‘Merit over institutional preference’: HC quashes CG med admission rules

Raipur: The Chhattisgarh high court on Thursday noted that while granting admissions, especially to higher and specialised courses, merit must prevail over instituional preferences. Relaxing merit at such levels in the name of institutional or domicile preference would risk compromising critical professional excellence, HC said. With these observations, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru quashed Rule 11(a) and 11(b) of the Chhattisgarh Medical Post Graduate Admission Rules, 2025, declaring them unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.The bench allowed a writ petition filed by 25-year-old Dr Samriddhi Dubey. The court held that the rules created an unjustifiable classification among candidates seeking admission to post-graduate (PG) medical courses under the state quota.The court relied on the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Dr Tanvi Behl v Shrey Goel & Others, which held that residence-based reservation in PG medical courses is impermissible.Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Counsel Rajeev Shrivastava submitted that Dr Dubey, a permanent resident of Chhattisgarh, completed her MBBS from a college outside the state on the basis of her All India Rank in the NEET (UG) 2018 examination. She successfully appeared and qualified for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (Post Graduate) (NEET (PG)-2025) examination. The counsel argued that Rule 11(a) and 11(b) of the new 2025 Rules were similar to the older 2021 Rules. They effectively provided 100% preference to candidates who obtained their MBBS degree from medical colleges affiliated with the Pt Deendayal Upadhyay Smriti Swasthya Vigyan Evam Ayush University in Chhattisgarh. He contended that this provision amounted to a university-based reservation, which was a violation of Article 14 as it created an unequal classification between residents who studied in Chhattisgarh and those who had degrees from outside the state. He also pointed out that an identical issue was considered by the Madhya Pradesh HC in Sawan Bohra & Another v State of M.P. and Others, which relied on the Supreme Court's ruling to quash similar provisions.Deputy Advocate General Shashank Thakur, appearing for the state, submitted that the state framed the new 2025 Rules after the Dr Tanvi Behl judgment. He clarified that the new rules did away with the provision for preference based on domicile. He argued that Rule 11 of the 2025 Rules dealt with institutional preference, which has been approved by the Supreme Court. Rule 11(a) gave preference to candidates who completed their MBBS from colleges affiliated with the AYUSH University. Since many candidates admitted under the All India Quota in these colleges may be residents of other states, Thakur contended that it could not be said there was discrimination based on residence.HC observed that the issue was identical to the one decided by the Madhya Pradesh high court in Sawan Bohra. Citing the SC's observations in Dr Tanvi Behl, the HC reiterated: "The benefit of ‘preference' in educational institutions including medical colleges to those who reside in a particular state can be given to a certain degree only in MBBS courses... But considering the importance of specialist doctors in PG Medical Course, reservation at the higher level on the basis of ‘residence' would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution." SC had clarified that in PG medical courses, state quota seats, apart from a reasonable number of institution-based reservations, must be filled strictly on the basis of merit in the All-India exam.

Get an chance to win ₹5000 Amazon Voucher by taking part in India's Biggest Habit Index! Take the survey here