VISHWA CHANDUBHAI PATEL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition dated January 6, 2021 is at the instance of three petitioners belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category (hereafter 'the ST category', for short). They allege wrongful denial of admission in Namo Medical Education and Research Institute, Silvassa for pursing the MBBS Course. The ground on which the petitioners have been denied admission is that although they may have obtained a 'Domicile Certificate' of the requisite character, their ancestors had migrated to Dadra and Nagar Haveli and, therefore, having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in Bir Singh vs. Delhi Jal Board and Ors., reported in (2018) 10 SCC 312, and a previous decision of the same Court in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao vs. Dean, Seth G. S. Medical College, reported in (1990) 3 SCC 140, they cannot be regarded as ST candidates.

(2.) The first time we considered the writ petition on January 8, 2021, Mr. Walia, learned advocate for the petitioners had contended that the ground on which the petitioners were denied admission was precisely the ground on which one Mihir Dipak Patel, s/o Dipak Kumar Jagubhai Patel, was denied admission; and the father-son duo having approached this Court with a writ petition [bearing Writ Petition No. 10868 of 2019 : Dipak Kumar Jagubhai Patel and anr. vs. Union of India and ors.], in which a Division Bench referred to a decision of the Supreme Court of recent origin in Director, Transport Department, Union Territory Administration of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Silvassa and Ors. vs. Abhinav Dipakbhai Patel, reported in (2019) 6 SCC 434. Relying on such decision, the Division Bench by its judgment and order dated November 18, 2019 proceeded to hold that the Union Territory Administration acted illegally in denying admission to the petitioner no.2, i.e., Mihir Dipak Patel. Accordingly, the respondents were directed to admit him in the MBBS course. The order of the Division Bench was challenged before the Supreme Court but the Special Leave Petition which came to be dismissed by an order dated November 16, 2020.

(3.) Mr. Walia, accordingly, was heard to contend that the issue being covered by the Division Bench decision of this Court in Dipak Kumar Jagubhai Patel (supra), the petitioners are entitled to similar treatment.