# RAJDEEP GHOSH v. STATE OF ASSAM & ORS

- **Citation:** [2018] 11 S.C.R. 329
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2018-08-17
- **Bench:** Arun Mishra, S. Abdul Nazeer
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/rajdeep-ghosh-v-state-of-assam-ors-32257
- **Pages:** 35

## Headnote

Medical Colleges and Dental Colleges of Assam (Regulations
of Admission into 1st year MBBS/BDS Courses) Rules, 2017 -
r.3(1)(c) - Eligibility for State quota seats - r.3(1)(c) prescribing
condition of obtaining education from class VII to XII in the State
of Assam - Validity of r.3(1)(c) on the touchstone of Art.14 of the
Constitution - Whether the classification that has been made in
r.3(1)(c) is unreasonable and violative of the provisions contained
in Art.14 of the Constitution and students passing out or obtaining
education in other States have been illegally ousted from the
eligibility criteria prescribed for seats of State quota - Held: The
preference to the State residents cannot be said to be unintelligible
criteria suffering from vice of arbitrariness in any manner whatsoever
- r.3(1)(c) framed by the Government of Assam is based on an
intelligible differentia and cannot be said to be discriminatory and
in violation of Art.14 - It is permissible to lay down the essential
educational requirements, residential/domicile in a particular State
in respect of basic courses of MBBS/BDS/Ayurvedic - Thus, r.3(1)(c)
of the Rules is in consonance with the spirit of Art.14 of the
Constitution - Constitution of India - Art.14 - Education -
Admissions.
Dismissing the Petitions, the Court
HELD: 1. This Court has held in various decisions, that it
is permissible to lay down the essential educational requirements,
residential/domicile in a particular State in respect of basic courses
of MBBS/BDS/Ayurvedic. The object sought to be achieved is
that the incumbent must serve the State concerned and for the
emancipation of the educational standards of the people who are
residing in a particular State, such reservation has been upheld
by this Court for the inhabitants of the State and prescription of
 [2018] 11 S.C.R. 329
 329
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
330
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
the condition of obtaining an education in a State. The only
distinction has been made with respect to postgraduate and postdoctoral super specialty course. [Para 32] [362-A-B]
2. Rule 3(1)(c) of the Medical Colleges and Dental Colleges
of Assam (Regulations of Admission into 1st year MBBS/BDS
Courses) Rules, 2017 lays down the requirement of obtaining
education in the State and relaxation has been given to the wards
of the State Government employees or Central Government
employees or to an employee of Corporation/Agency/
instrumentality under the Government of Assam or the Central
Government, whether on deputation or transfer on regular posting
from obtaining education from class VII to XII for the period his/
her father or mother is working outside the State. As urged on
behalf of the petitioners the employees of other State Government
but residents of Assam, similar relaxation ought to have been
made, cannot be accepted. Thus, their exclusion cannot be said
to be irrational and arbitrary. The wards of the employees in the
service of other States like Government employees of Arunachal
Pradesh, form a totally different class. When the wards are
obtaining education outside and the parents are working in
Arunachal Pradesh as Government employee or elsewhere, they
are not likely to come back to the State of Assam. As such
Government of Assam holds that they should provide preference
to State residents/institutional preference cannot be said to
unintelligible criteria suffering from vice of arbitrariness in any
manner whatsoever, thus, Rule 3(1)(c) framed by the Government
of Assam is based on an intelligible differentia and cannot be said
to be discriminatory and in violation of Article 14.
[Para 33] [362-C-F]
3. With respect to the private employees also, the
submission was raised that wards of private employees working
outside the State ought to have been placed at the similar footing
as that of the wards of the State Government/Central Government
employees etc. When once parents have moved outside in a
private employment and wards obtaining education outs

## Text

_Characters 0–39,944 of 82,041. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39944 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
329
 RAJDEEP GHOSH
 v.
 STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.
 (Writ Petition (C) No. 766 of 2018)
 AUGUST 17, 2018
 [ARUN MISHRA AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Medical Colleges and Dental Colleges of Assam (Regulations
of Admission into 1st year MBBS/BDS Courses) Rules, 2017 -
r.3(1)(c) - Eligibility for State quota seats - r.3(1)(c) prescribing
condition of obtaining education from class VII to XII in the State
of Assam - Validity of r.3(1)(c) on the touchstone of Art.14 of the
Constitution - Whether the classification that has been made in
r.3(1)(c) is unreasonable and violative of the provisions contained
in Art.14 of the Constitution and students passing out or obtaining
education in other States have been illegally ousted from the
eligibility criteria prescribed for seats of State quota - Held: The
preference to the State residents cannot be said to be unintelligible
criteria suffering from vice of arbitrariness in any manner whatsoever
- r.3(1)(c) framed by the Government of Assam is based on an
intelligible differentia and cannot be said to be discriminatory and
in violation of Art.14 - It is permissible to lay down the essential
educational requirements, residential/domicile in a particular State
in respect of basic courses of MBBS/BDS/Ayurvedic - Thus, r.3(1)(c)
of the Rules is in consonance with the spirit of Art.14 of the
Constitution - Constitution of India - Art.14 - Education -
Admissions.
Dismissing the Petitions, the Court
HELD: 1. This Court has held in various decisions, that it
is permissible to lay down the essential educational requirements,
residential/domicile in a particular State in respect of basic courses
of MBBS/BDS/Ayurvedic. The object sought to be achieved is
that the incumbent must serve the State concerned and for the
emancipation of the educational standards of the people who are
residing in a particular State, such reservation has been upheld
by this Court for the inhabitants of the State and prescription of
 [2018] 11 S.C.R. 329
 329
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
330
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
the condition of obtaining an education in a State. The only
distinction has been made with respect to postgraduate and postdoctoral super specialty course. [Para 32] [362-A-B]
2. Rule 3(1)(c) of the Medical Colleges and Dental Colleges
of Assam (Regulations of Admission into 1st year MBBS/BDS
Courses) Rules, 2017 lays down the requirement of obtaining
education in the State and relaxation has been given to the wards
of the State Government employees or Central Government
employees or to an employee of Corporation/Agency/
instrumentality under the Government of Assam or the Central
Government, whether on deputation or transfer on regular posting
from obtaining education from class VII to XII for the period his/
her father or mother is working outside the State. As urged on
behalf of the petitioners the employees of other State Government
but residents of Assam, similar relaxation ought to have been
made, cannot be accepted. Thus, their exclusion cannot be said
to be irrational and arbitrary. The wards of the employees in the
service of other States like Government employees of Arunachal
Pradesh, form a totally different class. When the wards are
obtaining education outside and the parents are working in
Arunachal Pradesh as Government employee or elsewhere, they
are not likely to come back to the State of Assam. As such
Government of Assam holds that they should provide preference
to State residents/institutional preference cannot be said to
unintelligible criteria suffering from vice of arbitrariness in any
manner whatsoever, thus, Rule 3(1)(c) framed by the Government
of Assam is based on an intelligible differentia and cannot be said
to be discriminatory and in violation of Article 14.
[Para 33] [362-C-F]
3. With respect to the private employees also, the
submission was raised that wards of private employees working
outside the State ought to have been placed at the similar footing
as that of the wards of the State Government/Central Government
employees etc. When once parents have moved outside in a
private employment and wards obtaining education outside, they
are not likely to come back, thus, their exclusion as afore-stated
footing cannot be said to be irrational or illegal. [Para 34]
[362-G-H]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
331
4. It was urged that some of the students may obtain
admission in other States for the purpose of better coaching.
Relevant data has not been placed on record by the petitioners
that in Assam coaching is not available. Apart from that, when
they can afford to obtain coaching in other States, they stand on a
different footing, they are the one who belongs to an affluent class
who can afford expensive education in other States and it is not
necessary that they should be adjusted in State quota seat, they
can stake claim for All India Quota Seats for the State of Assam.
They can stake their claim with respect to open seats within the
State of Assam. The exclusion is not total for them. However,
with respect to the State-quota seats, since it is open to the State
Government to lay down the educational as well as domicile
requirement, incumbents must fulfill the criteria. The criteria so
laid down in Rule 3(1)(c) of Rules of 2017, cannot be said to be
ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Rule 3(1)(c)
of the Rules of 2017 is in consonance with the spirit of Article 14
of the Constitution of India. [Para 35, 36] [363-A-D]
Dr. Pradeep Jain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
(1984) 3 SCC 654 : [1984] 3 SCR 942 ; Anant Madaan
v. State of Haryana and Ors. (1995) 2 SCC 135
- relied on.
Dr. Jagadish Saran & Ors. v. Union of India (1980) 2
SCC 768 : [1980] 2 SCR 831 ; D.P. Joshi v. State of
Madhya Bharat & Anr., AIR 1955 SC 334 :
[1955] SCR 1215 ; Kumari N. Vasundara v. State of
Mysore & Anr. (1971) 2 SCC 22 ; Dr. Jagadish Saran
and Ors. v. Union of India (1980) 2 SCC 768 :
[1980] 2 SCR 831 ; Saurabh Chaudri & Ors. v. Union
of India & Ors. (2003) 11 SCC 146 : [2003] 5 Suppl.
SCR 152 ; Nikhil Himthani v. State of Uttarakhand &
Ors. (2013) 10 SCC 237 : [2013] 14 SCR 23 ; Vishal
Goyal & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.(2014) 11
SCC 456 ; Magan Mehrotra v. Union of India
(2003) 11 SCC 186 ; Dr. Kriti Lakhina & Ors. v. State
of Karnataka & Ors. [2018] 3 SCR 517 ; E.V.
Chinnaiah v. State of A.P. & Ors. (2005) 1 SCC 394 :
[2004] 5 Suppl. SCR 972 ; Deepak Sibal v. Punjab
University & Anr. (1989) 2 SCC 145 - referred to.
 RAJDEEP GHOSH v. STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
332
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
Case Law Reference
[1980] 2 SCR 831
 referred to
Para 5
[1955] SCR 1215
 referred to
Para 17
(1971) 2 SCC 22
 referred to
Para 18
[1984] 3 SCR 942
 relied on
Para 19
(1995) 2 SCC 135
 relied on
Para 20
[1980] 2 SCR 831
 referred to
Para 21
[2003] 5 Suppl. SCR 152 referred to
Para 23
[2013] 14 SCR 23
 referred to
Para 25
(2014) 11 SCC 456
 referred to
Para 27
(2003) 11 SCC 186
 referred to
Para 27
[2004] 5 Suppl. SCR 972 referred to
Para 30
(1989) 2 SCC 145
 referred to
Para 31
[2018[ 3 SCR 517
 referred to
Para 29
CIVIL ORIGINAL/APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 766 of 2018.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
WITH
Writ Petition (Civil) Nos.795, 831, 768 and 763 of 2018,
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16200 of 2018, Writ Petition (Civil)
Nos. 758, 771, 767, 759, 765, 760, 776, 781, 780 , 813 , 835 800, 812 and
821 of 2018.
Mr. Maninder Singh, ASG, Nalin Kohli, Adv. (AAG), V. Giri, Kamal
Nayan Chaudhary, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr.Advs. Manish Goswami
(for Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal), Parthiv K. Goswami, Ms. Palak
Mahajan, Rahul Pratap, Amit Pawan, Abhishek Amritanshu, Anand
Nanda, Akshat Srivastava, Hassan Zubair Waris, Rohit Rajershi, Azim
H. Laskar, Sachin Das, Rajiv Narain, Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Indrajeet
Singh, Shuvodeep Roy, Prabhas Bajaj, Ankit Roy, Sayooj Mohandas,
Ms. Nimisha Menon, Ms. Kanika Saran, Sanjay Kumar Pathak,
Ms. Snidha Mehra, Debojit Borkakati, M. Balashivudu, Gaurav Sharma,
Tara Chandra Sharma, Ms. Neelam Sharma, Ms. Pankhuri Shrivastava,
Rajeev Sharma, Advs. for the appearing parties.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
333
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ARUN MISHRA, J. 1. The writ petitions have been preferred
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India questioning the constitutional
validity of Rule 3(1)(c) of the Medical Colleges and Dental Colleges of
Assam (Regulations of Admission into 1styear MBBS/BDS Courses)
Rules, 2017 (in short referred to as 'the Rules of 2017'). The petitioners
have come with the case that though State can provide for preference in
the matter of admission, however, such classification must be based
upon objective criteria and must have a rational nexus with the objective
it seeks to achieve.
2. Rule 3 of the Rules of 2017 provides for eligibility for the State
quota seats. Same is extracted hereunder :
"Rule 3 - Eligibility for State Quota Seats:
The following conditions must be fulfilled:-
1.(a) The candidate must be a citizen of India.
(b) The candidate must be a permanent citizen of Assam. The
father/ mother or the candidate must be residing in the State of
Assam continuously for not less than a period of 20 years. (The
certificate at Annexure - I in Application Form at Schedule - I of
these rules must be submitted if a candidate is called for
counseling):
Provided that this shall not be applicable to the sons/ daughters of
officers of All India Services allotted to Assam (certificate
regarding the service of father/ mother of the candidate from the
concerned authority/department of Government of Assam must
be submitted if a candidate is called for counseling.
(c) The candidate must study in all the classes from class VII to
XII in the State of Assam and must pass the Qualifying Examination
or its equivalent examination from any Institute situated in the
State of Assam. (Certificate at Annexure-II in Application Form
at Schedule - I of these rules must be submitted if a candidate is
called for counseling.)
Provided that if a candidate studies outside Assam from Class -
VII onwards because his/her father/ mother is posted outside
Assam as a Assam State Government Employee or as a Central
 RAJDEEP GHOSH v. STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
334
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
Government employee or as an employee of a Corporation/
Agency/ instrumentality under Government of Assam or Central
Government whether on deputation or transfer or regular posting
then the period for which the said father/mother is working outside
the State shall be relaxable for such candidate. (Certificate of
employment of father/mother outside the State indicating the period
of service from the concerned authority must be submitted if a
candidate is called for counseling.)
(d) Candidate's age should not be below 17 years and above 25
years of age on the 31st December of the year in which the
admission is sought for:
Provided that the maximum age limit is relaxable by 3 years in
case of candidates belonging to SC/ST(P)/ST(H)/ OBC/MOBC
category."
3. The petitioners have questioned aforesaid Rule 3(1)(c) which
requires that a candidate must study in all the classes from Class VII to
XII in the State of Assam and must pass the qualifying examination or
its equivalent examination from any Institute situated in the State of
Assam. The exception has been carved out in case father or mother is
posted outside Assam as an Assam State Government employee or
Central Government employee or as an employee of a Corporation/
Agency/instrumentality under the Government of Assam or Central
Government.
4. The petitioners submit that they have not passed Class XII.
Some of the petitioners have not passed both Class XI and Class XII.
They are residents of the State of Assam. They claim that they have
studied in Assam for sufficient period. However, they are not eligible as
per the aforesaid criteria prescribed under Rule 3(1)(c) of the Rules of
2017.
5. The petitioners have urged that classification made is violative
of Article 14. No expert study has been done so as to find out the
candidates who have studied from Class VII to XII outside the State of
Assam are likely not to serve the State after they acquire their MBBS
degree. In the absence of such study and collection of material, the
action is unsustainable and is not in accordance with the law laid down
in Dr. Jagadish Saran & Ors. v. Union of India (1980) 2 SCC 768.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
335
As the parents of the petitioner are permanent residents of State of
Assam and fulfill other conditions of eligibility,denial of State-quota seats
only on the ground that they have completed their class XI and XII from
outside the State of Assam, is clearly irrational, unreasonable and
arbitrary. The State Government obtains a bondagreement to serve the
State for a period of 5 years or render one year of rural service on
completion of the MBBS course and in case of breach, to pay a sum of
Rs.30 lakhs to the Government as compensation. While a student is
admitted in the MBBS course that would ensure the incumbent would
serve the State as provided in bond after passing out MBBS. Considering
the provisions contained in Rule 15 of the Rules of 2017, the requirement
of study in educational institution/s in the State, as provided in Rule 3(1)(c)
has to be construed as directory and not mandatory. The classification
made is a hostile one and is not based on any intelligible differentia. In
case any parent is in the employment of other State Government and is
serving in the other State or in the case of a person, his parent is doing a
private job outside, could not have been discriminated and ought to have
been kept at par in the excepted category as provided in Rule 3(1)(c) as
Central Government or State Government servant.
6. The petitioners have submitted that the admission rules framed
by the State Government have undergone changes from time to time. In
the Rules of 2007, Rule 3(2)(c) provided for 4 years schooling inAssam
either in (i) HSLC or (ii) HSLC and HSSLC stages combined as an
eligibility condition for appearing in the qualifying examination. The proviso
to the said rule, however, relaxed the above condition in case the fatheror
the mother of the candidate have completed their schooling in the State
for a minimum of 4 years in HSLC level.
7. Rule 3(1) of the 2015 Rules provided the following eligibility
conditions:
(a) The candidate must be a citizen of India.
(b)
(c) The candidate must be a permanent resident of Assam. The
candidate or his/ her father/ mother must be residing in the
State of Assam continuously for not less than a period of 20
years. (The original PRC certificate at Annexure - I in
Application form B at Schedule - I of these rules must be
submitted if a candidate is called for counseling):
 RAJDEEP GHOSH v. STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
336
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
Provided that this shall not be applicable to the sons/ daughters
of officers of All India Services allotted to Assam (certificate
regarding the service of father/ mother of the candidate from
the concerned authority/ department of Government of Assam
must be submitted if a candidate is called for counseling.)
(d) The candidate including sons/ daughters of officers of All India
Services must study in all classes from class VII to XII in the
State of Assam and must pass the Qualifying Examination from
the Institutes situated in the State of Assam. (Certificate at
Annexure-II in Application Form B at Schedule-I of these rules
must be submitted if a candidate is called for counseling.)
Provided that if a candidate studies outside Assam from Class
- VII onwards because his/ her father/ mother is posted outside
Assam as a State Government employee on deputation or
transfer or regular posting then the period for which father/
mother is working outside the State shall be relaxable for such
candidate. (Certificate of employment of father/ mother outside
the State indicating the period of service must be submitted if a
candidate is called for counseling.)"
In 2016 "Rule 3(1)(c) was amended as follows:
(c) The candidate, including sons/ daughters of Officers of All
India Services, must study in all classes from class VI to X in
the State of Assam and must pass the HSLC or its equivalent
examination conducted by the Government recognized Board/
Council from any institute situated in the State of Assam
(Certificate at Annexure-II in Application Form B at
Schedule - I of these rules must be submitted if a candidate is
called for counselling)."
8. The petitioners have further submitted that Rule 3(1)(c) as
amended in 2016, was questioned before the Guwahati High Court and
it was struck down. It was declared to be irrational and violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The review petition was also filed
and the same was dismissed. Thereafter, Rules of 2017 have been enacted
prescribing the aforesaid criteria of study in Rule 3(1)(c). In February
2018, NEET examination was conducted on all India basis for admission
in any medical college including dental colleges and Ayurvedic colleges
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
337
and the result of NEET has been declared. Notice for counseling was
issued on 22.6.2018. Pursuant thereto counseling was held on 29.6.2018.
As per the NEET position, the petitioners claimed that they were entitled
to admission. However, it was not given to them owing to not fulfilling
the irrational criteria under Rule 3(1)(c).
9. In the counter affidavit filed by the State of Assam in W.P. [C]
No.758/2018, it was contended that in the Rules of 2007 requirement of
4 years of school education between 6th to 12th standard was necessary
in the State of Assam. Having regard to the level of backwardness,
inadequate development, lack of adequate number of doctors to provide
services all over the State of Assam including in the remote areas, it was
considered to be quintessential to ensure that admissions in medical MBBS
courses in the Government medical colleges do become available to
bona fide candidates of Assam belonging to the State. The rules were
amended in the year 2015 and the requirement of 6 years of schooling
was introduced between 7th to 12th standard in the State of Assam. The
other two requirements were that the candidate must be a permanent
resident of State of Assam and the candidate or his/her father/mother
must be residing in the State of Assam continuously for a minimum period
of 20 years. This amendment was notified. It was known to all concerned
that there is a requirement of undertaking the study in the schools of
State of Assam. Thus, after having taken a conscious decisionto exercise
their choice to study class XI and XII, in schools outside the State of
Assam, they cannot stake the claim that they should be considered eligible
for admission in the MBBS course in Government colleges in the State
of Assam as against State quota seats. The petitioners do not fulfill the
criteria.
10. The amendment of 2016 made in Rule 3(1)(c) was challenged
before the High Court of Guwahati. The provisions of 2016 were different
and in the review application, the High Court had observed that the
State can lay down any reasonable eligibility criteria of domicile for
admission under the State quota seats for medical courses in the State
of Assam. It is contended that the State can lay down the criteria of
institutional preference or number of years of study in the State.
Thereafter, the amendment in rules has been made.
11. Rules of 2017 prescribe 6 years of schooling from Class VII
to Class XII in the State of Assam. Other requirements being that the
 RAJDEEP GHOSH v. STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
338
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
candidate must be a permanent resident and father/mother must be
residing in the State continuously for 20 years. Rule 15 provides for a
bond to be filed containing the aforesaid stipulation. The High Court has
upheld the validity of the rule by judgment dated 2.8.2017. Special leave
petition was preferred against the same judgment. Special leave petition
was disposed of and was not decided on merits as admissions already
made were not to be disturbed after the lapse of time frame. The
petitioners were fully aware while they were taking instructions outside
the State that they could not be eligible to stake their claim in the State
quota seats in the State of Assam.They have not questioned the rule
before appearing for NEET examination. The stipulation of pursuing the
study from Class VII to Class XII in the State of Assam has been provided
with the object that the candidates stay back in the State of Assam after
completion of their studies to serve the State and its requirement. The
stipulation made is constitutionally valid and is in the best interest of the
State. Having regard to the limited resources available at the State's
disposal, the provision is constitutional and legal. It is necessary for the
State of Assam to have the doctors to take care of its inhabitants in the
far-flung northeast area.
12. Education is a State subject and one of the Directive Principles
enshrined in Part IV of the Constitution is that the State should make
effective provisions for education within the limits of its economy.
Concession given to the residents of the State in the matter of admission
is obviously calculated to serve their interest as presumably some of
them may after passing out of the college, settle down as doctors and
serve the needs of the locality. The classification is reasonable and has
a correlation with the object to be achieved by the legislation and is not
amenable to challenge. A similar stipulation in the case of other States
has been upheld by this Court. Law has been settled by this Court as to
the MBBS/BDS courses.
13. It was submitted by learned senior and other counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioners that classification made in Rule 3(1)(c) of
the Rules of 2017 is violative of Article 14, arbitrary and unreasonable.
The condition of obtaining education from Class VII to XII in the State
of Assam is wholly uncalled for, for obtaining a better education and the
students usually go out of the State. The state could not have deprived
them of staking their claims against the State-quota seats in the medical
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
339
colleges in Assam. It was also urged that the coaching facilities are not
available in the State of Assam, as such some of the students have
obtained admission outside,due to coaching facilities available in other
States. Thus, it could not be said to be reasonable to impose a rider of
obtaining an education of Class XI and XII in State of Assam only. It
was further urged that the parents of certain candidates/petitioners are
in the Government service of other adjoining States such as Arunachal
Pradesh. Their wards have also been deprived of admission as they
have obtained the education from the place where their parents are
staying in other States. Thus, the classification made is unreasonable
and arbitrary. It was also submitted that distinction could not have been
made between the Government employment and private employment
and in case parents are also in private employment outside the State and
the students are obtaining education in other States where their parents
are residing, they ought not to have been ousted from the eligibility criteria
prescribed in Rules 3(1)(c). Thus, the same deserves to be struck down.
14. Mr. Maninder Singh, learned ASG and Mr. Nalin Kohli, learned
AAG and other learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents
supported the rule. It was submitted that it was open to the State
Government to make such a provision. The same has been enacted in
order to enable the students to obtain an education in the State of Assam
who are otherwise also residents of Assam and in order to ensure that
after obtaining the education, they cater to the needs of the State of
Assam. There is a dearth of doctors. Thus, the provision could have
been made providing reservation on the ground of residence and education
in the State, otherwise, the classification made is reasonable. Provision
has been made for the employees of the State of Assam or the Central
Government employees or the employees of the Corporation/agency/
instrumentalities or who are posted outside on deputation etc. The
relaxation has been given to them. The classification of obtaining the
educationthat has been made is reasonable. Besides that, its aim has a
rational nexus with the objective sought to be achieved by serving the
populace of the State of Assam. The students who have obtained
education outside the State are not likely to stay in Assam. The provision
of Rule 15 regarding furnishing of bond requiring the MBBS students to
serve the State for 5 years or to pay Rs.30 lakhs in case of default
cannot be said to be an adequate safeguard, as such provision for such
 RAJDEEP GHOSH v. STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
340
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
reservation is permissible to be made with respect to the seats of State
quota. They are required to be fulfilled as per the eligibility criteria
prescribed by the Government.
15. The main question for consideration is whether the
classification that has been made in Rule 3(1)(c) to the Rules of 2017 is
unreasonable and violative of the provisions contained in Article 14 of
the Constitution of India and students passing out or obtaining education
in other States in the aforesaid exigencies have been illegally ousted
from the eligibility criteria prescribed for seats of State quota.
16. A bare reading of Rule 3(1)(c) makes it clear that the
requirement is multi-fold. Firstly, the candidate must be a citizen of India,
secondly, he/she must be a permanent citizen of Assam and for that
father/mother or the candidate must be residing in the State of Assam
continuously for not less than a period of 20 years. The exception has
been carved out with respect towards of the employees of all-India
services allotted to Assam. The third requirement is that the candidate
must study in all the classes from class VII to XII in the State of Assam
and must pass a qualifying examination equivalent from an institution
situated in Assam. Exception has been carved out in favour of such
candidates whose parents are posted, his/her father or mother is posted
outside the State of Assam as Assam State Government employee or as
Central Government employee or as the employee of Corporation/
Agency/instrumentality under the Government of Assam or Central
Government, on deputation, transfer or regular posting. The exception
has been given for the period father or mother is working outside the
State, besides the eligibility criteria prescribing the age of the candidate
to be between 17 and 25 years. Three years' relaxation has been given
to SC/ST(P)/ST(H)/OBC category in the maximum age limit.
17. Before dwelling upon the rival submissions, it is appropriate to
take note of the various decisions referred to at Bar. In D.P. Joshi v.
State of Madhya Bharat& Anr., AIR 1955 SC 334, the student who
was a resident of Madhya Bharat was obtaining an education in Indore
in Malwa regionin a medical college. There was discrimination with
respect to the fees. This Court had observed that the classification to
help the students who are residents of Madhya Bharat was made with
the legitimate and laudable objective to encourage education within its
borders. The Court has observed:
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
341
"15.The object of the classification underlying the impugned rule
was clearly to help to some extent students who are residents of
Madhya Bharat in the prosecution of their studies, and it cannot
be disputed that it is quite a legitimate and laudable objective for a
State to encourage education within its borders. Education is a
State subject, and one of the directive principles declared in Part
IV of the Constitution is that the State should make effective
provisions for education within the limits of its economy. (Vide
article 41). The State has to contribute for the upkeep and the
running of its educational institutions.
We are in this petition concerned with a Medical College, and it is
well-known that it requires considerable finance to maintain such
an institution. If the State has to spend money on it, is it
unreasonable that it should so order the educational system that
the advantage of it would to some extent at least enure for the
benefit of the State? A concession given to the residents of the
State in the matter of fees is obviously calculated to serve that
end, as presumably some of them might, after passing out of the
College, settle down as doctors and serve the needs of the locality.
The classification is thus based on a ground which has a reasonable
relation to the subject-matter of the legislation and is in consequence
not open to attack. It has been held in The State of Punjab v.
Ajaib Singh and another, AIR 1953 SC 10 (G), that a classification
might validly be made on a geographical basis. Such a classification
would be eminently just and reasonable, where it relates to
education which is the concern primarily of the State. The
contention, therefore, that the rule imposing capitation fee is in
contravention of article 14 must be rejected."
18. In Kumari N. Vasundara v. State of Mysore & Anr. 1971 (2)
SCC 22, this Court considered the Government rules for admission to
the pre-professional course in medical college. Rule 3 of the selection
rules prescribed the condition of residence for 10 years. It was held that
the object of the Rules was to ensure imparting medical education to the
best talent available out of the class of persons who were likely to serve
as doctors, the inhabitants of the State of Mysore and the same does not
suffer from the vice of unreasonableness. The Court had observed:
 RAJDEEP GHOSH v. STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
342
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
"7. In D.P. Joshi v. The State of Madhya Bharat and Anr., AIR
1955 SC 334, this Court had while upholding by majority the rules,
made by the State of Madhya Bharat, for admission to the
Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Medical College, Indore, charging
capitation fee from non-Madhya Bharat students laid down that
in those rules the word "domicile" was used in its popular sense
conveying the idea of residence. Venkatarama Ayyar. J., speaking
for the majority said:
"It was also urged on behalf of the respondent that the word
"domicile" in the rule might be construed not in its technical
legal sense, but in a popular sense as meaning "residence",
and the following passage in Wharton's Law Lexicon, 14th
Edition, page 344 was quoted as supporting such a construction:
"By the term 'domicile', in its ordinary acceptation, is meant
the place where a person lives or has his home. In this sense,
the place where a person has his actual residence, inhabitancy,
or commorancy, is sometimes called his domicile".
In Mcmullen v. Wadsworth (1880) 14 A.C. 631, it was observed
by the Judicial Committee that "the word 'domicil' in Article
63 (of the Civil Code of Lower Canada) was used in the sense
of residence, and did not refer to international domicile". What
has to be considered is whether in the present context "domicile"
was used in the sense of residence. The rule requiring the
payment of a capitation fee and providing for exemption
therefrom refers only to bona fide residents within the State.
There is no reference to domicile in the rule itself, but in the
Explanation which follows, Clauses (a) and (b) refers to
domicile, and they occur as part of the definition of "bona fide
resident". In Corpus Juris Secundum, Volume 28, page 5, it is
stated:
"The term 'bona fide residence' means the residence with
domiciliary intent."
There is, therefore, considerable force in the contention of the
respondent that when the rulemaking authorities referred to
domicile in Clauses (a) and (b) they were thinking really of
residence. In this view also, the contention that the rule is
repugnant to Article 15(1) must fail."
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
343
Under the impugned rule, in that case, no capitation fee was to be
charged from the students who were bona fide residents of
Madhya Bharat, and the expression "bona fide resident" for the
purpose of the rule was defined as (to quote the relevant portion):
"one who is-
(a) a citizen of India whose original domicile is in Madhya
Bharat provided he has not acquired a domicile elsewhere, or
(b) a citizen of India, whose original domicile is not in Madhya
Bharat but who has acquired a domicile in Madhya Bharat
and has resided there for not less than 5 years at the date, on
which he applies for admission, or
(c) a person who migrated from Pakistan before September
30, 1948, and intends to reside in Madhya Bharat permanently,
or
(d)
x
x
x
x."
In our view, the word "domicile" as used in Rule 3 in the present
case is also used to convey the idea of an intention to reside or
remain in the State of Mysore. If classification based on residence
does not impinge upon the principle of equality enshrined in Article
14 as held by this Court in the decision already cited which is
binding upon us, then the further condition of the residence in the
State being there for at least ten years would also seem to be
equally valid unless it is shown by the petitioner that selection of
the period of ten years makes the classification so unreasonable
as to render it arbitrary and without any substantial basis or
intelligible differentia. The object of framing the impugned rule
seems to be to attempt to impart medical education to the best
talent available out of the class of persons who are likely, so far
as it can reasonably be foreseen, to serve as doctors, the inhabitants
of the State of Mysore. It is true that it is not possible to say with
absolute certainty that all those admitted to the medical colleges
would necessarily stay in Mysore State after qualifying as doctors:
they have indeed a fundamental right as citizens to settle anywhere
in India and they are also free, if they so desire and can manage,
to go out of India for further studies or even otherwise. But these
possibilities are permissible and inherent in our Constitutional set-
 RAJDEEP GHOSH v. STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
344
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
up and these considerations cannot adversely affect the
Constitutionality of the otherwise valid rule. The problem as noticed
in Minor P. Rajendran's case, (1968) 2 SCR 786 and as revealed
by a large number of cases which have recently come to this
Court Is that the number of candidates desirous of having a medical
education is very much larger than the number of seats available
in medical colleges. The need and demand for doctors in our
country is so great that young boys and girls feel that in medical
profession they can both get gainful employment and serve the
people. The State has, therefore, to formulate with reasonable
foresight a just scheme of classification for imparting medical
education to the available candidates which would serve the object
and purpose of providing broad-based medical aid to the people
of the State and provide medical education to those who are best
suited for such education. Proper classification inspired by this
consideration and selection on merit from such classified groups,
therefore, cannot be challenged on the ground of inequality violating
Article 14. The impugned rule has not been shown by the petitioner
to suffer from the vice of unreasonableness. The counter-affidavit
filed by the State, on the other hand, discloses the purpose to be
that of serving the interests of the residents of the State by
providing medical aid for them.
8. The petitioner's argument that candidates whose parents have
of necessity to remain out of Mysore State and who have also by
compelling reasons to shift their residence frequently from one
State to another without completing ten years in any one State,
would suffer because their parents cannot afford to arrange for
their children's residence in Mysore State for ten years during the
first 17 years of their age, merely suggests that there is a likelihood
of some cases of hardship under the impugned rule. But cases of
hardship are likely to arise in the working of almost any rule which
may be framed for selecting a limited number of candidates for
admission out of a long list. This, however, would not render the
rule unconstitutional. For relief against hardship in the working of
a valid rule, the petitioner has to approach elsewhere because it
relates to the policy underlying the rule. Redress for the grievance
against the wide gap between the number of seats in the medical
colleges and the number of candidates aspiring to become doctors
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
345
for earning their own livelihood and for serving the needs of the
country, is also to be sought elsewhere and not in this Court, which
is only concerned with the constitutionality of the rule."
19. In Dr. Pradeep Jain &Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (1984)
3 SCC 654, the Court has observed that for the MBBS course residence
requirement in a particular State in the matter of admission cannot be
said to be irrational or irrelevant and neitherin violation of Article 14.
The Court observed:
"19. It will be noticed from the above discussion that though
intra-state discrimination between persons resident in different
districts or regions of a State has by and large been frowned upon
by the court and struck down as invalid as in Minor P. Rajendran's
case (supra) and Perukaruppan's case (supra), the Court has in
D.N. Chanchalas case and other similar cases up-held institutional
reservation effected through university wise distribution of seats
for admission to medical colleges. The Court has also by its decisions
in D.P. Joshi's case and N. Vasundhara's case (supra) sustained
the constitutional validity of reservation based on residence within
a State for the purpose of admission to medical college. These
decisions which all relate to admission to MBBS course are binding
upon us and it is therefore not possible for us to hold, in the face
of these decisions, that residence requirement in at State for
admission to MBBS course is irrational and irrelevant and cannot
be introduced as a condition for admission without violating the
mandate of equality of opportunity contained in Article 14 We
must proceed on the basis that at least so far as admission to
MBBS course is concerned, residence requirement in a State can
be introduced as a condition for admission to the MBBS course.
It is of course true that the Medical Education Review Committee
established by the Government of India has in its report
recommended after taking into account all relevant considerations,
that the "final objective should be to ensure that all admissions to
the MBBS course should be open to candidates on an All India
basis without the imposition of existing domiciliary condition", but
having regard to the practical difficulties of transition to the stage
where admissions to MBBS course in all medical colleges would
be on All India Basis, the Medical Education Review Committee
 RAJDEEP GHOSH v. STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.
[ARUN MISHRA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
346
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 11 S.C.R.
has suggested "that to begin with not less than 25 per cent seats
in each institution may be open to candidates on all India basis."
We are not all sure whether at the present stage it would be
consistent with the mandate of equality in its broader dynamic
sense to provide that admissions to the MBBS course in all medical
colleges in the country should be on all India basis.