J&K & Ladakh High Court : Domicile Reservation In Medical Admissions Cannot Be Absolute; Vacant Seats To Be Open For Non-Locals
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar held that while the Union Territory is entitled to reserve a portion of seats in medical and allied professional institutions for local candidates, such reservation cannot be absolute. The Court held that if seats remain vacant after counselling among domiciles of the Union Territory, the restriction on domicile must be relaxed to permit eligible candidates from other parts of the country to participate. It further directed that admissions to the Bachelor of Physiotherapy course shall continue to be based on NEET scores, with the option to lower the merit threshold if adequate qualified candidates are unavailable. The decision came in petitions challenging the domicile and admission policies governing private health science colleges
The matter arose from three writ petitions filed by private unaided institutions providing education in Physiotherapy and Ayurveda. The petitions challenged the Government’s decisions concerning admission procedures, reservation criteria, and the requirement of NEET scores for Bachelor of Physiotherapy (BPT) and AYUSH courses. The institutions asserted that, prior to 2018, government quota seats were filled by the admission authority while management quota seats were filled by the institutions under supervision. After 2018, all seats began to be filled through centralized counselling based on NEET, pursuant to Government Order dated 04.07.2019.
The petitioners contended that BPT, being a para-medical course governed by the Jammu and Kashmir Para Medical Council Act, 2014, had no statutory requirement of NEET. They argued that candidates from outside the Union Territory were earlier admitted, but after the introduction of S.O. 175 dated 20.05.2020, only domiciles were permitted to participate in admissions, leading to vacant seats and financial loss. They submitted records of previous sessions showing large numbers of unfilled seats in both undergraduate and postgraduate courses.
The respondents stated that the J&K BOPEE functions only as an implementing agency, adhering to the procedure fixed by the competent authority. They asserted that NEET-based admissions ensure merit and uniformity, and the domicile requirement was a policy decision under Section 23 of the J&K BOPEE Act, 2002. They submitted various notifications showing attempts to fill seats. The University of Jammu clarified that it only conducts examinations and that admissions are regulated by the Government and BOPEE.
The dispute involved interpretation of statutory provisions relating to admission mechanisms, scope of regulatory powers, and constitutional issues connected to the right to occupation under Article 19(1)(g) and equality principles under Article 14.
The Court recorded that the main issues included “whether holding of selection to undergraduate course of Bachelor of Physiotherapy on the basis of NEET score is irrational, illegal and arbitrary being without any sanction of statutory frame work” and whether debarring eligible candidates from outside the Union Territory amounted to an unreasonable restriction under Article 19(1)(g).
The Court observed that the right to establish and manage educational institutions “is protected under Article 19(1)(g)” but is subject to “reasonable restrictions.” It stated that the Government has the authority “to regulate the exercise of such right by an individual by framing policy and regulations so as to ensure fair and transparent admission.”
Regarding NEET for BPT courses, the Court noted that while the course is governed by the Para-Medical Council Act and “there is no requirement of admission through National Eligibility Entrance Test (NEET),” it found no irrationality in using NEET scores. It recorded that “there has to be a mechanism in place to scrutinize the merit of the eligible candidates” and that using NEET avoids the burden of multiple entrance examinations. It stated that “once it is not in dispute that holding of an entrance test is necessary… it hardly makes any difference whether the said test is conducted at the UT level or… at all India level.”
On the domicile restriction, the Court observed that S.O. 175 required domicile for appearing in entrance tests conducted by BOPEE, although NEET is conducted by the National Testing Agency. It found that the notification “may not apply to admissions that were made on the basis of NEET,” yet it appeared that under its garb admissions were restricted. It referred to Supreme Court precedent holding that wholesale reservation on the basis of domicile is unconstitutional and recorded that such reservation “cannot be wholesale as the same would be violative of Article 14.”
The Court stated that restricting admissions only to domiciles, particularly for BPT and postgraduate AYUSH courses where seats repeatedly remained vacant, “appears to be an unreasonable restriction.” It recorded that unfilled seats constituted “a national waste of resources” and caused “loss to the management.” Therefore, it held the notification must be “read down” to avoid violating constitutional rights.
The Court directed that admission to BPT courses “shall continue to be conducted on the basis of score obtained by the candidates in NEET,” and further ordered that “in case sufficient number of candidates, who have qualified the NEET, are not available, the respondent-BOPEE shall fill up the seats… by lowering down the merit as there is no statutory requirement for qualification of NEET.”
It ordered that where enough candidates from the Union Territory are not available, “the Notification S.O 175 dated 20.05.2020 shall stand relaxed and the respondent-BOPEE shall conduct counseling for admission to unfilled seats… from amongst the candidates belonging to other parts of the country.”
“The provisional admission of the candidates made to BPT course in the petitioner-College pursuant to interim orders passed by this Court from time to time shall stand regularized.”
Advocates Representing The Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rahul Pant, Senior Advocate; Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Suneel Malhotra, Government Advocate; Mr. Ajay Abrol, Advocate for University of Jammu
Case Title: Jammu College of Physiotherapy & Ors. v. UT of J&K & Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) Nos. 1042/2024, 578/2022 & 972/2022
Bench: Justice Sanjay Dhar
