Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a writ petition filed by MBBS students seeking quashing of the amendment in Schedule I of Madhya Pradesh Medical Education Admission Rules, 2018 (“the Rules”) whereby 100 % institutional preference was granted to MBBS graduates from medical colleges in the State for admission in postgraduate (“PG”) seats in private medical colleges in Madhya Pradesh(“MP”), the Division Bench of Sanjeev Sachdeva*, CJ., Vinay Saraf, J., allowed the petition, holding that since the amendment was unconstitutional since it exceeded the 50% reservation cap.
Background
The petitioners were all MBBS graduates aspiring for PG medical courses in private medical colleges in MP. On 03-09-2025, an amendment notification was issued, whereby the Rules regarding the eligibility conditions for admission to MD/MS seats were amended. The notification inter alia prescribes that one of the eligibility conditions for admission to said seats is that the student should have qualified with an MBBS degree from a Medical College situated in MP and recognized by the National Medical Commission. The exception to this clause is that if a sufficient number of such students are not available in the first round of counselling, then in the second round of counselling, the said restriction would not apply.
The petitioners contended that this amounted to 100 % institutional preference for MBBS graduates from medical colleges in MP, and the impugned clause violates various judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court wherein it is stipulated that maximum reservation in all categories cannot exceed 50% and the remaining 50% seats have to be filled purely based on All India Merit.
The State contended that this was not a case of a blanket reservation but a sequential preference system grounded in objective criteria, i.e., candidates from MP would be given an opportunity on merit, and if seats remain vacant, then they are open to others, and as such, this could not be treated as a 100% exclusion. The State justified the classification on the ground that it has a goal of retaining and advancing talent trained within its ecosystem.
The State further contended that such students are better for the State’s healthcare landscape, including regional disease patient profiles and institutional protocols, thereby enhancing the efficacy of PG training and contributing to long-term public health improvements. Furthermore, such a reasoned approach promotes substantive equality by addressing the unequal competitive pressures faced by local students in a national merit pool, ensuring the State’s investment in undergraduate education yields proportional benefit at the PG level.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court referred to Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 654, wherein the Supreme Court, after emphasizing the importance of merit and the concept of integrity of the nation, stated that India is one nation and we are all Indians first and Indians last. The Court condemned the wholesale reservation made by some State Governments based on domicile or residence requirements within the State or based on institutional preference for students who had passed the qualifying examination held by the University or the State, excluding all other students, regardless of merit. Wholesale reservation was declared unconstitutional and void.
The Supreme Court held that the extent of a reservation based on residents’ requirement within the State or on institutional preference would depend on several factors, including opportunities for professional education in that area, the extent of competition, the level of educational development of the area, and other relevant factors. The Court further held that admissions to postgraduate courses such as MS, MD, and the like should not provide for any reservation based on residence requirement within the State or on institutional preference. However, having regard to broader considerations of equality of opportunity and institutional continuity in education, which had its own importance and value, the Court held that though residence requirement within the State could not be a ground for reservation in admission to Postgraduate courses, a certain percentage of seats could be reserved based on institutional preference. Thereafter, the Supreme Court placed a caveat that such a reservation based on institutional preference should not, in any event, exceed 50% of the total number of open seats available for admission to Postgraduate courses.
The Court also referred to Saurabh Chaudri vs. Union of India, (2003) 11 SCC 146, wherein the ratio laid down in Pradeep Jain (supra) was affirmed. The Supreme Court held that the test to uphold the validity of a statute on equality must be judged on the touchstone of reasonableness and reiterated the 50% cap on such reservations.
Regarding the State’s contention that the amendment was passed in light of the recent judgment in Tanvi Behl v. Shrey Goel, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 180, the Court noted that in the Supreme Court in Tanvi Behl (supra) reiterated the decision in Pradeep Jain (supra) and held that if such a reservation was permitted then it would be an invasion on the fundamental rights of several students who were being treated unequally simply because they belonged to a different State in the Union. The Supreme Court further held that though residence-based reservation was impermissible in PG medical courses, the State quota seats apart from a reasonable number of institution-based reservations had to be filled strictly based on merit in the All India examination.
The Court noted that in the present case, via the impugned notification, the State prescribed an eligibility condition of applicants qualifying for MBBS from a college situated in MP, which amounted to an institutional reservation/preference. The Court stated that, though the State’s contention was that the proviso provided a relaxation to the rule, such a relaxation was superficial.
“Giving institutional preference in the first round would most likely entail filling up all the postgraduate seats from the institutional candidates who have qualified for MBBS from colleges within MP, as the number of postgraduate seats is far less than MBBS seats.”
The Court further noted that the impugned notification partly amends the Rules, but Rule 11 remained unchanged. Rule 11 provides that no person who has not registered in the first round of counseling will be permitted to participate in the second round of counseling or thereafter. As per the amended rules, candidates who are aspiring for seats in PG courses in private medical colleges and have not qualified for their MBBS from colleges situated in MP are ineligible to participate in the first round of counselling. Since they are ineligible to participate in the first round, they cannot participate in the second round and thereafter. Thus, the Court stated that this clearly establishes that none of the candidates who have not graduated from MBBS in MP would be able to participate in the PG counselling in private medical colleges. Even if they were permitted to participate, there would hardly be any seats left after the first round.
Upon perusal of the total number of seats available in private medical colleges, the Court noted that out of 1026 seats, 15% seats have been reserved for NRI quota, 30% seats have been reserved for in-service candidates, and the remaining seats were to be preferentially allotted based on institutional preference. The Court stated that this implied that all 100% seats in private medical colleges in PG courses had been reserved in one category or another, which was clearly impermissible as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court, Pradeep Jain(supra), Saurabh Chaudri (supra), and Tanvi Behl (supra).
“Clearly, as the reservation in private colleges in one form or another exceeds 50%, the same cannot be countenanced.”
Accordingly, the Court held that the impugned amendment was unconstitutional to the extent that it created a 100% reservation of all the seats in PG courses in private medical colleges. The amendment did not conform to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Tanvi Behl (supra) inasmuch as it makes a reservation of 100% of the seats in one form or another.
“There shall be no reservation exceeding 50% of the total seats in postgraduate courses in private medical colleges, including all the categories, i.e., NRI, In-service, and institutional preference.”
Thus, the Court allowed the petition and directed the State to permit the petitioners and other similarly situated candidates to register for counselling and participate in the same.
[Sawan Bohra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Writ Petition No.38169 of 2025, decided on 19-11-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioners: Senior Advocate Shashank Verma, Advocates Yashovardhan Singh and Avi Singh
For the respondents: Deputy Advocate General B.D. Singh and Advocate Dheerendra Mishra