Allahabad High Court Stays Government Order Providing Inflated SC Reservation Of Up to 60% In Medical Colleges
The Allahabad High Court was considering the writ petition filed by the aggrieved students who secured high ranks in the General and EWS Categories in NEET-UG 2026.
Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai, Justice Alok Mathur, Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench)
The Allahabad High Court has stayed a clause of a Government Order dated September 1, 2026, whereby inflated reservation was made in favor of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates in respect of four Government Medical Colleges. The High Court held that the Government Order was in teeth of the Court’s earlier directions.
The High Court was considering the writ petition of aggrieved students who appeared in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (UG) 2026 (NEET-UG 2026) and secured high ranks in the General Category as well as the EWS Category.
The Bench comprising Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai held, “This Court is of the considered view that the impugned Government Order is clearly in the teeth of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench as well as the undertaking furnished by the State Government before this Court and clearly amounts to contempt of court.”
“In view of the above, Clause 6(क)(ii) of the impugned Government Order dated 01.09.2026 (annexed as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) shall remain stayed until further orders of this Court. Liberty is granted to the respondents to proceed with the admissions, if they choose, strictly in terms of the reservation provided for in the Act of 2006”, it ordered.
Advocate Harsh Vardhan Kediya represented the Petitioner while Chief Standing Counsel represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The petitioners claimed that they were desirous of obtaining admission to the MBBS course through the State counselling process and were eligible to compete for seats available in the Open Merit/Unreserved Category on the strength of their merit. The grievance pertained to the Government Order dated September 1, 2026 passed by the State of Uttar Pradesh, whereby, in respect of the four medical institutions situated at Ambedkar Nagar, Kannauj, Jalaun and Saharanpur, special reservation was prescribed for the said colleges. Out of 85 seats in each of the aforesaid four institutions, 62 seats have been reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates, 5 seats for Scheduled Tribe candidates, 11 seats for Other Backward candidates, and only 7 seats have been kept for Unreserved candidates.
The issue pertaining to the excessive/inflated reservation made in favour of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates in respect of the Government Medical Colleges at Ambedkar Nagar, Kannauj, Jalaun and Saharanpur was the subject matter of consideration in a Writ (Writ-C No. 7820 of 2025) where the reservation in favour of Scheduled Caste candidates had exceeded 79%.
Arguments
It was the case of the petitioners that by means of the impugned order not only had the orders passed by the Court been violated with impunity, but the statutory prescription of the percentage of the reservation as provided for in the U.P. Admission to Educational Institutions (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 2006(Act of 2006) had been breached, and accordingly the order on the face of it was illegal. The petitioners claimed that in the impugned Government Order, instead of complying with the directions of the court in the judgment passed by the Single Judge in the Writ as well as the order passed by the Division Bench, the State continued with the enhanced reservation of more than 60% in favour of schedule caste candidates.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that the Division Bench was also of the view that reservation could be provided only in accordance with the Act of 2006, namely, 21%, 2% and 27% reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes, in admissions to professional colleges and educational institutions, which would include the institutions offering the MBBS course in question. The State Government was directed to submit an undertaking to implement the said reservation from the next academic session. The State had undertaken to implement it from the next academic session, i.e. 2026-27.
The Bench found that despite clear directions of the Single Judge as well as the order of the Division Bench and also the oral undertaking given on behalf of the State, the State, by passing the impugned order, had reneged on the undertaking given before the Court and passed the impugned order totally contrary to the provisions of the Act of 2006 and had enhanced reservation beyond what has been prescribed in the aforesaid Act of 2006. This, according to the Bench, was contrary to the judgment of the Single Judge, Division Bench as well as the undertaking given by them before the Court.
The Bench thus stated, “Once the law had been clearly laid down by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench in special appeal had interfered only to the limited extent of protecting the existing admission process for the then current academic year while further specifically directing that the provisions of the Act of 2006 was to be followed from the next academic session, i.e. 2026- 27 and an oral undertaking had also been given before this Court, then there appears to be no justification for the State Government to have passed an order contrary to the directions of this Court and its own undertaking.”
The Bench thus stayed Clause 6(क)(ii) of the impugned Government Order dated September 1, 2026 until further orders of the Court. “Liberty is granted to the respondents to proceed with the admissions, if they choose, strictly in terms of the reservation provided for in the Act of 2006”, it ordered.
Listing the matter on October 12, 2026, the Bench asked the Additional Chief Secretary, Medical Education, Government of Uttar Pradesh, to file a personal affidavit and explain as to how the impugned order came to be passed in clear violation of the earlier directions. “The aspect of initiation of contempt proceedings shall be considered after the said affidavit is filed. Let the affidavit be filed within ten days. In the meantime, the respondents may file their counter-affidavits”, it ordered.
Cause Title: Sachin Singh And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Medical Education (Case No.: WRIT - C No. - 9943 of 2026)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocates Harsh Vardhan Kediya, Gursimran Kaur, Inam Uddin Ahmed
Respondent: Chief Standing Counsel, Advocates Gyanendra Kumar Srivastava, Ritika Singh, Syed Mohammad Haider Rizvi