'Ensures Meritorious Students Get Admission': MP High Court Upholds Vires Of CM's Public Welfare Education Encouragement Scheme

Referring to Supreme Court's decision in TMA Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka (2002), a division bench of Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain in its order said, “The schemes when examined from the aforesaid perspective lead to a conclusion that the schemes are having twin objectives, both of which are laudable and within limits of Constitutional powers and to achieve Constitutional goals. Firstly, to preserve merit, enabling meritorious economically deprived students to take admission in colleges as per their merit and to achieve equality of opportunity and economic justice, and secondly to ensure that meritorious students take admission in medical colleges so that the society would have better doctors and the meritorious persons being able to take admissions would only lead to betterment of standard of public health. Therefore, the twin objectives would be achieved by operation of the said schemes.”

The court was hearing a plea by a society running a private medical college  challenging the validity of the scheme–Mukhyamantri Medhavi Vidyarthi Yojna, 2017. The scheme was subsequently amended and named Mukhya Mantri Jankalyan Shiksha Protsahan Yojana (Chief Minister's Public Welfare Education Encouragement Scheme) which also contains similar provisions.

The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the said schemes are a piece of delegated legislation issued by the State Government without any legal authority and as per the said schemes provide that a student who is original resident of/domicile of Madhya Pradesh and having an annual income of his parents/guardian below Rs. 6 lacs per annum would be covered under the scheme. Different criteria for coverage under the said scheme are laid down for below poverty line students and students of SC/ST category. As per the schemes, the State Government gives guarantee to bear the fees of meritorious students in Government and Private Colleges who are studying in Engineering, Medical and Law streams.

The counsel for petitioner contended that the institution has the right to admit only those students who have financial means to pay the fees of the institution and the State Government regulating the fee structure payable to the petitioner institution was sufficient regulatory measure. Therefore, it cannot thrust students who though may be meritorious but are not otherwise financially capable of paying the fees of petitioner institution.

The petitioner further contended that being a private unaided self-financing institution, it has a fundamental right to admit students of its choice as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

The counsel submitted that because of the operation of MMMVY & MMJKY Scheme the majority of seats in general unreserved quota are being allotted to students under MMMVY & MMJKY Schemes. It was contended that MMMVY & MMJKY Schemes operate as reservation scheme in favour of EWS category students without any upper ceiling limit and was thus, ultravires to the provisions of the Constitution as well as to the Adhiniyam 2007.

Countering the arguments advanced by the petitioner, the counsel for the State submitted that the scheme aims to achieve the constitutional goals of equality comprised in Article 15(1) and 16(1) of the Constitution of India.

It was further contended that the petitioner's notion of fundamental right to admit students is misconceived as in the judgments of T.M.A. Pai Foundation and Modern Dental College nowhere it has been held that right to admit students includes the right to refuse admission to meritorious students and the impugned schemes only help the meritorious students who are not in a position to afford actual fees of the college.

Findings

The Court noted that Scheme relates to provision made by the State Government to reimburse the fees of such students who secure admission in Government or private colleges situated within the limits of the State of Madhya Pradesh on merit basis and the students are also domiciled in the State of Madhya Pradesh.

“The Scheme in question, therefore, is basically a Scheme enabling candidates having lesser financial means to take admission in colleges with support of financial assistance of the State Government and without financial assistance of the State Government such admissions otherwise could not have been made possible for such meritorious students and they may not have been able to secure admissions at all.”, the Court observed.

The Court opined that the scheme has not created any reservation for economically weaker sections of the society. It only gives meritorious students the chance to study in a college which they otherwise would not have gotten admission into due to lack of financial assistance.

The Court also relied upon T.M.A. Pai Foundation case, wherein it was held that unaided institutions are entitled to autonomy, however, they should not be allowed to discard the principle of merit. It was also held that the Government can frame regulations to ensure fair, transparent and merit based admissions.

“…the constitution has ample provisions enabling the State to frame such schemes and as noted by us above, irrespective of Article 15 (6) and 16 (6), which 18 create reservation for EWS category candidates, such schemes to bring out equality of opportunity could always be framed by exercising powers under Article 16 (1) of the Constitution of India, which is to achieve constitutional goals as contained interalia in the preamble of the Constitution as economic justice and equality of opportunity are the constitutional goals, which are enshrined in the preamble itself.”, the Court observed.

Thus, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the impugned schemes stating that it has been framed with the laudable objective of promoting merit in medical colleges in the State and thus, cannot be said to be disproportionate in any manner.

With regard to the issue of late remittance of fees, the Court directed that the fees would be remitted in a joint account to be opened by the students along with the institution which would be e-Aadhar verified of the student. The debits from the said account would not be permitted to the students but only be permitted to the institution.

Case Title: H.K. Kalchuri Educational Trust And Others Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others, Writ Petition No. 14145 Of 2017

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 90