Chhattisgarh High Court Seeks State's Stand On Plea Challenging Domicile Based Reservation In Medical PG Admissions

The Chhattisgarh High Court has sought the State's stand on petition filed challenging the vires of Rule 11(a) and part of Rule 11(b) of the State Medical Post Graduate Admission Rules 2021 on grounds that it grants institution and residence based reservation in PG Medical admissions.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition filed by a post-graduate arguing that Rule 11 (a) and part of Rule 11 (b) of the Chhattisgarh Medical Post Graduate Admission Rules, 2021 are unconstitutional and ultra vires, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru observed, "Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for respondents No.1 to 3/State prays for and is granted two weeks’ time to file return and thereafter, two weeks’ further time is granted to learned counsel for the petitioner to file rejoinder, if any."

The Petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Rajeev Shrivastava, while the Respondent was represented by Deputy Advocate General Shashank Thakur.

The Senior Counsel for the Petitioner argued that as per the result declared by the NBEMS for NEET (PG) 2025, the Petitioner is eligible to get admission in post-graduate medical courses. He submitted that the NBEMS has declared the result, but the date of counselling for seeking admission has yet not been declared. He also submitted that Rule 11(a) of the P.G. Admission Rules, 2021 provides that the admission to the seats available in the State quota will be given first to those candidates who have either obtained MBBS degree from medical college situated at Chhattisgarh State or who are serving candidates and Rule 11 (b) of the P.G. Admission Rules, 2021 provides that if seats remain vacant after giving admission to all the eligible candidates mentioned in sub-rule (a) of Rule 11, then admission on those vacant seats will be given to such candidates who have done MBBS degree from a medical college situated outside of the Chhattisgarh State, but are native of Chhattisgarh State. This amounts to 100% reservation to the candidates, who got MBBS degree from the State of Chhattisgarh.

The Senior Advocate contended that the Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. Tanvi Bhel v. Shrey Goel and others [2025 INSC 125] answered the similar question and held that the residence-based reservation is impermissible in PG Medical courses, the State quota seats, apart from a reasonable number of institution-based reservations, have to be filled strictly on the basis of merit in the All-India examination. He contended that Rule 11(a) and part of the Rule 11 (b) of the PG Admission Rules, 2021 creates discrimination among student having domicile of Chhattisgarh State, by diving them in two categories, one the person passed from medical colleges of the State of Chhattisgarh and second the candidate having domicile of the State of Chhattisgarh, but obtained MBBS degree from colleges situated outside the State of Chhattisgarh

The Court accordingly adjourned the matter by two weeks.

Cause Title: Dr. Samriddhi Dubey vs. The State of Chhattisgarh

Appearances:

Petitioner- Senior Advocate Rajeev Shrivastava, Advocate Sandeep Dubey, Advocate Manas Vajpai, Advocate Jyoti Chandravanshi, Advocate Kaif Ali Rizvi

Respondent- Deputy Advocate General Shashank Thakur, Deputy Shreya Pawan Daga, Advocate Dhiraj Wankhede, Advocate Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General Adhiraj Surana

Click here to read/ download Order