High Court
Legal Reasoning
917 WP NO. 9290 OF 20258.We have considered the rival submissions. Upon perusing thepetition and the documents filed therewith, we find that this is not acase where the petitioner visited her parents in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia,and was stranded due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The material onrecord shows that the petitioner was residing with her family inRiyadh, Saudi Arabia and that she completed her 10th Standard (SSCExamination) from the International Indian School, Riyadh SaudiArabia in the year 2021. Thereafter, she completed her 12th Standard(HSC Examination) from the State of Maharashtra. Therefore, shehas not passed both her 10th and 12th examination within the State ofMaharashtra although she does possess a certificate of domicile in herfavour.9.Clauses 4.2, 4.5, 4.6 of the information brochure issued byrespondent No. 3 read as follows:-“4.2Domicile of Candidate : The Candidates must be Domicile ofMaharashtra (Except candidates under clause 4.1.3, 4.1.4,4.7, 4.8, Annexure C and E)4.5The candidate must have passed the SSC or equivalentexamination from an Institution situated in the State ofMaharashtra. (Please refer 4.1.3, 4.14, 4.7, 4.8, Annexure“C” & Annexure “E” for exception)Exemption : Candidate who has passed SSC or equivalentexamination in 2017 or prior to that, from an instituteoutside the State of Maharashtra is also eligible to seekadmission, provided he has passed HSC or qualifyingJhs/4/7 917 WP NO. 9290 OF 2025examination from an institute in the State of Maharashtraand also possess Domicile Certificate issued by the authority,who is competent to issue such certificate in the State ofMaharashtra for education purpose gazette no.MED-1018/C. R. 405/18/Edu-2 dated 20/04/2019.4.6The candidate must have passed the qualifying examinationi.e. Higher Secondary Certificate (HSC/12th Standard) orequivalent examination, from an Institution situated in theState of Maharashtra (Please refer 4.1.3, 4.1.4, 4.7, 4.8,Annexure “C” & Annexure “E” for exception) with English,Physics, Chemistry and Biology (Botany & Zoology) at thetime of document verification.”10.The only exceptions are provided for children of employees ofthe Government of India, All India Services, Defence personnel, andemployees of the Government of Maharashtra and its undertakings,as per Clauses 4.7 and 4.8 of the said brochure.11.Admittedly, the petitioner is not covered under any of theexceptions. Therefore, in order to claim that she needs to beconsidered for the 85% seats for the candidates from the State ofMaharashtra, she has to satisfy the requirement of the above quotedClauses 4.2, 4.5 and 4.6. As the petitioner has not passed her 10thStandard (SSC Examination) from the State of Maharashtra, she doesnot satisfy the requirement.12.As regards the definition of OMS Candidates as per Clause3(w), reference to the said clause is necessary. It reads as follows:-Jhs/5/7 917 WP NO. 9290 OF 2025“3.DEFINITIONSw. “OMS” means candidate who have passed 10th / 12th or bothfrom Outside Maharashtra State and who is not Domicile ofMaharashtra”13.We find that an OMS candidates is one who has passed either10th Standard (SSC Examination) or 12th Standard (HSCExamination) or both from outside the State of Maharashtra. Thecomplication has occurred because of the use of the word ‘and’ in thesaid clause before the words ‘who is not domicile of Maharashtra’. Inthe present case, a copy of the certificate of domicile placed on recordindeed shows that the petitioner has a domicile certificate of theState of Maharashtra, but at the same time, it is also an admittedposition that she did not pass her 10th Standard (SSC Examination)from the State of Maharashtra. In fact, she passed such examinationfrom outside the State of Maharashtra. Therefore, even if ideally, theword ‘or’ should have existed in the place of ‘and’ in Clause 3(w),that in itself cannot benefit the petitioner, for the simple reason thatshe does not satisfy the specific requirement of clauses 4.2, 4.5 and4.6, read together, to be treated as a candidate from the State ofMaharashtra.14.Reliance placed on judgment of this Court in the matter ofMiss Anagha Rajesh Naik Vs. State of Goa (supra) and the SupremeJhs/6/7
Arguments
917 WP NO. 9290 OF 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 9290 OF 2025Maimuna Jawed QuaziVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra And Others…•Mr. G. R. Syed, Advocate for the Petitioner•Mr. V. M. Kagne, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2•Mr. S. G. Karlekar, Advocate for Respondent No. 3…CORAM: MANISH PITALE AND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.DATE: 31.07.2025PER COURT :1.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned AGP forrespondent Nos. 1 and 2/State, and Mr. Karlekar, learned counsel forrespondent No. 3.2.In this petition, due to urgency, we had issued notice yesterdayand kept the petition today for hearing and disposal. The petitionerintends to take admission in a medical college on the basis of herperformance in National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (NEET) (UG) –2025.3.The petitioner claims that she ought to be treated as acandidate eligible for admission under the 85% seats earmarked forcandidates from the State of Maharashtra and that she should not beJhs/1/7 917 WP NO. 9290 OF 2025treated as an Outside Maharashtra State (OMS) candidate. If she istreated as an OMS candidate, she is eligible to compete only for theremaining 15% seats.4.The petitioner admittedly completed her 10th Standard (SSCExamination) from the International Indian School, Riyadh, SaudiArabia, i.e., outside the State of Maharashtra. She completed her 12thStandard (HSC Examination) from the State of Maharashtra. Thepetitioner relies on a domicile certificate issued in her favour fromDistrict – Yavatmal.5.On the basis of such position of the facts, it is claimed that thepetitioner cannot be included in the OMS category as defined inClause 3(w) of the information brochure and procedure published byrespondent No. 3 – the Commissionerate, Common Entrance Test Cellof the State of Maharashtra. It is submitted that since the petitionerpossesses a certificate of domicile and she has cleared her 12thstandard (HSC Examination) from the State of Maharashtra, sheshould be treated as a candidate from the State of Maharashtra. It isfurther claimed that since the petitioner passed her 10th standard(SSC Examination) from International Indian School, Riyadh, SaudiArabia, during the COVID-19 pandemic period, the said factor may betaken into consideration.Jhs/2/7 917 WP NO. 9290 OF 20256.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing forcontesting respondent No. 3 invites attention of this Court to Clauses4.2, 4.5, 4.6 of the said information brochure to contend that in nocase can the petitioner be treated as a candidate from the State ofMaharashtra for eligibility under the 85% seats. It is submitted thatalthough Clause 3(w), defining an OMS candidate, could have beenbetter worded, the apparent fault in the language still cannot inureto the benefit of the petitioner. It is brought to our notice that specificinstructions have been taken via e-mail from respondent No. 3 and itis instructed that in the given facts, the petitioner can only be treatedas a candidate in the OMS category eligible for 15% from theinstitution quota and also 15% from all India quota.7.It is brought to our notice by the learned counsel appearing forthe petitioner that this Court, in certain circumstances, has taken asympathetic view in the matter and that some candidates have beengranted relief in similar situations. Reliance is placed on judgment ofthe High Court of Bombay at Goa in the case of Miss Anagha RajeshNaik Vs. State of Goa; 2025 (1) AIR BomR 401, and the Hon’bleSupreme Court decision in Vansh S/o Prakash Dolas Vs. Ministry ofEducation & the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare; 2024 SCCOnline SC 342.Jhs/3/7
Decision
917 WP NO. 9290 OF 2025Court in the case of Vansh S/o Prakash Dolas Vs. Ministry ofEducation & the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (supra) can beof no assistance to the petitioner. The facts in those cases are clearlydistinguishable. The case of Miss Anagha Rajesh Naik Vs. State ofGoa (supra) concerned a different set of rules pertaining to the Stateof Goa, while the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case ofVansh S/o Prakash Dolas Vs. Ministry of Education & the Ministry ofHealth & Family Welfare (supra) pertained to child of an armedforces employee. As noted hereinabove, the petitioner admittedlydoes not fall within any of the exceptions as per the Clause 4.7 and4.8 of the information brochure and therefore she cannot derive anybenefit from the said judgment.15.In any case, this is not a case where the petitioner would beleft without any opportunity to compete for admission. She wouldhave to compete in the 15% institute quota and the 15% all Indiaquota in the facts and circumstances of the present case.16.In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed.17.Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.(Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.)(MANISH PITALE, J.)Jhs/7/7