The reservation policy under the PCPNDT Rules is constitutionally valid, maintaining a permissible ceiling and not violating rights to equality.

Judgment

REPORTABLE Reserved on 14/05/2025

Pronounced on 21/ 05/2025

1. In the present batch of writ petitions, the core controversy requiring adjudication predominantly pertains to the legality and validity of the impugned addendum to the instruction booklet dated 22.04.2025 issued in connection with the NEET PG, 2024 six months ultra-sound course under as Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Rules, (Amendment 2014) (hereinafter referred to as ‘PCPNDT Rules’), whereby the respondents have not considered the candidature of the petitioners herein due to certain eligibility conditions as notified by the additional addendum to the instruction booklet. Although ancillary issues are also raised, the principal question of law revolves around the legality and validity of the impugned addendum and non-consideration of the petitioners’ candidature for want of certain eligibility conditions. Having regard to the commonality of issues both in law and in fact, and upon consent being recorded from the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court deems it appropriate to treat SBCWP NO. 7067/2025 titled as Anup Agrawal Vs. State Of Rajasthan and Ors. as the lead petition for the purposes of this adjudication.

2. It is, however, considered apposite to clarify at the outset that while there may exist factual variances among the individual petitions constituting the present batch, such discrepancies are confined solely to the narrative factual matrices peculiar to each case. They do not impinge upon or detract from the common questions of law which fall for consideration before this Court. Accordingly, the judgment rendered herein shall apply to all the writ petitions connected and heard together with the lead matter, on a mutatis mutandis basis, subject to necessary adaptation to the individual factual contexts where required.

3. Before proceeding to examine the present petitions on their merits, it is imperative to first delineate the foundational facts and the core issues arising therein. A precise appreciation of the factual matrix and procedural background as submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners’ is essential to contextualize the grievances of the petitioners and the legal questions that fall for adjudication. The salient aspects of the petitions along with the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners are, therefore, summarized as under:

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Tanveer Ahmad, along with other learned counsel representing the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners are not residents and domiciles of the State of Rajasthan rather have pursued and completed their MBBS degree from institutions situated within the State of Chhattisgarh, Gwalior, Gujarat, China, Kazakhstan etc. and not from within the territorial boundaries of the State of Rajasthan.

5. It was further contended that the respondent- authorities issued the Instruction Booklet for admission to Postgraduate Medical Courses (MD/MS) for the academic year 2024 in the State of Rajasthan. Subsequently, an additional amendment was issued by way of an addendum, particularly in the context of the six-month Ultra Sound Training Course in accordance with the PCPNDT Rules (as applicable in the State of Rajasthan) annexed in the lead petition as Annexure-7.

6. The impugned addendum introduces new eligibility criteria for admission to postgraduate medical courses and stipulates the following preference-based eligibility structure:

Clause (a): Institutional preference shall be given to candidates who have obtained their MBBS qualification from institutions located within the State of Rajasthan, to the extent of 50% of the total seats.

Clause (b): A further preference shall be extended to in-service candidates serving under the Rajasthan Government, again to the extent of 50% of the total seats.

7. In this regard it was apprised to the Court that as per the