The Himachal Pradesh High Court delivered a ruling in a challenge concerning the implementation of the state’s policy on reservation of MBBS seats for Himachali candidates who completed their schooling outside the State. The dispute arose in the context of admissions to undergraduate medical courses for the year 2025, governed by the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) merit list and state reservation policy. Petitioners, who had studied and completed their qualifying education outside Himachal Pradesh but claimed Himachali domicile, contended that the state’s criteria for entitlement to a designated quota discriminated against them by not adequately recognizing their schooling credentials in allocation of reserved seats.
In its judgment, the High Court examined the statutory scheme and relevant state rules that confer domicile-based reservation benefits in professional educational admissions, including medical seats. The Court observed that the Himachal Pradesh Government has formulated a specific quota for “Himachali candidates” which is designed to ensure that students with a genuine connection to the State are not disadvantaged in accessing seats in medical colleges. However, questions arose as to whether such benefit can be limited to those whose schooling was exclusively within the territorial boundaries of Himachal Pradesh, to the exclusion of Himachali domicile candidates who have completed schooling outside the State due to family transfers, employment placements, or other reasons.
The petitioners argued that the state’s restrictive interpretation of the reservation policy effectively disenfranchised eligible candidates merely on account of the location of their prior education, despite their lawful domicile status in Himachal Pradesh. They asserted that eligibility for the Himachali quota should be linked primarily to domicile and related criteria rather than a rigid schooling requirement that could arbitrarily exclude certain eligible aspirants. Counsel for the petitioners urged the High Court to adopt a more inclusive reading of the state’s policy, consistent with constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination in educational opportunities, subject to reasonable regulations.
Responding on behalf of the State, counsel contended that the requirement of schooling within Himachal Pradesh was legitimately designed to prioritise candidates who have both domicile and academic connection to the State through long-term schooling. The State argued that such a criterion helped ensure that the benefits of reservation are extended to those who have been part of the state’s educational ecosystem over an extended period and are therefore most deserving of affirmative action under the law. The Government asserted that sitting students and those who have completed substantial portions of their education in Himachal Pradesh are better aligned with the objectives of reservation.
After hearing detailed submissions, the High Court held that the essential factor in applying the quota for Himachali candidates must be the NEET-2025 merit position in conjunction with domicile status, and that the policy must be interpreted in a manner that does not arbitrarily disadvantage candidates solely because their schooling occurred outside the State. The Court clarified that while the State may frame appropriate safeguards and considerations within its reservation policy, such provisions must be consistent with constitutional principles and should not create unreasonable or exclusionary barriers for eligible Himachali candidates.
The judgment recognised that reservation in professional education is a legitimate policy tool to address historic or educational disadvantages, but emphasised that criteria attached to such benefits must be reasonable, fair, and administratively feasible. It accordingly directed that candidates who are domiciled in Himachal Pradesh and who have qualified NEET-2025 with requisite merit must be considered for the designated Himachali quota without being precluded solely on the basis that their schooling was outside the State, provided they satisfy the broader eligibility conditions laid down by the State and competent authority.
In concluding its ruling, the High Court underscored the balance between state prerogatives in structuring reservation policies and the fundamental rights of individuals to access educational opportunities on an equitable basis. The decision reflects judicial oversight of affirmative action regimes in educational admissions to ensure they align with constitutional fairness and do not impose arbitrary or discriminatory conditions on eligible candidates. The matter was remitted for further action by the competent authority in accordance with the Court’s interpretation, and admissions under the Himachali quota for MBBS seats in NEET-2025 were to proceed in conformity with the clarified policy framework.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.