(1.) The petitioners have preferred this petition assailing legality and constitutional validity of Rule 4(b) of Chhattisgarh Chikitsa Snatkottar Pravesh Niyam, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as " Admission Rule of 2018"). The challenge to the aforesaid provision is to the extent that in the eligibility criteria, the candidates have been made eligible for State quota seats of Post Graduate Medical Admissions only on the basis of their residence i.e. domicile in the State of Chhattisgarh on the ground that it is legally and constitutionally impermissible, in view of binding decisions of Supreme Court.
(2.) The petitioners, two in number, having completed their MBBS course from various Medical Colleges, desirous of taking admission in Post Graduate courses in Medical Colleges, appeared in National Qualifying Test., NEET-PG, 2019 conducted by National Board of Examination (for short 'NBE'). The examination was conducted on 6th January, 2019 in which 701 candidates from the State of Chhattisgarh qualified in the examination including the petitioners. The State wise list published by NBE on 1st February, 2019 disclosed that even those students who have not done their MBBS from the State of Chhattisgarh have been extended benefit of State quota in Post Graduate courses in Medial Colleges of Chhattisgarh on the basis of their domicile. The inclusion of such candidates for the purpose of grant of admission to State quota Post Graduate seats in the Medical Colleges of the State was based on the eligibility criteria as contained in Rule 4 (b), which provides that even those candidates who are resident of the State of Chhattisgarh, though, they may not have done their MBBS from any of the Medical Colleges situated in the State of Chhattisgarh, are eligible for admission against Post Graduate State quota seats only on the basis that they are domicile of the State of Chhattisgarh. It is this particular provision of eligibility based only on domicile which is under challenge in this petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that under regulatory prescription contained in Rule 9 A (2) of the Medical Council of India Regulation of the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations, 2000'), framed by the Medical Council of India, 50 percent of the seats are reserved for all-India Quota and rest 50 percent are reserved for State quota. The reservation of seats on the basis of residence i.e. domicile is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is argued that a rule providing eligibility only on the basis of domicile, in the matter of admission to Post Graduate courses, even in the State quota, has been consistently held to be impermissible and unconstitutional in plethora of decisions of the Supreme Court, yet while framing the rules for admission in the State of Chhattisgarh, now such a Rule in 2018, only on the basis of domicile, eligibility has been provided with the result that those candidates who are domicile of the State of Chhattisgarh, even if they have pursued their MBBS course in Medical Colleges situated outside the State of Chhattisgarh would now be entitled to compete for the Post Graduate seats of State quota in Medical Colleges situated in the State of Chhattisgarh and, at the same time, also compete for admission to Post Graduate seats of State quota on the basis of institutional preference in the State where they have pursued and obtained MBBS degree. Thus, it is argued that by virtue of this Rule of eligibility based on domicile, such candidates would be getting the benefit in two States, one on the basis of institutional preference and another on the basis of domicile. In support of their submission, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance in the matter of Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, 1984 3 SCC 654 , Magan Mehrotra v. University of Delhi, 2003 11 SCC 186, Nikhil Himthani v. State of Uttarakhand, 2013 10 SCC 237, as also decision of the High Court of Allahabad in Dr. Jitendra Gupta and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr. in Misc. Single No. 8616/2019 rendered on 01.04.2019, against which SLP has also been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 16.04.2019 in SLP (Civil) Diary No (s) 13833 of 2019.