 6 of admission in private medical colleges.The regulation exempts requirement of domicile/permanent residence with regards to general category MBBS and BDS seats available for admission in private medical institutions.
Multiple petitions were filed which the court treated as one to pass its judgement.