Dispute Over Admission to Minority Medical Institutions in Kerala

The petitioners, Amina Marwa Sabreen A (a minor) and others, hailing from the Muslim minority community in Tamil Nadu, found themselves in a legal battle concerning the admissions process for medical courses in Kerala. Despite qualifying in the National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (NEET-UG) 2017, the petitioners were dissatisfied with the centralized admission process in Kerala’s medical institutions, which they felt put them at a disadvantage due to their non-Keralite status.

Their primary grievance stemmed from the Kerala Medical Education Ordinance of 2017, which they argued unfairly favored Kerala residents for admission to medical colleges in the state, particularly in minority institutions. In their writ petition, they sought a mandate to quash a press release from July 1, 2017, issued by the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations, and to direct the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS) to conduct admissions on an All India basis for minority medical institutions.

Background: The petitioners, though having qualified for NEET-UG 2017, faced challenges because of the reservation and preferential treatment afforded to residents of Kerala. They specifically targeted a provision in the Kerala Medical Education Ordinance, which carved out reservation categories for Kerala residents, leaving non-Keralite applicants, including those from other states like Tamil Nadu, at a disadvantage.

The Ordinance, which was promulgated on June 1, 2017, made provisions for the reservation of seats in private medical educational institutions and established criteria for eligibility, including categorization of candidates as Keralites and Non-Keralites. The petitioners were aggrieved by the classification of Non-Keralite candidates into two categories, with the second category (NK II) being entirely excluded from admission to medical courses, including MBBS/BDS, in government and private colleges in Kerala.

The Petitioner’s Argument: The petitioners argued that the G.O. (MS) No. 31/2017/H.Edn. issued by the State of Kerala was unconstitutional. They claimed that it violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, as it discriminated against students from outside Kerala by excluding them from the eligibility for medical admissions, even though they had qualified in the national entrance exam (NEET).

The Respondent’s Argument: The State of Kerala, represented by its counsel, argued that there was a 15% All India quota for medical seats, which allowed students from outside the state to be admitted. The State maintained that after setting aside this quota, it was within the State’s prerogative to admit students from Kerala to the remaining 85% of the seats, as these were state-run institutions and not of national status. The State also highlighted that the first phase of the counseling had already been completed in accordance with the schedule set by the Medical Council of India, and that 262 Non-Keralite Category I (NK I) students had been admitted to the State quota seats.

Court’s Ruling: The Supreme Court, after hearing both sides, did not delve into the merits of the case. Instead, the Court focused on the maintainability of the petition. It observed that the petitioners had not challenged the G.O. in their writ petition nor had they included it in their initial pleadings. Since there was no prayer in the writ petition to quash the G.O., and the petitioners had failed to amend their petition to incorporate such a challenge, the Court dismissed the petition on grounds of maintainability.

Key Points from the Judgment:

• The Court emphasized the importance of proper pleadings in a writ petition and found that the absence of a challenge to the G.O. in the petition rendered it inadmissible.
• The petitioners had failed to include a prayer to quash the G.O. in their writ petition, which was a crucial procedural requirement for the case to be heard.
• The State of Kerala’s argument about the reservation system and the 15% All India quota for non-residents was acknowledged, but the Court did not find it necessary to address the merits of the case.
• As the petition was dismissed based on procedural grounds, the Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutional validity of the G.O. or the fairness of the admission process.

Conclusion: This case serves as a reminder of the importance of procedural compliance in legal proceedings. While the petitioners had a legitimate concern regarding the admission process in Kerala, their failure to adequately challenge the G.O. in their writ petition led to the dismissal of their case. The judgment highlights the need for proper documentation and pleadings to ensure that a case is heard on its merits.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Amina Marwa Sabreen vs State of Kerala Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 24-08-2017.pdf