Gauhati HC denies relief to aspirant, upholds exclusion of army personnel's wards from Nagaland central pool MBBS quota
Gauhati: Denying relief to a medical aspirant who was denied an MBBS seat allocated to the Nagaland Government under the Central Pool MBBS quota despite securing the qualifying cut-off, the Gauhati High Court upheld the State Government's 2021 notification, through which wards of the Army Personnel were excluded from Nagaland's Central Pool Quota.
Even though earlier a single judge bench had allowed the petitioner's plea, and it had quashed the State's notification dated September 9, 2021, the Division Bench of the High Court found the notification consistent with Central Government guidelines on seat allocation and policy intent.
Accordingly, the HC Division bench observed, "It is well settled that a writ court cannot, in the exercise of its power of judicial review, compel the executive to merge or cross-apply distinct quota categories unless the exclusion is manifestly arbitrary, which it is not in the present case."
"However, the learned single judge overlooked the foundational distinction between the two categories: 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," further noted the HC Bench comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury.
The plea before the Single Judge bench was filed by a medical aspirant, the daughter of a serving Army Officer posted with the 1 Nagaland Battalion NCC in Kohima. After being denied a seat under Nagaland's Central Pool MBBS quota despite scoring above the NEET-UG cut-off, the aspirant challenged the State's notification dated September 9, 2021, issued by the Department of Higher and Technical Education, which laid down eligibility conditions for MBBS seats allotted to Nagaland from the Central Pool of 42 seats provided annually by the Central Government.
The petitioner argued that the notification was unsustainable as it contradicted the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW) Guidelines via a Office Memorandum (OM) dated July 28, 2025. She also contended that these Ministry guidelines entitled children of Central Government employees posted within a State—under Clause 1.2.4—to be treated on par with local residents.
It was further contended by the petitioner that though 42 numbers of 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 State of Nagaland and it is her privilege that allows her to choose one of the entitlements, which has been denied to her by the impugned Notification Dated 09.09.2021.
Back in August 2025, a single-judge bench of the Gauhati High Court accepted her contention and held that the State's 2021 notification was arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, and inconsistent with the MoHFW guidelines. Accordingly, the Court had quashed the notification holding it to be arbitrary and contradictory to the Office Memorandum dated 28.07.2025 issued by the Central Government prescribing guidelines for allocation of Central Pool MMBS /BDS seats for the academic year 2025-2026.
Challenging this order, the Nagaland Government appealed before the Gauhati High Court Principal Bench. The State Government argued that it has the authority to frame eligibility criteria for seats allocated to it under the Central Pool Scheme, which is meant to compensate State lacking medical colleges. It also argued that the Central Pool comprised of distinct sub-quotas as one for deficient States and another for defence personnel and both of these sub-quotas are managed by the Union Health Ministry.
The State further contended that since 42 MBBS and 3 BDS seats are separately earmarked each year for wards of defence personnel through the Ministry of Defence, dual benefit under two different quotas cannot be claimed.
During the case hearings, the Division Bench of the High Court questioned the Central Government Counsel (CGC) whether the clause 1.2.4 of the MohFW’s July 28 OM would include Army Officers.
Referring to a letter dated September 17, 2025, addressed to the CGC by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, the Central Government Council Mr. Gogoi submitted that the petitioner petitioner cannot be allotted a seat from amongst the 42 MBBS Central Pool seats allotted to the State of Nagaland under Guidelines dated 28.07.2025.
The Under Secretary had explained in the letter that "So far as the matter related to treating of Army personnel as central government employee in clause 1.2.4 of Ministry's Guidelines dated 27.07.2025. it is informed that these seats 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. Additionally, a separate quota is reserved for army personnel under the central pool scheme."
Taking note of this, the HC Division Bench observed, "Facts not in dispute are that the writ petitioner’s father is an Indian Army Officer posted in Nagaland and has his headquarters within the State of Nagaland. It is also not in dispute that a separate quota of 45 seats (42 MBBS and 03 BDS) is earmarked for Defence personnel under the Central Pool Scheme, and the writ petitioner did not qualify against such quota for a shortfall of marks."
It noted that the issue revolved around Clauses 1.2.3 & 1.2.3. of the Office Memorandum dated 28.07.2025 and whether the petitioner is covered under the aforesaid Clauses, and whether her father shall come within the definition of an employee of the Central Government for the purpose of availing the benefit.
The court observed that the Union of India has clarified that the seats under Clause 1.2.4 of the guideline dated 27.07.2025 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, and already a separate quota is reserved for Army personnel.
At this outset, the bench observed, "The Central Pool of MBBS/BDS seats are administered by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, which distributes a fixed number of seats each year amongst various beneficiary categories. The defence personnel quota and the deficient State quota are mutually independent and non-interchangeable sub-schemes under the overall Central Pool. While the defence quota is intended to benefit the dependents of those serving the nation in defence; the deficient State quota is intended to strengthen the medical human resource base of a State that lacks adequate medical colleges or seats. Therefore, it cannot be countenanced that the writ petitioner has been discriminated against by completely ousting her from the competition."
"From Clause 1.2 of the Guideline dated 28.07.2025, it is clear that beneficiaries of the latter category are residents of the concerned State/UT, with the exception of the children of employees of Central/other State/UT government on deputation in the State/UT concerned and also similar categories of employees who are posted in the State and having their head quarters within the concerned State, to be nominated by the State Government in accordance with Guidelines issued by the Central Government," the Court noted.
Therefore, it held that "That being the position, we are of the considered view that the aforesaid two quotas are distinct and different; one is compensatory, meant for the students of the State, including the children of employees of Central Government on deputation to the State and those posted in the State having their Head Quarters in the State and the other one is exclusively meant for defence personnel. Therefore, for the purpose of availing such benefit, a defence personnel cannot be treated as a Central Government employee."
Accordingly, the Court opined that the guideline dated 28.07.2025 itself disqualifies the writ petitioner from getting the benefit of Central Pool MBBS seats meant for a deficient state. When a separate quota is created for individual categories of Central Government Servants, the argument of dual eligibility against both quotas is misplaced.
"The law also disfavours dual benefit under two different welfare schemes emanating from the same source. Once the petitioner’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; she cannot claim a parallel advantage under another quota intended for a distinct beneficiary group. However, the learned Single Judge failed to consider the aforesaid issues and held that the impugned notification dated 09.09.2021 is arbitrary and beyond the guidelines dated 28.07.2025," it held.
Apart from this, it was also observed by the HC Division Bench that when the petitiner is not even eligible under Clauses 1.2.3 and 1.2.4 of the guidelines dated 28.07.2025, the challenge to the Notification dated 09.09.2021, more particularly, paragraph 1 category-III (b), 2(c) and 3(e), cannot be sustained at the behest of the writ petitioner.
At this outset, it further noted, "Yet another aspect of the matter is that the allocation of central poll seats is a policy measure falling within the domain of the Union Government. The seats are not part of any statutory entitlement but are created as a matter of executive discretion to serve diverse objectives: 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 was observed by the HC bench that the object of the deficient state quota is to augment the supply of doctors in the State that lacks adequate medical colleges, and the object of the defence pool is entirely different; 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.
"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," it held at this outset.
Holding that the single judge bench overlooked the foundational distinction between the two categories, the High Court bench allowed the State's plea and set aside the Single Bench's order.
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/gauhati-high-court-order-306226.pdf
