STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSversusDR. SHARVIL THATTE AND OTHERS

1008                      [2018]REPORTS
                SUPREME COURT   3 S.C.R. 1008               [2018] 3 S.C.R.


 A                STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                   v.
                    DR. SHARVIL THATTE AND OTHERS
                          (Civil Appeal No. 3612 of 2018)
                                  APRIL 05, 2018
 B
             [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
     STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. DR. SHARVIL THATTE                                1009


                          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.
                                                                               C
     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.
      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    E
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.”        F
       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     G
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
                                                                               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 Others2. 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



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