Chhattisgarh HC Hears Challenge to PG Medical Rules Alleging Unconstitutional 100% Institutional Preference Violative of Article 14 - 2025-09-04

Chhattisgarh High Court Examines Constitutionality of PG Medical Admission Rules

Bilaspur: The Chhattisgarh High Court has begun hearing a writ petition challenging the validity of specific rules in the Chhattisgarh Medical Post Graduate Admission Rules, 2021. The petitioner, a medical graduate with domicile in Chhattisgarh, argues that the rules effectively create a 100% reservation for candidates who completed their MBBS within the state, thereby violating the fundamental right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru , heard the initial arguments in the case of Dr. Samriddhi Dubey vs. The State of Chhattisgarh . The court has issued a notice and granted the State two weeks to file its response.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Dr. Samriddhi Dubey, is a permanent resident of Chhattisgarh. After clearing the NEET (UG) examination in 2018, she was allotted a seat in VMKV Medical College and Hospital in Salem, Tamil Nadu, based on her All India Rank. She successfully completed her MBBS and the mandatory internship and is registered with both the Tamil Nadu and Chhattisgarh Medical Councils.

Seeking to pursue postgraduate studies, Dr. Dubey appeared for the NEET (PG) 2025 examination and secured a rank making her eligible for admission into PG medical courses. However, her path to securing a seat in her home state is obstructed by the state's admission rules.

Petitioner's Arguments: A Challenge to Institutional Preference

Representing the petitioner, Senior Advocate Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava argued that Rule 11(a) and a portion of Rule 11(b) of the P.G. Admission Rules, 2021 are unconstitutional.

• Rule 11(a) gives first preference for admission to state quota seats to candidates who obtained their MBBS degree from a medical college within Chhattisgarh.
• Rule 11(b) stipulates that only if seats remain vacant after admitting all candidates from the first category will they be offered to candidates who are natives of Chhattisgarh but have an MBBS degree from outside the state.

Mr. Shrivastava contended that this two-tiered system creates an unjust classification between domicile students of the same state, which amounts to a "colorable exercise of power" providing a 100% reservation for candidates with an in-state MBBS degree.

Legal Precedent Cited

The petitioner's counsel heavily relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Dr. Tanvi Bhel v. Shrey Goel and others (2025) . In that case, the apex court held that residence-based reservation in PG medical courses is impermissible. The Supreme Court emphasized that state quota seats, beyond a reasonable number of institution-based reservations, must be filled strictly based on merit in the All-India examination (NEET-PG).

Mr. Shrivastava argued that the Chhattisgarh rules, by creating a preference based on the institution of graduation, violate the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and are discriminatory under Article 14.

Court's Decision and Next Steps

After hearing the preliminary submissions, the High Court noted the appearances of counsel for the State of Chhattisgarh and other respondents. The bench granted the State two weeks to file its return in the matter, following which the petitioner will have two weeks to file a rejoinder. The case has been listed for a future hearing after the completion of pleadings. The outcome of this case will have significant implications for PG medical aspirants in Chhattisgarh and could reaffirm the legal position on institutional preference in higher medical education.