Exclusion Of Students Studying Outside State From MBBS State Quota Due To Parents’ Private Employment Not Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Relying on the law laid down by the Apex Court, the High Court held that exclusion of students from State Quota MBBS seats on the ground that they studied outside the State due to their parents’ private employment does not amount to arbitrariness, discrimination, or unconstitutionality.
Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that exclusion of students from consideration against State Quota seats for MBBS admissions on the ground that they studied outside the State due to their parents being privately employed outside Himachal Pradesh is neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional.
The High Court has held that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajdeep Ghosh v. State of Assam, such exclusion is based on a valid classification and does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution.
The Court was hearing a batch of writ petitions filed by bona fide Himachali students, or children of bona fide Himachalis, who were denied eligibility to compete for State Quota MBBS seats on the ground that they had not passed the requisite two qualifying examinations from schools situated within the State of Himachal Pradesh.
A Bench of Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, while dismissing the petitions, observed: “in the light of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajdeep Ghosh versus State of Assam and others, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that the exclusion of those students for being considered against State Quota Seats for admission in MBBS course, who were admitted in Schools out of the State of Assam on account of their parents being privately employed outside the State of Assam was not arbitrary, this Court cannot hold that the exclusion of this Class in terms of the prospectus in issue is either arbitrary or discriminatory or unconstitutional”.
Senior Advocate Shrawan Dogra appeared for the petitioners, while Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, represented the State of Himachal Pradesh.
Background
The petitioners had qualified for the NEET-UG examination and sought admission to MBBS courses under the State Quota seats in Himachal Pradesh. However, they were rendered ineligible under the eligibility criteria prescribed in the prospectus for the academic session 2025–26, which required candidates to have passed at least two qualifying examinations from recognised institutions situated within the State.
The petitioners belonged to the category of students who had studied outside Himachal Pradesh due to their parents being employed in the private sector outside the State. While earlier prospectuses permitted bona fide Himachali students to compete for State Quota seats irrespective of place of schooling, the relevant exemption was deleted in the current prospectus.
The petitioners challenged the revised eligibility criteria as arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of their constitutional rights, contending that the change in the prospectus adversely affected their legitimate expectations.
Court’s Observation
The High Court examined the eligibility criteria contained in the prospectus and noted that while exemptions were carved out in favour of children of government employees and certain other categories, no such exemption was provided for children of bona fide Himachalis whose parents were privately employed outside the State.
Placing reliance on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Rajdeep Ghosh v. State of Assam, the Court noted that the Apex Court had upheld similar eligibility conditions requiring candidates to have studied within the State, while permitting limited exemptions in favour of children of government employees posted outside the State.
The High Court observed that the Supreme Court had specifically held that the exclusion of wards of private employees working outside the State from State Quota seats could not be said to be irrational or arbitrary, as such candidates constitute a distinct class and continue to have access to All India Quota seats.
The Court further relied upon its earlier Division Bench judgment in Harshit Bansal v. State of Himachal Pradesh, as well as the subsequent reaffirmation of Rajdeep Ghosh by the Supreme Court in State of Telangana v. Kalluri Naga Narasimha Abhiram, to hold that States are entitled to prescribe domicile and educational criteria for admissions to State Quota seats, provided the classification bears a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
Applying the aforesaid principles, the Court held that the exclusion of the petitioners under the present prospectus could not be struck down as unconstitutional merely because a different eligibility regime existed in earlier years.
Conclusion
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, accordingly, dismissed all the writ petitions.
The Court, however, observed that while the present exclusion could not be invalidated, the State and the University ought to maintain consistency in framing eligibility criteria to avoid uncertainty and hardship to students in future admission cycles.
Cause Title: Aarav Potan v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. and Connected Matters (Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:24945)
Appearances:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate Shrawan Dogra, with Advocates Sanjay Ranta, Tejasvi Dogra, Sneh Bhimta, V.B. Verma and Mukul Sharma
Respondents: Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General
