'Unconstitutional': MP High Court Strikes Down Rule Limiting PG Medical Seats To MBBS Graduates From Within State

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, on Wednesday (November 19), held that the amendment introduced in the MP Medical Education Admission Rules, 2018, which barred students who have completed their MBBS from institutions outside Madhya Pradesh from seeking admission to post-graduate medical courses in the private colleges in the State, was unconstitutional. The division bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf observed, "Clearly, as the reservation in private colleges in one form or other exceeds 50%, same cannot be countenanced. As noticed hereinabove, 100% reservation is being given to in one form or the other which as per the Supreme Court is not permissible. Accordingly, said rule as amended on 3rd September, 2025 is unconstitutional to the extent that it creates a 100% reservation of all the seats in Postgraduate course in private colleges".The petitioners sought the quashment of the amendment introduced on September 3, 2025, in Schedule 1 of the MP Medical Education Admission Rules, 2018. The amendment revised the eligibility conditions for admission in postgraduate courses in private medical colleges by granting 100% institutional preference to MBBS graduates from medical colleges within Madhya Pradesh. Petitioners' counsel contended that, under the 2025 amendment, only students who have completed their MBBS at a medical college situated in Madhya Pradesh and recognised by the National Medical Commission are eligible for admission to MS/MD courses. The only exception to this restriction applied during the second round of counselling, and that too only if an insufficient number of eligible candidates are available. Notably, Rule 11 of the 2018 Rules bars any person from registering in the second round of counselling if they have not registered in the first round of counselling. Thus, effectively barring any students who have graduated from MBBS from a college outside of Madhya Pradesh from participating in the counselling. Petitioners argued that this clause of domicile violated several judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Pradeep Jain and others vs. Union of India and others, (1984) 3 SCC 654 and Tanvi Behl vs. Shrey Goel. The Supreme Court had consistently held that the total reservation across all categories could not exceed 50% and the remaning 50% seats must be filled strictly based on All India Merit. Conversely, the State argued that the amendment does not amount to a blanket reservation, but operated as a sequential preference system based on objective criteria, wherein candidates from the MP institutions were given an initial opportunity on merit and unfilled seats were thereafter opened to others. The State also argued that the students who have completed their MBBS within Madhya Pradesh were better suited to the healthcare needs of the region, given their familiarity with local diseases, regional diseases, patient profiles and institutional protocols, thereby enhancing the efficacy of PG training and contributing to long-term public health improvements. The bench referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Pradeep Jain (supra), which condemned wholesale reservation based on domicile, residence or institutional preference that excluded other meritorious students. The Supreme Court had categorically held that for post-graduate medical admission, no reservation should be made based on residence or institutional preference beyond 50% of the total open seats. In the present case, the bench observed that prescribing an eligibility condition requiring an MBBS degree from a college in Madhya Pradesh effectively amounted to reservation or preference. Although the State relied on the exception carved out for the second round of counselling, the bench found the relaxation to be superficial. The court noted that granting institutional preference in the first round would likely result in all PG seats being filled by the candidates who completed their MBBS within the State, as the number of PG seats was significantly lower than the number of MBBS seats. The bench further emphasised that Rule 11 of the 2018 Rules barred candidates from registering in the second round of counselling if they had not registered in the first round. This meant that candidates outside Madhya Pradesh effectively had no opportunity to participate in the counselling process for PG seats. In reviewing the seat distribution in private medical colleges, the court observed that out of 1026 seats, 15% were reserved for the NRI quota, 30% for in-service candidates, and the remaining seats were to be allotted preferentially based on institutional preference. This indicated that 100% of the seats were reserved in one form or another, which was impermissible under constitutional principles. Accordingly, the bench directed; "The petition is accordingly allowed in the above terms. The respondent state is directed to permit the petitioners as well as other similarly situated candidates to register for...

'Unconstitutional': MP High Court Strikes Down Rule Limiting PG Medical Seats To MBBS Graduates From Within State

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

'Unconstitutional': MP High Court Strikes Down Rule Limiting PG Medical Seats To MBBS Graduates From Within State

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers