1. Petitioners, in all the above captioned petitions, are aggrieved of change brought by the respondents with regard to eligibility/qualification criteria in Himachal Pradesh-MBBS/BDS prospectus 2023 and as such, all the petitions were heard together and now are being disposed of by the instant order. However, for reference, annexures and facts as mentioned in CWP No. 5007 of 2023, are being taken note.

2. For having bird's eye view of the matter, relevant facts, which are common in all the petitions, are that the process for admission in MBBS/BDS course through National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test UG 2023 (hereinafter 'NEET-UG') came to be started with the issuance of public notice on 6.3.2023 (Annexure P-1), thereby inviting online applications for NEET-UG through National Testing Agency (hereinafter, 'NTA') for undergraduate medical course in all the medical institutions in the country. Last date for online submission of applications was 6.4.2023, and date of examination was 7.5.2023. Petitioners being fully eligible applied for NEET well within time and as such, they were all permitted to participate in entrance test held on 7.5.2023. Result of NEET was declared on 13.6.2023, wherein all the petitioners were declared successful. After declaration of result of NEET-UG by NTA, respondent No. 3-Atal Medical and Research University (hereinafter, 'AMRU') issued prospectus for Session 2022-23, on 20.7.2023, containing therein condition of eligibility and qualification in clause 2(iv) of prospectus (Annexure P-5), enabling bona fide Himachali students, who had qualified NEET, to apply for Government as well as private medical colleges located in the State of Himachal Pradesh under 85% quota. Petitioners herein are aggrieved by the change made by respondent No. 3 in Chapter IV of the prospectus, specifically with regard to eligibility and qualification, whereby all the bona fide Himachali students or children of bona fide Himachalis, irrespective of their place of schooling, became eligible to apply for allocation of seats under 85% quota in the Government and private medical colleges located in the State of Himachal Pradesh.

3. Though, all the petitioners are bona fide Himachali students or children of bona fide Himachalis, but apart from aforesaid qualification, they also have passed at least two classes from the schools located in the State of Himachal Pradesh.

4. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioners, as has been highlighted in the petitions and further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioners is that there was no need to change eligibility and qualification criteria by the respondents in the prospectus for MBBS/BDS for 2022-23 that too after declaration of NEET result on 13.6.2023, because, with the declaration of result of NEET, petitioners as well as other similarly situate persons had become aware of their marks as well as their ranking in NEET and having taken note of their rank, they were sure to get admission in the State of Himachal Pradesh under State quota on the basis of their merit. However, respondents unilaterally without there being any plausible justification made changes in the prospectus with a view to give benefit to some students, who though are bona fide Himachalis but have received education from schools located outside the State of Himachal Pradesh. Since, it stood recorded in clause 6.1.2 of the information bulletin for National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test-UG 2023, Annexure P-2, that, "The counseling for admission to the seats under the control of State Governments/UT Administrations/State Universities/Institutions shall be conducted by the designated authorities of the State Government as per the Notifications issued separately by the authorities concerned", petitioners and other similarly situate persons were expecting that to secure seat under 85% quota allocated to State of Himachal Pradesh, they may have to compete with the students, who, apart from being bona fide Himachali had their schooling from State of Himachal Pradesh but on account of change made by respondents just few days before commencement of counselling with regard to eligibility and qualification, whereby all bona fide Himachali students or children of bona fide Himachalis, came to be declared eligible to compete against 85% quota, irrespective of their schooling from the schools located outside the State of Himachal Pradesh, chances of the petitioners getting admission in medical colleges in the State of Himachal Pradesh, against 85% quota have been not only reduced but have been marred.

5. Petitioners herein have also claimed that apart from information bulletin, Annexure P-2, NTA had also uploaded NEET Domicile Criteria 2023-State-wise Eligibility, Domicile Rules, Admission Criteria (Annexure P-3), wherein State wise eligibility/domicile rules and admission criteria were updated on 13.6.2023. As per petitioners, it stood clearly mentioned in aforesaid criteria, that the "Candidates whose parents are bona fide Himachalis, and who have passed at least two exams (from Classes 8 to 12 or equivalent) from recognized Schools situated in the State of Himachal, and affiliated to recognized Boards of the country", shall be eligible to apply for 85% quota, meaning thereby, no subsequent change, if any, in eligibility and qualification criteria could have been made by the respondent State, while issuing prospectus for MBBS/BDS 2023 published on 20.7.2023.

6. Apart from above said submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, it has been further stated that criteria of eligibility and qualification prescribed in prospectus issued by respondents for session 2022-23, wherein it was specifically provided that children of bona fide Himachalis, who have passed at least two exams (out of middle or equivalent/matric or equivalent/10+1 or equivalent/10+2 or equivalent) from recognized schools/colleges situated in the State of Himachal Pradesh and affiliated to ICSE/CBSE or HPBOSE or equivalent Boards/Universities established by law in India, shall be eligible for State quota seats and aforesaid condition though was laid challenge by such of bona fide Himachali students, who had not received education from the schools located in Himachal Pradesh but from the schools located outside the State of Himachal Pradesh however, this court not only dismissed the petitions filed by such persons but also upheld aforesaid restriction put by respondents in the prospectus for MBBS/BDS courses.

7. It has been further claimed on behalf of the petitioners that since the respondents had already provided relief to such of the bona fide Himachali students, who were compelled to receive education from the schools located outside the State of Himachal Pradesh on account of employment of their parents in Government offices of Government of Himachal Pradesh located outside the State of Himachal Pradesh as well as their employment with Central Government or autonomous bodies, there was otherwise no occasion to remove/delete aforesaid restriction of passing at least two school examination from the schools situate in the State of Himachal Pradesh, because, if same is permitted, it would cause prejudice to such of the students, who on account of various restraints especially financial restraints are not in a position to receive quality education from the schools/institutions located outside the State of Himachal Pradesh.

8. It has been further stated by all the petitioners in the respective petitions, that the decision taken by the respondents to change the eligibility and qualification criteria is not only against interest of the State but against the judgments passed by this Court in a number of cases, wherein it has been repeatedly held that the respondent State is well within its right to put restriction on the eligibility and qualification to promote bonafide students of Himachal Pradesh.

9. Though, all the petitioners, who are bona fide Himachalis, after theirs having been declared successful in NEET-UG 2023, have applied for admission in various medical colleges (Government and private) located in the State of Himachal Pradesh in terms of conditions contained in the prospectus for MBBS/BDS-2023 but since on account of last moment change made in eligibility and qualification criteria in the prospectus issued by respondent No. 3, their chances of getting admission in good colleges have been reduced/marred, they besides participating in counselling as per schedule given in prospectus have approached this court in the present proceedings, praying therein for the following main relief, which is common in all the petitions:

"(i) That quash and set aside letter dated 18.07.2023 (Annexure P-6) and clause 2(i) of Chapter-IV of NEET-UG-2023 Prospectus (Annexure P-7) may also be quashed and set aside with further direction to the respondents continue the eligibility criteria for children of bona fide Himachalis who have passed at least two examinations out of major examinations from recognized schools/colleges situated in the State of Himachal Pradesh, which was earlier applicable as reflected in Annexure P-5, in the interest of justice and fair play."

10. Having regard to the urgency in the matter, this court, while directing learned Additional Advocate General to produce the records, also ordered that though the respondents may go ahead with counselling but same shall be subject to final outcome of the writ petitions at hand. Initially the respondents filed a short reply but subsequently, after being directed by this Court, filed a detailed reply in some of the writ petitions. Reply filed by the respondents in case Prathmesh Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh CWP No. 5007 of 2023 shall be taken into consideration for noting down the stand of the respondents.

11. Perusal of reply, as detailed herein above, though reveals that the facts, as have been recorded herein above, have nowhere been disputed, but it has been claimed by the respondent-State in their reply filed under the signatures of Special Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, that the petitions filed by petitioners deserve outright rejection for the reason that every Government is entitled to make the pragmatic decisions and policy decision which may be necessary and called for under the prevalent peculiar circumstances. It has been stated in the reply that the Government had received representations from such bona fide Himachalis, who are compelled to live outside the State of Himachal Pradesh on account of their jobs and private occupations, requesting that the condition with regard to passing at least two examinations from schools situated in State of Himachal Pradesh in respect of all bona fide Himachalis be relaxed. It is further submitted in the reply that the respondents having taken note of the fact that some of bona fide Himachali students are compelled to receive education from the schools located outside the State of Himachal Pradesh on account of Government/private jobs of their parents and/or private occupations of their parents outside the State of Himachal Pradesh, decided to do away with the condition of passing at least two examinations from schools situated in State of Himachal Pradesh, as a result thereof, no prejudice, if any, can be said to have been caused to the petitioners as well as other similarly situate persons, who apart from being bona fide Himachali have done their schooling from the schools located in State of Himachal Pradesh. It has been further stated in reply that parents of some of students are working in private sector for their livelihood and their children are compelled to stay with them and as such they cannot be expected to receive education from the schools located within territory the State of Himachal Pradesh. Apart from above, it has been stated in the reply that it is not possible for the parents, working in private sector outside the State of Himachal Pradesh to send their children to fulfill the condition under clause 2(i) of Chapter IV of Eligibility and Qualification in prospectus for MBBS/BDS-2023 (Annexure P-5). It has been further claimed in the reply that the parents of domicile bona fide Himachali have been directed to file affidavit that they shall not take benefit of bona fide resident in States other than the State of Himachal Pradesh. It has been categorically stated in reply that before effecting change in the eligibility and qualification criteria in Chapter IV of prospectus for MBBS/BDS-2023, due deliberations were held at highest level and before taking decision, matter was referred to Prospectus Review Committee (hereinafter, 'PRC'), which after having considered representations referred, the matter for decision to the highest authority and as such, it cannot be said that there was no application of mind by the respondents before effecting change in the prospectus. It has been further stated in the reply that as per clause 6.1.2 of NEET UG 2023 bulletin (Annexure R-2), State Government is/was well within its power to issue separate prospectus containing therein specific condition of eligibility and educational qualification.

12. I have heard the parties and have also gone through the records made available to this court, pursuant to direction issued by this court.

13. Precisely, the grievance of the petitioners, as has been put forth by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, is that the respondents had no authority to change the eligibility criteria after declaration of result of NEET on 13.6.2023, especially, when it stood specifically mentioned in NEET-UG-2023 prospectus issued on 13.6.2023, that the State quota would be as per prevalent policy of the State, meaning thereby that no policy change could have been effected by respondents, especially with regard to eligibility and qualification after 6.2.2023, but in the case at hand, respondents just a few days before start of counselling, changed the eligibility criteria/education criteria as a result of which, great prejudice is being caused to the petitioners and the students, who are/were expecting that on account of theirs having received education from the schools located within the State of Himachal Pradesh, they would be able to compete and have seats in good medical colleges in State of Himachal Pradesh under 85% State quota seats.

14. While fairly admitting that it is domain of State to frame a policy or bring a change in any policy, Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned senior counsel appearing for some of the petitioners, argued that that policy decision, if found to be malafide, arbitrary, unreasonable or irrational, can be laid challenge in the competent court of law. While making this court peruse the record, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that change effected in prospectus cannot be said to have a 'clavour' of policy, as one representation was dealt and rejected on 16.2.2023 and thereafter, on the basis of another representation of a single person, whose daughter ultimately got selected, respondent-State decided to change its earlier policy decision that too without there being any plausible justification and reasoning. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that once on 16.2.2023, representation filed by one organization namely, "All India Pravasi Himachali United Front" representing bona fide Himachali residing outside the State of Himachal Pradesh was rejected, there was no occasion for the respondent State to entertain the representation filed by another single person. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that legal malafides can be easily inferred from the process adopted by respondents to change the criteria, which is not only discriminatory and unreasonable but capricious and irrational also.

15. It has been further argued on behalf of the petitioners that throughout the country, stringent conditions have been put by various States for State quota, whereas, in State of Himachal Pradesh, condition of qualification and eligibility has been relaxed, that too, without there being any justifiable reason. Above named counsel argued that the students, who have become eligible on account of change made in eligibility and qualification criteria, are in an advantageous position vis-a-vis category of petitioners, who being bona fide Himachali students can only compete in State of Himachal Pradesh for admission to various medical colleges under 85% State Quota seats, whereas other students, though are bona fide Himachali but have not done schooling from the schools located within the State of Himachal Pradesh, have become eligible to take admission in medical colleges/institutions in two States/places, one in State of Himachal Pradesh being bona fide Himachali and in other States and place, where they have been residing for years together, on account of theirs being 'bonafide' residents of those areas. Mr. Bhushan, further submitted that many selected candidates apart from applying in the State of Himachal Pradesh, had also applied in other States, which is otherwise violative of Appendix 15 of the prospectus. He submitted that despite there being representation, no action has been taken by respondents against students, which speaks volumes about their malafides. It has been further urged on behalf of the petitioners that earlier eligibility criteria, wherein it was mandatory for students to have passed at least two examinations from schools situated in State of Himachal Pradesh, was held to be legal by constitutional courts by further holding that there is a purpose sought to be achieved and classification was held reasonable, and as such, there was no reason for the respondents to effect change in the criteria of eligibility and qualification in the prospectus.

16. Lastly, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners argued that so far the admission to BAMS is concerned, criteria of passing at least two examinations from schools situated in State of Himachal Pradesh is being followed, therefore, there cannot be two criteria in the State of Himachal Pradesh for admission to MBBS and BAMS. Mr. Bhushan, learned senior counsel submitted that since in the cases at hand, policy decision taken by respondents is manifestly arbitrary and irrational, this court, has power of judicial review under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that once it is quite apparent from record that the decision making process is itself faulty, this court, can interfere, while exercising power under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

17. Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, learned counsel argued that, while upholding requirement of passing at least two examinations from schools situated in the State of Himachal Pradesh, for becoming eligible for 85% State quota, this court and Hon'ble Apex Court have held that insertion of such clause was reasonable classification with an object sought to be achieved and imposing restriction as detailed above is valid on account of the fact that it is mandate of directive principles of State policy that States are within their domain to formulate policy so as to standard of education in the State is concerned. He submitted that aforesaid mandate given by this court and Hon'ble Apex Court has been totally ignored by respondents by taking impugned decision and as such, same is otherwise not sustainable in eye of law. He submitted that purpose of State quota is that the infrastructure is used and that benefit is given to residents of State and such of the bona fide Himachali students, who after having received their education, shall serve the State of Himachal Pradesh, be given admission against 85% State Quota seats. He submitted that underlying object for providing restriction of passing at least two examinations from schools situated in State of Himachal Pradesh was that bona fide Himachali students of state should get admission under 85% quota. While inviting attention of this court to judgment passed by this court in CWP No. 5038 of 2020, titled Harshit Bansal vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and connected matter, decided 23.11.2020, Mr. Chandel submitted that keeping in view various considerations like topography of State, socio-economic conditions of its people, scarcity of good schools, tutors and coaching centres for the students studying in schools situate in the State, there was a justification for such classification as of students, who have passed two board examinations from State of Himachal Pradesh and students, who though are bona fide Himachalis but received education from schools located outside the State of Himachal Pradesh. He submitted that since no quantifiable data ever came to be placed on record that there is substantial improvement in education in the State of Himachal Pradesh and students of Himachal Pradesh can compete with the students, who have received education from other States, there was otherwise no occasion for respondent State to effect the change in the prospectus with regard to eligibility and qualification. Lastly he argued that with abrupt change in the eligibility and qualification condition, great prejudice has been caused to the petitioners and in case impugned decision is upheld, such decision may be ordered to be kept in abeyance for two years, because, during present years, students had taken admission in board classes, aspiring for NEET and seeking state quota, as a result of which they were not able to receive better education from the schools/institutions located outside the State of Himachal Pradesh, as has been done in the case of other categories, who though are bona fide Himachali but have not received education from the State of Himachal Pradesh. He submitted that since change in policy decision is not backed by any cogent material and there is manifest arbitrariness in the decision of the respondent-State, such decision being violative of Constitution of India deserves to be quashed and set aside.

18. While refuting aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and supporting the decision of the respondent-State, Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General and Mr. Sharwan Dogra learned senior counsel duly assisted by Mr. Arvind Sharma and Mr. Tejasvi Dogra, Advocates, Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Advocate, Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate and Mr. Rajinder Singh, representing some of the private respondents, who have become eligible on account of change in eligibility and qualifications criteria, vehemently argued that there is no illegality or infirmity in the policy decision taken by the respondent-State, which is otherwise is in the interest of each and every individual belonging to the State of Himachal Pradesh.

19. Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General, argued that neither any legally enforceable right of the petitioners has been infringed or denied to them nor they are aggrieved of any action on the part of the respondent State. He submitted that Government is bound to provide equal rights to the people of State of Himachal Pradesh. He submitted that parents of some of the students are compelled to reside outside the State of Himachal Pradesh on account of their Government/ Central Government/private sector job and as such, it cannot be expected that their children, would receive education from the schools located within the State of Himachal Pradesh. He further submitted that otherwise also it is not possible for every parent working outside the State of Himachal Pradesh to send their children for studies in State of Himachal Pradesh so that he/she becomes eligible to compete under 85% State quota. He submitted that otherwise also, on account of change in eligibility and qualification criteria, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners and other similarly situate persons, who otherwise being bona fide Himachali are entitled to participate or claim seat under 85% State quota as per their merit. He submitted that with effect of change in eligibility and qualification criteria, an attempt has been made by the State to do justice with the such of bona fide Himachali students, who were unable to receive education in the State of Himachal Pradesh on account of jobs/occupation of their parents outside the State of Himachal Pradesh. While fairly admitting that a representation received from some organization of bona fide Himachalis in February 2023 was rejected, Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General argued that respondent State is not estopped from considering fresh representation, if any received, praying therein to change the eligibility and qualification criteria in the prospectus for MBBS/BDS-2023 for session 2023-24. He submitted that after considering representation filed by the organization of bona fide Himachalis, another representation was received from the father of one of the bona fide Himachali student, who was compelled to live outside the State of Himachal Pradesh on account of his occupation and matter was referred to Prospectus Review Committee, which after having taken note of the grievance aired in the representation, referred the matter to highest authority because the decision with regard to change, if any, in eligibility and qualification could have been taken at the highest level. While making this court peruse noting portion of the concerned file, learned Advocate General vehemently argued that the decision to change eligibility and qualification criteria was taken after due deliberations at the highest level and as such, it cannot be said that there was any legal malice or the decision was taken to accommodate one particular person, rather on account of said decision, thousands of bona fide Himachali students, who are/were unable to receive education from the schools situated in the State of Himachal Pradesh, on account of occupation of their parents outside the State of Himachal Pradesh, have been benefited. He submitted that otherwise, an elected Government is competent to frame policy or change the existing policy, if it is required in the public interest. He submitted that no doubt, writ court has adequate power of judicial review in respect of policy decision but once there is material to show that there is sufficient reason/justification for taking a policy decision, bringing it within four corners of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, this court may not exercise power of judicial review to determine correctness of such policy decision or to indulge in exercise of finding whether a particular policy is better or a better policy could have been evolved. He submitted that it has been provided in the prospectus that serious action shall be taken against a person, who has concealed material information especially with regard to availing benefit of domicile in other States, apart from State of Himachal Pradesh.

20. Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General further submitted that no doubt, in the past, condition imposed by respondents in prospectus that candidates aspiring to claim seat under 85% State quota should have passed at least two examinations from schools located in State of Himachal Pradesh, was held to be legal and valid by this court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court, but that does not mean that respondent-State is estopped from effecting change in the earlier policy decision, especially when it is satisfied that the change proposed to be made is in the interest of public at large and on account of the same, no prejudice if any, shall be caused to such of category, which was benefited from the earlier policy decision.

21. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, learned senior counsel representing the students, who are bona fide Himachali but have not passed at least two examinations from schools situated in State of Himachal Pradesh, apart from making similar submissions as have been made by Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General as recorded above, vehemently argued that no injustice can be said to have been caused to the petitioners or other similarly situate persons on account of change in eligibility and qualification criteria in the prospectus issued by respondent No. 3 for academic session 2023-24. Mr. Dogra submitted that on account of change, category of the petitioners has not been excluded rather one of category, which though is of bona fide Himachali but compelled to live outside the State of Himachal Pradesh on account of job/occupation of their parents, has been included and inclusion of this category cannot be said to have caused any adverse impact upon chances of admission of petitioners in the medical colleges in State of Himachal Pradesh under 85% State quota, especially when it is well settled that admission shall be made on the basis of All India Ranking of students in NEET.

22. Mr. Dogra, learned senior counsel further submitted that bare perusal of prospectus issued by respondents for academic session 2022-23 clearly reveals that at that time also, necessity was felt to give some kind of relaxation to such of students, who were compelled to reside outside the State of Himachal Pradesh on account of job/occupation of their parents and as such, it was specifically provided at point No. 2(i) of chapter IV of Eligibility and Qualification that wards of such of employees, who are residing outside the State of Himachal Pradesh, on account of their Government/central Government job/armed forces/private job, shall not be required to meet the condition of passing at least two examinations from schools situated in State of Himachal Pradesh. Mr. Dogra further submitted that the only left out category was of the persons doing private job/occupation outside the State of Himachal Pradesh. Now, the respondents, having taken note of difficulties being faced by children of aforesaid category, have rightly changed the eligibility and qualification criteria, whereby all the bona fide Himachali students, irrespective of place of their schooling, can participate for admission in various medical colleges in the State of Himachal Pradesh under 85% State quota. Mr. Dogra also submitted that mere upholding of eligibility and qualification condition provided in prospectus issued by respondents prior to session 2023-24, cannot be a bar for respondent State to change its decision, especially when same is in public interest. He submitted that otherwise also change made in the prospectus has not caused any prejudice to the petitioners as well as similarly situate persons, who like other bona fide Himachali students can also stake claim for admission in MBBS/BDS under 85% State quota seats subject to theirs having qualified NEET.

23. Lastly, Mr. Dogra, while making this court peruse various judgments passed by this court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court, argued that, while considering validity of policy decision, if any, taken by the Government, court should not overstep its limit and tinker with the policy decision, unless same is absolutely capricious and not being informed by any reason. He further submitted that neither it is in domain of this court nor within the power of judicial review, to embark upon an enquiry to find out, whether a particular policy is better or a better policy could have been evolved. He submitted that since there is ample material on record that before effecting impugned change, respondents State examined the matter from all angles and then held due deliberations, coupled with the fact that no prejudice has been caused to the bona fide Himachali students on account of change, petitions having been filed by the petitioners deserve outright rejection.

24. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this court finds that following questions arise for the adjudication of this Court,

"1. Whether court can interfere with the policy decision, if any, taken by the respondent-State

2. Whether action of the respondents inasmuch as effecting change in Chapter 2(iv) of eligibility and qualification of the prospectus for MBBS/BDS-2023, can be said to be just, fair and not arbitrary, especially when the same came to be issued after declaration of result of NEET on 13.6.2023 and whether respondents could have effected change in its earlier policy decision after uploading of NEET Domicile Criteria 2023 on 6.3.2023, wherein it came to be specifically mentioned that the candidates, whose parents are bona fide Himachali and have passed at least two examinations from schools situated in State of Himachal Pradesh (middle or equivalent/matric or equivalent/10+1 or equivalent/10+2 or equivalent) from recognized schools/colleges situated in the State of Himachal Pradesh and affiliated to ICSE/CBSE or HPBOSE or equivalent Boards/Universities established by law in India, shall be eligible to claim admission under 85% quota.

3. Whether the respondent-State is justified in effecting change in educational/qualification criteria, especially when condition of passing at least two examinations from schools situated in State of Himachal Pradesh in the prospectus 2023 was held to be valid by this Court and Hon'ble Apex Court and whether the respondent-State is estopped from changing policy decision, which at one point of time was upheld by the Constitutional courts."

4. "Whether the change effected in prospectus issued by respondent No. 3 for admission with regard to eligibility and qualification criteria is mala fide, arbitrary and unreasonable and, if permitted, would cause prejudice to category of petitioners

25. Before exploring answers to aforesaid questions formulated by this Court, this court deems it fit to elaborate upon the scope, competence and power of judicial review under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, especially with regard to policy decision taken by the Government.

26. Learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem that the policy decision cannot be interfered with, unless the same is manifestly arbitrary, irrational and is an abuse of process of law. Policy decision can be faulted on the ground of mala fides, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or irrationality as the same renders it to be unconstitutional. It has been repeatedly held by Hon'ble Apex Court that executive authority of the State must be held to be within its competence to frame a policy for the administration of the State. Unless the policy framed is absolutely capricious, unreasonable, arbitrary and against the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution or such policy is against other Constitutional provisions or statutory provision, same cannot be interfered by court, while exercising power of judicial review. Most importantly, it has been repeatedly held that neither it is within the domain of court nor within the scope of judicial review to embark upon enquiry to find out whether a particular policy is better or a better policy could have been evolved. Unless it is shown to court that illegality has been committed in the policy or same is contrary to law or is malafide, a decision bringing about change in policy, cannot per se be interfered by the court. Reliance in this regard is placed upon following judgments:

27. In Asif Hameed v. State of J & K, 1989 Supp. (2) SCC 364, the Hon'ble Apex Court has as under:

"19. When a State action is challenged, the function of the court is to examine the action in accordance with Law and to determine whether the legislature or the executive has acted within the powers and functions assigned under the Constitution and if not, the court must strike down the action. While doing so the court must remain within its self-imposed limits. The court sits in judgment on the action of a coordinate branch of the Government. While exercising power of judicial review of administrative action, the court is not an appellate authority. The Constitution does not permit the court to direct or advise the executive in matters of policy or to sermonize qua any matter which under the Constitution lies within the sphere of legislature of executive, provided these authorities do not transgress their constitutional limits or statutory powers"

28. In Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, (1990) 3 SCC 223, [LQ/SC/1990/153] Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:

"57. Judicial review is not concerned with matters of economic policy. The Court does not substitute its judgment for that of the legislature or its agents as to matters within the province of either. The Court does not supplant the "feel of the expert" by its own views. When the legislature acts within the sphere of its authority and delegates power to an agent, it may empower the agent to make findings of fact which are conclusive provided such findings satisfy the test of reasonable- ness. In all such cases, judicial inquiry is confined to the question whether the findings of fact are reasonably based on evidence and whether such findings are consistent with the laws of the land. As rated by Jagannatha Shetty, J. in M/s. Gupta Sugar Works, (supra):

".....the court does not act like a chartered accountant nor acts like an income tax officer. The court is not concerned with any individual case or any particular problem. The court only examines whether the price determined was with due regard to considerations provided by the statute. And whether extraneous matters have been excluded from determination."

29. In M.P. Oil Extraction v. State of M.P., (1997) 7 SCC 592, [LQ/SC/1997/933] Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:

"41. After giving our careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears to us that the industrial policy of 1979 which was subsequently revised from time to time cannot be held arbitrary and based on no reason whatsoever but founded on mere ipse dixit of the State Government of M.P. The executive authority of the State must be held to be within its competence to frame policy for the administration of the State. Unless the policy framed is absolutely capricious and, not being informed by any reason whatsoever, can be clearly held to be arbitrary and founded on mere ipse dixit of the executive functionaries thereby offending Article 14 of the Constitution or such policy offends other constitutional provisions or comes in conflict with any statutory provision, the Court cannot and should not outstep its limit and tinker with the policy decision of the executive functionary of the State. This Court, in no uncertain term, has sounded a note of caution by indicating that policy decision is in the domain of the executive authority of the State and the Court should not embark on the unchartered ocean of public policy and should not question the efficacy or otherwise of such policy so long the same does not offend any provision of the statute or the Constitution of India. The supremacy of each of three organs of the State i.e. legislature, executive and judiciary in their respective field of operation needs to be emphasised. The power of judicial review of the executive and legislative action must be kept within the bounds of constitutional scheme so that there may not be any occasion to entertain misgivings about the role of judiciary in outstepping its limit by unwarranted judicial activism being very often talked of in these days. The democratic set up to which the polity is so deeply committed can not function properly unless each of the three organs appreciate the need for mutual respect and supremacy in their respective fields."

30. Similar view has been taken by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga, (1998) 4 SCC 117 [LQ/SC/1998/261] (see para: 24, 25) and Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Admn.(2001) 3 SCC 635 [LQ/SC/2001/794] (para: 18)

31. In Union of India & Ors v. Dinesh Engineering Corpn.,(2001) 8 SCC 491, [LQ/SC/2001/2116] Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:

"16 But then as has been held by this Court in the very same judgment that a public authority even in contractual matters should not have unfettered discretion and in contracts having commercial element even though some extra discretion is to be conceded in such authorities, they are bound to follow the norms recognised by courts while dealing with public property. This requirement is necessary to avoid unreasonable and arbitrary decisions being taken by public authorities whose actions are amenable to judicial review. Therefore, merely because the authority has certain elbow room available for use of discretion in accepting offer in contracts, the same will have to be done within the four corners of the requirements of law especially Article 14 of the Constitution. In the instant case, we have noticed that apart from rejecting the offer of the writ petitioner arbitrarily, the writ petitioner has now been virtually debarred from competing with the EDC in the supply of spare parts to be used in the governors by the Railways, ever since the year 1992, and during all this while we are told the Railways are making purchases without any tender on a proprietary basis only from the EDC which, in our opinion, is in flagrant violation of the constitutional mandate of Article 14. We are also of the opinion that the so-called policy of the Board creating monopoly of EDC suffers from the vice of non-application of mind, hence, it has to be quashed as has been done by the High Court.."

32. In Balco Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 333, [LQ/SC/2001/2865] Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:

"42. While considering the validity of the industrial policy of the State of Madhya Pradesh relating to the agreements entered into for supply of sal seeds for extracting oil in M.P. Oil Extraction and Another vs. State of M.P. and Others,(1997) 7 SCC 592, [LQ/SC/1997/933] the Court at page 610 held as follows :-

"41. After giving our careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears to us that the Industrial Policy of 1979 which was subsequently revised from time to time cannot be held to be arbitrary and based on no reason whatsoever but founded on mere ipse dixit of the State Government of M.P. The executive authority of the State must be held to be within its competence to frame a policy for the administration of the State. Unless the policy framed is absolutely capricious and, not being informed by any reason whatsoever, can be clearly held to be arbitrary and founded on mere ipse dixit of the executive functionaries thereby offending Article 14 of the Constitution or such policy offends other constitutional provisions or comes into conflict with any statutory provision, the Court cannot and should not outstep its limit and tinker with the policy decision of the executive functionary of the State. This Court, in no uncertain terms, has sounded a note of caution by indicating that policy decision is in the domain of the executive authority of the State and the Court should not embark on the unchartered ocean of public policy and should not question the efficacy or otherwise of such policy so long the same does not offend any provision of the stature or the Constitution of India. The supremacy of each of the three organs of the State i.e. legislature, executive and judiciary in their respective fields of operation needs to be emphasised. The power of judicial review of the executive and legislative action must be kept within the bounds of constitutional scheme so that there may not be any occasion to entertain misgivings about the role of judiciary in outstepping its limit by unwarranted judicial activism being very often talked of in these days. The democratic set-up to which the polity is so deeply committed cannot function properly unless each of the three organs appreciate the need for mutual respect and supremacy in their respective fields."

46. It is evident from the above that it is neither within the domain of the Courts nor the scope of the judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or whether better public policy can be evolved. Nor are our Courts inclined to strike down a policy at the behest of a petitioner merely because it has been urged that a different policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical.

47. Process of disinvestment is a policy decision involving complex economic factors. The Courts have consistently refrained from interfering with economic decisions as it has been recognised that economic expediencies lack adjudicative disposition and unless the economic decision, based on economic expediencies, is demonstrated to be so violative of constitutional or legal limits on power or so abhorrent to reason, that the Courts would decline to interfere. In matters relating to economic issues, the Government has, while taking a decision, right to "trial and error" as long as both trial and error are bona fide and within limits of authority. There is no case made out by the petitioner that the decision to disinvest in BALCO is in any way capricious, arbitrary, illegal or uninformed. Even though the workers may have interest in the manner in which the Company is conducting its business, inasmuch as its policy decision may have an impact on the workers' rights, nevertheless it is an incidence of service for an employee to accept a decision of the employer which has been honestly taken and which is not contrary to law. Even a government servant, having the protection of not only Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution but also of Article 311, has no absolute right to remain in service. For example, apart from cases of disciplinary action, the services of government servants can be terminated if posts are abolished. If such employee cannot make a grievance based on part III of the Constitution or Article 311 then it cannot stand to reason that like the petitioners, non-government employees working in a company which by reason of judicial pronouncement may be regarded as a State for the purpose of part III of the Constitution, can claim a superior or a better right than a government servant and impugn it's change of status. In taking of a policy decision in economic matters at length, the principles of natural justice have no role to play. While it is expected of a responsible employer to take all aspects into consideration including welfare of the labour before taking any policy decision that, by itself, will not entitle the employees to demand a right of hearing or consultation prior to the taking of the decision.

..

92. In a democracy, it is the prerogative of each elected Government to follow it's own policy. Often a change in Government may result in the shift in focus or change in economic policies. Any such change may result in adversely affecting some vested interests. Unless any illegality is committed in the execution of the policy or the same is contrary to law or mala fide, a decision bringing about change cannot per se be interfered with by the Court."

33. Aforesaid view has been reiterated by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Orissa v. Gopinath Dash & Ors.(2005) 13 SCC 495 [LQ/SC/2005/1247] (See para: 5 & 6)

34. In Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain, (2007) 4 SCC 737, [LQ/SC/2007/485 ;] Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:

"16 The scope of judicial review of governmental policy is now well defined. Courts do not and cannot act as Appellate Authorities examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy. Nor are courts Advisors to the executive on matters of policy which the executive is entitled to formulate. The scope of judicial review when examining a policy of the government is to check whether it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any statutory provision or manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available. Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review [vide : Asif Hameed v. State of J&K 1989 Supp (2) SCC 364; Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd., v. Union of India-1990 (3) SCC 223 [LQ/SC/1990/153] ; Khoday Distilleries v. State of Karnataka-1996 (10) SCC 304, [LQ/SC/1995/1341 ;] Balco Employees Union v. Union of India2002 (2) SCC 333) [LQ/SC/2001/2865] , State of Orissa vs. Gopinath Dash-2005 (13) SCC 495 [LQ/SC/2005/1247] and Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh vs. State of Andhra Pradesh."

35. In A.Satyanarayana v. S. Purushotham, (2008) 5 SCC 416, [LQ/SC/2008/983] Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:

"23. We, however, are of the opinion that the validity or otherwise of a quota rule cannot be determined on surmises and conjectures. Whereas the power of the State to fix the quota keeping in view the fact situation obtaining in a given case must be conceded, the same, however, cannot be violative of the constitutional scheme of equality as contemplated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that a policy decision and, in particular, legislative policy should not ordinarily be interfered with and the Superior Courts, while exercising its power of judicial review, shall not consider as to whether such policy decision has been taken mala fide or not. But where a policy decision as reflected in a statutory rule pertains to the field of subordinate legislation, indisputably, the same would be amenable to judicial review, inter alia, on the ground of being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. {See Vasu Dev Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 2006 (1) SCALE 108] and State of Kerala & Ors. v. Unni & Anr."

36. In Centre For PIL v. Union of India, (2011) 4 SCC 1, [LQ/SC/2011/349] Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated the aforesaid view. (See Para: 63, 64).

37. In Parisons Agrotech (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2015) 9 SCC 657, [LQ/SC/2015/1061] Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:

"14. No doubt, the writ court has adequate power of judicial review in respect of such decisions. However, once it is found that there is sufficient material for taking a particular policy decision, bringing it within the four corners of Article 14 of the Constitution, power of judicial review would not extend to determine the correctness of such a policy decision or to indulge into the exercise of finding out whether there could be more appropriate or better alternatives. Once we find that parameters of Article 14 are satisfied; there was due application of mind in arriving at the decision which is backed by cogent material; the decision is not arbitrary or irrational and; it is taken in public interest, the Court has to respect such a decision of the Executive as the policy making is the domain of the Executive and the decision in question has passed the test of the judicial review."

38. In Small Scale Industrial Manufactures Assn. v. Union of India, (2021) 8 SCC 511, [LQ/SC/2021/210 ;] Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:

"71. The correctness of the reasons which prompted the government in decision taking one course of action instead of another is not a matter of concern in judicial review and the court is not the appropriate forum for such investigation. The policy decision must be left to the government as it alone can adopt which policy should be adopted after considering of the points from different angles. In assessing the propriety of the decision of the Government the court cannot interfere even if a second view is possible from that of the government.

72. Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review. The scope of judicial review of the governmental policy is now well defined. The courts do not and cannot act as an appellate authority examining the correctness, stability and appropriateness of a policy, nor are the courts advisers to the executives on matters of policy which the executives are entitled to formulate."

39. This Court, in Ranjan Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 2016 Himachal Pradesh 101, has also held as under:

"16. It would be noticed that though there may be certain sections of general public which may not subscribe and approve the decision of the Government, but the same cannot be nullified on this ground alone. It is more settled that individual interest must yield in favour of social and public interest and this Court would only interfere with the policy decision if the petitioners can carve out a case falling within the well settled parameters of law relating to judicial review.

17 xxx

18 xxx

19. The petitioners have failed to point out as to how and in what manner the impugned decision of the Government is either arbitrary, irrational, much less, capricious or whimsical. They have further failed to point out that the decision is either arbitrary or based on irrelevant consideration or is malafide or against any statutory provisions, thus calling for no interference."

40. From the aforesaid exposition of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court from time to time, it is quite apparent that policy making is domain of Executive and same cannot be interfered with by the courts, while exercising power of judicial review unless, same is shown to be manifestly arbitrary, irrational and unconstitutional. In all the aforesaid judgments, which have been otherwise pressed into service by both the sides, it has been categorically held that while exercising power of judicial review of administrative action, courts do not and cannot act as an appellate authority examining the correctness, stability and appropriateness of a policy, nor are the courts advisers to the executives on matters of policy which the executives are entitled to formulate.

41. Now, being guided by aforesaid principles laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, this court would make an endeavour to find out whether the policy decision taken by the respondent-State, whereby it effected change in eligibility and qualification criteria in the prospectus issued by respondent No. 3 for MBBS/BDS for academic session 2023-24 is arbitrary, irrational and unconstitutional.

42. Admittedly, prior to academic session 2023-24, eligibility and qualification criteria as stood mentioned in prospectus for MBBS/BDS issued by respondent No. 3 for academic session 2022-23, though all bona fide Himachali students were eligible for State quota seats but they were also required to have passed at least two examinations from schools situated in State of Himachal Pradesh (out of middle or equivalent/matric or equivalent/10+1 or equivalent/10+2 or equivalent) from recognized schools/colleges situated in the State of Himachal Pradesh and affiliated to ICSE/CBSE or HPBOSE or equivalent Boards/Universities established by law in India. While, putting aforesaid restriction, respondent-State had also provided relief to one category of bona fide Himachalis, which though was of bona fide Himachali but was compelled to live outside the State of Himachal Pradesh on account of their service in all India service, Central Government or employees working in autonomous bodies, institutions, semi Government bodies established by Central or other States or serving judges of Himachal Pradesh or employees of Himachal Pradesh State Government undertaking subject to certain conditions. Apart from above, bona fide Himachali students, who were admitted to Navodaya schools situate in the State of Himachal Pradesh and passed matriculation or plus two examinations under exchange programme from other parts of country, were also exempted from passing two examinations from the schools located in Himachal Pradesh.

43. However, aforesaid condition now has been changed by the respondents by providing in the prospectus for MBBS/BDS-2023 that the children of bona fide Himachalis, irrespective of their place of schooling, shall be eligible for State quota seats. For comparison, conditions with regard to eligibility and qualification provided in prospectus for MBBS/BDS-2022, 2023 and 2024 are reproduced herein below:

Criteria for the year 2022-23

"(A)1. General Criteria for eligibility for State Quota Seats:

Only the candidates who have qualified the NEET-UG-2022 shall be eligible to apply online for admission to MBBS/BDS Courses through centralized counseling in Government medical/Dental Colleges including State Quota Seats in Private un-aided Medical/Dental Colleges situated in Himachal Pradesh subject to the fulfillment of eligibility criteria prescribed at Sr. NO.2 below:-

2. Specific Criteria for eligibility:

The following categories of candidates shall be eligible for the State Quota Seats:

(i) The children of bona fide Himachalis who have passed at least two exams (out of middle or equivalent/matric or equivalent/10+1 or equivalent/10+2 or equivalent) from recognized schools/colleges situated in the State of Himachal Pradesh and affiliated to ICSE/CBSE or HPBOSE or equivalent Boards/Universities established by law in India.

Provided that the bona fide Himachalis students who are admitted to Navodaya Schools situated in Himachal Pradesh and who have passed matric or +2 examinations under the exchange programme from other Navodaya Schools in the Country shall also be eligible for admission to the above courses.

(ii) The children of parents who are not bona fide Himachalis and who are Central Government employees (like those of All India Services/Central Civil Services) OR employees working within the State of Himachal Pradesh in Autonomous Bodies/Institutions/Organisations/Semi Government Bodies established by Central/Other State Governments OR Serving Judges of the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh OR Regular employees of Himachal Pradesh Government/H.P. Government Undertakings/Autonomous Bodies wholly owned by Himachal Pradesh Government shall be eligible for admissions in State Quota Seats subject to fulfillment of following conditions:

(a) The employee should be working for a period of continuous two years within the State of Himachal Pradesh in preceding four years on or before 1ts January of the year of passing 10+2 examinations and

(b) His or her child should have passed 10+2 (or equivalent and 10+2 (or equivalent) from the recognized schools or colleges situated in the State of Himachal Pradesh and affiliated to ICSE/CBSE/HPBOSE or equivalent Boards/Universities established by law in India.

(iii) Children of regular employees of Himachal Pradesh Government/H.P. Government Undertakings/Autonomous bodies wholly owned by Himachal Pradesh Government shall be exempted from the schooling condition for eligibility for State Quota Seats subject to the fulfillment of following criteria:

(a) Such employees have been holding posts outside Himachal Pradesh on or before 1st January of the year of passing 10+2 examinations for at least a continuous period of three years

(iv) The children of bona fide Himachalis who are working with the Central Government/Undertakings or Autonomous bodies established by the Central Government shall be exempted from the schooling criteria to gain eligibly for admission under State Quota Seats.

Provided that such employees should be working/posted outside the State of Himachal Pradesh on or before 1st January of the year of passing 10+2 (or its equivalent) for at least a continuous period of three years.

(v) The children of bona fide Himachalis who are working outside the State of Himachal Pradesh with other State Government/Undertakings of Autonomous bodies established by other State Governments shall be eligible for State Quota Seats in the State of Himachal Pradesh, provided that their child is not eligible for the State Quota in the State where their parents work and a certificate to this effect duly issued and certified by the Director Medical Education of that State for the relevant academic year shall be required to be submitted.

(vi) The children of bona fide Himachalis who are serving in Indian Defence Services/Ex-Serviceman/Para Military Forces shall be unconditionally exempted from the schooling criteria to gain eligibly for admission under State Quota Seats"

Criteria for the year 2023-24

"(A)1. General Criteria for eligibility for State Quota Seats:

Only the candidates who have qualified the NEET-UG-2022 shall be eligible to apply online for admission to MBBS/BDS Courses through centralized counseling in Government medical/Dental Colleges including State Quota Seats in Private un-aided Medical/Dental Colleges situated in Himachal Pradesh subject to the fulfillment of eligibility criteria prescribed at Sr. NO.2 below:-

2. Specific Criteria for eligibility:

The following categories of candidates shall be eligible for the State Quota Seats:

(i) Bona fide Himachali students or the children of bona fide Himachali, irrespective of their place of schooling.

(ii) The children of parents who are not bona fide Himachalis and who are Central Government employees (like those of All India Services/Central Civil Services) OR employees working within the State of Himachal Pradesh in Autonomous Bodies/Institutions/Organisations/Semi Government Bodies established by Central/Other State Governments OR Serving Judges of the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh OR Regular employees of Himachal Pradesh Government/H.P. Government Undertakings/Autonomous Bodies wholly owned by Himachal Pradesh Government shall be eligible for admissions in State Quota Seats subject to fulfillment of following conditions:

(a) The employee should be working for a period of continuous two years within the State of Himachal Pradesh in preceding four years on or before 1ts January of the year of passing 10+2 examinations and

(b) His or her child should have passed 10+2 (or equivalent and 10+2 (or equivalent) from the recognized schools or colleges situated in the State of Himachal Pradesh and affiliated to ICSE/CBSE/HPBOSE or equivalent Boards/Universities established by law in India.

(iii) Children of regular employees of Himachal Pradesh Government/H.P. Government Undertakings/Autonomous bodies wholly owned by Himachal Pradesh Government shall be exempted from the schooling condition for eligibility for State Quota Seats subject to the fulfillment of following criteria:

(a) Such employees have been holding posts outside Himachal Pradesh on or before 1st January of the year of passing 10+2 examinations for at least a continuous period of three years

Note: 1. Candidates seeking admission under State Quota on the basis of eligibility criteria as defined above under clause-IV(A)2(ii) shall be considered only Unreserved category, as the seats under reserved categories are meant only for bona fide Himachali. Such candidate shall have to submit the certificate on the prescribed format(s) as per Appendix-13 as applicable."

44. If the criteria of eligibility provided in prospectuses for MBBS/BDS-2022, 2023, 2024 are perused juxtaposing each other, it clearly emerges that in both the prospectuses, prime condition was/has been that a person seeking admission under State quota seats should be bona fide Himachali students or children of bona fide Himachali but in the prospectus for MBBS/BDS-2022-23, apart from condition of being bona fide Himachali, it was also required for bona fide Himachali students to have passed at least two examinations from schools situated in State of Himachal Pradesh but now with the change in eligibility and qualification provided in prospectus for MBBS/BDS-2023-24, all bona fide Himachali students of bona fide Himachali have been held entitled to stake claim for State quota irrespective of the place of their schooling. It is also not in dispute that prior to the change, as came to be effected in the prospectus for MBBS/BDS-2023-24, exemption from passing two examinations from the schools located in the State of Himachal Pradesh was given to category of such persons, who though were bona fide Himachali but are/were compelled to reside outside the State of Himachal Pradesh on account of their job under Himachal Pradesh Government, All India Service, Central Civil services, but subject to certain conditions as contained in prospectus for MBBS/BDS-2022-23. Though, it has been vehemently argued on behalf of petitioners that on account of aforesaid policy decision, whereby eligibility criteria came to be changed, serious prejudice has been caused to the category of petitioners, but it is not in dispute that on account of change in eligibility criteria category of the petitioners has not been excluded rather one category which though is of bona fide Himachalis, but compelled to live outside the State of Himachal Pradesh on account of their service in Himachal Pradesh Government, Central Government, semi Government, private sector/private occupation has been included.

45. Though, as has been noticed herein above, State Government in earlier policy decision, had provided relaxation to aforesaid category of persons, who though are bona fide Himachali but compelled to live outside the State of Himachal Pradesh on account of their Government/Central Government job, by providing exemption clause, as has been taken note herein above, but even then, two categories, i.e. one of the persons, who are doing private job outside the State of Himachal Pradesh and second, those who are compelled to reside outside State of Himachal Pradesh on account of their private vocation, were left out.

46. Now having taken note of the representation filed by aforesaid category of persons employed in private sector or doing private occupation outside the State of Himachal Pradesh, respondent State has taken a policy decision to do away with the condition of passing at least two examinations from schools situated in State of Himachal Pradesh as was provided in prospectus for MBBS/BDS-2022-23. Now on account of aforesaid change, all bona fide Himachali students or children of bona fide Himachali, irrespective of places of their schooling, have become eligible for State quota seats.

47. Though there appears to be some substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that on account of inclusion of category of such students, who are though bona fide Himachali but have received their schooling from the schools located outside the State of Himachal Pradesh, arena of competition amongst the categories of bona fide Himachali students, who are entitled to stake claim seats under State quota has increased, but that cannot be a ground or reason to claim that, policy decision taken by respondent with regard to change of eligibility criteria is unreasonable, arbitrary or irrational or the same is unconstitutional. As has been noticed herein above, bona fide Himachali students can only lay claim to the seats available under State quota subject to their having passed NEET, now on account of change in policy, whereby earlier decision of putting restriction of having passed at least two examinations from schools situated in State of Himachal Pradesh has been done away, such of students, who though are bona fide Himachali students but were unable to stake claim qua State quota seats on account of their not having passed at least two examinations from schools situated in State of Himachal Pradesh, have been also included/declared eligible to claim State quota seats. Since on account of aforesaid change, category of the petitioners has not been excluded rather, one of the category, which is compelled to live outside the State of Himachal Pradesh on account of jobs of their parents, be it in Government/semi Government or private sector, have been provided with equal opportunity to compete for State quota seats.

48. No doubt, on account of inclusion of aforesaid category, competition amongst bona fide Himachali students would increase, but that cannot be a ground for this court to conclude that policy decision, whereby aforesaid change came to be effected is malafide, arbitrary and irrational, rather same appears not only to be reasonable and logical but can be said to have been effected to do justice to one category of students, who were denied benefit of availing State quota seats on account of theirs having not passed at least two examinations from schools situated in State of Himachal Pradesh, which in fact was not in their control on account of the fact that they were compelled to live outside the State of Himachal Pradesh because of employment of their parents.

49. To find out reasonableness and correctness of the decision taken by the respondents, whereby earlier eligibility criteria came to be changed, this court, summoned the record, perusal whereof clearly reveals that a representation was received from All India United Himachali Front Delhi to the Government on 15.2.2023, praying therein to change eligibility criteria, but such representation was rejected on 9.3.2023. Again on 20.6.2023, another representation by one Mr. Krishan Dev Sood was received by the Government. After having perused representation, as detailed herein above, Hon'ble Chief Minister marked the file to the Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, for discussion. Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, directed the officials concerned to put up file physically for detailed discussion. On 27.6.2023 concerned official put up matter physically before Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, who after examining the matter in detail, sent the same to the PRC, which on 31.5.2023 at Directorate of Medical Education level on 31.5.2023, decided to send the matter to the Government for consideration/approval. PRC, after having taken note of prayer made in the representation as well as consequences thereof, referred the matter to the Government for consideration as is evident from paragraphs-72, 77, 78 and 79 of the PUC. (noting given in the file). State Government considered deliberations of the PRC and representation of K.D. Sood submitted on 4.7.2023. File was again marked to Secretary (Health) by Hon'ble Chief Minister on 16.7.2023. On 17.7.2023, Secretary (Health) physically perused the file and ultimately discussed the matter with Hon'ble Chief Minister, wherein it came to be decided that the condition for bona fide Himachali students regarding passing at least two examinations from schools situated in State of Himachal Pradesh, may be deleted/removed. After receipt of aforesaid decision taken at the level of Hon'ble Chief Minister, necessary changes were incorporated in the prospectus for MBBS/BDS for academic session 2023-24.

50. Having carefully perused record made available to this court, this court finds it difficult to agree with the petitioners that no due deliberations were held at the highest level before effecting change in the prospectus with regard to eligibility and qualification criteria. No doubt, deliberations of PRC in the matter held on 31.5.2023, reveal that it took note of earlier decision taken at the time of publication of prospectus for MBBS/BDS 2022-23, wherein restriction with regard to passing of passing at least two examinations from schools situated in State of Himachal Pradesh was put/incorporated and such condition was upheld by this court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court but the PRC after having noticed contention of the representationist as well as consequences thereof, deemed it expedient to send the file to highest authorities being a policy decision, which ultimately came to be taken at the highest level. It is pertinent to take note that the Hon'ble Chief Minister is also holding charge of Medical Education in the State of Himachal Pradesh. No doubt earlier representation filed by the aforesaid organization on 15.2.2023 was rejected on 9.3.2023, but that would definitely not preclude/stop competent authority from taking a fresh decision, if any, on fresh representation filed by a person, who was aggrieved of condition imposed in prospectus of 2022-23 of passing at least two examinations from the schools situated in State of Himachal Pradesh.

51. One representation can be said to be sufficient to enable competent authority to effect change, if any, in the policy decision, especially when there is ample material available on record that before effecting change, due deliberations were held at the highest level.

52. While ascertaining correctness of policy decision, if any, taken by the State, court while exercising power of judicial review, is not expected to embark on the unchartered ocean of public policy and should not question the efficacy of such policy, so far the same does not offend any provision of the statute or the Constitution of India. While exercising power of judicial review, court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or whether better public policy can be evolved. It has been categorically held by Hon'ble Apex Court that court should not strike down a policy at the behest of a petitioner merely because it has been urged that a different policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical.

53. It is the prerogative of each Government to follow its own policy. It was vehemently argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no occasion and reason for the present inception to change policy decision taken by earlier Government, but needless to say, it is the prerogative of each elected Government to follow it's own policy. Often a change in Government may result in the shift in focus or change in economic policies. Any such change may result in adversely affecting some vested interests. Unless any illegality is committed in the execution of the policy or the same is contrary to law or mala fide, a decision bringing about change cannot per se be interfered with by the Court.

54. There is nothing on record to conclude that the decision to effect change in the prospectus with regard to eligibility and qualification criteria, is malafide, unreasonable, arbitrary or irrational and as such, court, while exercising power of judicial review, cannot interfere with the same, especially when no material has been placed on record by learned counsel for the petitioners to demonstrate that the change in policy decision is against the statutes or Constitution.

55. Next question, as has been formulated herein above, is that whether the action of the respondents inasmuch as effecting change in Chapter IV of eligibility and qualification of the prospectus for MBBS/BDS-2023, can be said to be just, fair and not arbitrary, especially when same came to be issued after declaration of result of NEET on 13.6.2023 and whether respondents could have effected change in its earlier policy decision after uploading of NEET Domicile Criteria 2023 on 6.3.2023, wherein it came to be specifically mentioned that candidates whose parents are bona fide Himachali and have passed at least two examinations from schools situated in State of Himachal Pradesh (middle or equivalent/matric or equivalent/10+1 or equivalent/10+2 or equivalent) from recognized schools/colleges situated in the State of Himachal Pradesh and affiliated to ICSE/CBSE or HPBOSE or equivalent Boards/Universities established by law in India, shall be eligible to claim admission under 85% State Quota seats.

56. It came to be vehemently argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that, after declaration of result of NEET 2023 on 13.6.2023, no change could have been effected with regard to eligibility and qualification because with the declaration of result of NEET, category of petitioners had become aware of their position in the All India ranking and they had legitimate expectations to get seat in one of good medical colleges located in the State of Himachal Pradesh under 85% State quota.

57. Much stress was laid on NEET domicile criteria 2023 (Annexure P-3) whereby it came to be notified that the candidates whose parents are bona fide Himachali and have passed at least two examinations from schools situated in State of Himachal Pradesh, would be eligible to stake claim under 85% State quota.

58. However, this court after having perused the record, especially clause 6.1.2 contained in Information Bulletin for National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test dated 6.3.2023, wherein it was provided that the counseling for admission to the seats under the control of State Governments/UT Administrations/State Universities/ Institutions shall be conducted by the designated authorities of the State Government as per the Notifications issued separately by the authorities concerned, finds that counseling for admission to seats under State quota shall be conducted by designated authority of State Government i.e. respondent No. 3, in the present case, as per separate Notification issued by the authority. Notification referred to in Clause 6.1.2 definitely refers to the prospectus to be issued by designated authority of State Government i.e. respondent No. 3 in the present case for counseling for the seats under 85% State quota.

59. Having perused aforesaid condition, this court finds force in the submission of learned Advocate General that after declaration of result of NEET on 13.6.2023, respondent State could have issued prospectus for MBBS/BDS 2023 containing therein eligibility and qualification criteria for staking claim against the 85% seats under State quota. Since clause 6.1.2 of NEET UG 2023 prospectus clearly suggests that counseling for admission to the seats under the control of State Governments/UT Administrations/State Universities/Institutions shall be conducted by the designated authorities of the State Government as per the Notifications issued separately by the authorities concerned, learned Advocate General is right in contending that the respondent State is/was well within its right to prescribe conditions for staking claim, if any, under 85% State quota.

60. Another contention raised by learned senior counsel for the petitioners with respect to uploading of NEET domicile criteria, wherein criteria was updated on website is concerned, same has no merit, as such deserves outright rejection. Perusal of annexure P-3 i.e. domicile criteria for NEET 2023, itself suggests that same was not uploaded by the NTA, which is otherwise responsible for conducting NEET rather the same was uploaded on website on June 13, 2023 by a person namely Roshan Kumar. Though learned senior counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the aforesaid document was uploaded by the NTA and as such, same is required to be adhered to in its letter and spirit, but as has been noticed herein above, aforesaid document placed on record is neither an official document issued by the NTA nor the same is part of NEET UG 2023 prospectus issued on 6.3.2023, rather, same appears to have been uploaded by some individual for help and benefit of candidates participating in NEET. It would be apt to take note of following paras of domicile criteria:

"During NEET 2023 counselling sessions, aspirants ask queries regarding NEET domicile on various social media like Careers360 Q &A, Twitter, Facebook and Quora. Therefore, Careers360 brings on article on NEET 2023 domicile criteria to help Biology aspirants during stat counseling. With the help of NEET domicile rules 2023, aspirants can know whether they are eligible to appear for state counseling. Read the article on net 2023 domicile criteria for all states here."

61. Careful perusal of aforesaid clause suggests that the document has been uploaded by above named individual pursuant to queries made by NEET aspirants, regarding NEET domicile on various social media like Careers360 Q &A, Twitter, Facebook and Quora, Careers360 brought article on the subject to help aspirants during counselling. It has been stated that with the help of NEET domicile rules, aspirants can know whether they are eligible for state counselling. After having perused aforesaid para, it is quite apparent that aforesaid article has been uploaded by Careers360 but definitely not by the NTA.

62. Neither this court could lay hands to 'NEET domicile rules' if any, promulgated by the NTA nor Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned senior counsel for the petitioners was able to place the same on record and as such, no reliance can be placed upon the document with respect to 'NEET domicile rules 2023' which cannot be said to be issued by the NTA, rather same being issued by a private entity, has no relevance.

63. Most importantly, clause 6.1.6(a) of the "Information Bulletin: National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (UG)-2023", (Annexure P-2, Page 29) provides that, "Admission under State Quota Seats shall be subject to reservation policy and eligibility criteria prevailing in the State/Union Territory as notified by the respective State/Union Territory from time to time." Aforesaid provision clearly reveals that eligibility criteria for availing State quota seats shall be notified by State/UT from time to time. Though, it has been vehemently argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that Clause 6.1.6 of Information Bulletin of NEET UG 2023, talks about eligibility criteria prevailing in the State meaning thereby that the same could not have been changed by respondent-State by effecting change in the prospectus for MBBS/BDS-2023 published on 20.7.2023, but this court is not impressed with the aforesaid submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners, because, admittedly, power to specify eligibility criteria to avail benefit under State quota lies with respective State, if it is so, same could have been taken by respective State at any point in time, after publication of NEET UG 2023 result, but definitely before issuance of prospectus for MBBS/BDS-2023, which in the case at hand, came to be published on 20.7.2023. Since, in the case at hand, as has been taken note herein above, decision to change eligibility criteria came to be taken at the highest level on 18.7.2023, and a communication was sent by Secretary (Health) to the PRC to examine relaxation in State quota and thereafter prospectus was published on 20.7.2023, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondent-State, as far as effecting change in eligibility criteria, after issuance of prospectus of NEET UG 2023 on 6.3.2023 as well as declaration of result of NEET 2023 on 13.6.2023 is concerned.

64. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that Clause 6.1.6 of NEET UG 2023 Bulletin though reserves right to respective States to prescribe eligibility criteria but that could not have been changed after issuance of NEET UG 2023 result because, on that day, criteria prevailing in the State as notified by State/UT was to be given effect. They submitted that the rules have been changed by shifting goalpost midway, and as such, same cannot be allowed to sustain being totally contrary to the provisions contained in NEET UG 2023 prospectus. However, as has been discussed herein above, there is no merit in the aforesaid submission, for the reason that the prospectus by respective-State prescribing therein condition for staking claim against State quota, could have been published by respective State after issuance of NEET-UG 2023 Bulletin as well as declaration of NEET 2023 result, which was declared on 13.6.2023. Once clause 6.1.6 reserves liberty to the respective States to notify policy with regard to eligibility criteria, it cannot be accepted that the same would be similar as were prevailing at the time of publication/issuance of NEET UG 2023 Bulletin, Clause 6.1.6 whereof provides that the admission under State quota seats shall be subject to reservation policy prevailing in the respective States as notified by the said State. Eligibility criteria prevailing in the State could only be notified by respective State by issuing prospectus for MBBS/BDS-2023, which admittedly came to be published on 20.7.2023. If it is so, respondent State was well within its right to provide fresh eligibility criteria, if any, in the prospectus.

65. Next question, which needs determination is, "Whether respondent State is justified in effecting change in educational/qualification criteria, especially when condition of passing at least two examinations from schools situated in State of Himachal Pradesh in the prospectus 2023 was held to be valid by this Court and Hon'ble Apex Court and whether State is estopped from changing policy decision which at one point of time was upheld by the Constitutional courts".

66. It came to be vehemently argued on behalf of the petitioners that earlier condition of passing two examinations from the schools located in Himachal Pradesh, as contained in prospectus for MBBS/BDS-2022-23, was upheld by this court and Hon'ble Apex Court and as such, respondent-State was not expected and justified to bring the change in academic or qualification criteria while issuing prospectus for MBBS/BDS for the academic session 2023-24.

67. No doubt, eligibility criteria prescribed in academic session 2022-23, wherein restriction of having passed at least two examinations from schools situated in State of Himachal Pradesh was upheld by this court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court but certainly that would not preclude respondent State from effecting further change, if any, in the eligibility criteria/qualification, which otherwise has been held to be in the domain of the respondent-State, as has been provided under Clause 6.1.6 of NEET UG 2023 Bulletin (Annexure P-2), which provided that the admission to State quota seats shall be subject to reservation roster prevalent as notified by State/UT from time to time. Otherwise also, by effecting change in the eligibility criteria/qualification, respondent State has not done anything contrary to the mandate/direction given in its judgments, whereby earlier decision of the respondent State of putting restriction of having passed at least two examinations from schools situated in State of Himachal Pradesh, was upheld.

68. Precise issue before this court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court in earlier petitions was, "whether respondent-State is justified in prescribing condition of having passed at least two examinations from schools/colleges situated in State of Himachal Pradesh for availing benefit of admission under State quota." Courts, having taken note of the explanation put forth by the respondent State in putting restriction, as taken note herein above, upheld the same but certainly that would not mean that the respondent State is now estopped from effecting further change, if any, in the eligibility criteria/qualification, rather same being a policy decision can only be taken by the respondent-State. However, this court, while ascertaining correctness of the policy decision, if any, taken by the respondents after rendition of judgment by this court and Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein earlier condition of putting restriction of having passed at least two examinations from schools/colleges situated in State of Himachal Pradesh, came to be upheld, is only required to see, whether subsequent policy decision is reasonable, free from arbitrariness, or same is malafide, arbitrary or irrational. Most importantly, this court is also required to see that the policy decision taken by the respondent State is not against any statute or the Constitution. If it is not, it cannot interfere in the same, for the reason that the policy decision taken prior to the decision under challenge was upheld by Constitutional courts.

69. In case, titled Shivam Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others CWP No. 1353 of 2018 alongwith connected matters decided on 13.7.2018, ILR Vol. 48, 2005, children of bona fide Himachalis, either employed in private sector or in private occupation outside the State of Himachal Pradesh, laid challenge to the eligibility criteria/qualification laid down/prescribed in prospectus published by respondent No. 3 for Academic Session 2018-19 wherein one of the eligibility conditions was that a person aspiring to stake claim under State quota for admission, should have passed at least two examinations from schools/colleges situated in State of Himachal Pradesh out of four, i.e. middle or equivalent/matric or equivalent/10+1 or equivalent/10+2 or equivalent) from recognized schools/colleges situated in the State of Himachal Pradesh.

70. In the aforesaid writ petition, children of bona fide Himachalis, either employed in private sector or employed in private business outside the State of Himachal Pradesh claimed that they are similarly situate to the category of those persons, who though are bona fide Himachalis but are compelled to reside outside the State of Himachal Pradesh on account of their jobs under Government/semi Government/autonomous bodies, outside the State of Himachal Pradesh and as such, they are also entitled to the exemption as provided to aforesaid category, whereby they were not required to pass atleast two examinations out of four as noted above from the schools situated in the territory of State of Himachal Pradesh.

71. Division Bench of this Court, having taken note of pleadings adduced on record by respective parties to the aforesaid case, held that since number of bona fide Himachali are residing outside the State of Himachal Pradesh in connection with their jobs in Government sector respondent State rightly took decision to provide exemption to such category, especially when it is not in dispute that said category is compelled to live outside the State of Himachal Pradesh on account of their service and in that situation they cannot be expected to give education to their wards in the schools located within the territory of State of Himachal Pradesh. However, Division Bench held that number of bona fide Himachalis are residing outside the State of Himachal Pradesh in connection with their jobs in private sector, therefore providing exemption from passing two examinations out of four from the schools situate in State of Himachal Pradesh would negate equality as it is not possible for such students to compete with the students having studied from State of Himachal Pradesh, having better facilities and infrastructure. Division Bench also held that the condition of passing two examinations out of four has nexus with object sought to be achieved because, condition of passing two examinations from schools has been included so that Himachali graduate doctors can render their service in the State and as regards the outsiders, they would normally run away from state being not accustomed with prevailing weather conditions in the State.

72. Division Bench further held in the judgment supra that providing of benefit of exemption is a policy decision taken by competent authority and power to lay policy also includes power to withdraw, it hence doctrine of legitimate expectation is not attracted in this case. It would be relevant to take note of following paras of judgment supra

"15. On the other hand, Mr.Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate duly assisted by Mr. S.C. Sharma and Mr. Dinesh Thakur, Additional Advocates General, defended the decision of the respondent-State so far deletion of category 3(iv) from Part IV(A) is concerned and argued that decision of deletion of category 3(iv) was taken at highest level being a policy matter and can not be interfered with by this Court. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate argued that the words, "private occupation" and Note (1) appended below thereto were reflected inadvertently in the prospectus for the Academic Session 2018-19 and it does not confer any right in favour of the petitioners to seek exemption, moreover such mistake was rectified on the very next date by issuing corrigenda. While refuting contention of the learned counsel representing the petitioners that they were taken by surprise and have been left high and dry, Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate contended that petitioners were well aware of concession being available upto Academic Session 2017-18. He argued that decision to withdraw the benefit of exemption available to the category of petitioners is neither arbitrary nor violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, rather decision with regard to deletion of 3(iv) and Note (1) appended below it, from the Academic Session 2018-19 is purely a policy decision hence doctrine of legitimate expectations is not attracted. He further argued that decision to withdraw the concession available to the category of petitioners has been taken in the interest of the State and its residents and there is no arbitrariness in the same. While defending the decision of the respondent-State to continue benefit of exemption to category 3(ii), Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate argued that exemption granted to aforesaid category is legal and valid and by no stretch of imagination, petitioners can be equated with the aforesaid category as defined under Clause 3(ii) of Part IV(A). Learned Advocate General further submitted that the petitioners can not seek any parity with the children of the aforesaid exempted category as mentioned in Clause 3(ii) under Part IV(A), which still exists in the prospectus published for admission to MBBS/BDS courses during Academic Session 2018-19 and State being policy-maker is competent to take any decision in the interest of justice.

16. Before ascertaining correctness of the aforesaid submissions having been made by the learned counsel representing the parties vis-a-vis issue at hand, it may be observed that there is no dispute that eligibility criterion i.e. requirement of passing two examinations out of four from the schools situate in the State of Himachal Pradesh, was held to be legal and valid by the Division Bench of this Court in Gagan Deep vs. State 1996 (1) Sim. L.C. 242. It would be profitable to take note of following paras of the aforesaid judgment:

"4. Further contention of the petitioners is that Part-IV of the prospectus provides that:

"IV. ELIGIBILITY

I. Candidates who have to compete for admission to Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla (MBBS) and Himachal Pradesh Government Dental College and Hospital Shimla (BDS), OR Free seats available in various private Dental Colleges and Medical College situate in Himachal Pradesh should have passed atleast two of the following examinations from the recognized Schools and Colleges, situated in the State of Himachal Pradesh:--

(a) Middle or Equivalent.

(b) Matric or Equivalent.

(c) 10+2 or Equivalent."

x x x x

27. The third facet for sustaining the eligibility is equally efficacious when it is pointed out by the respondents that although quite a large number of persons have qualified medical degree from the State Medical College, yet people are deprived of medical facilities in rural and far flung areas of the State since the doctors do not want to go to such areas and they flee the State to avoid postings in such areas. Although bond amount has been increased, yet that has not given the desired results. State Government is spending lacs of rupees on a student for doing the medical course but the amount is going into the drawings since they are not prepared to remain in the State and serve the people.

28. The fourth facet is about the arbitrariness, unjustness and hardship being caused to the petitioners by the eligibility criteria. Having up-held the institutional preference and accepting the submission of the learned Advocate General that the candidates studying in Schools, Colleges and Institutions situated in the State of Himachal Pradesh form a separate category and are entitled to protection to enable them to secure admissions in the medical institutions as compared to the petitioners and similarly placed candidates falling in different group with better facilities and chances to appear in the institutions located in the States they are studying, nothing much remains for examination of this question, more particularly, in view of the latest decision of the apex Court reported in Anant Madaan v. State of Haryana and others, (1995) 2 SCC 135 [LQ/SC/1995/148] upholding reservation of 85 per cent seats to MBBS/BDS Courses on the basis of candidates' education for preceding three years in the State and rejecting the contention of the reservation being arbitrary, discriminatory and causing hardship. It is necessary to quote paras 8 and 9 of this judgment:

"8. In view of the above facts, we have to consider whether the condition requiring a candidate to have studied in 10th, 10+1 and 10+2 classes in a recognised institution in the State of Haryana, can be considered as arbitrary or unreasonable. It is by now well settled that preference in admissions on the basis of residence, as well as institutional preference is permissible so long as there is no total reservation on the basis of residential or institutional preference. As far back as in 1955, in the case of D.P Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat, this Court making a distinction between the place of birth and residence, upheld a preference on the basis of residence in educational institutions."

"9. In the case of Jagdish Saran (Dr.) v. Union of India this Court reiterated that regional preference or preference on the ground of residence in granting admission to medical colleges was not arbitrary or unreasonable so long as it was not a wholesale reservation on this basis. This Court referred to various reasons why such preference may be required. For example, the residents of a particular region may have very limited opportunities for technical education while the region may require such technically qualified persons. Candidates who were residents of that region were more likely to remain in the region and serve their region if they were preferred for admission to technical institutions in the State, particularly medical colleges. A State which was short of medical personnel would be justified in giving preference to its own residents in medical colleges as these residents, after qualifying as doctors, were more likely to remain in the State and give their services to their State. The Court also observed that in the case of women students, regional or residential preference may be justified as their parents may not be willing to send them outside the State for medical education. We, however, need not examine the various reasons which have impelled this Court to uphold residential or institutional preference for admission to medical colleges. The question is settled by the decision of this Court in Pradeep Jain (Dr) v. Union of India. This Court has observed in that judgment: (SCR p. 981 : SCC p. 687, para 19)

'We are, therefore, of the view that a certain percentage of reservation on the basis of residence requirement may legitimately be made in order to equalise opportunities for medical admission on a broader basis and to bring about real and not formal, actual and not merely legal, equality. The percentage of reservation made on this count may also include institutional reservation for students passing the PUC or pre-medical examination of the same university or clearing the qualifying examination from the school system of the educational hinterland of the medical colleges in the State '

This Court held in that case that reservation to the extent of 70% on this basis would be permissible. This percentage of reservation was subsequently increased to 85% by this Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar (Dr) v. Motilal Nehru Medical College. This Court in that case directed an entrance examination on an all-India basis for the remaining 15% of seats."

Consequently, all the submission raised by the petitioners on this aspect of the case are rejected.

29. Next, it was contended that children of defence personnel have been severely affected by this eligibility criteria since they have to serve outside the State in the exigency of their service. As a matter of fact, this contention is similar to the contention raised by the learned Counsel appearing for other petitioners who also studied outside the State due to the service of their parents or some other reasons, therefore, deserves to be rejected. Apart from that, it was pointed out to us by the learned Advocate General that the children of Army personnel seek admission in the Army Medical College, Pune. They get one seat by nomination against 'Group-A (8) Reserved' ; in all 19 seats in 12 Medical Colleges in the Country and BDS too as per office Memorandum No. U-14014/8/95. ME (UG), dated July 28, 1995 of the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, (Department of Health), New Delhi and the statement annexed therewith. They can also compete for seats against 'Group-A(5) as well as 15 seats to be filled on the basis of all-India Entrance Test. In the State of Haryana, there is no nomination for Government of India. The petitioners can seek admission in the States they have studied (see the prospectus for admission furnished by Miss Neetika Ahuja and others, C.M.P. No. 2197 of 1995). In any case, they can not be extended benefit here as well as there. Argument of hardship has no force. It is well settled that mere hardship caused to one or more persons due to operation of a rule or policy decision cannot be a ground for invalidating the rule or policy which is otherwise constitutionally valid."

73. In the aforesaid judgment, though the Division Bench concurrently upheld the action of the respondent-State inasmuch as providing condition of having passed at least two examinations from schools/colleges situated in State of Himachal Pradesh as well as exemption given to bona fide Himachalis, who were compelled to reside outside the State of Himachal Pradesh on account of their Government job but there was a disagreement on one count. Though both the Hon'ble Judges on the bench, were in agreement that there is some kind of resemblance inter se categories of bona fide Himachalis, who are compelled to reside outside the State of Himachal Pradesh on account of their jobs in Central Government/UT/private undertaking and bona fide Himachali, who are living outside the State of Himachal Pradesh on account of their private job but yet one of the Hon'ble Judge on the Bench held the category of those bona fide Himachalis, who were living outside the State of Himachal Pradesh on account of private job, not entitled to exemption.

74. On account of divergence of opinion, matter was referred to me being third Judge, who after examining matter in detail, concurred with the findings returned by Hon'ble Judge, who had held that though all the persons mentioned in category 3(iv) are not similarly situate to that of persons under category 3(ii) but persons who are bonafide Himachali and employed in private sector outside the State of Himachal Pradesh can be equated with the category 3(ii) and as such, wholesale deletion of category of students, whose parents are living outside the State of Himachal Pradesh on account of their employment in private sector is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

75. In view of aforesaid concurrence made by me with the findings of one of Hon'ble Judges on the Bench, as referred to herein above, direction also came to be issued to respondent-State to give benefit to the category of children, whose parents are living outside the State of Himachal Pradesh on account of private occupation. Though aforesaid majority judgment passed by this court, comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Sandeep Sharma (me) was laid challenge in the Hon'ble Apex Court but Hon'ble Apex Court while refusing to interfere with the judgment given by majority, ordered that the same shall not be treated as a precedent.

76. Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General while making this court peruse majority view taken in aforesaid judgment passed by Division Bench comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, J. as well as me, argued that the factors, which were before the court at the time of delivering majority judgment, were duly considered and deliberated upon by the respondent-State by ordering change in eligibility criteria and qualification. He further submitted that the majority view taken by Division Bench of this court was not interfered with rather same was ordered not to be treated as a precedent, meaning there that the reasoning given vide majority judgment still holds good and could be taken into consideration by the respondent-State before effecting change.

77. Since majority judgment given by this court was not interfered with but was ordered not to be treated as a precedent, this court may not make reference to same but reasoning applied therein, especially with regard to eligibility of bona fide Himachalis, who are compelled to reside outside the State of Himachal Pradesh on account of their private vocation, can be taken into consideration. Record clearly reveals that for the first time in 2013-14, benefit of Exemption came to be extended to students/candidates, who are children of bonafide Himachalis working outside the State on account of their service/posting/private occupation. It is also not in dispute that the respondents kept on extending aforesaid benefit of exemption to the category of petitioners till Academic Session 2017-18. Even at the first instance, respondents in the prospectus issued for the Academic Session 2018-19, mentioned category, "private occupation" in Clause 3 of Part IV(A), however, the same is/was not specifically defined/described in the categories specifically mentioned below Clause 3 of eligibility clause IV.

78. Now, in the prospectus for MBBS/BDS 2023-24, respondent-State has completely done away with the condition of schooling, rather now all bona fide Himachalis, irrespective of places of their schooling, have been held entitled to compete for seats under 85% State quota. Decision with regard to providing eligibility and qualification criteria is a policy decision to be taken by competent authority but certainly such decision cannot be arbitrary, irrational and without any basis and can be tested on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As has been noticed herein above, Hon'ble Judges on Division Bench were very much in agreement on one count, that the that the persons employed in private sector can be said to have some resemblance with the employees under exempted category 3(ii) but one of Hon'ble Members of the Division Bench held that it is for the policy makers to take a decision in this regard.

79. Though, it came to be strenuously argued on behalf of the petitioners that the person engaged in private job or private occupation are not entitled for exemption because they have left the State under any compulsion because, admittedly they could also start such occupation in the State of Himachal Pradesh itself, but since they chose/decided to start such business/occupation outside the State of Himachal Pradesh, with a view to earn more, they can not be allowed to claim benefit of exemption from condition of passing two examinations out of four from the schools situate in the State of Himachal Pradesh. However, I am not persuaded to agree with aforesaid submissions because, it is not in dispute that children of serving/retired employees of Central Government/UT's and other State Governments and children of employees of autonomous bodies, semi-government bodies of Central Government/UT's or other State Governments were extended benefit of Exemption on the ground that their parents are compelled to serve outside the State on account of their service, on the same analogy, decision was taken in the year 2013-14 to extend benefit of exemption to the category of those students, whose parents are residing outside the State on account of employment in private sector, as such, petitioners cannot be permitted to state that two categories are separate and distinct and do not form one class to avail the benefit of exemption to bona fide Himachali outside the State of Himachal Pradesh and as such, exemption if any could not be made available only to children of persons, who work under State Government/Central Government and not the persons, who are compelled to reside outside the State of Himachal Pradesh on account of their private job/occupation. Moreover benefit of exemption is on account of rendering service by their parents outside state and not on account of Government service.

80. Hon'ble Apex Court in Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 654, [LQ/SC/1984/157] has held that object of any valid scheme to Medical/Dental colleges must be to select the best candidates for being admitted to these colleges. However, in this case, Hon'ble Apex Court taking note of "State Interest" and "Region's claim of backwardness" permitted State to depart from the principle of 'selection on merit'. In the aforesaid case, Hon'ble Apex Court held that Government, which bears the financial burden of running Government colleges, is entitled to lay down criteria for admission to its own college(s) and source from which admissions would be made, provided such classification is not arbitrary and has reasonable connection with the object of Rules and classification of candidates on the basis of passing out of examination from particular institution.

81. At this stage, following paragraphs of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Pradeep Jain (supra), can be usefully relied:

"14. There are, in the application of this principle, two considerations which appear to have weighed with the Courts in justifying departure from the principle of selection based on merit. One is what may be called State interest and the other is what may be described as a region's claim of backwardness. The legitimacy of claim of State interest was recognised explicitly in one of the early decisions of this Court in D.P. Joshi case2 The Rule impugned in this case was a Rule made by the State of Madhya Bharat for admission to the Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Medical College, Indore providing that no capitation fee should be charged for students who are bona fide residents of Madhya Bharat but for other non-Madhya Bharat students, there should be a capitation fee of Rs. 1300 for nominees and Rs. 1500 for others. The expression 'bona fide resident' was defined for the purpose of this Rule to mean inter alia a citizen whose original domicile was in Madhya Bharat provided he had not acquired a domicile elsewhere or a citizen whose original domicile was not in Madhya Bharat but who had acquired a domicile in Madhya Bharat and had resided there for not less than five years at the date of the application for admission. The constitutional validity of this Rule was challenged on the ground that it discriminated between students who were bona fide residents of Madhya Bharat and students who were not and since this discrimination was based on residence in the State of Madhya Bharat, it was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court by a majority of four against one held that the Rule was not discriminatory as being in contravention of Article 14, because the classification between students who were bona fide residents of Madhya Bharat and those who were not was based on an intelligible differentia having rational relation to the object of the Rule. Venkatarama Ayyar, J. speaking on behalf of the majority observed:

"The object of the classification underlying the impugned rule was clearly to help to some extent students who are residents of Madhya Bharat in the prosecution of their studies, and it cannot be disputed that it is quite a legitimate and laudable objective for a State to encourage education within its borders. Education is a State subject, and one of the directive principles declared in Part IV of the Constitution is that the State should make effective provisions for education within the limits of its economy. (Vide Article 41). The State has to contribute for the up keep and the running of its educational institutions. We are in this petition concerned with a Medical College, and it is well known that it requires considerable finance to maintain such an institution. If the State has to spend money on it, is it unreasonable that it should so order the educational system that the advantage of it would to some extent at least enure for the benefit of the State A concession given to the residents of the State in the matter of fees is obviously calculated to serve that end, as presumably some of them might, after passing out of the College, settle down as doctors and serve the needs of the locality. The classification is thus based on a ground which has a reasonable relation to the subject-matter of the legislation, and is in consequence not open to attack. It has been held in The State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh10 that a classification might validly be made on a geographical basis. Such a classification would be eminently just and reasonable, where it relates to education which is the concern, primarily of the State. The contention, therefore, that the rule imposing capitation fee is in contravention of Article 14 must be rejected."

(emphasis supplied)

It may be noted that here discrimination was based on residence within the State of Madhya Bharat and yet it was held justified on the ground that the object of the State in making the Rules was to encourage students who were residents of Madhya Bharat to take up the medical course so that "some of them might, after passing out from the college, settle down as doctors and serve the needs of the locality" and the classification made by the Rule had rational relation to this object. This justification of the discrimination based on residence obviously rests on the assumption that those who were bona fide residents of Madhya Bharat would after becoming doctors settle down and serve the needs of the people in the State. We are not sure whether any facts were pleaded in the affidavits justifying this assumption but the judgment of Venkatarama Ayyar, J. shows that the decision of the majority Judges proceeded on this assumption and that was regarded as a valid ground justifying the discrimination made by the impugned Rule."

82. By now it is well settled that Article 14 of the Constitution forbids class legislation but does not forbid reasonable classification. Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India & Ors. vs. N. Rathnam & sons, (2015) 10 SCC 681, [LQ/SC/2015/944] specifically held that if two persons or two sets of persons are similarly situated/placed, they have to be treated equally. In the aforesaid judgment Hon'ble Apex Court has held that principle of equality does not mean that every law must have universal application for all persons who are not by nature, attainment or circumstances in the same position. It would mean that the State has the power to classify persons for legitimate purposes. Though, in the aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that legislature is competent to exercise its discretion and make classification and every classification is in some degree likely to produce some inequality but mere production of inequality is not enough. Article 14 would be treated as violated only when equal protection is denied even when two persons belong to same class/category. It is further held that the person challenging the act of the State as violative of Article 14 has to show that there is no reasonable basis for the differentiation between two classes created by the State. Article 14 prohibits class legislation but does not forbid reasonable classification.

83. Hon'ble Apex Court in Budhan Chaudhary & Ors. vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 191 [LQ/SC/1954/169] , has held that by now it is well settled that Article 14 forbids class legislation but not reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. It has been held in this judgment that to pass the test of permissible classification, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and (ii) that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. It is also held that the classification may be founded on different bases; namely geographical, or according to objects or occupations or the like. What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act under consideration.

84. Hon'ble Apex Court in S. Seshachalam and Ors. vs. Chairman, Bar Council of T.N. & Ors, (2014) 16 SCC 72, [LQ/SC/2014/1354] has categorically held that Article 14 states that, "the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law of the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India." Article 14 forbids class legislation but not reasonable classification. The classification however must not be arbitrary, artificial or evasive but must be based on some real and substantial bearing, a just and reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the legislation. Article 14 applies where equals are treated differently without any reasonable basis. Article 14 does not apply where equals and unequals are treated differently. Class legislation is that which makes an improper discrimination by conferring particular privileges upon a class of persons arbitrarily selected from a large number of persons all of whom stand in the same relation to the privilege granted and between those on whom the privilege is conferred and the persons not so favoured, no reasonable distinction or substantial difference can be found justifying the inclusion of one and exclusion of the other from such privilege.

85. When, for the first time, benefit of exemption came to be extended to the category of certain persons, object sought to be achieved while introducing benefit of exemption from passing two examinations, out of four from the schools situate in Himachal Pradesh, was to provide relief and succour to those candidates, who were compelled to reside/live outside the State on account of employment of their parents, be it in government sector or private sector. It is not in dispute that benefit of exemption is only available to bonafide Himachalis, who, on account of their employment, reside outside the State of Himachal Pradesh. Probably, when such decision to provide exemption was taken, it was clear in the mind of the policy makers that children of those bonafide Himachalis who are compelled to live outside the State on account of employment, should not be deprived of benefit of State quota, while seeking admission in MBBS/BDS courses. That is why, for the first time, in the Academic Session 2013-14, benefit of Exemption was provided to children of bonafide Himachalis, who reside/live outside the State on account of their employment in government sector and private sector or private occupation. Suddenly, in the year 2018, decision was taken by respondent-State that benefit of exemption shall only be available to children of bonafide Himachalis, who live/reside out of State due to their service in Central Government/UT's/other State Governments or autonomous bodies/semi-government bodies of Central Government/UT's/other State Governments and not to those students, whose parents were living/residing outside the State of Himachal Pradesh on account of their employment in private sector/occupation. Reason assigned at this time, for withdrawal of benefit of such exemption from the wards of persons residing outside the State on account of employment in private sector was that the PRC, while recommending withdrawal of benefit of exemption from category 3(iv), has observed that with this exemption almost every bonafide Himachali would be exempted from schooling in the State, which effectively would mean that all bonafide Himachalis are eligible for admission, making schooling condition infructuous. As has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments referred to supra that Article 14 forbids class legislation but not reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. It has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court that classification must be founded on intelligible differentia, which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group. As has been observed, object to grant the Exemption is/was to provide succour/relief to those students/children, whose parents are working outside the State of Himachal Pradesh on account of their employment, be it in Government sector or private sector and no discrimination, if any, can be made on the ground that candidates, whose parents live outside the State of Himachal Pradesh on account of their government service are eligible for benefit of exemption, whereas, students, whose parents live/reside outside State of Himachal Pradesh on account of employment in private sector, are not eligible.

86. True it is that, classification need not be constituted by an exact or scientific exclusion or inclusion of persons or things and the courts should not insist on delusive exactness or apply doctrinaire tests for determining the validity of classification in any given case but classification is justified if it is not palpably arbitrary as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in National Council for Teacher Education and others vs. Shri Shyam Shiksha Prashikshan Sansthan and Ors., (2011) 3 SCC 238 [LQ/SC/2011/172] .

87. Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has further held that principle underlying the guarantee of Article 14 is not that same rules or laws should be applicable to all persons within the Indian territory or that the same remedies should be made available to them irrespective of differences of circumstances. It only means that all similarly circumstanced persons shall be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. Equal laws should be applied to all in the same situation and there should be no discrimination between one person and the other, if as regards the subject matter of the legislation their position is substantially the same.

88. In the aforesaid judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that classification must not be arbitrary but must be rational and it must not only be based on some qualities or characteristics which are to be found in all the persons grouped together and not in others who are left out but those qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object of the legislation. In order to pass the test, two conditions must be fulfilled i.e. (1) classification must be founded on intelligible differentia, which distinguishes those that are grouped together from others left out and (2) that differentia must have a rational relation with the object sought to be achieved by the Act.

89. Object sought to be achieved by introducing provision of exemption was not only to provide benefit of exemption to the Himachali students, who seek admission to MBBS/BDS courses in the colleges situate in the State but prime object of the same was to provide equal opportunity to those bonafide Himachali students, who on account of service of their parents, be it in Government or private sector were compelled to study in schools outside the State. Himachali students, who otherwise live or reside within the State of Himachal Pradesh are neither required to avail remedy of exemption from passing two examinations from the State of Himachal Pradesh nor they fall in that category because simply on account of their having studied in Himachal Pradesh and having passed two examinations from the schools situate in Himachal Pradesh, they are entitled to appear or compete for admission to MBBS/BDS courses in the State of Himachal Pradesh subject to their having passed NEET.

90. This Court is in full agreement with the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate General that respondent-State being a policy-maker, can exclude or include any category in the interest of State, but, definitely, no discrimination can be made while making such classification. Earlier, benefit of exemption was made available to one category of students, who, by all means, are akin to students, whose parents are residing outside State of Himachal Pradesh on account of their employment in private sector. Now, the respondent-State, having realized/appreciated the difficulties as well as right of equality of other category, which is compelled to live outside the State of Himachal Pradesh on account of their private job/occupation, decided to do away with the condition of passing two examination from the schools located in the State of Himachal Pradesh.

91. This Court is not in agreement with the argument advanced by Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate, appearing for some of the petitioners that the prime object sought to be achieved is to train doctors well conversant with the geographical and climatic conditions in the State of Himachal Pradesh because question of training doctors from colleges situate in State of Himachal Pradesh would arise later, whereas question of exemption from passing two examinations relates to or deals with pre-admission stage. Hence, prime object, if any, sought to be achieved by respondents by introducing scheme of benefit of exemption from passing two examinations was only to provide equal opportunity of admission in medical/dental colleges situate in the State of Himachal Pradesh to such students/children who live or reside in the State of Himachal Pradesh not by their choice but because of employment of their parents, be it in government sector or private sector.

92. Though, Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned senior counsel made a serious attempt to persuade this Court to agree with his contention that earlier classification done was based upon various considerations like topography of State, socio-economic conditions of its people, scarcity of good schools, tutors and coaching centres for the students studying in schools situate in the State, but this Court is not convinced with the aforesaid argument of Mr. Bhushan, learned senior counsel. To substantiate his aforesaid argument, Mr. Bhushan, learned senior counsel further argued that earlier decision of the respondent-State to put restriction of having passed two examinations from the schools located in the State of Himachal Pradesh, was to provide level playing field to the candidates of Himachal Pradesh, but, I am afraid that aforesaid argument advanced by Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate is tenable because it is not in dispute that earlier also, benefit of Exemption was available to other category i.e. children/students of persons retired/working under Central Government/other State Governments/UTs and their autonomous bodies. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate argued that the private respondents are benefited by better facilities of educational institutions because they are residing outside the State, but, aforesaid argument/reasoning advanced by Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate can not be termed to be reasonable and plausible explanation as far as inclusion of category of private respondents is concerned. Mr. Bhushan, learned senior counsel was unable to dispute that children of persons working under/retired from Himachal Pradesh Government and Central Government/other State Governments/UT's etc. are also benefited by better facilities of educational institutions available outside the State and as such, there cannot be any discrimination as far as category of private respondents is concerned, who are compelled to reside outside the State of Himachal Pradesh on account of private job/occupation of their parents.

93. Earlier, in Clause 3 of Part IV(A) of prospectus for Academic Session 2018-19, children of serving/retired employees of Central Government/UT's and other State Governments and children of employees of autonomous bodies, semi-government bodies of Central Government/UT's and other State Governments, apart from children of employees of Himachal Pradesh Government undertakings, autonomous bodies, wholly owned or controlled by Himachal Pradesh Government, were held entitled to the benefit of exemption from passing two examinations out of four from the schools situate in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Even retired employees of Central Government/UT's and other State Governments, who after their retirement may have settled outside the State of Himachal Pradesh, were held entitled to aforesaid benefit of exemption but category of private respondents, whose parents were also compelled to reside outside the State of Himachal Pradesh on account of their private job as well as occupation was left out for no plausible reason. This Court is fully convinced that there could not be any classification on the ground of employment either in government sector or private sector but, even if, for the sake of arguments, it is accepted that decision to withdraw benefit of exemption from aforesaid category was taken to provide level playing field to the candidates of Himachal Pradesh, it is not understood that how children belonging to State of Himachal Pradesh or living within the State could be said to have facilities at par with the children living outside the State of Himachal Pradesh on account of service of their parents under Himachal Pradesh Government, Central Government/UT's or other State Governments, who like private respondents' category are compelled to receive education outside the State of Himachal Pradesh.

94. Interestingly, children of bonafide Himachalis, who are in government service in any part of the country, be it Central Government, UT's or other State Government were earlier held entitled for benefit of exemption, whereas category of private respondents was not allowed the benefit of exemption on the ground that children of bonafide Himachalis, who reside in Himachal are not benefited by better educational facilities in comparison to aforesaid category, which reasoning is absurd and not based upon intelligible differentia. Once benefit of exemption was made available to other categories of students, whose parents are employees of Central Government/UT's and other State Governments, argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that decision was taken to withdraw benefit of exemption from the aforesaid category of private respondents, to provide level playing field, is not tenable being fallacious.

95. Had respondent-State decided to withdraw benefit of exemption from all the bona fide Himachali students, residing outside the State of Himachal Pradesh, argument advanced with regard to providing of level playing field could be said to be tenable but, at the relevant time, respondent-State had created class within a class to extend benefit of exemption to one category of students i.e. children of parents retired/working under Central Government/UT's/other State Governments, which is definitely similar and akin to the category of persons residing outside State of Himachal Pradesh on account of their employment in private sector.

96. Interestingly, earlier decision to withdraw the benefit of exemption from the category of private respondents was on the objection of the Director, Medical Education, Himachal Pradesh, who otherwise had been opposing this since the Academic Session 2013-14. Exemption available earlier to the category of private respondents was withdrawn on the ground that this exemption would effectively mean that all bonafide Himachalis are entitled for admission, making schooling condition infructuous.

97. True, it is that the Director, Medical Education at the time of inclusion of category 3(iv) in the prospectus of academic session 2013-14 had opposed the move but it is a matter of record that such exemption remained available to category 3(iv) i.e. category of private respondents, till the Academic Session 2017-18 alongwith other category i.e. children of employees of Central Government/UT's/other State Governments etc. There is no material on record suggestive of the fact that inclusion of category of private respondents was ever objected on the ground that they are not similarly situate to the exempted category i.e. students of those bona fide Himachalis, who are living outside the State of Himachal Pradesh on account of their jobs in Himachal Pradesh Government/Central Government, rather exclusion of the category of persons employed in private sector for the Academic Session 2018-19 was on flimsy grounds, as taken note herein above. Category of wards of persons residing outside the State of Himachal Pradesh on account of their employment in private sector is similarly situate to category of children of employees working in government/public sector and they are on same footing, as such is an inseparable class for the purpose of considering eligibility of candidates for admission. Hence, the respondent-State, in order to do complete justice and with a view to provide equal opportunity to all bona fide Himachali students, rightly relaxed the condition of schooling from the State of Himachal Pradesh.

98. Hon'ble Apex Court in Deepak Sibal v. Punjab University (1989) 2 SCC 145 [LQ/SC/1989/95] held that Article 14 forbids class legislation but not reasonable classification. Whether classification is permissible under Article 14 or not, two conditions must be fulfilled i.e. (1) classification must be on the basis of intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and (2) that differentiation must have a rational nexus sought to be achieved in the legislation in question. Most importantly Hon'ble Apex Court held that classification of employees of government sector and private sector is impermissible in law for the purpose of deciding eligibility for admission.

99. If the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court is perused carefully, Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with contention of the University that Government employees or employees of same Government or other institutions, as mentioned in the impugned Rules stand on different footing from the employees of private concerns, observed that it is true that service conditions of government /semi-government institutions are different and they may have greater security of service but that hardly matters for the purpose of admission in the evening classes. The test is whether both, employees of private establishments and Government/Semi-Government institutions etc. are equally in a disadvantageous position in attending morning classes. There can be no doubt that both of them stand on an equal footing and there is no difference between these two classes of employees in that regard. To exclude the employees of private establishments will not, therefore, satisfy the test of intelligible differentia that distinguishes the employees of Government/Semi-Government institutions etc., grouped together from the employees of private establishments.

100. Hon'ble Apex Court, in judgment supra, held that it is true that a classification need not be made with mathematical precision but, if there be little or no difference between the persons or things which have been grouped together and those left out of the group, in that case, the classification cannot be said to be reasonable one. If cases of the private respondents are examined in light of aforesaid judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court, employees of private sector are equally in a disadvantageous position like employees of government institutions because both are residing out of the State of Himachal Pradesh on account of their service and as such to exclude category of persons living outside the State on account of employment in private sector/private occupation, from the category, to which otherwise benefit of exemption was earlier available, would not have satisfied the test of intelligible differentia that distinguishes employees of government/semi-government institutions, grouped together from the employees of private establishments.

101. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as having taken note of judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court on the subject, this court finds that the respondent-State was very much justified in effecting change in eligibility and qualification criteria prescribed in prospectus for MBBS/BDS-2023. By no stretch of imagination aforesaid decision taken by the respondents can be said to be arbitrary, unreasonable and irrational rather same appears to have been taken in the interest of public at large, especially to do justice with one left out class, which otherwise in all aspects is/was similar to other categories, which being bona fide Himachalis, though were not residing in State of Himachal Pradesh but on account of their job in Government job, were extended benefit of exemption from passing two examinations, out of four, from the schools located in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Having realized that the bona fide Himachalis, who are compelled to reside outside the State of Himachal Pradesh on account of their job in private sector as well as private occupation are similarly situate to bona fide Himachalis residing inside and outside the State of Himachal Pradesh on account of their jobs in Government/semi Government sector, respondent State decided to do away with the criteria of having passed at least two examinations from schools/colleges situated in State of Himachal Pradesh to bring all bona fide Himachali at level playing field.

102. Though, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the parents of private respondents are serving/residing outside the State of Himachal Pradesh of their own choice as such, they cannot claim benefit of exemption or parity with bona fide Himachalis, who are living within the State of Himachal Pradesh, but no data in that regard ever came to be placed on record, however, having taken note of topography of State, this court can take judicial notice of the fact that Government jobs are limited and there are fields where there is no scope and Himachalis are forced to take up jobs outside the State of Himachal Pradesh. It is not in dispute that in last two decades majority of appointments in the State of Himachal Pradesh have been made on contract basis that too on a fixed salary. There is no industry in the State which provides sizeable employment to the bonafide Himachalis. In view of paucity of the employment in Himachal Pradesh, bona fide Himachali are compelled to take up jobs outside the State of Himachal Pradesh. It can also not be disputed that majority jobs are in IT sector, scope of which is negligible in the State and as such, it cannot be expected that bona fide Himachalis, who are residing outside the State of Himachal Pradesh have taken up job outside the State, of their own rather, due to paucity of Government/private jobs in the State.

103. Division Bench of this court in Ranjan Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 2016 HP 101 [LQ/HimHC/2016/480] has held that it cannot be doubted that purpose of judicial review of the administrative action is to promote good administration. It is to ensure that administrative bodies act efficiently and honestly to promote the public good. They should operate in a fair, transparent, and unbiased fashion, keeping in forefront the public interest.

104. No doubt, scope of judicial review has expanded radically and it now extends well beyond the sphere of statutory powers to include diverse forms of 'public' power in response to the changing architecture of the Government. It is further held that courts may not interfere with exercise of discretion merely because they disagree with the decision or action in question; instead, courts intervene only if some specific fault can be established for example, if the decision so reached is procedurally unfair. It would be apt to take note of following paragraphs of Ranjan Singh supra:

"12. This Court in CWP No. 621 of 2014, titled Nand Lal and another Vs. State of H.P., reported in 2014(2) HLR (DB) 982, was dealing with identical issue, wherein the petitioners had called in question the decision made by the Government, whereby it decided to open a degree college at Diggal, District Solan, instead of Ramshaher (Nalagarh), District Solan and it was held that since it was a policy decision, the same was not open to judicial review. It is apt to reproduce the following observations:-

"4. Heard. The moot question for consideration in this writ petition is-whether the petitioners can question the decision made by the Government for opening a Government Post Graduate College at Diggal, District Solan

5. During the process of consideration of the issue, the residents of various Gram Panchayats of Ramshehar area made resolution(s) and represented to the Government for sanctioning and opening a Degree College at Ramshehar (Nalagarh), District Solan, instead of at Diggal, District Solan. After considering all the documents and keeping in view the policy-norms, governing the field, the respondents made decision to open the said college at Diggal.

6. The petitioners are aggrieved for the reason that the State Government has not made decision in accordance with the facts, their contentions read with norms and policy.

7. It is a beaten law of land that Government decision and policy cannot be subject matter of a writ petition, unless its arbitrariness is shown in the decision making process.

8. It is averred that Panchayats of the area of Ramshehar have made demand for sanctioning and opening the said college at the said place, which is centrally located and is feasible also.

...

23. Taking aid from the aforesaid observations of the Constitution Bench, the Court reiterated the words of caution in Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Limited v. Reserve Bank of India, (1992) 2 SCC 343 [LQ/SC/1992/104] : (AIR 1992 SC 1033 [LQ/SC/1992/104] ) with the following utterance:

"31. The function of the court is to see that lawful authority is not abused but not to appropriate to itself the task entrusted to that authority. It is well settled that a public body invested with statutory powers must take care not to exceed or abuse its power. It must keep within the limits of the authority committed to it. It must act in good faith and it must act reasonably. Courts are not to interfere with economic policy which is the function of experts. It is not the function of the courts to sit in judgment over matters of economic policy and it must necessarily be left to the expert bodies. In such matters even experts can seriously and doubtlessly differ. Courts cannot be expected to decide them without even the aid of experts."

24. It cannot be doubted that the primary and central purpose of judicial review of the administrative action is to promote good administration. It is to ensure that administrative bodies act efficiently and honestly to promote the public good. They should operate in a fair, transparent, and unbiased fashion, keeping in forefront the public interest. To ensure that aforesaid dominant objectives are achieved, this Court has added new dimension to the contours of judicial review and it has undergone tremendous change in recent years. The scope of judicial review has expanded radically and it now extends well beyond the sphere of statutory powers to include diverse forms of 'public' power in response to the changing architecture of the Government. (See : Administrative Law: Text and Materials (4th Edition) by Beatson, Matthews, and Elliott) Thus, not only has judicial review grown wider in scope; its intensity has also increased. Notwithstanding the same,

"it is, however, central to received perceptions of judicial review that courts may not interfere with exercise of discretion merely because they disagree with the decision or action in question; instead, courts intervene only if some specific fault can be established for example, if the decision was reached procedurally unfair."

25. The raison d'etre of discretionary power is that it promotes decision maker to respond appropriately to the demands of particular situation. When the decision making is policy based judicial approach to interfere with such decision making becomes narrower. In such cases, in the first instance, it is to be examined as to whether policy in question is contrary to any statutory provisions or is discriminatory/arbitrary or based on irrelevant considerations. If the particular policy satisfies these parameters and is held to be valid, then the only question to be examined is as to whether the decision in question is in conformity with the said policy."

105. Since in the case at hand, there is nothing on record to suggest that the policy decision taken by respondents, thereby ordering change in eligibility and qualification criteria in prospectus for MBBS/BDS-2023 is arbitrary and based on irrational consideration, malafide or against statutory provisions, the same calls for no interference by this court in exercise, of power of judicial review.

106. Recently, similar dispute came up before High Court of Telangana in Prashansa Rathod and others v. The State of Telangana and connected matters, Writ Petition Nos. 21268,21788, 21926, 22038, 22177, 22261, 22449, 22570, 22571, 23265, 23341, 23601 and 23605 of 2023, decided on 29.8.2023, wherein it came to be held that there was no justification to deny admission to students like the petitioners herein, solely on the ground that they studied from the schools outside the State of Telangana. High Court for the State of Telangana also held that it is beyond the control of the students to study in their State and on that basis, they cannot be denied benefit of State Quota Seats, if otherwise eligible. It has been held in the judgment (supra), as under:

"86. Rule 3(III)(B)(a) of 2017 Rules mandates a student to study in an educational institution in local area for four consecutive academic years ending with the academic year in which he/she appeared or as the case may be first appeared for the relevant qualifying examination. It is pertinent to note that Rule 3(III)(B)(b) of 2017 Rules mandates a student not to study in educational institution, but to reside in a local area for a period of four consecutive years ending with the academic year in which he/she may have first appeared for the relevant examination. The object of 2017 Rules is to provide medical education to the students who have cleared the relevant qualifying examination i.e., class 12th and have been selected on the basis of merit. The classification providing quota of 85% in any specialised institutions, competent authority seats and statewide institutions, only on the basis of study or residence in a local area cannot be treated as reasonable classification as prescribed in Rule 3(III)(B)(b) of 2017 Rules. The aforesaid Rule is based solely on the basis of the residence and has no rational nexus and object sought to be achieved by 2017 Rules i.e., of providing medical education to the students including the local students. The permanent residents of State of Telangana may have cleared the relevant qualifying examination from an institution outside the local area due to reasons beyond their control and otherwise eligible would be denied the benefit of admission to 85% of the seats in non-statewide institutions, competent authority seats and statewide institutions merely on the basis of study or residence outside local area. There appears to be no justification for denying the benefit of admission to a student who is a permanent resident of State of Telangana who may not have studied or resided in local area for four consecutive academic years ending with academic year in which he/she appeared or as the case may first appeared for the relevant qualifying examination.

87. For the aforementioned reasons, it is held that Rule 3(III)(B) of 2017 Rules is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India"

107. So far as contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that two different criteria cannot remain in existence i..e one for the BAMS and another for MBBS/BDS, also deserves outright rejection for the reason that the petitioners have not placed such criteria on record and as such, this court need not go into this aspect of the matter.

108. So far another contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the persons like private respondents, if are allowed to avail the benefit of State Quota Seats in the State of Himachal Pradesh may also claim the same in other States, where they are residing at present also deserves outright rejection for the reason that the prospectus clearly reveals that a candidate seeking admission to Government/private medical colleges in the State, under State Quota is required to furnish an undertaking/affidavit (as provided in Appendix 15 of the prospectus), undertaking therein that he/she has not availed the State Quota in any other State and in case, such declaration is found to be incorrect/false, his/her candidature is liable to be rejected.

109. Another contention as has been raised by Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate, appearing for some of the petitioners, that the restriction of passing two examinations from the Schools situate in the State of Himachal Pradesh, may be kept in force for another two years, is not practicable for the reason that the category of those students, who though are bona fide Himachali but are compelled to reside outside the State of Himachal Pradesh on account of jobs, be it Government/private as well as private occupation of their parents, have already applied under State Quota of 85% and many students have been already allocated seats in various medical colleges located in the State of Himachal Pradesh in counseling. Moreover, this court finds that around 13 students have approached this Court by way of instant petitions laying therein challenge to the change made by respondent-State in the prospectus but, out of them, three have already got admission in the various medical colleges in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Till the passing of judgment, only 17 students belonging to the category of private respondents are said to have been given admission under 85% State Quota, which number is negligible. While balancing equities, it is the larger public interest, which is to be taken care of by the courts, as such, as weighed against the inconvenience and injustice, which shall be meted to the students, who have availed the benefit of change brought about by the respondent-State, the petitioners' right is on a lower pedestal, as such, aforesaid submission made by Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate does not stand anywhere.

110. Consequently in view of the detailed discussion and law taken into consideration, this court finds no reason to interfere with the policy decision taken by the respondent-State. All the petitions are accordingly dismissed. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated. All pending applications also stand disposed of.