Gujarat HC upheld state govt’s domicile related rules for admission in UG medical courses

Ahmedabad:

Gujarat high court today rejected the petitions challenging the state government’s decision/rules to not to admit those students in undergraduate medical courses who have not passed Class 10 and Class 12 exams from a Gujarat school and who were not a domicile of the state.

The division bench led by chief justice R Subhash Reddy however instructed the government to take appropriate decision in case of such students who were despite being domiciles of Gujarat had for inevitable reasons passed class 10 and 12 exams from outside.

The court had reserved its verdict on June 22 after completing the hearing on a bunch of petitions by students challenging the state government decision. Today it pronounced its verdict which is being seen as a major relief for the government.

The petitioners had argued that the state government’s policy severely restricts opportunities for students who have cleared board exams from outside the state. They also contended that the rules were introduced at a later stage and hence the decision can be termed arbitrary. The policy creates a division among national citizens of the country.The state government had countered it by arguing that the decision of making domicile status mandatory for admission in state’s quota is intended to protect the interests of Gujarat’s students.

During course of argument Advocate Kamal Trivedi appearing on behalf of the state government had argued that imparting medical education by medical colleges require considerable finance to maintain the same and therefore, it was reasonable on the part of the state government to see that advantage of the educational system prevalent in the state would yield benefit to the state. Rules have been brought for the purpose of providing a fair opportunity for medical education to student community in Gujarat and for the avowed aims and objects to produce best doctors to provide primary health care to the public at large in the state.

Advocate Rahul Sharma, appearing for the petitioners, had argued against the new rules and the alleged uncertain attitude of the government in making rules just before admission saying, “A rule should always be predictable and one should be aware of his limitations and possibilities. How do one plan one’s career when one doesn’t get any warning from the authorities? The basic expectation is that give us some time. By making these rules you are taking away my rights by restricting my movement from one place to another.

DeshGujarat