High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh: Absolute Domicile‐Based Reservation in Medical & Allied Courses Unconstitutional

 

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that a policy permitting only domicile candidates from the Union Territory to compete for all seats in certain medical and allied professional courses violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The bench, led by Justice Sanjay Dhar, was considering writ petitions filed by private colleges challenging a notification that restricted admissions in Bachelor of Physiotherapy and AYUSH courses exclusively to domicile candidates of the Union Territory.

The petitions arose out of a policy under which admissions to Bachelor of Physiotherapy (BPT) and AYUSH undergraduate and postgraduate courses were to be made only by candidates holding domicile status of Jammu & Kashmir. The petitioner institutes pointed out that such a restriction had led to a substantial number of seats remaining vacant due to the limited pool of eligible domicile applicants and that, prior to this policy, management quota seats had been open on an all-India basis. The Court observed that the Union Territory has the authority to regulate admissions and to reserve a portion of seats for local students, especially to promote availability of trained professionals in the region. However, it emphasised that such reservation cannot be total and exclude all external competition.

In its judgment, the Court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, which held that absolute exclusion of outside candidates is unconstitutional and that at least 30 per cent of seats must be available to non-locals in private professional colleges. The High Court noted that when seats remain unfilled despite counselling of domicile candidates, enforcing a blanket domicile-only policy results in waste of national resources, financial loss to institutions, and an impermissible restriction on the right of private institutions to run and admit students. The Court held that keeping seats vacant in the face of demand undermines public interest and the efficient use of infrastructure.

Consequently, the High Court struck down the policy insofar as it mandated that all seats be reserved for domicile candidates. It directed that if seats remain unfilled after the counselling of local candidates, the restriction shall be relaxed and the remaining seats shall be opened to candidates from other parts of India. It also upheld the use of the national test (NEET) for BPT admissions, finding it permissible for ensuring merit and transparency.

In sum, the Court reaffirmed that while a State or Union Territory may reserve seats for its domiciles, such reservation must be proportionate and reasonable. A policy eliminating the possibility of admission by non-domicile candidates contravenes the guarantee of equality under Article 14 and cannot be sustained.

WhatsApp Group Invite

Join WhatsApp Community