For over six years, four medical students at the centre of an Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court ruling bore the burden of paying private medical college fees worth lakhs of rupees and uncertainty over whether the Maharashtra government would implement its reimbursement decision, relief that came only after they completed their courses.
The dispute arose after, in 2018–19, the Centre introduced 10 percent reservations for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) through a constitutional amendment, while Maharashtra introduced reservations for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC), the Maratha quota, applicable in government or aided medical colleges. The four students from Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar contended that they lost out on government seats because the reservations were applied to the 85% state quota.
To balance the situation, the state issued a September 20, 2019 Government Resolution (GR), entitling students who lost admission opportunities in government or aided colleges due to accommodation of EWS and SEBC students to reimbursement of private college fees over and above the government college fee.
However, the petitioners were excluded from the “one-time” scheme, authorities holding that they could not have secured admission in government or aided colleges even if the reservations had not been applied.
Six years of fees, loans and uncertainty over reimbursement
For the petitioners, the protracted dispute meant bearing the cost of private medical education since 2019–20 without the reimbursement they sought. Prajwal Kasbekar’s retired father was forced to service the education loan’s interest from his pension, while the families of Sejal Bhale, Aishwarya Dhadwal and Sharvari Deshmukh spent their lifetime savings on their daughters’ medical education.
The petitioners told the court they sought reimbursement based on merit, not as a “bounty”.
The petitioners had secured 527, 526, 524 and 522 out of 720 marks respectively in NEET-UG and had included government medical colleges in their preference lists. They contended they were denied admission to accommodate students belonging to the EWS and SEBC categories and were subsequently deprived of the reimbursement scheme.
The private college initially accommodated them but later fixed an outer deadline for payment of the remaining fees. Having already paid half the fees, the petitioners said they could not pay the balance without reimbursement and apprehended disruption to their studies. They said the college compelled them to deposit part of the fees under threat of being prevented from appearing for examinations, forcing them to pay the term fee while simultaneously challenging the State’s decision to deny reimbursement.
25 of 106 beneficiaries with lower merit: A ‘pick and choose’ scheme under scrutiny
The aggrieved petitioners approached the court in 2020 and 2021, pointing out that 25 of the 106 beneficiaries had lower NEET scores or ranks than them and that not a single student from the Marathwada region figured among the beneficiaries, giving “strong reason to doubt” whether the selection was comprehensive. While noting it was “not a case of regionalism”, the HC asked authorities to examine the issue in a “serious and meticulous” manner.
The State argued that the petitioners would not have secured admission to government or aided colleges even without EWS and SEBC reservations, based on their college preferences, and were therefore not entitled to reimbursement. Advocates Akshay Kulkarni and Milind Patil, appearing for the petitioners, argued that denial of the scheme’s benefits had forced some students to take educational loans to pay private college fees of at least Rs 25 to 30 lakh per student, causing an unnecessary financial burden.
Rejecting this stand, the bench held that official records showed students lower in merit than the petitioners had been granted reimbursement under the same scheme, and that the petitioners too were entitled to the benefit.
It expressed “disappointment” over the “suspicious and non-transparent” stand taken by state authorities, particularly as the petitioners had not challenged the admission of the other students. “Merit can never be compromised nor can it be on a second pedestal. If the Petitioner was on a higher rank, he could not have been denied such admissions,” the bench noted.
On June 25, before the final hearing began, the Deputy Director of Medical Education and Research remained absent despite court directions, sending lower-rank officers instead. Calling their conduct “casual” and noting false statements about the availability of original records, the Court launched suo motu contempt proceedings. The officers later offered unconditional apologies; proceedings were recalled, but each was fined Rs 10,000.
Coming down heavily on the Maharashtra government over “non-transparent” implementation of the scheme, a division bench of Justices Kishore C Sant and Ajit B Kadethankar ordered reimbursement of fees and allowed the two pleas.
It directed the State to reimburse the eligible amount with 6 per cent simple interest within eight weeks of receiving the claims, failing which the amount would carry 9 per cent interest. The bench expressed displeasure over the “pick and choose” method in implementation, adding it was “shocked to see serious incongruity in admitting students in Government and Aided medical colleges.”
‘Merit can never be compromised’: HC questions the system
“In our society,” the HC said, “we still believe and trust” that “we have proven our mettle” if admission in government colleges is secured for professional courses. “This makes us proud of the rigorous efforts we took for the achievement… But when it is realised that despite having crossed the finish-line, you are not recognised to be a successful finisher, it deeply and adversely affects not only the career but the temperament of such a finisher,” the bench observed.
“It is just like a fielder succeeds for a difficult catch, but is shown to have caught beyond the border. The surprise turns into agony when the fielder learns that the borderline is silently shrunken or bartered. The agony multiplies when it is realised that it is done without transparency,” the bench added.
The HC said the admission process and implementation of the fee reimbursement scheme “utterly lacked” transparency and accuracy, and that authorities had interfered with the students’ careers through the “wrongful application of quota system”. Noting that the “trauma” and “pains” suffered by the petitioners were intangible, it said the authorities’ delay and failure to produce original records warranted “exemplary cost”.
It observed that the pleas remained delayed “at the behest of authorities until the medical course of the petitioners was pending. “We have every room in our minds to infer that it was to avoid the issue of allocation of seats in government medical colleges, to be surfaced before this court,” the bench noted.
The Court said the authorities’ conduct in the present case “unfortunately extirpates trust” in the minds of citizens about “transparency of the system,” despite the government’s “novel and benevolent objects”.
It imposed costs of Rs 50,000 each to be paid to the four petitioners and directed the Principal Secretary, Medical Education Department, to conduct an inquiry into the issues flagged in the judgment and come up with “efficacious” measures to “ensure in future such incidences do not take place.”
The Bombay HC directed the State to reimburse the eligible amount with 6 per cent simple interest (Source: Pexels/ Representational). 
Share
