MP High Court Strikes Down 100% Reservation in Private PG Medical Seats, Capping Total Quotas at 50%

Jabalpur, MP – In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has declared the state's policy of granting 100% institutional preference for postgraduate (PG) medical seats in private colleges unconstitutional. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf held that total reservations, including NRI, in-service, and institutional preference quotas, cannot exceed 50% of the available seats.

The Court quashed the amendment notification dated September 3, 2025, to the Madhya Pradesh Medical Education Admission Rules, 2018, directing the state to permit all eligible candidates, regardless of their undergraduate institution's location, to register and participate in the counseling process.

---

Background of the Case

The writ petition was filed by Sawan Bohra and other MBBS graduates aspiring for PG medical seats in Madhya Pradesh's private medical colleges. They challenged an amendment that made it mandatory for applicants to have completed their MBBS from a medical college within Madhya Pradesh.

While the rule included a provision to open seats to other candidates in a second counseling round if they remained vacant, the petitioners argued this was an "superficial" relaxation. They contended that given the limited number of PG seats, they would likely all be filled in the first round by candidates with institutional preference, effectively creating a 100% reservation and barring meritorious students from other states.

---

Arguments from Both Sides

Petitioners' Arguments:

- Represented by Senior Advocate Shashank Verma, the petitioners argued that the 100% institutional preference amounted to "wholesale reservation," which the Supreme Court has repeatedly held to be unconstitutional and a violation of Article 14.

- They cited landmark judgments like Pradeep Jain vs. Union of India and Saurabh Chaudri vs. Union of India , which established that while institutional preference is permissible, it cannot exceed 50% of the open seats to ensure a balance between local needs and national merit.

- The petitioners also highlighted a critical flaw in the rules: since out-of-state candidates were ineligible for the first round of counseling, they couldn't register, making them automatically ineligible for the second round as well, thus creating a complete bar.

State's Defense: - The State Government, represented by Deputy Advocate General B.D. Singh, defended the policy as a "sequential preference system" rather than a blanket reservation.

- They argued that the goal was to retain medical talent trained within the state's ecosystem, as these students are better attuned to the local healthcare landscape.

- The State contended that institutional preference is not reservation but a method to identify a source of admission to ensure specialized doctors are available locally. They also claimed that since 50% of seats in government colleges are contributed to the All India Quota, the 50% cap was not violated overall.

---

Court's Analysis and Reliance on Precedent

The High Court meticulously analyzed the trilogy of Supreme Court judgments that form the bedrock of law on medical admissions.

• Pradeep Jain vs. Union of India (1984): The Court noted that the Supreme Court "unreservedly condemn[ed] wholesale reservation" based on domicile or institutional preference. For PG courses, it was stressed that "excellence to be compromised by any other considerations... would be detrimental to the interest of the nation." However, it permitted institutional preference up to a maximum of 50%.

• Saurabh Chaudri vs. Union of India (2003): The Constitution Bench in this case reiterated the Pradeep Jain ratio, affirming that institutional preference should be confined to 50% of the seats in the public interest.

• Tanvi Behl vs. Shrey Goel (2025): The High Court heavily relied on this recent judgment, which held that residence-based reservation in PG medical courses is impermissible and violates Article 14.

The bench observed that the State's rationale for retaining local talent was previously negated by another Division Bench of the same court and could not be sustained in light of the clear law laid down by the Supreme Court.

---

Pivotal Observations from the Judgment

The Court found that the state's policy effectively resulted in 100% reservation in private medical colleges, which was legally impermissible. Analyzing the seat matrix provided by the state, the bench noted:

> "Out of the 1026 seats, 15% seats have been deserved for NRI quota, 30% seats have been reserved for in-service candidates and the remaining seats are to be preferentially allotted based on institutional preference. This implies that all 100% seats in private medical colleges in Postgraduate courses have been reserved in one category or other. This is clearly impermissible as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court..."

The Court further exposed the procedural bar created by the rules:

> "As per the amended rules candidates who... have not qualified their MBBS from colleges situated in Madhya Pradesh, are ineligible to participate in the first round of counseling... if they have not registered for the first round, then they cannot participate in the second round and thereafter. This clearly establishes that none of the candidates who have not qualified their MBBS from colleges situated in Madhya Pradesh can participate in counseling..."

---

Final Verdict and Implications

The High Court allowed the petition, striking down the amended rule to the extent that it created a 100% reservation in private PG medical courses. The final directives are:

1. The total reservation in all categories (including NRI, in-service, and institutional preference) in private medical colleges cannot exceed 50% of the total seats .
   
   
2. The remaining 50% of seats must be filled based on All India merit, open to all eligible candidates.
   
   
3. The state must allow the petitioners and other similarly situated candidates to register for and participate in the counseling process.

This judgment reaffirms the constitutional principle that while states can have limited preference policies, they cannot create impenetrable barriers that sacrifice national merit and violate the fundamental right to equality.