Chhattisgarh High Court Strikes Down PG Medical Admission Rule Granting Priority To State Colleges' Students, Alumni As Ultra Vires

Rule 11(a) of 2025 Rules provided that admission to seats available in the State quota will be given first to those candidates who had either obtained MBBS degree from a medical college situated in Chhattisgarh or who are serving candidates. Rule 11(b) further provided that if seats remained vacant after giving admission to all eligible candidates mentioned in sub-rule (a), then admission on such seats will be given to those candidates who had obtained MBBS degree from a medical college situated outside Chhattisgarh but are natives of Chhattisgarh.

A Division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held,

“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 and 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.”

Background

The petitioner, a permanent resident of Chhattisgarh, had completed her MBBS course in 2023 from VMKV Medical College and Hospital, Salem, and also the subsequent compulsory rotating medical internship in 2024. She thereafter obtained her medical registration certificate from Tamil Nadu Medical Council and Chhattisgarh Medical Council. The petitioner thereafter appeared in and qualified the NEET (PG)-2025 examination.

Through her writ petition, she challenged Rule 11(a) and (b) on the grounds that it discriminated between candidates who passed from medical colleges situated in Chhattisgarh and candidates who passed from medical colleges outside Chhattisgarh. It was submitted that the Rule is premised on university-based reservation, which creates an unjustifiable classification and is thus contrary to the mandate of Article 14.

In contrast, the State submitted that the vires of any act can be challenged only when the rule-maker lacks legislative competence, when it is made in excess of the power conferred by the parent Act, when delegated legislation is in conflict with parent Act, when the whole legislation or part of it is against the Constitution or any other prevailing law, and none of the mentioned conditions were available to the petitioner to challenge the said Rule. It was further submitted that the impugned Rule did not provide for domicile-based preference, and the 2025 Rules strictly pertain to admission with respect to 50% state-quota seats in PG Course. The State sought to clarify that candidates who were given institutional preference under Rule 11(a) may not necessarily be domicile of Chhattisgarh, and thus it was stated that there was no discrimination.

The Court referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr. Tanvi Behl v. Shrey Goel & Ors (2025), where it was held that residence/domicile based reservation in postgraduate (PG) medical courses is unconstitutional and impermissible. In light of this ruling, the Division Bench struck down Rule 11(a) and (b) on the grounds that it discriminated between candidates on the basis of institution from which MBBS degree was obtained.

Case Details:

Case Number: WPC No. 5937 of 2025

Case Title: Dr. Samriddhi Dubey v. The State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors

Click Here To Read/Download Order