Back
PG Doctor's Fight: Halts NRI Seat Rush, Orders Rule Compliance
In a timely intervention amid the high-stakes PG medical counselling in Madhya Pradesh, the has directed the state to stick to Rule 14(2) of the . Dr. Abhi Sharma, a postgraduate medical aspirant eyeing NRI quota seats, filed a challenging the rule's validity under Article 14 of the Constitution. A of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi admitted the petition on , and issued an as counselling kicked off that very day.
The Quota Conundrum Unfolds
Dr. Abhi Sharma approached the court in WP No. 6495 of 2026 against the State of Madhya Pradesh and others, spotlighting unfilled NRI quota seats in PG medical courses. Governed by the 2018 Rules—as amended on —the NRI quota is listed as a subcategory under Schedule 2. The flashpoint? Rule 14(2) , which allows conversion of vacant NRI seats to unreserved category after the third counselling round, allegedly without first offering them to eligible NRI candidates.
Petitioner argues this setup sidelines genuine NRI aspirants, pushing seats straight to general pool before the . This comes against a backdrop where other states and processes follow a structured exhaustion of category candidates before conversion. Counselling had just begun, amplifying the urgency.
Petitioner's Sharp Arguments: No Shortcuts for NRI Seats
Represented by and , Dr. Sharma zeroed in on Relief No. 7(II) for the hearing. He urged the court to enforce Rule 14(2) strictly—interpreting it to mean vacant NRI seats must first go to eligible NRI candidates before any shift to unreserved. The broader challenge labels the rule " ," violating equality under Article 14 .
Why? Other subcategories follow a prescribed mechanism exhausting eligibles first, but NRI faces direct conversion. Intervenors, via advocates like and , backed this, emphasizing uniform treatment for recognized subcategories. Dr. Sharma sought to extend NRI quota protection up to the , mirroring national norms.
State's Silence, Court's Swift Response
for the state was asked to take instructions, with no substantive counter-arguments on record yet. Noting the counselling's start, the bench prioritized interim relief to prevent premature conversions.
Decoding the Rule: Arbitrary or Procedural?
The petition draws parallels to All India Counselling, where conversions follow candidate exhaustion via algorithms. By treating NRI differently—despite its subcategory status—Rule 14(2) allegedly discriminates. No precedents were cited in this initial hearing, but the Article 14 lens focuses on and non-arbitrariness in admissions, a recurring theme in medical quota disputes.
Key Observations from the Bench
"At the very outset, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that for the time being, he is insisting for relief No.7 (II) seeking a direction to respondents to follow the Rule 14(2) of M.P. Medical Education Admission Rules, 2018 (inserted vide Notification dated 19.06.2019) and direct that the vacant NRI seats shall not be converted into unreserved category seats without first adjusting eligible NRI candidates."
"Counsel for the respondent / State is directed to seek instruction in the matter in regard to the relief No.7 (II)."
"As an interim measure, it is directed that if there is no any other legal impediment, the respondent shall adhere to the provisions of Rule 14(2) of the M.P. Medical Education Admission Rules, 2018."
These quotes underscore the court's focus on immediate compliance amid ongoing admissions.
's Ripple Effect
The bench mandated adherence to Rule 14(2), subject to no other legal bars, listing the matter for . This preserves NRI seats for eligibles during current rounds, potentially opening doors in Stray Vacancy. For aspirants, it means no hasty unreserved spillover; for the state, a pause to clarify. If the challenge succeeds, it could standardize NRI handling statewide, influencing future counselling and reinforcing Article 14 in quota policies.
The saga continues—watch for the next hearing's showdown.
