HC directs PG Medical Admissions at GMCH 32 Chandigarh as per Supreme Court order
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Chandigarh: Dimissing the pleas challenging the modalities for postgraduate (PG) medical admissions in Chandigarh, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recently reinforced the Supreme Court's earlier ruling that held domicile-based reservations for PG medical courses unconstitutional.
Further, the bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel directed the Chandigarh administration to carry out the PG medical admissions at GMCH-32 as per the Apex Court's directions issued in the case of Dr. Tanvi vs Shrey Goel and the top court's order issued on March 24.
Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that earlier this year, the Supreme Court held that domicile-based reservations for postgraduate medical admission could not be allowed as it violated Article 14 of the Constitution.
Therefore, holding such reservation system unconstitutional, the top court bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy, Sudhanshu Dhulia and SVN Bhatti observed, "Residence-based reservation in PG medical courses is clearly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution."
On March 24, the Supreme Court remarked, "It was absolutely clear that residence-based reservations were not permissible for postgraduate seats in medical colleges and that only institutional preference, to a limited extent, is allowed."
Also Read: NEET PG Admissions: Domicile-Based Reservation Unconstitutional!- Supreme Court
In this order, the top court bench had offered clarifications regarding the domicile-based reservations in postgraduate medical admissions and held that there would be no domicile State quota and admissions would be based on 50 per cent all India and 50 per cent Institutional (IP) quota.
Further, in the Shrey Goel Judgment, it was held that "Having made the determination that residence reservation is impermissible in PG medical courses, 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. Thus, out of 64 seats which were to be filled by the state in its quota, 32 could be filled on the basis of institutional preference, and these are valid. But the other 32 seats earmarked as UT Chandigarh pool were wrongly filled on the basis of residence."
"We make it clear though that our declaration of impermissibility of residence-based reservation in PG Medical courses will not affect such reservations already granted, and students are undergoing PG courses or have already passed out in the present case, from College, Chandigarh. We do this simply because now there is an equity in favour of such students who must have already completed the course," the Supreme Court had earlier clarified.
Now, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has also clarified that the PG medical admissions at GMCh 32 would be as per the Supreme Court's ruling.
As per the latest media report by The New Indian Express, the division bench of the High Court issued this order after several legal challenges were made and the Union Territory administration also requested clarifications. Addressing the issue, the HC bench held that the admissions must strictly follow the Supreme Court's directive striking down domicile-based reservation.
Apart from affirming the binding nature of the Apex Court's ruling on the current admission cycle, the HC Division bench also rejected the UT Administration's attempt to convert the remaining UT Pool State Quota seats into Institutional Preference Pool seats for the third round of counselling, which was proposed in a notice dated April 9, 2025.
The New Indian Express has reported that the UT administration argued that converting the seats would prevent disruption in the admission process and avoid exceeding the 50% cap on the All India Quota (AIQ). However, the HC bench found the move inconsistent with the Supreme Court ruling.
It observed, "The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shrey Goel SC judgment had afforded protection to the students who had already received the benefit of reservation on the residence/domicile basis and were either undergoing or had successfully completed their course."
The HC bench also addressed the issue of a petitioner who had surrendered his allotted seat after first and second counselling rounds anticipating a better option. In this regard, the Court held that the petitioner student did not qualify for protection under the Supreme Court order.
"In light of such voluntary act of surrender, it cannot be said that the petitioner was pursuing the course in question, thereby, failing to be within the foundational basis for protection contemplated under Shrey Goel SC judgment," observed the HC bench.
Accordingly, the HC bench asked the UT administration to conduct the PG medical admissions in accordance with the Supreme Court's previous orders. As per a TOI report, the HC bench observed,
"The issue of the reservation in the post graduate medical courses has been put to rest by the Supreme Court in the Shrey Goel SC judgment. In the opinion of this court, once the matter(s) has been delved into by a Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, it is proscribed from raking up the same controversy again."
