1. Challenge to amendment granting 100% institutional preference for postgraduate medical seats to in-state MBBS graduates. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 8586
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sanjeev Sachdeva, CJ, Vinay Saraf, J
Sawan Bohra and Another – Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. and Others – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.38169 of 2025
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shashank Verma, Yashovardhan Singh, Avi Singh
For the Respondents: B.D. Singh, Dheerendra Mishra
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shashank Verma, Yashovardhan Singh, Avi Singh
For the Respondents: B.D. Singh, Dheerendra Mishra
Institutional preference in postgraduate medical admissions cannot exceed 50% of total seats; total reservation combining all categories (NRI, in-service, institutional) is capped at 50%.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 19 - Madhya Pradesh Medical Education Admission Rules, 2018 - Schedule I - Amendment notification dated 3rd September, 2025 - Institutional preference for PG medical seats - Validity of 100% institutional preference - Limits on reservation in postgraduate medical courses.
(B) Medical Education - Postgraduate admissions - Institutional preference - Limits of reservation - As per Pradeep Jain (1984) 3 SCC 654, residence-based reservation in PG courses is impermissible; institutional preference cannot exceed 50% of open seats (Para 11). Saurabh Chaudri (2003) 11 SCC 146 reaffirmed that institutional preference should be confined to 50% of seats (Paras 15-16). Tanvi Behl (2025) reiterated that residence-based reservation is invalid for PG courses; only a reasonable number of institution-based reservations are permissible (Paras 22-23).
(C) Constitutional validity - Reservation exceeding 50% - Total reservation in private medical colleges (NRI 15% + in-service 30% + institutional preference for remaining) effectively constituted 100% reservation, which is impermissible and violates Article 14 (Paras 28-29).
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, MBBS graduates aspiring for PG medical seats in private medical colleges in Madhya Pradesh, challenged an amendment notification dated 3rd September, 2025 which made it an eligibility condition to have qualified MBBS from a medical college situated in Madhya Pradesh, effectively granting 100% institutional preference. The State argued that 50% seats were contributed to All India Quota and that the preference was sequential (first round only). However, Rule 11 prevented non-registrants in the first round from participating in later rounds.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the amendment notification is unconstitutional to the extent it creates 100% reservation. All categories of reservation combined (NRI, in-service, institutional preference) cannot exceed 50% of total seats in private medical colleges. The sequential preference argument was rejected as superficial, noting that the number of PG seats is far less than MBBS seats, and Rule 11 effectively excluded all non-institutional candidates from all rounds. The court directed the State to permit petitioners and similarly situated candidates to register and participate in counseling.
Issues: The main issue was whether the amendment notification granting 100% institutional preference in PG medical seats in private medical colleges violates the constitutional limits on reservation as laid down by the Supreme Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that institutional preference in PG medical courses cannot exceed 50% of total seats, as per Pradeep Jain, Saurabh Chaudri, and Tanvi Behl. Total reservation including all categories (NRI, in-service, institutional) cannot exceed 50% of seats in private medical colleges. Result : Petition allowed. Amendment notification dated 3rd September, 2025 held unconstitutional to the extent it exceeds 50% reservation. State directed to permit all eligible candidates to participate in counseling without exceeding 50% reservation in all categories.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- education law
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners argue 100% preference violates 50% cap; respondents argue it is sequential preference and 50% all India quota. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
3. Petition allowed; reservation in all categories cannot exceed 50% of total seats in private medical colleges. (Para 31 , 33 )
4. What is the permissible extent of institutional preference in postgraduate medical admissions?
Institutional preference cannot exceed 50% of total open seats, as held in Pradeep Jain and reaffirmed in Saurabh Chaudri. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
5. Is residence-based reservation permissible in postgraduate medical courses?
No, residence-based reservation is impermissible in PG medical courses; only institutional preference up to 50% is allowed. (Para 14 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 )
6. Can a sequential preference system that effectively grants 100% preference be valid?
No, if the system results in 100% reservation through first-round preference, it is unconstitutional; the proviso is superficial. (Para 24 , 25 , 29 )
7. Can combined reservations (NRI, in-service, institutional preference) exceed 50%?
No, total reservations in all categories cannot exceed 50% of total seats as per constitutional mandate. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 31 )
JUDGMENT
Per: Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva:
1. Petitioners inter alia seek quashing of amendment notification dated 3rd September, 2025 in Schedule I of Madhya Pradesh Medical Education Admission Rules, 2018 {hereinafter referred to as “the Rules, 2018”} amending the eligibility conditions for admission in postgraduate seats in private medical colleges in State of Madhya Pradesh to the extent that 100 % institutional preference has been granted to MBBS graduates of the medical colleges in Madhya Pradesh.
2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that though there are other challenges, however the present petition is being restricted to the grant of 100% institutional preference in postgraduate medical seats of the Private Medical Colleges to MBBS graduates from the State of Madhya Pradesh.
3. Petitioners are all MBBS graduates who are aspiring for postgraduate medical seats in private medical colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Challenge is raised to the amendment notification which was issued on 03.09.2025 amending the 2018 rules in respect of the eligibility conditions for admission to MD/MS seats. The notification inter alia prescribes that one of the eligibility conditions for admission to said seats is that the student should have qualified MBBS from a Medical College situated in the State of Madhya Pradesh and recognized by the National Medical Commission. There is an exception to the clause that in case sufficient number of such students are not available in the first round of counseling then in the second round of counseling said restriction would not apply.
4. Contention of the petitioners is that said clause violates various judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court wherein it is stipulated that maximum reservation in all categories cannot exceed 50% and balance 50% seats have to be filled purely on the basis of All India Merit. Reliance is placed on the Judgments in Pradeep Jain and others vs. Union of India and others, (1984) 3 SCC 654, Saurabh Chaudri vs. Union of India , (2003) 11 SCC 146 and Tanvi Behl vs. Shrey Goel , 2025 SCC Online SC 180.
5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners summits that there is a great likelihood that all the seats in the Postgraduate Medical College which are very limited in number are likely to get filled by way of the reservation/preference being given to students who have qualified MBBS from medical colleges situated in Madhya Pradesh and there may not be any seat available in the second round and even if there is any seat available, it would not be allotted based on All India Merit.
6. Notice was issued on the subject petition on 24.09.2025. Reply has been filed by the State Government wherein the respondents have also relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Pradeep Jain and others vs. Union of India and others, (1984) 3 SCC 654, Saurabh Chaudri vs. Union of India , (2003) 11 SCC 146 and Tanvi Behl vs. Shrey Goel , 2025 SCC Online SC 180 to contend that reservation based on institutional preference has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
7. It is contended in the reply that 50% seats are contributed to All India Quota and; therefore, the contention of the petitioners that there was 100% reservation based on institutional preference is not correct. It was further contented by the respondents that this was not a case of a blanket reservation but a sequential preference system grounded in objective criteria i.e. candidates from Madhya Pradesh institutions are given opportunity on merits and if seats remain vacant then they are open to others and; as such, this could not be treated as a 100% exclusion and petitioners could participate if the seats were not filled up by the preferential candidates in first round of counseling.
8. State has sought to justify the classification on the ground that the State has a goal of retaining and advancing talent trained within its ecosystem. It is contended that such students are better to the State’s healthcare landsca
