NEET PG: Discriminatory, Unconstitutional! Chhattisgarh HC strikes down PG medical admission provisions

Bilaspur: The Chhattisgarh High Court has quashed two key provisions - Rule 11 (a) and (b) of the Chhattisgarh Medical Post Graduate Admission Rules, 2025, calling them 'discriminatory and unconstitutional.'

Rule 11(a) gave priority for state quota seats to candidates who completed MBBS within Chhattisgarh, while Rule 11(b) said leftover seats would be filled by those who studied outside the state but are natives of Chhattisgarh.

The division bench headed by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru observed,

"While granting admissions, especially to higher and specialised courses, merit must prevail to safeguard educational standards; relaxing merit at such levels under the guise of institutional reservation or domicile reservation would risk compromising critical professional excellence"

"Rule 11(a) and (b) of the Chhattisgarh Medical Post Graduate Admission Rules, 2025 are quashed being ultra vires and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the State shall not discriminate between the candidates belonging to the categories mentioned in Rule 11(a) and (b) of the Chhattisgarh Medical Post Graduate Admission Rules, 2025," noted the bench.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Dr Samriddhi Dubey, who completed her schooling in Bilaspur and later pursued her MBBS from VMKV Medical College and Hospital, Salem, in Tamil Nadu through NEET-UG counselling. After completing her degree and internship, she obtained her medical registration certificate from the Tamil Nadu Medical Council and the Chhattisgarh Medical Council. Following this, she appeared in NEET-PG 2025 and qualified with an All India Rank 75068 and, thereafter, became eligible for a postgraduate medical seat.

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

In her plea, she challenged the Chhattisgarh PG Medical Admission Rules of 2021 because they gave preference to students who completed their MBBS within the state, putting candidates like her at a disadvantage despite being natives of Chhattisgarh. It was submitted that the Rule is premised on university-based reservation, which creates an unjustifiable classification and is thus contrary to the mandate of Article 14.

"Rule 11(a) of the P.G. 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 MBBS degree from medical college situated at Chhattisgarh State or who are serving candidates. Rule 11 (b) of the P.G. Admission Rules, 2021 provides that, if seats remain vacant after giving admission to all the eligible candidates mentioned in sub rule (b) 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.- Thus, this rule creates discrimination among student who having MBBS Degree from other university, by diving them in two categories, one the person passed from medical colleges of Chhattisgarh and second candidate having degree from outside of Chhattisgarh," it was contended.

Meanwhile, the state argued that the petitioner had no valid grounds to challenge the 2025 rules because a rule can be struck down only if it goes beyond the powers given by the parent law or violates the Constitution, neither of which applies here.

"The vires of any act can be challenged only on when the rule maker lacks the legislative competence, when it is made in excess of the power conferred by the enabling of parent Act, when delegated legislation is conflict with the enabling of parent Act, when whole legislation or part of it is against the provision of Constitution of India or any other law prevailing/existing on the field. So none of the abovementioned conditions are available to the petitioner for challenge to the Rules, 2025," it said.

It was further submitted that the impugned Rule did not provide for domicile-based preference, and the 2025 Rules strictly pertain to admission with respect to 50% state-quota seats in PG Course. The State sought to clarify that candidates who were given institutional preference under Rule 11(a) may not necessarily be domiciled in Chhattisgarh, and thus it was stated that there was no discrimination.

Medical Dialogues had earlier reported that the Supreme Court ruled that domicile-based reservations for postgraduate medical admission cannot be allowed as it violates Article 14 of the Constitution. Clarifying that providing domicile residence-based reservations in admission to State quota PG medical seats is constitutionally impermissible, the Apex Court bench held that such seats have to be filled based on merit in the NEET exam.

After hearing both sides, the court noted that the Madhya Pradesh High Court had already dealt with an identical issue and allowed similarly placed students to participate in counselling. Since the facts were the same, the Chhattisgarh High Court decided to follow the same approach.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dr Tanvi Behl, the court held that Rule 11(a) and 11(b) of the Chhattisgarh PG Medical Admission Rules, 2025 were unconstitutional because they violated the right to equality under Article 14. The court therefore struck down these rules and directed the state not to discriminate between candidates based on where they completed their MBBS.

To view the official court order, click on the link below: