Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Chhattisgarh Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru has struck down Rule 11(a) and (b) of the Chhattisgarh Medical Post Graduate Admission Rules, 2025, holding that the institution-based preference granted to alumni of State-affiliated medical colleges operated as a de-facto reservation and was unconstitutional. The case concerned a challenge to provisions that prioritized candidates who completed their MBBS within State institutions for State-quota postgraduate seats, affecting applicants who obtained their degrees elsewhere. The Court concluded that such preference violated the principle of equal treatment in admissions and directed the State not to differentiate between candidate categories identified in the impugned rules, thereby requiring State-quota seats to be filled without the invalidated preference.

The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to declare Rule 11(a) and Rule 11(b) of the Chhattisgarh Medical Post Graduate Admission Rules, 2025 as unconstitutional for violating Article 14. The petitioner, a permanent resident of Chhattisgarh, had completed schooling in Bilaspur and subsequently secured admission to an MBBS course in Tamil Nadu through All India counselling. After completing the MBBS degree in 2023 and internship in 2024, the petitioner appeared in NEET-PG 2025, qualified the examination, and became eligible for PG medical admission.

Also Read: Motor Accident Claims | Fake Licence By Driver Not Enough For Insurer To Recover Compensation From Vehicle Owner Without Proving Lack Of Due Diligence In Driver Engagement : Supreme Court

The petitioner contended that the earlier Rules of 2021 contained a similar preference mechanism under Rule 11(a) and 11(b), and that the 2025 Rules continued the same structure. According to the petitioner, these provisions created two distinct categories of candidates—those who obtained MBBS degrees from medical colleges within Chhattisgarh and those who obtained such degrees from outside the State despite being permanent residents of Chhattisgarh. It was argued that such classification was arbitrary and contrary to the constitutional prohibition against residence-based discrimination in postgraduate medical admissions. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s decision in Dr. Tanvi Behl, which held residence-based reservations impermissible in postgraduate medical courses.

The State submitted that the 2025 Rules had removed domicile-based preference and instead provided an institutional preference consistent with judicial pronouncements. It was contended that Rule 11(a) granted preference to candidates who completed MBBS from colleges affiliated to AYUSH University, irrespective of domicile, and Rule 11(b) dealt with filling remaining seats from other eligible candidates. The State argued that the Rules were constitutionally valid and framed after considering the Supreme Court’s decision.

The Court considered the pleadings, statutory framework, and the cited decisions, particularly the Supreme Court ruling in Dr. Tanvi Behl, before arriving at its final determination.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s authoritative pronouncement in Dr. Tanvi Behl, noting that the central question before the Apex Court was “whether residence based reservation in PG medical courses by a State is constitutionally valid.” The Court recorded the Supreme Court’s formulation of the issues, including “As to whether providing for domicile/residence-based reservation in admission to ‘PG Medical Courses’ within the State Quota is constitutionally invalid and is impermissible?”

The Bench stated the Supreme Court’s observation that “We are all domiciled in the territory of India… Our common bond as citizens and residents of one country gives us the right… to seek admission in educational institutions across India.” It further noted the Supreme Court’s finding that while limited reservation could be justified in MBBS admissions, “considering the importance of specialists doctors’ in PG Medical Course, reservation at the higher level on the basis of ‘residence’ would be violative of Article 14.”

The Court reproduced the Supreme Court’s statement that if residence-based reservation were allowed, “it would be an invasion on the fundamental rights of several students, who are being treated unequally simply for the reasons that they belong to a different State… and would amount to a denial of equality before the law.”

The Bench also recorded the Apex Court’s reiteration of earlier decisions, stating that “The law laid down in Jagadish Saran and Pradeep Jain has been followed… Thus, residence-based reservations are not permissible in PG medical courses.”

Further, the judgment noted the Supreme Court’s direction that State quota seats, except institutional preference seats, must be filled strictly on merit: “State quota seats, apart from a reasonable number of institution-based reservations, have to be filled strictly on the basis of merit in the All-India examination.”

The Court observed that these principles had also been applied by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sawan Bohra, which dealt with identical issues.

After applying the above legal standards, the Bench concluded that the challenged provisions—Rule 11(a) and 11(b)—were incompatible with the law declared by the Supreme Court, as they operated to create an unjustified distinction between candidates based on the institution from which they secured their MBBS degree, functioning effectively as residence-based preference.

Also Read: HAMA | Father’s Maintenance Duty To Unmarried Daughter Continues After Majority: Chhattisgarh High Court Dismisses Appeal, Directs Father To Provide Maintenance & Marriage Expenses

The Court recorded that “In view of the proposition of law as laid down by the Apex Court in Dr. Tanvi Behl (supra), Rule 11(a) and (b) of the Chhattisgarh Medical Post Graduate Admission Rules, 2025 are quashed being ultra vires and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”

“The State shall not discriminate between the candidates belonging to the categories mentioned in Rule 11(a) and (b) of the Chhattisgarh Medical Post Graduate Admission Rules, 2025. As a result, this petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.”

Advocates Representing The Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sandeep Dubey, Mr. Manas Vajpai and Mr. Kaif Ali Rizvi, Advocates.

For the Respondents: Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General, Ms. Shreya Pawan Daga, holding the brief of Mr. Dheeraj Wankhede, Advocate, Ms. Anmol Sharma, Standing Counsel.

Case Title: Dr. Samriddhi Dubey v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: CGHC:56543-DB
Case Number: WPC No. 5937 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, Justice Bibhu Datta Guru