Vansh S/o. Prakash Dolas vs. The Ministry of Education & The Ministry of Health & Family Welfare [March 20, 2024]
Background and Facts
Vansh S/o. Prakash Dolas, a domicile of Maharashtra and son of a Border Security Force (BSF) Head Constable, secured admission to an MBBS course in Maharashtra under the state quota. His admission was cancelled by the college (respondent no. 6) on the grounds that he had not passed his HSC and SSC exams in Maharashtra, and his father was posted outside the state. The cancellation was done without prior notice or an opportunity for Vansh to be heard.
Vansh challenged this decision before the Bombay High Court, arguing that he was entitled to an exception under clause 4.8 of the NEET UG-2023 Information Brochure, which provides for children of employees of the Government of India or its undertakings to claim domicile benefits regardless of their place of schooling if their parent is posted outside the state. The High Court dismissed his petition, holding that he did not fulfill the domicile requirements and had not selected the correct reservation category in his application.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Ruling
The Supreme Court found that the cancellation of Vansh’s admission was illegal and arbitrary, as it was done without giving him a chance to be heard and failed to consider the exception for children of central government employees posted outside Maharashtra. The Court criticized both the college and the state authorities for their insensitive and unjust approach, noting that Vansh’s loss of one academic year was due to administrative arbitrariness and delay in the judicial process.
Recognizing that the academic session was already well underway and no seats were vacant, the Supreme Court directed the creation of an additional seat in the MBBS course for Vansh in the next academic year (2024), specifically under the OBC category for Maharashtra domicile children of central government employees. This ensured that his admission would not reduce the quota for other NEET UG-2024 candidates.
Additionally, the Court awarded Vansh compensation of ₹1 lakh (₹50,000 each from the college and the state) for the deprivation and harassment caused by the wrongful cancellation of his admission. The Court reaffirmed the need for public authorities to interpret admission rules harmoniously and not rigidly, especially in cases involving children of government employees whose postings are beyond their control.
Significance
This judgment is significant for upholding the rights of students whose parents are central government employees serving outside their home state. It reinforces the principle that admissions cannot be cancelled arbitrarily and that exceptions in domicile rules must be applied fairly. The Supreme Court’s order to create an additional seat and award compensation sets a precedent for restitutive relief in cases of administrative injustice and delays in the judicial process.
Citation
2024 INSC 235.
RELATED Blog
0 comments