Gauhati High Court Upholds Exclusion Of Army Personnel's Wards From Nagaland's Central Pool MBBS Quota

The Gauhati High Court refused relief to a medical aspirant who was denied seat allocated to the Nagaland government under the Central Pool MBBS quota, despite qualifying the cut off.

The aspirant had challenged state government's 2021 notification as per which she was disentitled to one of the 42 seats allocated to the State under the Central Pool.

A single bench had allowed her plea and quashed the notification holding it to be contradictory to a Central Government July 28 guidelines for allocation of Central Pool MMBS/BDS seats.

As per the July 28 guidelines, children of Central, State or UT government employees— who are on deputation to a State/UT or posted there with their headquarters in that State/UT— are eligible for Central Pool MBBS/BDS seats.

Since her father was posted in Nagaland as a Commanding Officer in the Indian Army, the aspirant had claimed benefit of Central pool quota.

A division bench of Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury however reversed the findings in the State's appeal, holding that the aspirant being a ward of defence personnel belongs to a separate class who have dedicated benefits and thus, her exclusion from Central Pool cannot be termed discriminatory.

Perusing the guidelines the bench noted that the Central Government had stated that Clause 1.2.4 of the guidelines are allocated to the State to compensate for the shortage of Medical infrastructure and to provide opportunities for the students of the State to integrate into the mainstream.

The court said that the guidelines itself disqualifies the aspirant from getting the benefit of Central Pool MBBS seats meant for a deficient state. It said:

"When the central government, in its policy wisdom, has chosen to treat the defence personnel and their wards as a separate class with dedicated quota benefits, the exclusion of such a class from another pool cannot be termed discriminatory. The classification distinguishing between ordinary residents of a State, including central government employees posted in the State or in deputation having headquarters therein and wards of defence personnel having an independent quota is based on an intelligible differentia having a rational nexus to the object of fair and balanced allocation. Therefore, there is no violation of the right of the writ petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution of India"

The bench said that the single judge had overlooked the foundational distinction between the two categories wherein these two quotas serve a distinct policy objective.

"When the Guidelines dated 28.07.2027 are not meant for the defence quota, the impugned notification dated 09.09.2021 does not offend the writ petitioner, and such a notification cannot be struck down as a whole at the behest of the writ petitioner," it added.

The aspirant had argued that State's 2021 notification is not sustainable for the reason that it is in derogation of Central Government's Guidelines. It was further contended that though seats are reserved for the wards of personnel under Ministry of Defence, the same will not debar her from availing dual eligibility for the Central Pool quota meant for Nagaland.

On the other hand, the appellant, Nagaland government said that it is within its power to prescribe the eligibility criteria for candidates seeking admission in the MBBS course against the seat allocated to the State under the Central Pool, since the Central guidelines allow the reservation policy being followed by the beneficiary State to be applied in Central Pool MBBS seats. It contended that such Central Pool seats are domicile-based and are allocated because Nagaland is deficient in Medical education. It contended that the respondent is not entitled for dual benefit under two separate quotas.

Findings

The bench said that once the respondent's category as a ward of a defence personnel is admitted, she can avail the benefit under the defence quota, "which she failed to get for having short of the minimum cut-off mark in that quota". Thereafter, the court said, she cannot claim a parallel advantage under another quota "intended for a distinct beneficiary group".

The court further said that allocation of central pool seats is a policy measure falling within the domain of the Union Government and the seats are not part of any statutory entitlement but are created as a matter of executive discretion to serve diverse objectives. These are–national service recognition (defence quota), regional equity (deficient state quota) and other specified categories.

"Such a decision can be judicially reviewed only when it is palpably arbitrary or in direct violation of Constitutional Guarantees," it said. 

The court said that the "object of the deficient state quota" is to augment the supply of doctors in the State that lacks adequate medical colleges; whereas the object of the "defence pool" is to recognise and reward national service by defence personnel.

"Both quotas operate under the same central pool, but each serves a separate beneficiary class. The policy of mutual exclusivity between the defence pool and the deficient pool thus bears a rational nexus to the scheme's purpose and cannot be termed arbitrary," it said. 

The State's appeal was allowed. 

Case title: The State and Nagaland and Others v/s Vatsala Panghal and Another

WA/260/2025 

Click Here To Read/Download Order