Bombay High Court Upholds Merit in Medical College Fee Reimbursement Case
In a significant ruling, the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court has underscored the inviolability of merit in academic admissions while censuring the Maharashtra government for its inconsistent application of a medical fee reimbursement scheme. This judgment came in response to petitions filed by four general category medical students who were excluded from the scheme, despite being displaced from government college seats due to reservations for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC).
Court’s Observations and Ruling
The division bench comprising Justices Kishore C. Sant and Ajit B. Kadethankar emphasized that academic merit should not be sidelined by administrative decisions. “Merit can never be compromised nor can be on a second pedestal. If the petitioner was on a higher rank, he could not have been denied such admission,” the court asserted.
The court expressed its disapproval of the state’s “pick and choose” method in implementing the fee reimbursement scheme, initially set out in a Government Resolution (GR) dated September 20, 2019. Under this scheme, the government was to cover additional fees for open-category students compelled to attend private institutions. However, the petitioners were excluded from this benefit, prompting the court’s intervention.
Irregularities and Court’s Directions
The judges highlighted discrepancies, noting that many lower-ranked NEET candidates were granted fee reimbursements while the petitioners were unjustly overlooked. The judgment vividly depicted this unfairness with a sports analogy: “It is just like a fielder succeeds for a difficult catch, but is shown to have caught beyond the border. The surprise turns into agony when the fielder learns that the borderline is silently shrunken or bartered.”
The court further observed that none of the 106 beneficiaries of the scheme hailed from the Marathwada region, intensifying concerns about regional bias. In its ruling, the court mandated the state to reimburse the tuition fee difference to the affected students within eight weeks and imposed exemplary costs of ₹50,000 on the state for each petitioner.
Further Actions Ordered by the Court
Additionally, the court instructed the principal secretary of the Medical Education Department to investigate the highlighted issues and implement corrective measures to prevent future occurrences. The court had earlier reprimanded state officials for their lackadaisical approach during hearings and even considered suo motu contempt actions, which were later nullified following unconditional apologies from the officers involved.
The students were represented by Advocates Akshay D. Kulkarni and Milind Madhukar Patil, while Additional Government Pleader A.R. Kale appeared for the state. The court’s ruling is expected to have significant implications for the administration of education-related schemes in Maharashtra.
