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 landscape incl