Shaileshbahi Patel and Anr v. Union of India Throu. Sec. Ministry of Halth and Family Welfare and Ors

Order.

31.

Dr. Jain has accordingly submitted that the impugned action of the Respondents in altering the status of Petitioner No. 2 from ST to UR is fully justified, considering that the Petitioners were not residents on the date of notification of the Presidential Order, viz. the Constitution (Dadra and Nagar Haveli) Scheduled Tribes Order, 1962. Further, Respondent No. 4, being an autonomous educational institution, had the right to impose a restriction on "residence" under Article 15(1) of the Constitution. The Petitioners, being migrants from the State of Gujarat, cannot take the benefit or are not entitled to avail of benefit of ST reserved seat. This is as per Clause 7.3 of the Policy and Guidelines for Admission to MBBS Course framed and published by the Society for the Academic Year 2026-2027. He has accordingly submitted that the Petition deserves dismissal and ought to be dismissed with costs.

32.

Having considered the submissions, the present case appears to be covered by the decisions of the Supreme Court as well as this Court relied upon by the Petitioners. The fact that the Petitioner No.1 and his family having resided in the said Union Territory from the Year 1996, is not disputed. Further, Petitioner No. 2 was born in the said Union Territory and resided there since his birth viz. on 9th October 2008. Petitioner No. 2 has also completed his entire education till 12th Standard in the said Union Territory and has been recognized and treated as ST throughout his education. This is further borne out from the documents on record.

33.

Respondent No. 4 has contended that Petitioner No. 2 was issued a Caste Certificate which carries an explicit endorsement / remark stating "Note: Scheduled Tribe of Gujarat". It is further contended that the Petitioner No. 1 was issued a Caste Certificate on the strength of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate of his ancestors issued by the Mamlatdar, Umargam, District Valsad, State of Gujarat, certifying the family as belonging to the Dhodia community in the State of Gujarat. Reliance is placed on Articles 341 (1) and 342 (1) of the Constitution, which mandates that the Presidential Notifications specifying Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes operate strictly "in relation to that State or Union Territory, as the case may be". We are of the view that these contentions are misconceived. As aforesaid, the Petitioner No. 2 is domiciled and permanent resident of the said Union Territory as borne out from the Domicile Certificate issued by the Mamlatdar (Exhibit G to the petition). Further, the Caste Certificate of Petitioner No. 2 has been issued on 4th May 2026 by the Mamlatdar of the said Union Territory. It certifies that Petitioner No. 2, residing in the said Union Territory, belongs to Hindu-Dhodia Tribe, which is recognized as a Scheduled Tribe under the said Union Territory.

34.

The Judgment of the Supreme Court in Abhinav Dipakbhai Patel (Supra) has considered the case of the Respondent who belonged to "Dhodia" Caste, recognized as Scheduled Tribe (ST) in the State of Gujarat, migrating to the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, where also the said Caste was notified as Scheduled Tribe. It was observed that the central issue raised by the Appellant before the High Court was that a person should be a local in the said Union Territory, which meant that migrant STs cannot be given the benefit of reservation. The Supreme Court in determining the issue held that the Presidential Notification issued for the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli extends the benefit of reservation to Scheduled Tribes mentioned therein on the basis of residence and not on the basis of origin. This Judgment clearly covers the present case, as here also the Petitioners are residents of the said Union Territory. Further, the contention of the Respondents that the Petitioners are migrants from the State of Gujarat and cannot be given the benefit of reservation, runs counter to the said Judgment.

35.

Dr. Jain, appearing for Respondent No.4, has sought to distinguish the Judgment of the Supreme Court as well as the Judgment of this Court in Hemant Hiralal Chudasama (Supra) by contending that those cases were of public employment, and under Article 16(2), there was an express prohibition of discrimination on grounds of "residence". Whereas the present case is one of admission to a medical educational institution and for which Article 15 would apply which deliberately omits "residence" from the prohibition of discrimination. We find such attempt on the part of Respondent No. 4 to be thoroughly misconceived, particularly in view of the said Judgments holding that the Presidential Notification issued for the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, extends the benefit of reservation to the Scheduled Tribes mentioned therein on the basis of residence and not on the basis of origin. This would be irrespective of whether the case is of public employment or education.

36.

This is further made evident from the Judgment of this Court in Dipak Kumar Jagubhai Patel (Supra), which was a case of admission to an educational institution. This Court observed that in the Presidential Notification, the words "resident in that Union Territory" have been inserted. The migrants cannot be granted the benefit. Thus, in the event the person seeking benefit of the reservation is a resident in that Union Territory, the benefit of the said Presidential Notification is required to be extended to such person.

37.

This Court had, by placing reliance upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Abhinav Dipakbhai Patel (Supra), held that denial of admission to a meritorious student like Petitioner No.2 smacks of nothing but arbitrariness, unreasonableness and unfairness in State action. Petitioners in that case had proved that they had residence in the Union Territory. The State cannot discriminate between meritorious students, nor can it prefer a less meritorious student by denying admission to the more meritorious student when he or she is otherwise eligible. Accordingly, the admission of Respondent No. 4 in the educational institution had been cancelled and the Respondent - UT was directed to admit Petitioner No. 2.

38.

A further attempt was made by Dr. Jain to distinguish the Judgment of this Court in Dipak Kumar Jagubhai Patel (Supra) on the ground that the factual averments in that Writ Petition were not denied by the Respondent - Union Territory. However, this overlooks the fact that in the present case also there is no dispute on the Petitioners being permanent residents in the Union Territory from the year 1996.

39.

The subsequent Judgments of this Court, in particular Durgeshkumar Lallubhai Patel (Supra), is directly on the issue involved in the present Petition, as it concerns an almost identical case. In that case also, the Petitioner No. 2 had been denied admission to the MBBS course in Respondent No. 4 College against the seat reserved for candidates belonging to ST category for the previous Academic Year 2025–26. The grievance of Petitioner No. 1 in that case is identical to the grievance here viz. that the Respondents had unilaterally changed the status of Petitioner No. 2 from Scheduled Tribe Category to General Category. There also, the Petitioner No. 2 was issued a Caste Certificate by the Mamlatdar of the said Union Territory. It certified that Petitioner No.2 of village Rakholi, belonged to Hindu Dhodia, which is recognized as Scheduled Tribe in the said Union Territory. The Provisional Merit List of MBBS Dadra and Nagar Haveli ("DNH") of Scheduled Tribe Candidates included the Petitioner No. 2's name. However, in the Online Application Form, the category of the Petitioner No. 2 was changed from ST to UR. This Court held that the Petition was no longer res integra in light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Abhinav Dipakbhai Patel (Supra). The Writ Petition filed by the Petitioners, who were the permanent residents of the said Union Territory, was accordingly allowed.

40.

In view of the aforesaid decisions, squarely covering the present Petition, we find no merit in the opposition to the Petition. The determinative factor in extending reservation to candidates irrespective of whether they are applying for public employment or for admission to educational institutions, is the residence of such candidates and not on the basis of origin. The contention of the Respondent No. 4 – College that "resident" in Presidential orders, such as the present Presidential Notification, with which we are concerned, means permanent abode of the persons/parents on the date of Notification of the Presidential Order, viz. 30th June 1962, is misconceived. The Supreme Court as well as this Court have held that the residence of the candidate in the said Union Territory, and not the permanent abode of the persons/parents on the date of Notification of the said Presidential Notification/Order, which determines extending reservation to such candidate.

41.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and following order is passed:

(i) The blocking/alteration in the Online Form of Petitioner No. 2 viz. his status changed from ST to UR and his being treated as "migrant", is quashed and set aside.

(ii) The ST Merit List, to the extent of exclusion of Petitioner No. 2's name in the said list, is also quashed and set aside.

(iii) The Respondents are directed to include and place the name of Petitioner No. 2 as per his marks in the said Merit List of ST Candidates dated 10th September 2026.

(iv) The Respondents shall allot one ST Seat to Petitioner No. 2 for MBBS Course in Respondent No. 4 - College for the Academic Year 2026-2027.

(v) The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

[ FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J. ] [ R.I. CHAGLA, J.]

42.

After the Judgment and Order was pronounced in the Court, the learned Advocate appearing for Respondent No.4 has sought for stay of the Judgment and Order.

43.

Having held that Petitioner No.2 has been wrongly treated as migrant and his status changed from ST to UR, inspite of the Petitioner No.2 being permanent resident of the said Union Territory, we directed allotment of one ST Seat to Petitioner No.2 in Respondent No.4 - College for the Academic Year 2026-2027.

44.

We accordingly reject the Application for stay of Judgment and Order. [ FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J. ] [ R.I. CHAGLA, J.]

Kavita S.J. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.12215 OF 2026 Shaileshbhai Patel & Anr., …Petitioners Versus Union of India & Ors., …Respondents ---------- Mr. Rahul Walia a/w Mr. Puneet Pathak, Ms. Asmita Pendharkar for the Petitioners. Dr. Sanjay Jain a/w Mr. Harsh Dedhia for Respondent No.4. ---------- CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA AND FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. RESERVED ON : 1st OCTOBER, 2026. PRONOUNCED ON : 15th OCTOBER, 2026 JUDGMENT: (Per R.I. Chagla, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties. 2. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioners are seeking quashing and setting aside of the acts on the part of the Respondent No. 4 in altering/blocking of Online Form of Petitioner No.2, viz., changing KAVITA SUSHIL JADHAV by KAVITA SUSHIL JADHAV Date: 2026.10.15 19:03:56 +0530 his status from Scheduled Tribe (ST) to Unreserved (UR) (altered Online Form) and treating him as a "Migrant" (Exhibit B to the Petition). Further, the Petitioners seek quashing and setting aside of the ST Merit List only to the extent of exclusion of Petitioner No. 2's name from the said list. Consequentially, a direction is sought against the Respondents to include and place the name of Petitioner No. 2 as per his marks at Serial No. 2 in the said Merit List of ST Candidates dated 10th September 2026 and to allot 1 (one) ST Seat to Petitioner No. 2 for MBBS Course in the Government Medical College viz. Respondent No. 4 - College for the Academic Year 2026–2027. 3. Petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Constable in Indian Reserve Battalion under ST quota under the Respondent - Union Territory. He and his family have, since 1996, been residing in the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu, Silvassa ("the said Union Territory"). 4. Petitioner No. 2 was born in the said Union Territory and has been residing there along with his family since his birth viz. 9th October 2008. 5. Petitioner No. 2, having completed his entire education till 12th standard in the said Union Territory, has been recognized and treated as ST throughout his schooling. 6. Petitioner No. 2 has been issued a Caste Certificate as belonging to the ST Category, viz. Dhodia community, on 4th May 2026. Petitioner No. 2 is also domiciled in the said Union Territory and a Domicile Certificate had been issued by the Mamlatdar, Silvassa, on 17th July 2025, certifying Petitioner No. 2 as a domicile and permanent resident of the said Union Territory. 7. Petitioner No. 2 completed his 12th standard in the year 2026 and in the School Leaving Certificate issued to Petitioner No. 2, it has been stated that the Petitioner No. 2 belongs to ST. 8. Petitioner No. 2 appeared for his National Eligibility- cum-Entrance Test (NEET) (UG) exam on 21st June 2026 and has been declared as having scored 400 out of 720 marks. In the NEET Result, Petitioner No. 2 has been recognized as an ST candidate. 9. Respondent No. 4 - College published the Prospectus and Guidelines for admission for MBBS Course for the Academic Year 2026-2027. Accordingly, Petitioner No. 2 filled up the Online Form for admission to the said course for the Academic Year 2026-2027 on 5th July 2026. 10. Thereafter, document verification message was received by the Petitioner No. 2 on 9th September 2026 stating that the same had to be completed since the document verification process was conducted Online. It is pertinent to note that there was no objection raised at that point of time with regard to the status of Petitioner No. 2 being ST. 11. In the Online Form of Petitioner No. 2, the Respondents altered the status of Petitioner No. 2 from ST to UR on or after 12:30 PM on 10th September 2026 and Petitioner No. 2 had to pay a further sum of Rs.250/- to access his Online Form, which according to the Petitioners, was illegally altered. 12. The first provisional Merit List was issued on 10th September 2026 by Respondent No.4 - College with regard to ST Candidate