Source: Bombay High Court 

Why in News?

Recently, the Bombay High Court in the matter of Doctor v. State of Maharashtra has held that the state cannot have policies that adversely affect citizens' pursuit of education, especially for those in employment.   

What was the Background of Doctor v. State of Maharashtra Case? 

• In the present case, the petitioner is a 44-year-old Medical Officer working at the Unani Dispensary in Ardhapur, District Nanded. 
• He was appointed as Medical Officer (Group B) and posted at Primary Health Center at Tamloor, District Nanded. 
• In April 2024, a public notice was issued inviting online applications for All India Ayush Post Graduate Entrance Test (AIAPGET) 2024. 
• The petitioner applied for a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to participate in AIAPGET as he held the necessary qualifications. 
• The Deputy Director of Health Services issued him an NOC on 28th June 2024. 
• The petitioner appeared for the AIAPGET examination and secured 184 marks out of 400. 
• However, on September 24, 2024, the Deputy Director withdrew his NOC because: 
  • There was a criminal case registered against the petitioner. 
  •  The case involved charges under Sections 498A (domestic violence), 494 (bigamy) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal code, 1860 (IPC). 
  • He was also charged under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 
• The withdrawal was based on the Government Resolution which made medical officers with pending criminal cases ineligible for such examinations. 
• The criminal case against the petitioner stemmed from a matrimonial dispute with his wife, who had filed the complaint against him. 
• The Petitioner challenged the withdrawal of his NOC through a writ petition in the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad Bench. 

What were the Court’s Observation? 

• The Bombay High Court observed that: 
  • The only reason given in the withdrawal order was the pending criminal case against the petitioner citing Clause 4.5 of the Government Resolution. 
  • While the government claimed that the petitioner obtained the NOC by suppressing information about his criminal case, this wasn't actually mentioned as a reason in the withdrawal order. 
  • The criminal case against the petitioner arose from a matrimonial dispute with his wife, making it a personal matter. 
• The Court determined that this type of case couldn't be classified as involving moral turpitude that would impact his right to pursue educational advancement. 
• The Court also referred to some judgement and observed that 
  • Case didn't specifically deal with the validity of Clause 4.5 
  • The Supreme Court had limited that judgment's application to that specific case only 
• The Bombay High Court concluded that the petitioner case was similar to the precedent set in Kailas Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2024) where Clause 4.5 was found ineffective for in-service candidates seeking admission to PG courses. 
• The Bombay High Court emphasized that the state cannot have policies that adversely affect citizens' pursuit of education, especially for those in employment. 
• The Bombay High Court recognized that in-service candidates achieving higher education would ultimately benefit the public. 
• The Bombay High Court found that the withdrawal of NOC based solely on a pending criminal case arising from a matrimonial dispute was not justified. 

What is the Right to Education?  

• The Supreme Court held in the case of Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) that the citizens of the country have a fundamental right to education.  
  • The Court held in this case that such right flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI).  
• Subsequently, Constitution (Eighty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 2002 was enacted which introduced the following constitutional amendments:  
  • Article 21 A:   
    • This was inserted in Part III i.e. Fundamental Rights.  
    • This provision provides that the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner as the State may by law determine.  
  • Article 45:   
    • This was inserted in Part IV i.e. Directive Principles of State Policy.  
    • The Article provides that the State shall endeavor to provide early childhood care and education for all children until they complete the age of six years.  
  • Article 51 A:   
    • This was inserted in Part IV A i.e. Fundamental Duties.  
    • Article 51A lists the fundamental duties of every citizen.  
    • Clause (k) was added in these duties and it was provided that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India ‘who is a parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education to his child or, as the case may be, ward between the age of six and fourteen years.’  
• Further, to enforce Article 21A the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act or Right to Education Act (RTE Act) was enacted in 2009. 

Landmark Judgement 

• Unni Krishnan JP And Ors v. State of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. (1993)  
  • The Supreme Court held that the right to education flows directly from the right to life and right to education is concomitant to the fundamental right enshrined in Part III of the Constitution.  
  • The effect of holding that right to education is implicit in the right to life is that the State cannot deprive the citizen of his right to education except in accordance with procedure prescribed by law. 
• Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India & Another (2012)  
  • The Supreme Court in this case upheld the constitutionality of Section 12 of the RTE Act which requires that all schools (whether state funded or private) to accept 25% intake from disadvantaged groups.  
  • The Court in this case reiterated that it is the primary obligation of State to provide free and compulsory education to all children, especially those who cannot afford primary education. 
• Kailas Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (2024)  
  • In this case some important principles were established as: 
    • Right to education is implicit in the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 
    • This right extends to in-service candidates seeking higher education 
    • The right cannot be denied merely because of pending departmental or criminal proceedings 
    • While the government can set conditions for NOCs, they cannot be arbitrary or illegal