Chhattisgarh HC seeks state's response on alleged domicile-based reservation in PG medical admissions

Bilaspur: The Chhattisgarh High Court recently sought to know the State Government's stand on a plea that challenged the State Medical Post Graduate Admission Rules 2021 on the ground that it grants institute and residence-based reservation in postgraduate medical admissions.

In the plea, a postgraduate medical aspirant challenged Rule 11(a) and a portion of Rule 11(b) of the 2021 Admission rules. According to the petitioner, Rule 11(a) gives preference in admission to those candidates who have either obtained an MBBS degree from a college in the State or who are serving candidates- meaning who are currently employed.

Meanwhile, Rule 11(b) states that the vacant seats after completion of admission under 11(a) will be given to those who are natives of the State but have graduated from colleges outside the State.

The petitioner is a permanent resident of Chhattisgarh, and her parents are also permanent residents of the State. She appeared in the NEET UG exam in 2018 and based on the All-India Rank, she was allotted VMKV Medical College and Hospital, Salem, based on the counselling conducted by the Medical Counselling Committee (MCC), under the Directorate General of Health Services, Union Health Ministry.

After completing her MBBS and compulsory rotating medical internship, the petitioner got her medical registration certificate from the Tamil Nadu Medical Council as well as the Chhattisgarh Medical Council.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that for pursuing the post-graduate studies in the field of Medical Sciences, the petitioner appeared in the NEET PG Examination conducted by the National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) on 03.08.2025, and the result for the NEET PG was declared on 19.08.2025. The result declared the petitioner eligible for admission in post-graduate medical courses.

It was submitted by the Senior Advocate for the petitioner that Rule 11(a) of the PG Admission Rules, 2021 provides that the admission to the seats available in the State quota will be given first to those candidates who have either obtained an MBBS degree from the medical college situated at Chhattisgarh State or who are serving candidates. Further, the counsel pointed out that Rule 11(b) of the PG Admission Rules provides that if seats remain vacant after giving admission to all the eligible candidates mentioned in sub-rule (a) of Rule 11, then admission on those vacant seats will be given to such candidates who have done MBBS degree from a medical college situated outside of the Chhattisgarh State, but are native of Chhattisgarh State.

According to the petitioner's counsel, this amounts to 100% reservation to the candidates, who got MBBS degree from the State of Chhattisgarh. The Senior Advocate contended that the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Tanvi Bhel v. Shrey Goel and others answered the similar question and held that the residence-based reservation is impermissible in PG Medical Courses. It was held that the 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 counsel further argued that Rule 11(a) and part of the Rule 11 (b) of the PG Admission Rules, 2021 creates discrimination among student having domicile of Chhattisgarh State, by diving them in two categories, one the person passed from medical colleges of the State of Chhattisgarh and second the candidate having domicile of the State of Chhattisgarh, but obtained MBBS degree from colleges situated outside the State of Chhattisgarh.

Apart from this, giving admission to the candidates who belongs to category mentioned in Rule 11(b), only on the seats remaining after admitted all the candidates belonging to category specified in category of Rule 11(a) is a colorable exercise of power of proving 100% reservation to the candidate, who belongs to category mentioned in Rule 11 (a) of the PG Admission Rules, 2021, argued the counsel.

Further, the advocate contended that in view of Rule 11(a) and part of the Rule 11 (b) of the PG Admission Rules, 2021, the residencebased reservation and institution-based reservations are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India because it creates an unjustifiable classification between the State of Chhattisgarh and all others, therefore, interference from this Court is necessary by declaring Rule 11 (a) and part of Rule 11 (b) of the Chhattisgarh Medical Post Graduate Admission Rules, 2021 as ultravirus / unconstitutional being a violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

After taking note of the submissions, the HC Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru granted time to the State to file counter, and further two weeks for the petitioner to file the rejoinder.

"Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for respondents No.1 to 3/State prays for and is granted two weeks’ time to file return and thereafter, two weeks’ further time is granted to learned counsel for the petitioner to file rejoinder, if any," the bench ordered.

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/chhattisgarh-hc-300208.pdf

Also Read: NEET PG Admissions: Domicile-Based Reservation Unconstitutional!- Supreme Court