Classification Not Based On Intellectual Differentia: Bombay High Court Quashes 3% Reservation For Children Of CSP Employees In MBBS Admission

The Bombay High Court has quashed 3% reservation in favour of children of Central/State Government Employees and Persons in Private Occupations (CSP employees).

The Goa Bench was hearing a Writ Petition filed by a person whose ward appeared for and cleared the National Eligibility Entrance Test (NEET) and an aspirer of securing admission to MBBS, seeking to quash and set aside clause 5.7 of the prospectus issued by Director of Technical Education, Goa, which reserved 3% seats in favour of children of CSP employees.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Nivedita P. Mehta held, “The classification between the two, is neither based on intellectual differentia nor it has nexus to the object sought to be achieved, being, to protect the children of those employees of State of Goa who on account of fortuitous circumstances could not comply with the dual condition but otherwise are entitled to be considered for admission to First Year MBBS Course on merit.”

The Bench noted that the classification of categories in the prospectus itself is a reflection of the permissibility of the constitutional and statutory reservation as seats are reserved for Scheduled Caste (2%), Scheduled Tribe (12%), Other Backward Classes (27%), Persons with Disabilities (5.5%), Freedom Fighters (1%), Ex-servicemen (1%) and Goan Natives (2%).

Senior Advocate Subodh Kantak appeared for the Petitioner while Advocate General Devidas J. Pangam appeared for the Respondents.

Facts of the Case

The Director of Technical Education issued a common prospectus for admission to the First Year of Professional Degree Courses, Session 2025-26, covering various Streams including MBBS, Dentistry, BDS, etc. The prospectus set out the Rules governing admissions to the Professional Degree Courses including MBBS, BDS, BHMS, BAMS in the Colleges within the State of Goa, making it imperative for all candidates to appear and have a valid score in NEET-UG 2025 and fulfil the eligibility criteria as specified therein. It stipulated that the merit list for the courses will be based on the NEET-UG 2025 score/rank and it prescribed for reservation of seats for the Professional Courses. The eligibility of candidates was set out in Rule 4. The High Court had to consider Rule 5 under the caption, “Classification of Categories”.

Reasoning

The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, observed, “In any case when we perused Clause 5.7, which acts as an exception to the General Category, the State is desirous of offering some seats to the applicants, who had to suffer adverse situations in the wake of their parents being posted outside the State or deputed in the State for a short span and therefore it was not possible to complete the requirement of passing the qualifying examination as well as the residential condition of 10 years preceding the last date/month of application.”

The Court remarked that category (c) of Clause 5.7, once again fail to have any logic as the parents residing in State of Goa and their ward who has studied HSSC examination from school/college in State of Goa is entitled to reservation without any justification and it would probably cover a contingency that the parents are residing in the State of Goa and the child all the while was out of Goa but has passed HSSC Standard from school/colleges of Goa.

“While Article 14 prohibits class legislation, it allows reasonable classification, which though must be based on “intelligible differentia” and have a rational relationship with law's objective. This is a permissible exception to principle of absolute equality. It ensure fairness and enable laws that treat different groups distinctly but require justification preventing arbitrary discrimination while promoting justice and equality, two hallmarks of Indian Constitution”, it said.

The Court further noted that Article 14 though forbid class legislation, it does not prohibit reasonable classification of objects, persons and transactions for the purpose so as to achieve specific aims but such classification shall not be arbitrary, artificial or evasive and it must rest on substantial distinction which is real and it must bear a reasonable and just relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Legislation.

“It is essential that there must be presence of nexus between the 0bject of segregating the two classes and the basis of the classification. When a reasonable basis do not exsit for a classification, then such classification shall be declared as discriminatory as it directly violate the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14”, it emphasised.

The Court was of the opinion that the situations contemplated in clauses (a) to (d) of Clause 5.7 are in form of fortuitous circumstances and also appreciated the concern of the Government of State of Goa expressed towards the employees of the Central Government/Central Government Public Sector Undertakings including Defence and Para military Force or even their own employees who, for fortuitous circumstances were deputed/transferred/posted outside State of Goa and their wards could not compete for a seat in a medical college in the State of Goa because of their inability, as the child had to suffer the vagaries on account of their parents.

“However, providing a specific reservation in form of 3% seats is totally unacceptable since we find that it is not so provided by law as contemplated under Article 15(5) and introducing the reservation for this category which creates sub classification which has no nexus with the object of offering medical education but on merit is definitely violative of Article 14 of the Constitution”, it added.

Conclusion

The Court also took note of the fact that relaxation is also provided to children of such employees who have been transferred or deputed to a place outside the State of Maharashtra or who have returned to Maharashtra after initial transfer/deputation and their wards have passed the qualifying examination from outside the State of Maharashtra.

“Similar concession is also provided in respect of the employees of Government of India or its Undertakings. … Being satisfied that the provision for reservation of 3% seats to the Central/State Government employees and persons in private occupations, which according to us, do not withstand the scrutiny of Article 14 of the Constitution, and since we find that the classification that is created on account of a contingency stipulated in clauses (a) to (d) of Clause 5.7, is not based on any intelligible differentia nor it has any nexus with the object of the selection process, i.e. to have admission on merit, we quash and set aside the said Clause”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the reservation provided in Clause 5.7 of the Prospectus.

Cause Title- Niyan Joseph Savio Marchon v. State of Goa & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-GOA:1508-DB)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Subodh Kantak, Advocates Neha Kholkar, and Saicha Desai.

Respondents: Advocate General Devidas J. Pangam and Additional Government Advocate (AGA) Shubham S. Priolkar.

Click here to read/download the Judgment