Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 10332
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Bibhu Datta Guru, J, Ramesh Sinha, CJ
DR. SAMRIDDHI DUBEY – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
WPC No. 4702 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Rajeev Shrivastava, Mr.Sandeep Dubey, Mr.Manas Vajpai, Ms.Jyoti Chandravanshi, Mr.Kaif Ali Rizvi
For the Respondents: Mr.Shashank Thakur, Ms.Shreya Pawan Daga, Mr.Dhiraj Wankhede, Mr.Ramakant Mishra, Mr.Adhiraj Surana
Residence-based reservation in postgraduate medical admissions is unconstitutional, violating Article 14 of the Constitution.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Chhattisgarh Medical Post Graduate Admission Rules, 2021 - Challenge to Rule 11(a) and part of Rule 11(b) on grounds of unconstitutionality and being ultravires, leading to discriminatory residence-based reservation for postgraduate medical admissions. (Paras 4, 5)
(B) Discrimination - The rules create unjustifiable classification, prioritizing local graduates over others, violating equal opportunity principles established by Supreme Court precedents. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner is a permanent resident of Chhattisgarh and challenges the rules that reserve postgraduate seats primarily for local graduates, claiming it violates her rights.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the rules create a divide among Chhattisgarh domiciles based on educational background, leading to unconstitutional discrimination.
Issues: Whether the reservation rules infringe Article 14 rights by discriminating against certain candidates based on residency.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that residence-based admissions in PG courses lack merit and are unconstitutional, aligning with the Supreme Court's view on merit-based admissions.
Result: The petition is to be further considered after submissions from the respondents.
Order Sheet
04/09/2025 Bablu | Heard Mr.Rajeev Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.Sandeep Dubey, Mr.Manas Vajpai, Ms.Jyoti Chandravanshi and Mr.Kaif Ali Rizvi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for respondents No.1 to 3/State, Ms.Shreya Pawan Daga, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr.Dhiraj Wankhede, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4, Mr.Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for respondent No.5 and Mr.Adhiraj Surana, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the Rule 11 (a) and part of Rule 11 (b) of the Chhattisgarh Medical Post Graduate Admission Rules, 2021 (hereinafter referred as "The P.G. Admission Rules, 2021"), which is unconstitutional and ultravirus being a violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India . Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a permanent resident of the State of Chhattisgarh, her parents are also permanent residents of the State of Chhattisgarh. In the year 2018, the petitioner appeared in National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (UG) Examination, 2018 to secure admission in MBBS course and on the basis of her All India Rank, she was allotted VMKV Medical College and Hospital, Salem on the basis of counselling conducted by the Medical Council Committee conducted by the Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. The petitioner has successfully completed her MBBS course in 2023 and also successfully completed her compulsory rotating medical internship from 07.04.2023 to 06.04.2024 and got her medical registration certificate from the Tamil Nadu Medical Council as well as the Chhattisgarh Medical Council. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that for pursuing the post-graduate studies in the field of Medical Science, the petitioner appeared in NEET (PG) examination conducted by the National Board of Examination in Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred as “NBEMS”) on 03.08.2025 and the result for NEET (PG) was declared on 19.08.2025. As per the result declared by the NBEMS for NEET (PG) 2025, the petitioner is eligible to get admission in post-graduate medical courses. The NBEMS has declared the result, but the date of counselling for seeking admission has yet not been declared. Learned Senior Advocate also submits that Rule 11(a) of the P.G. Admission Rules, 2021 provides that the admission to the seats available in the State quota will be given first to those candidates who have either obtained MBBS degree from medical college situated at Chhattisgarh State or who are serving candidates and Rule 11 (b) of the P.G. Admission Rules, 2021 provides that if seats remain vacant after giving admission to all the eligible candidates mentioned in sub-rule (a) of Rule 11, then admission on those vacant seats will be given to such candidates who have done MBBS degree from a medical college situated outside of the Chhattisgarh State, but are native of Chhattisgarh State. This amounts to 100% reservation to the candidates, who got MBBS degree from the State of Chhattisgarh. Learned Senior Advocate contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. Tanvi Bhel v. Shrey Goel and others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 180 (Annexure P/13) answered the similar question and held that the residence-based reservation is impermissible in PG Medical courses, the State quota seats, apart from a reasonable number of institution-based reservations, have to be filled strictly on the basis of merit in the All-India examination. Learned Senior Advocate further contended that Rule 11(a) and part of the Rule 11 (b) of the PG Admission Rules, 2021 creates discrimination among student having domicile of Chhattisgarh State, by diving them in two categories, one the person passed from medical colleges of the State of Chhattisgarh an |
