Chhattisgarh High Court: In a writ petition filed by a doctor challenging Rule 11 (a) and part of Rule 11 (b) of the Chhattisgarh Medical Post Graduate Admission Rules, 2021 (‘the P.G. Admission Rules’), as unconstitutional for allegedly providing 100 per cent domicile-based reservation, the Division Bench of Ramesh Sinha, CJ., and Bibhu Datta Guru, J., sought Stat’s response within two weeks.
The petitioner and her parents were permanent residents of Chhattisgarh. In 2018, the petitioner appeared in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test Under-Graduate (‘UG’) Examination (‘NEET’) to secure admission in the MBBS course. Thereafter, she completed her MBBS course and compulsory rotating medical internship, and received her medical registration certificate from the Tamil Nadu and Chhattisgarh Medical Councils. To pursue her post-graduate studies, the petitioner appeared in the NEET Post-Graduate (‘PG’) Examination conducted by the National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences in 2025. As per the result, the petitioner was eligible to get admission in post-graduate medical courses, but the date of counselling for seeking admission had not yet been declared.
The petitioner contended that Rule 11(a) of the P.G. Admission Rules provided that the admission to the seats available in the State quota would be given first to those candidates who had either obtained MBBS degree from medical college in Chhattisgarh or who were serving candidates and Rule 11 (b) provided that if seats remained vacant after giving admission to all the eligible candidates mentioned in sub-rule (a) of Rule 11, then admission on those vacant seats would be given to such candidates who had attained their MBBS degree from a medical college situated outside Chhattisgarh, but were natives of Chhattisgarh. This amounted to 100% reservation for the candidates who got an MBBS degree from Chhattisgarh or belonged to Chhattisgarh.
Noting that the respondent authorities were already present and the State sought time to reply, the Court granted two weeks to the State to file its reply.
[Dr. Samriddhi Dubey v. State of Chhattisgarh, WPC No. 4702 of 2025, decided on 04-09-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Senior Advocate Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocates Sandeep Dubey, Manas Vajpai, Jyoti Chandravanshi and Kaif Ali Rizvi
For the respondent: Deputy Advocate General Shashank Thakur, Deputy Solicitor General Ramakant Mishra, Advocates Shreya Pawan Daga, Dhiraj Wankhede, and Adhiraj Surana
