Case 3: Soumajit
NEET aspirant, West Bengal
S
oumajit did his schooling till class 7 in Kolkata.
Since then, he has been living in Assam with his
parents and completed his class 10 and 10+2 from
Assam. His parents are the domicile of West Bengal,
but do not have a permanent address in Bengal. West
Bengal Domicile Rule requires a candidate to have
been living in the state for minimum 10 years or for
candidates who have studied outside the state and
either of the parents must have a permanent address
in West Bengal. He is neither eligible to secure a seat
in Assam as it requires a student to be eligible under
the state quota only if his father or mother has lived
in the state continuously for not less than 20 years,
and has done classes VII to XII in Assam. Soumajit
is an Indian citizen whom both Assam and West
Bengal disown.-- A or B. Candidates who have been living in Bengal for 10
years will have to fill domicile A, while proforma B is for
those who have been living outside Bengal for the last 10
years, but either of the parents has a permanent address in
Bengal. This is why candidates like Soumajit (Case-3 given
above) suffer. The problem becomes more complex when
states incorporate new clauses every year, making students
and parents confused.
Lack of clarity?
The domicile rules for NEET admissions are prepared and
changed by states from time to time based on the feedback
from various quarters. However, the policymakers have
failed to keep in mind some critical issues of aspirants and
parents, who relocate from one state to the other.
Dr. Vedprakash Mishra, former Chairman of Medical Coun-
cil of India’s Academic Council, said, “The said difference in
domicile rules prescribed by different states turns out to be
a real thorn when it comes to the merit-based admissions to
the state quota.”
Take the example of the state of Punjab. Just a day after
the NEET result was declared, the Punjab Medical Educa-
tion Department announced that only those having domicile
of the state are eligible for admission to MBBS and BDS
courses in medical colleges in the state. The new notifica-
tion by the department contradicted the earlier one whereby
those who have passed their classes 10, 11 and 12 from Punjab
were eligible for the MBBS courses.
Gujarat Government framed the Gujarat ProfessionalMedical Educational Courses (Regulation of Admission
and Fixation of Fees) Rules, 2017, stating that for being
eligible for admission to MBBS and other courses through
NEET, a candidate must have passed Class 10 and Class 12
from a school in Gujarat. It also added rule 4 (1) (A), seeking
a candidate to be a domicile of Gujarat. Following this new
amendment, many of the students and parents approached
Gujarat High Court thus creating a lot of confusion during
the 2018 admission cycle.This year, Deputy Chief Minister Nitin Patel clarified that
those students born in Gujarat and have passed class 10 and
12 from the state will not be required to produce domicile
certificate. He added that only those students who are born
outside Gujarat but have completed their 10th and 12th from
the state and whose parents are living in Gujarat will have to
produce domicile certificates.Legal tussle
Since NEET came into being, students have been challeng-
ing the domicile laws in various high courts. Last year, Bom-
bay High Court upheld the Maharashtra medical admissions
rule that requires students to have studied Class 10 and Class
12 from state and possess domicile certificates as well to be
eligible for 85 percent state quota. Later the Supreme Court
(SC) also upheld the HC ruling, which in a way protects the
interests of ‘local students’. Madras High Court and the Pun-
jab and Haryana High Court have also upheld the decision of
the respective state governments’ domicile policy.In the Rajdeep Ghosh vs. State of Assam and Others case,
the SC ruled in 2018 that the state governments can insist
on domicile status for students seeking admission to their
undergraduate medical or dental colleges under the state
quota if the objective is to ensure the presence of doctors in
their remoter areas, thus upholding the constitutional valid-
ity of rules passed in Assam. The petitioner had challenged
the Assam government’s domicile rule on the ground that
though he cleared the NEET and his parents were residents
of Assam, he was denied admission to Assam’s medical col-
leges because he had studied Classes VII to XII in another
state. The SC Bench clarified that only the state quota was
closed for the petitioner, while he was free to seek admis-
sion in government medical colleges of Assam under the 15
percent all-India quota.Why do states protect seats?
Most of the state governments argue in favour of their domi-
cile rules, pointing out that medical seats are limited; they
have a responsibility towards the resident students; scarcity
of doctors in the state; and the fear of other state students
returning to their home states. Lending credibility to this
line of thought, Tamil Nadu added a new rule this year which
makes it mandatory that the parents of students seeking
admission under state quota to have been resident of the
state for five years.