The Chhattisgarh High Court has issued notice to the State government in response to a writ petition that challenges certain provisions of the State Medical Post Graduate Admission Rules, 2021. The petitioner, a permanent resident of Chhattisgarh and a qualified medical graduate, has questioned the vires of Rule 11(a) and parts of Rule 11(b) on the grounds that they unfairly grant institutional and residence-based reservation in admissions to postgraduate medical courses.
Rule 11(a) gives preference to candidates who have either obtained their MBBS degrees from colleges within Chhattisgarh or are serving candidates—those currently employed within the state. Rule 11(b) adds a further layer to this hierarchy: if any seats remain unfilled after filling vacancies as per Rule 11(a), they are to be allocated to candidates who, though domiciled in Chhattisgarh, obtained their MBBS degrees from institutions located outside the state.
The petitioner argues that this scheme effectively differentiates between two categories of domiciled candidates—those who graduated from within the state and those who graduated elsewhere—and treats them unequally despite their shared status as residents. She contends that the result is akin to granting de facto 100% reservation to those born or educated in Chhattisgarh, which is a distorted and arbitrary segregation, prohibited by Article 14 of the Constitution that guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.
Further, the petition invokes a Supreme Court precedent, Dr. Tanvi Bhel v. Shreya Goel (2025), which struck down domicile- or residence-based reservations in PG medical admissions, emphasizing their incompatibility with constitutional principles. The petitioner contends that the challenged rules violate that precedent and must therefore be set aside.
The case stems from the petitioner’s NEET (UG) 2018 rank, which led to her admission at a medical college in Tamil Nadu, where she completed her MBBS in 2023, including the requisite rotating internship, and obtained registration with both the Tamil Nadu and Chhattisgarh Medical Councils. As NEET (PG) 2025 results have already been declared, she is now awaiting counselling. In light of the rule-based barriers, she fears her admission chances might be unjustly diminished.
A division bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court, consisting of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, has allowed the matter to proceed. The court directed the State government to file its response and permitted the petitioner a further two weeks to submit a rejoinder. The matter has been scheduled for a hearing in four weeks.
This petition raises important questions about whether institutional affiliation or domicile-linked preferences can lawfully affect admission into professional postgraduate courses. The High Court’s proceeding will determine whether these rules undermine the constitutional guarantee of equality and run contrary to established Supreme Court jurisprudence.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.