The Supreme Court will hear on November 3 a plea by Vatsala Panghal challenging the Gauhati High Court order upholding Nagaland’s MBBS quota policy.
Share
DIMAPUR — The Supreme Court has listed for hearing on November 3 a special leave petition (SLP) filed by Vatsala Panghal, challenging a Gauhati High Court order that upheld the Nagaland government’s policy on eligibility for central pool MBBS seats.
The case stems from a dispute over whether wards of defence personnel posted in Nagaland can claim medical seats under the central pool quota allotted to the state. The appeal was mentioned before a bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice R Mahadevan on Friday and will be taken up again next week.
Panghal, daughter of a colonel commanding the 1 Nagaland Battalion NCC, had earlier approached the High Court after her name was excluded from the list of candidates eligible for MBBS admission under the state quota. A single-judge bench had on August 14 quashed the Nagaland government’s September 9, 2021 notification, holding it arbitrary and inconsistent with central guidelines issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
Also read: Abu Metha, Angami Gazetted Officers’ Krotho mourn the passing of Menukhol John
However, in a judgement delivered on October 23, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury set aside that decision.
The court held that the “deficient state” quota and the “defence personnel” quota under the central pool are distinct and mutually exclusive categories, each serving separate policy objectives. It observed that the petitioner, as a ward of defence personnel, could not claim eligibility under the state quota in addition to the dedicated defence quota.
According to the High Court’s order, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare had clarified that 42 MBBS and 4 BDS seats are allocated annually to Nagaland under the central pool, while a separate quota of 42 MBBS and 3 BDS seats is reserved for the Ministry of Defence. The court concluded that the state’s notification prescribing eligibility criteria for its central pool seats was not arbitrary or discriminatory.