'Unconstitutional': MP HC strikes down rule limiting PG medical seats to in-state MBBS graduates

Jabalpur: In a recent judgment, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the amendment introduced in the MP Medical Education Admission Rules, 2018, which barred students who have completed their MBBS from institutes outside the State from seeking admission to post-graduate medical courses in the private medical colleges in the State, was unconstitutional.

Clarifying that there shall be no reservation exceeding total seats in postgraduate courses in private medical colleges, including all the categories i.e. NRI, In-service and Institutional preference, the HC Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf in its order dated November 19 observed, "Clearly, as the reservation in private colleges in one form or other exceeds 50%, same cannot be countenanced. As noticed .., 100% reservation is being given to in one form or the other which as per the Supreme Court is not permissible. Accordingly, said rule as amended on 3rd September, 2025 is unconstitutional to the extent that it creates a 100% reservation of all the seats in Postgraduate course in private colleges."

The Court made this observation while considering the plea seeking quashment of the amendment introduced on September 3, 2025, in Schedule 1 of the MP Medical Education Admission Rules, 2018.

Through this amendment, the eligibility conditions for admission in postgraduate courses in private medical colleges were revised by granting 100% institutional preference to MBBS graduates from medical colleges within Madhya Pradesh.

The petitioners' counsel argued that under the 2025 amendment, only those students who have completed their MBBS at a medical college situated in Madhya Pradesh and recognised by the National Medical Commission are eligible for admission to MD/MS courses. The only exception to this restriction is applicable during the second round of the counselling, and that too only if an insufficient number of eligible candidates are available.

Meanwhile, under Rule 11 of the 2018 Rules, any person who has not registered in the first round of counselling is barred from registering in the second round. Therefore, effectively, any student who has graduated from MBBS from a medical college located outside of Madhya Pradesh is barred from participating in the counselling.

The petitioners contended that this clause of domicile violated several judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Pradeep Jain and others vs. Union of India and others, and Tanvi Behl vs. Shrey Goel. In these judgments, the Supreme Court had clarified that the total reservation across all categories could not exceed 50% and the remaining 50% seats must be filled strictly based on All India merit.

On the other hand, the State argued that the amendment does not amount to a blanket reservation, but actually it operated as a sequential preference system based on objective criteria, wherein candidates from the MP institutions were given an initial opportunity on merit and unfilled seats were thereafter opened to others.

Further, the State contended that the students who have completed their MBBS within Madhya Pradesh were better suited to the healthcare needs of the region, considering their familiarity with the local diseases, regional diseases, patient profiles, and institutional protocols. Therefore, it would enhance the efficacy of the PG training and contribute to the long-term public health improvements.

While considering the matter, the HC bench referred to the Supreme Court order in the case of Pradeep Jain (supra), in which, the Apex Court placed a caveat that such reservation based on institutional preference should not in any event exceed 50% of the total number of open seats available for admission to Postgraduate courses.

The Court also referred to the ruling by the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Saurabh Chaudri (supra) and in the case of Dr Tanvi Behl (supra). In Dr. Tanvi Behl's case, the Apex Court had reservations based on domicile as unconstitutional.

Referring to these precedents, the HC bench observed,

"In the instant case, by the impugned amendment notification, State has prescribed an eligibility condition of having qualified MBBS from a college situated in the State of Madhya Pradesh which amounts to an institutional reservation/preference. Though the contention on behalf of the State is that there is a proviso to the said restriction that in case sufficient numbers of students are not available in the first round, said seats would be made available to open category candidates in the second round of counseling, but the said relaxation is superficial. Giving institutional preference in first round would most likely entail filling up of all the Postgraduate seats from institutional candidates who have qualified MBBS from colleges within the State of Madhya Pradesh as the number of Postgraduate seats are far less than the MBBS seats."

Further, the HC bench emphasized that Rule 11 of the 2018 Rules barred candidates from registering in the second round of counselling if they had not registered in the first round. Therefore, the candidates from outside Madhya Pradesh would have effectively no opportunity to participate in the counselling process for PG seats.

The court also reviewed the seat distribution in private medical colleges and observed that out of 1026 seats, 15% were reserved for the NRI quota, 30% for in-service candidates, and the remaining seats were to be allotted preferentially based on institutional preference.

"This implies that all 100% seats in private medical colleges in Postgraduate courses have been reserved in one category or other. This is clearly impermissible as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court," observed the Court.

Accordingly, the bench ordered,

"Clearly, as the reservation in private colleges in one form or other exceeds 50%, same cannot be countenanced. As noticed hereinabove, 100% reservation is being given to in one form or the other which as per the Supreme Court is not permissible. Accordingly, said rule as amended on 3^rd September, 2025 is unconstitutional to the extent that it creates a 100% reservation of all the seats in Postgraduate course in private colleges...In view of the above, we hold that the amended provision notified on 3^rd September 2025 does not conform to the directions issued by the Supreme Court inasmuch as it makes a reservation of 100% of the seats in one form or the other. Accordingly, we hold that reservation in all categories cannot exceed 50% of the total seats in Private Medical Colleges (including 15% NRI quota and 30% in-service candidate seats). We clarify that since there is no challenge to the reservation of seats to the extent of 15% for NRI quota and 30% for in-service candidates, we are not commenting upon the validity of the same...In so far as the Government Colleges are concerned, the contention of the State is that since 50% seats are contributed to All India Quota and thus there is no infraction of the above restriction. We clarify that as the challenge in this case was restricted to private medical colleges, we have not commented upon the same and this judgment is restricted to private medical colleges."