NEET PG counselling: Reservation benefits state-specific, non-domicile candidates cannot claim seats- Rajasthan HC

Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that candidates from other States belonging to reserved categories cannot claim reservation benefits, including reduced qualifying percentile in NEET PG counselling, in Rajasthan, affirming that such benefits are State-specific.

Dismissing a writ petition filed by the Federation of Private Medical and Dental Colleges of Rajasthan challenging a February 18, 2026, resolution of the NEET-PG counselling board, the Court held that the policy does not amount to 100% domicile-based reservation, as out-of-state candidates remain eligible to compete for unreserved seats but cannot claim relaxed cut-offs meant for reserved categories.

The petitioner had sought directions to allow non-domicile SC, ST and OBC candidates to avail reservation benefits, including reduced percentile, and participate in the stray vacancy round of PG counselling against reserved category seats in Rajasthan.

Explaining the facts germane to the controversy involved in present case, learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner Federation, Mr M.S. Singhvi, assisted by Mr Hemant Ballani, submitted that NEET PG (MD/MS/DNB) Examination 2025-2026 was conducted as per the Information Bulletin and Counselling Scheme which provides the process of conducting Online Counselling for allotment of PG seats under the All India Quota (AIQ), prescribing therein three rounds of counselling and one stray vacancy round.

The counsel for the petitioner further contended that even after the completion of said rounds of counselling, a large number of PG MBBS seats under All India Quota as well as State Quota remained vacant, whereupon the National Board of Examination (NBE), in consultation with the Central Government, reduced the qualifying percentile for admission vide order dated 13.01.2026 and provided category-wise revised qualifying cut-offs - Revised NEET PG Qualifying Marks (After lowering of percentile) Category Minimum Cut-Off Scores (Out Qualifying/Eligibility of 800) Criteria SC/ST/OBC (Including 40th percentile -40 PwBD of SC/ST/OBC).

Mr M.S. Singhvi contended that the denial of the benefit of reduced percentile to reserved category candidates of other States is arbitrary, unjustified and defeats the very purpose of lowering the qualifying criteria.

Learned Additional Advocate General Mr Vigyan Shah and Government Counsel Mr Milap Chopra, appearing for the State of Rajasthan, opposed the petitioner’s submissions, arguing that the impugned decision of the NEET PG Counselling Board is in line with the constitutional scheme, the Act of 2008, and PGMER 2023, and is neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional.

They submitted that NEET-PG 2025 covers 50% All India Quota and 50% State Quota seats, with State admissions governed by the Rajasthan Instruction Booklet. The impugned minutes dated 18.02.2026 merely reiterate Clause 4, which provides that reservation benefits apply only to bona fide Rajasthan candidates, while reserved category candidates from other States are treated as unreserved. Since this clause was not challenged earlier, the petitioner is estopped from raising the issue at the stray vacancy stage.

The respondents further argued that excluding out-of-state reserved candidates from State reserved seats is constitutionally valid. While such candidates may compete for unreserved seats based on general category cut-offs, they cannot claim the benefit of reduced percentile meant for reserved categories. Citing Supreme Court rulings in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao and Bir Singh, they contended that reservation is State-specific, and the petitioner’s challenge is contrary to settled law.

Dismissing the plea, Justice Sanjeet Purohit said that the constitutional scheme clearly envisages identification of reserved categories on a state-wise basis, rooted in local socio-economic conditions.

Extending such benefits across state boundaries would run contrary to this framework, it said, ruling that the state's policy aligns with the constitutional framework governing reservations and does not create any illegality or discrimination.

"A necessary corollary of this position is that the benefits of reservation are confined to categories notified in relation to a particular State and cannot be extended to members who are recognised as belonging to a reserved category in another State," the court observed. 

Citing Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Marri Chandra (supra), in the case of Bir Singh (supra), Marri Chandra (supra) and others, the court held, "It is clear that the benefit of reservation is restricted to the State of origin and cannot be extended into the State to which one has migrated."

Rejecting the contention of 100 per cent domicile reservation, the Court said, 

"This Court is also not persuaded to accept the contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned decision results in a regime of 100% domicile-based reservation. In substance, the decision dated 18.02.2026 does not create an absolute bar based on domicile; rather, it stipulates that the benefit of revised qualifying marks prescribed for reserved categories shall not be extended to candidates belonging to reserved categories of other States. Effectively, the decision operates to withhold reservation benefits from out-of-State reserved category candidates and confines such benefits to reserved category candidates of the State of Rajasthan.

As discussed hereinabove, such a classification is legally permissible and does not offend the constitutional mandate. It is further pertinent to note that candidates belonging to reserved categories of other States are not rendered ineligible to participate in the selection process. They continue to be entitled to compete for unreserved seats, subject to their fulfilling the qualifying criteria applicable to the General category, including the revised qualifying marks prescribed for said category."

The court noted that although filling vacant postgraduate seats is important, it cannot override statutory norms or compromise merit standards, particularly in specialised medical education.

The bench then observed that allowing a candidate to rely on the minimum qualifying marks prescribed for a different category would dilute the integrity of the selection process and defeat the rationale behind maintaining separate standards for different categories.

It rejected the petitioner’s contention that candidates from reserved categories of other States should be allowed to compete for unreserved seats while also availing the benefit of the relaxed percentile meant for reserved categories, terming it wholly misconceived. 

The Court held that such an approach would blur the distinction between separate eligibility frameworks and is impermissible in law, as it would result in an anomalous and legally unsustainable advantage not supported by the governing rules.

Finding no merit in the challenge, the Court upheld the counselling board's decision and dismissed the writ petition, along with all pending applications.

Also read- Rajasthan HC protects NEET PG admission of doctor on maternity leave