New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued a notice to the Maharashtra government on a plea challenging the Bombay High Court order, which declined to entertain a plea against 16 percent quota for Marathas in connection with postgraduate medical and dental courses.
A vacation bench comprising Justices Deepak Gupta and Surya Kant asked the state government to file its response to the petition by Sameer. The petitioner moved the top court after his plea was dismissed by the Bombay High Court.
The petitioner contended that quota is contrary to the genesis of a competitive examine such as NEET clearly establishes that only meritorius students “can avail a choice of their college and would be allotted a course of their preference.”
The Nagpur bench of the High Court declined to entertain the plea challenging the ordinance issued by the government on May 20, providing 16 % reservation to socially and economically backward classes(SEBC) in admission to PG medical and dental courses. The petitioner moved the top court challenging the validity of this order passed on June 13.
Senior advocate Shekhar Naphade, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the high court failed to consider the matter on merit in the light of June 4 order pass by the top court. This order stated that no other court would deal with any plea related to admission to PG courses.
The petition has questioned the validity of the SEBC quota ordinance and referred it as the violation of the fundamental right.
“In this case the ordinance is clearly an attempt to nullify the judgment passed by the high court and upheld by the Supreme Court, holding the provisions of the SEBC Act, 2018 inapplicable to the current academic year for, the admission process with respect to PG Medical Courses has already commenced prior to implementation of the Act.
The impugned ordinance is thus contrary to the law and deserves to be set aside”, said the petition.
On this query posed by the petitoner, the court said, “The order was passed with reference to 10% EWS reservation. We have said no court should entertain further petition, but in this matter the petitoner can’t be rendered remedy-less”. The court observed that it is essential to decide on this issue.
“In spite being meritorious, the petitioners have been constrained to seek admissions to colleges and courses which are not as per their choice or preference”, claimed the petitioner signifying the implications of the quota.
The court has listed the matter for further hearing on June 24.