Ayush Chadodi vs State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal Secretary Department Of Medical Education
- Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31012
1
W.P. NO. 43534/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
th
ON THE 28 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 43534 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC020418362026
AYUSH CHADODI AND ANR
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Nikhil Pandey - Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Amit Bhatia –G.A for the respondents/State.
______________________________________________________
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:37:58 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31012
2
W.P. NO. 43534/2026
ORDER
Per: Justice Jai Kumar Pillai :
1. The petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India challenging the constitutional validity of
Rule 5( क ) of the Madhya Pradesh Medical Education Admission
Rules, 2018, which was inserted through a Gazette Notification dated
September 30, 2026. The petitioners have also challenged Entry No. 3
of Schedule-I along with its 'Remark' column, which was amended on
September 3, 2025. The principal grievance of the petitioners is that
the aforesaid rules and remarks arbitrarily bar candidates who have
completed their MBBS degree from outside the State of Madhya
Pradesh from participating in the choice filling and seat allotment
process during Round 1 of the State postgraduate medical counselling.
The petitioners contend that this exclusion is illegally applied even to
the 15% Non-Resident Indian quota seats. The petitioners pray for the
issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to strike down the
impugned rules and a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the
respondents to unlock the online choice filling module for them in
Round 1 of the counselling process.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:37:58 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31012
3
W.P. NO. 43534/2026
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. Petitioner No. 1 is a permanent resident of Dhar, Madhya
Pradesh, and Petitioner No. 2 is a permanent resident of Indore,
Madhya Pradesh. Both the petitioners are qualified medical doctors
who have completed their mandatory one-year clinical internship and
hold valid registrations with the competent State Medical Council.
Petitioner No. 1 completed his MBBS degree from Bharati
Vidyapeeth’s Medical College and Hospital, Sangli, Maharashtra in
May 2024. Petitioner No. 2 completed his MBBS degree from
Government Medical College, Surat, Gujarat in January 2025. Both the
petitioners possess all the statutory academic qualifications required by
the National Medical Commission to pursue postgraduate medical
education.
3. The petitioners appeared for the National Eligibility-cum-
Entrance Test for Postgraduate courses (NEET-PG 2026) conducted on
August 30, 2026. The results were declared on September 24, 2026, in
which both the petitioners were declared qualified on merit. Having
qualified the national entrance examination, the petitioners became
eligible to participate in the centralized postgraduate medical
counselling for the academic session 2026-2027. The petitioners desire
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:37:58 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31012
4
W.P. NO. 43534/2026
to secure admission against the 15% Non-Resident Indian quota seats
in private and Govt. medical colleges located within the State of
Madhya Pradesh. The petitioners state that they are genuine sponsored
candidates who fulfill all the statutory eligibility criteria prescribed for
the said quota.
4. The Directorate of Medical Education officially released the
State Postgraduate Medical Counselling Schedule on October 12,
2026. Following the schedule, both the petitioners successfully
completed their registration on the State portal. However, upon
completing the registration, the petitioners found that the online portal
software pre-emptively blocked them from accessing the choice-filling
module for Round 1.
5. The portal restricted the petitioners based on the application
of Rule 5( क ) and Entry No. 3 of Schedule-I of the Admission Rules.
The 'Remark' column in the rules directs that candidates who have
completed their MBBS from outside Madhya Pradesh will only be
permitted to participate in Round 2 or subsequent rounds, subject to the
condition that seats remain vacant after Round 1. The official
Frequently Asked Questions published by the Directorate of Medical
Education on its portal also confirmed that out-of-State MBBS
graduates are strictly prohibited and locked out from participating in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:37:58 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31012
5
W.P. NO. 43534/2026
choice filling for the Non-Resident Indian quota seats during Round 1.
Aggrieved by this restriction, the petitioners have filed the present writ
petition.
CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONERS
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned
rules create an unreasonable, artificial, and discriminatory
classification among qualified candidates based purely on the
geographical location of their undergraduate institution. It is argued
that excluding bona fide residents of Madhya Pradesh who pursued
their MBBS outside the state under the All-India Quota has no rational
connection to the goal of selecting the most meritorious doctors for
postgraduate medical education. The counsel contends that this
classification directly violates the guarantee of equal treatment under
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
7. The learned counsel further contends that the impugned rules
operate to create a 100% institutional monopoly in Round 1 of the
counselling, which is an absolute exclusion in disguise. It is submitted
that granting a 100% preference violates the Constitution Bench
judgments of the Supreme Court in Pradeep Jain v. Union of India,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:37:58 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31012
6
W.P. NO. 43534/2026
(1984) 3 SCC 654 , and Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India, (2003)
11 SCC 146 , which cap institutional preference at a maximum of 50%.
The counsel points out that the 'Remark' column promising
consideration in Round 2 is merely an eye-wash because all prime
clinical specialty seats under the general and Non-Resident Indian
quota pools are overwhelmingly exhausted during Round 1 itself.
8. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr. Tanvi
Behl v. Shrey Goel, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 180, the learned counsel
submits that domicile or residence-based barriers at the postgraduate
medical level are per se unconstitutional. The counsel argues that the
State cannot indirectly enforce a residence barrier by restricting Round
1 choice filling exclusively to candidates who graduated from local
medical colleges in Madhya Pradesh.
9. The learned counsel strongly relies upon the Division Bench
judgment of this Court in Sawan Bohra v. State of M.P. (W.P. No.
38169/2025, decided on 19.11.2025). It is submitted that this Court
had previously struck down the attempt of the State to grant a 100%
preference to local MBBS graduates. The counsel contends that the
retention of this restrictive mechanism through the newly inserted Rule
क )
5( and the 'Remark' column is an intentional subterfuge and a
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:37:58 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31012
7
W.P. NO. 43534/2026
colorable device used by the respondents to defeat the binding mandate
of this Court in the Sawan Bohra case.
10. It is also argued that the right to pursue postgraduate medical
specialization is an integral part of the fundamental right to practice a
profession guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. By
shutting out out-of-State MBBS graduates from Round 1, the
respondents have severely impaired their professional advancement
and denied them a level playing field. It is stated that executive rule-
making under subordinate legislation must satisfy the test of
proportionality, and completely barring qualified candidates from
Round 1 is disproportionate and manifestly unreasonable.
11. Furthermore, the counsel submits that the 15% Non-Resident
Indian quota seats are unreserved and open across the State.
Superimposing an institutional preference lock over these open quota
seats in Round 1 defeats the specific statutory purpose of creating a
separate quota for such candidates under Rule 2(b).
12. Finally, the learned counsel submits that the impugned
restriction unfairly penalizes meritorious candidates who secured
MBBS seats in other States strictly on their own merit through national
entrance tests. Depriving such candidates of participation in Round 1
upon their return to their home State penalizes merit, violates the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:37:58 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31012
8
W.P. NO. 43534/2026
principle of national mobility in higher education, and works against
the public interest. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned rules be
struck down and the petitioners be allowed to participate in Round 1 on
an equal footing.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENTS
13. Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the respondents
/State Dr.Amit Bhatia submits that the entire writ petition proceeds
upon an incorrect reading of the operative statutory framework. The
State strongly denies the allegation that candidates who completed
their MBBS outside Madhya Pradesh are completely prohibited or
locked out from participating in Round 1 of the postgraduate
counseling.
14. The learned counsel submits that the newly inserted Rule
5( क ) explicitly divides the total sanctioned postgraduate seats in
private medical colleges into two separate halves. The rule clearly
provides that 50% of the seats shall be non-institutional seats, and the
remaining 50% shall be institutional seats. The counsel emphasizes
that the non-institutional seats are completely open for candidates who
have completed their MBBS from outside the State. Therefore, the
candidates are fully eligible to compete for these 50% non-institutional
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:37:58 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31012
9
W.P. NO. 43534/2026
seats from Round 1 itself, proving that the allegation of a 100%
institutional monopoly is factually false.
15. The learned counsel further explains the structure of the 50%
institutional quota as provided in the rules. It is submitted that Rule
5( क ) expressly states that the institutional seats include the Non-
Resident Indian quota seats, the seats earmarked for in-service
candidates, and the remaining institutional seats. The counsel argues
that the petitioners have incorrectly presented the scheme as if the 50%
institutional allocation operates in addition to a separate restriction
covering all other seats. The special quotas are contained within the
50% institutional component and are not added over and above it.
16. Addressing the contention regarding the violation of the
Division Bench judgment in Sawan Bohra (supra) , the learned
counsel submits that the State has strictly complied with the directions
of this Court. In the Sawan Bohra case, this Court had directed that the
aggregate of all preferential components, including the Non-Resident
Indian quota and in-service quota, must not exceed 50% of the total
postgraduate seats. By placing the Non-Resident Indian quota inside
the 50% institutional component, the State has ensured that the 50%
limit is not breached. The amended arrangement perfectly implements
the judicially recognized limitation upon institutional preference.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:37:58 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31012
10
W.P. NO. 43534/2026
17. The learned counsel also clarifies the distinction between
institutional preference and domicile reservation. It is submitted that
the distinction is based purely on the institution from which the
qualifying MBBS course was completed, and it does not depend on the
candidate's place of birth or permanent residence. A candidate from
another State who completed their MBBS from Madhya Pradesh can
claim the institutional preference, while a resident of Madhya Pradesh
who studied elsewhere cannot. Therefore, the reliance of the
petitioners on the Dr. Tanvi Behl case is misplaced, as the State is not
applying an unconstitutional residence-based reservation, but rather a
legally permissible institutional preference.
18. The learned counsel points out that being recognized as a
Non-Resident Indian candidate does not give the petitioners an
overriding entitlement to disregard the prescribed allocation rules. The
status of the candidate and the eligibility for the seat are two different
things. If the petitioners wish to claim a seat within the 50%
institutional component, they must fulfill the institutional criteria. The
absence of social reservation within the quota does not mean the
absence of institutional conditions.
19. Finally, the learned counsel relies upon the official
Frequently Asked Questions and the student advisory issued in
October 2026. It is submitted that the department has clearly informed
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:37:58 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31012
11
W.P. NO. 43534/2026
all candidates that out-of-state MBBS graduates are eligible for first-
round choice filling against the 50% non-institutional seats. The
respondents state that the amended framework preserves open national
competition while maintaining a limited and lawful institutional
preference. The State action is reasonable, proportionate, and fully
compliant with the Constitution, and therefore, the writ petition
deserves to be dismissed.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
20. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties and has thoroughly perused the material
and documents available on record.
21. The core issue that requires adjudication is whether Rule
5( क ) of the Madhya Pradesh Medical Education Admission Rules,
2018 and the related entry in Schedule-I create an unconstitutional
100% reservation in favor of local medical graduates, and whether it
illegally bars candidates who completed their MBBS outside the State
from participating in Round 1 of the counselling process.
22. To resolve this issue, this Court must first examine the settled
legal position regarding institutional preference and reservations in
postgraduate medical admissions. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:37:58 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31012
12
W.P. NO. 43534/2026
in the case of Jagadish Saran v. Union of India, (1980) 2 SCC 768,
examined the concept of institutional preference. The Court held:
“45. Of course, we should not exaggerate this factor. Post-
graduate studies are not all that great and demanding as to
invite only geniuses. We cannot be scared by glorifying merit
nor be hypnotised by the cult of talent, seeing as we do, crowds
of MDs, MSs and their foreign analogues. Nor, indeed, are the
entrance tests any but the feeblest yardsticks to measure innate
capabilities. Is it not the wildest hostage to fortune to swear by
marks alone which are so freakish and determined by a chancy
variety of variables? We find different modes of examining
faculties in different universities, commissions and countries
and may, on closer scrutiny, pick holes in the scientific basis of
our entrance tests themselves. We repeat all this only to stress
the limitations on the current system of selection so that we may
not be swept off our feet by the elitist feeling that something
sacred or scientific is being jettisoned for the sake of
accommodating nitwits of backward regions, institutions or
classes when marks are slightly slurred over. Even so, being
realists, we go by existing methodology until better modes are
devised.
46. In the light of this discussion about the know-how and
know-why of reservations, what are the conclusions that emerge
vis-a-vis the Delhi graduates? Neither Delhi nor the Delhi
University medical colleges can be designated as categories
which warrant reservation. But there is one weighty
circumstance which must be in our rememberance. Reservation
for Delhi graduates is not that invidious because, as stated in
the beginning, the students are from families drawn from all
over India. Not “sons of the soil” but sons and daughters of
persons who are willy-nilly pulled into the capital city for
reasons beyond their control. This reservation is, therefore,
qualitatively different.
47. There is another pathological condition affecting
“medical admissions” which is at the back of the desperate
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:37:58 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31012
13
W.P. NO. 43534/2026
“satyagraha” of the students and this factor tilts the scales a
great deal. Counsel for the University, supported by
fragmentary material pointing to a pan-Indian tendency, argued
that all the country round every university bangs, bars and bolts
the doors of medical admission to outsiders and if Delhi alone
were to keep its doors hospitably ajar where are the Delhi
graduates to go for higher studies if squeezed out by all-India
competition? If reservation is evil, the embargo everywhere
must be lifted, lest evil should beget evil. So long as other
universities are out of bounds for Delhi graduates, exposure to
all-India competition becomes intense and prejudices their
chances. This indirect, real yet heavy handicap creates an
undercurrent of discrimination and cannot be wished away and
needs to be antidoted by some percentage of reservation or
other legitimate device.
48. Another consideration which justifies some measure of
reservation is the desire of students for institutional continuity
in education. Parents, pupils and teachers will usually prefer
such continuity and it has its own value.
49. We recognise that institution-wise reservation is
constitutionally cricumscribed and may become ultra vires if
recklessly resorted to. But even such rules, until revised by
competent authority or struck down judicially, will rule the
roost. That is why we have to concede that until the signpost of
„no admission for outsiders‟ is removed from other universities
and some fair percentage of seats in other universities is left for
open competition the Delhi students cannot be made martyrs of
the Constitution.
50. Even so, “reservation” must be administered in
moderation, if it is to be constitutional. Some central technical
institutions like the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi
and Chandigarh and the Pondicherry Medical College have a
much smaller fraction. Their circumstances may be different
and we do not have the full facts, neither side having furnished
more than fragments. Judicial surmise is too weak to be of
decisional certainty. For reasons we have assigned 70% plus is
too high at the post-graduate level in the half-proved
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:37:58 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31012
14
W.P. NO. 43534/2026
circumstances. But we stop short of invalidating the rule
because the facts are imperfect, the course has already started
and the Court must act only on sure ground, especially when
matters of policy, socio-educational investigation and expert
evaluation of variables are involved. Judges should not rush in
where specialists fear to tread. We spare the impugned
regulation even though we are, prima facie, sceptical, about the
vires thereof. To doubt is not enough to demolish. When fuller
facts are placed, the Court will go into this question more
confidently.
56. We may wind-up by articulating the core thought that
vitalises our approach. Anyone who lives inside India can never
be considered an „outsider‟ in Delhi. The people in the States
are caught in a happy network of mutuality, woven into a lovely
garment of humanity, whose warp and woof is India. This is the
underlying fundamental of the preambular resolve registered in
our National Parchment. So we insist that blind and bigoted
local patriotism in xenophobic exclusivism is destructive of our
Freedom and only if compelling considerations of gross
injustice, desperate backwardness and glaring inequality
desiderate such a purposeful course can protective
discrimination gain entrance into the portals of college
campuses. The Administration has a constitutional
responsibility not to be a mere thermometer where mercury
rises with populist pressure but to be a thermostat that
transforms the mores of groups to stay in the conscience of the
nation viz. the Constitution.”
23. In this judgment, the Apex Court permitted a reasonable
reservation for local university students to prevent them from being
completely excluded by other States, while clearly warning that such
reservations must not be excessive or treat other Indian citizens as
absolute outsiders in any part of the country.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:37:58 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31012
15
W.P. NO. 43534/2026
24. The limits of this institutional preference were firmly
established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Jain v. Union
of India, (1984) 3 SCC 654. The Court observed:
“20. The only question which remains to be considered is as
to what should be the extent of reservation based on residence
requirement and institutional preference. There can be no doubt
that such reservation cannot completely exclude admission of
students from other universities and States on the basis of merit
judged in open competition. Krishna Iyer, J., rightly remarked in
Jagdish Saran case [(1980) 2 SCC 768 : AIR 1980 SC 820 :
(1980) 2 SCR 831] at pages 845 and 846 of the Report: (SCC p.
778, para 22)
“… reservation must be kept in check by the demands of
competence. You cannot extend the shelter of reservation where
minimum qualifications are absent. Similarly, all the best talent
cannot be completely excluded by wholesale reservation. So, a
certain percentage, which may be available, must be kept open
for meritorious performance regardless of university, State and
the like. Complete exclusion of the rest of the country for the
sake of a province, wholesale banishment of proven ability to
open up, hopefully, some dalit talent, total sacrifice of
excellence at the altar of equalisation — when the Constitution
mandates for every one equality before and equal protection of
the law — may be fatal folly, self-defeating educational
technology and antinational if made a routine rule of State
policy. A fair preference, a reasonable reservation, a just
adjustment of the prior needs and real potential of the weak with
the partial recognition of the presence of competitive merit —
such is the dynamics of social justice which animates the three
egalitarian articles of the Constitution.”
We agree wholly with these observations made by the learned
Judge and we unreservedly condemn wholesale reservation
made by some of the State Governments on the basis of
“domicile” or residence requirement within the State or on the
basis of institutional preference for students who have passed
the qualifying examination held by the university or the State
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:37:58 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31012
16
W.P. NO. 43534/2026
excluding all students not satisfying this requirement, regardless
of merit. We declare such wholesale reservation to be
unconstitutional and void as being in violation of Article 14 of
the Constitution.
21. But, then to what extent can reservation based on
residence requirement within the State or on institutional
preference for students passing the qualifying examination held
by the university or the State be regarded as constitutionally
permissible? It is not possible to provide a categorical answer
to this question for, as pointed out by the policy statement of the
Government of India, the extent of such reservation “would
depend on several factors including opportunities for
professional education in that particular area, the extent of
competition, level of educational development of the area and
other relevant factors”. It may be that in a State where the level
of educational development is woefully low, there are
comparatively inadequate opportunities for training in the
medical speciality and there is large scale social and economic
backwardness, there may be justification for reservation of a
higher percentage of seats in the medical colleges in the State
and such higher percentage may not militate against “the
equality mandate viewed in the perspective of social justice”. So
many variables depending on social and economic facts in the
context of educational opportunities would enter into the
determination of the question as to what in the case of any
particular State, should be the limit of reservation based on
residence requirement within the State or on institutional
preference. But, in our opinion, such reservation should in no
event exceed the outer limit of 70 per cent of the total number of
open seats after taking into account other kinds of reservations
validly made. The Medical Education Review Committee has
suggested that the outer limit should not exceed 75 per cent but
we are of the view that it would be fair and just to fix the outer
limit at 70 per cent. We are laying down this outer limit of
reservation in an attempt to reconcile the apparently conflicting
claims of equality and excellence. We may make it clear that this
outer limit fixed by us will be subject to any reduction or
attenuation which may be made by the Indian Medical Council
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:37:58 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31012
17
W.P. NO. 43534/2026
which is the statutory body of medical practitioners whose
functional obligations include setting standards for medical
education and providing for its regulation and coordination. We
are of the opinion that this outer limit fixed by us must gradually
over the years be progressively reduced but that is a task which
would have to be performed by the Indian Medical Council. We
would direct the Indian Medical Council to consider within a
period of nine months from today whether the outer limit of 70
per cent fixed by us needs to be reduced and if the Indian
Medical Council determines a shorter outer limit, it will be
binding on the States and the Union Territories. We would also
direct the Indian Medical Council to subject the outer limit so
fixed to reconsideration at the end of every three years but in no
event should the outer limit exceed 70 per cent fixed by us. The
result is that in any event at least 30 per cent of the open seats
shall be available for admission of students on all-India basis
irrespective of the State or university from which they come and
such admissions shall be granted purely on merit on the basis of
either all-India entrance examination or entrance examination
to be held by the State. Of course, we need not add that even
where reservation on the basis of residence requirement or
institutional preference is made in accordance with the
directions given in this judgment, admissions from the source or
sources indicated by such reservation shall be based only on
merit, because the object must be to select the best and most
meritorious students from within such source or sources.
22. So much for admission to the MBBS course, but different
considerations must prevail when we come to consider the
question of reservation based on residence requirement within
the State or on institutional preference for admission to the post-
graduate courses, such as, MD, MS and the like. There we
cannot allow excellence to be compromised by any other
considerations because that would be detrimental to the interest
of the nation. It was rightly pointed out by Krishna Iyer, J., in
Jagdish Saran case [(1980) 2 SCC 768 : AIR 1980 SC 820 :
(1980) 2 SCR 831] , and we wholly endorse what he has said:
“The basic medical needs of a region or the preferential
push justified for a handicapped group cannot prevail in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:37:58 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31012
18
W.P. NO. 43534/2026
same measure at the highest scales of speciality where the best
skill or talent, must be handpicked by selecting according to
capability. At the level of PhD, MD, or levels of higher
proficiency, where international measure of talent is made,
where losing one great scientist or technologist in-the-making is
a national loss, the considerations we have expanded upon as
important lose their potency. Here equality, measured by
matching excellence, has more meaning and cannot be diluted
much without grave risk. (SCC pp. 778-79, para 23)
*
If equality of opportunity for every person in the country is
the constitutional guarantee, a candidate who gets more marks
than another is entitled to preference for admission. Merit must
be the test when choosing the best, according to this rule of
equal chance for equal marks. This proposition has greater
importance when we reach the higher levels of education like
post-graduate courses. After all, top technological expertise in
any vital field like medicine is a nation's human asset without
which its advance and development will be stunted. The role of
high grade skill or special talent may be less at the lesser levels
of education, jobs and disciplines of social inconsequence, but
more at the higher levels of sophisticated skills and strategic
employment. To devalue merit at the summit is to temporise with
the country's development in the vital areas of professional
expertise. In science and technology and other specialised fields
of developmental significance, to relax lazily or easily in regard
to exacting standards of performance may be running a grave
national risk because in advanced medicine and other critical
departments of higher knowledge, crucial to material progress,
the people of India should not be denied the best the nation's
talent lying latent can produce. If the best potential in these
fields is cold-shouldered for populist considerations garbed as
reservations, the victims, in the long run, may be the people
themselves. Of course, this unrelenting strictness in selecting the
best may not be so imperative at other levels where a broad
measure of efficiency may be good enough and what is needed is
merely to weed out the worthless. (SCC p. 785, para 39)
*
Secondly, and more importantly, it is difficult to denounce or
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:37:58 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31012
19
W.P. NO. 43534/2026
renounce the merit criterion when the selection is for post-
graduate or post-doctoral courses in specialised subjects. There
is no substitute for sheer flair, for creative talent, for fine-tuned
performance at the difficult heights of some disciplines where
the best alone is likely to blossom as the best. To sympathise
mawkishly with the weaker sections by selecting sub-standard
candidates, is to punish society as a whole by denying the
prospect of excellence say in hospital service. Even the poorest,
when stricken by critical illness, needs the attention of super-
skilled specialists, not humdrum second-rates. So it is that
relaxation on merit, by overruling equality and quality
altogether, is a social risk where the stage is post-graduate or
post-doctoral.” (SCC p. 786, para 44)
These passages from the judgment of Krishna Iyer, J., clearly
and forcibly express the same view which we have
independently reached on our own and indeed that view has
been so ably expressed in these passages that we do not think
we can usefully add anything to what has already been said
there. We may point out that the Indian Medical Council has
also emphasized that playing with merit, so far as admissions to
post-graduate courses are concerned, for pampering local
feeling, will boomerang. We may with advantage reproduce the
recommendation of the Indian Medical Council on this point
which may not be the last word in social wisdom but is certainly
worthy of consideration:
“Students for post-graduate training should be selected
strictly on merit judged on the basis of academic record in the
undergraduate course. All selection for post-graduate studies
should be conducted by the Universities.”
The Medical Education Review Committee has also expressed
the opinion that “all admissions to the post-graduate courses in
any institution should be open to candidates on an all-India
basis and there should be no restriction regarding domicile in
the State/Union Territory in which the institution is located”. So
also in the policy statement filed by the learned Attorney
General, the Government of India has categorically expressed
the view that:
“So far as admission to the institutions of post-graduate
colleges and special professional colleges is concerned, it
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:37:58 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31012
20
W.P. NO. 43534/2026
should be entirely on the basis of all-India merit subject to
constitutional reservations in favour of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes.”
We are therefore of the view that so far as admissions to post-
graduate courses, such as MS, MD and the like are concerned,
it would be eminently desirable not to provide for any
reservation based on residence requirement within the State or
on institutional preference. But, having regard to broader
considerations of equality of opportunity and institutional
continuity in education which has its own importance and value,
we would direct that though residence requirement within the
State shall not be a ground for reservation in admissions to
post-graduate courses, a certain percentage of seats may in the
present circumstances, be reserved on the basis of institutional
preference in the sense that a student who has passed MBBS
course from a medical college or university, may be given
preference for admission to the post-graduate course in the
same medical college or university but such reservation on the
basis of institutional preference should not in any event exceed
50 per cent of the total number of open seats available for
admission to the post-graduate course. This outer limit which
we are fixing will also be subject to revision on the lower side
by the Indian Medical Council in the same manner as directed
by us in the case of admissions to the MBBS course. But, even in
regard to admissions to the post-graduate course, we would
direct that so far as super specialities such as neuro-surgery and
cardiology are concerned, there should be no reservation at all
even on the basis of institutional preference and admissions
should be granted purely on merit on all-India basis.
30. The real question is the question of the extent of (sic or)
the limit to which such reservations may be considered to be
reasonable. The question of reasonableness of such reservations
must necessarily be determined with reference to the facts and
circumstances of particular cases and with reference to the
situation prevailing at any given time. My learned brother in his
judgment has elaborately and carefully considered these
aspects. On a careful consideration of all the facts and
circumstances and the materials placed, my learned brother has
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:37:58 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31012
21
W.P. NO. 43534/2026
proposed appropriate orders and has given necessary directions
in this regard. The orders passed by my learned brother and the
directions given by him on a consideration of the materials on
record and the earlier decisions of this Court will serve the
cause of justice, meet the requirements of law and will not affect
or undermine national unity. I am, therefore, in entire agreement
with the orders passed and directions given by him in this
regard.
31. On the question of admission to post-graduate medical
courses I must confess that I have some misgivings in my mind
as to the further classification made on the footings of super-
specialities. Both my learned Brothers, however, agree on this.
Also in a broader perspective this classification may serve the
interests of the nation better, though interests of individual
States to a small extent may be affected. This distinction in case
of super-specialities proceeds on the basis that in these very
important spheres the criterion for selection should be merit
only without any institutionalised reservations or any
reservation on the ground of residence. I also agree that the
orders and directions proposed in regard to admission to MBBS
and postgraduate courses are also to be read as applicable
mutatis mutandis in relation to admission to BDS and MDS
courses.
32. The problem of admission to medical colleges and post-
graduate medical studies can only be properly and effectively
solved by the setting up of more medical colleges and by
increasing the number of seats in such colleges to enable
aspirants to have their aim of being qualified as medical
practitioners and specialists in various subjects achieved. The
same is also the position with regard to BDS and MDS courses.
This aspect has been very appropriately noticed by my learned
brother in his judgment.”
25. The Supreme Court in this case clearly laid down that a
wholesale or 100% reservation based on State domicile or institutional
preference is unconstitutional, and strictly capped the maximum
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:37:58 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31012
22
W.P. NO. 43534/2026
permissible institutional preference for postgraduate medical
admissions at 50%, keeping the remaining seats open for national
merit.
26. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Saurabh
Chaudri v. Union of India, (2003) 11 SCC 146 , later reaffirmed this
50% limit. The Court stated:
“67. This Court may therefore notice the following:
(i) The State runs the universities.
(ii) It has to spend a lot of money in imparting medical
education to the students of the State.
(iii) Those who get admission in postgraduate courses are
also required to be paid stipends. Reservation of some seats to a
reasonable extent, thus, would not violate the equality clause.
(iv) The criterion for institutional preference has now come
to stay. It has worked out satisfactorily in most of the States for
the last about two decades.
(v) Even those States which defied the decision of this Court
in Dr Pradeep Jain case [(1984) 3 SCC 654 : AIR 1984 SC
1420] had realized the need for institutional preference.
(vi) No sufficient material has been brought on record for
departing from this well-established admission criterion.
(vii) It goes beyond any cavil of doubt that institutional
preference is based on a reasonable and identifiable
classification. It may be that while working out the percentage
of reservation invariably some local students will have
preference having regard to the fact that domicile/residence was
one of the criteria for admission in MBBS course. But together
with the local students, 15% students who had competed in all-
India entrance examination would also be getting the same
benefit. The percentage of students who were to get the benefit
of reservation by way of institutional preference would further
go down if the decision of this Court in Dr Pradeep Jain case
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:37:58 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31012
23
W.P. NO. 43534/2026
[(1984) 3 SCC 654 : AIR 1984 SC 1420] is scrupulously
followed.
(viii) Giving of such a preference is a matter of State policy
which can be invalidated only in the event of being violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(ix) The students who would get the benefit of institutional
preference being on identifiable ground, there is hardly any
scope for manipulation.
68. In N. Vasundara v. State of Mysore [(1971) 2 SCC 22 :
1971 Supp SCR 381] it was observed:
“But cases of hardship are likely to arise in the working of
almost any rule which may be framed for selecting a limited
number of candidates for admission out of a long list. This,
however, would not render the rule unconstitutional.”
69. As noticed hereinbefore, in D.N. Chanchala case [(1971)
2 SCC 293] , M.R. Mini case [(1980) 2 SCC 216] and Jagadish
Saran case [(1980) 2 SCC 768 : AIR 1980 SC 820] institutional
preference has been preferred. It has been reiterated in the law
laid down by way of a scheme evolved in Dr Pradeep Jain
[(1984) 3 SCC 654 : AIR 1984 SC 1420] and reiterated in
Magan Mehrotra [(2003) 11 SCC 186 : (2003) 3 Scale 101] .
70. We, therefore, do not find any reason to depart from the
ratio laid down by this Court in Dr Pradeep Jain [(1984) 3 SCC
654 : AIR 1984 SC 1420] . The logical corollary of our finding
is that reservation by way of institutional preference must be
held to be not offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
71. However, the test to uphold the validity of a statute on
equality must be judged on the touchstone of reasonableness. It
was noticed in Dr Pradeep Jain case [(1984) 3 SCC 654 : AIR
1984 SC 1420] that reservation to the extent of 50% was held to
be reasonable. Although subsequently, in Dr Dinesh Kumar (II)
case [(1986) 3 SCC 727] it [ Ed. : To understand this part of the
ruling it may be useful for the reader to read the following
extracts which contain the two formulations referred to
herein:In Pradeep Jain case, (1984) 3 SCC 654, as far as the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:37:58 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31012
24
W.P. NO. 43534/2026
permissible level of reservations in postgraduate medical
courses on the basis of institutional preference is concerned, it
was held that “reservation on the basis of institutional
preference should not in any event exceed 50% of the total
number of open seats available for admission to the
postgraduate course”. (SCC p. 693, para 22) In the case of the
permissible level of reservations at the MBBS/BDS level it was
held that reservation on the basis of domicile/residence or
institutional preference should “in no event exceed the outer
limit of 70% of the total number of open seats after taking into
account other kinds of reservation validly made” (SCC p. 690,
para 21).The point that was raised by the Govt. of India in
Dinesh Kumar (II) case, (1986) 3 SCC 727, 732, para 5, that the
phrase “open seats after taking into account other kinds of
reservation validly made” was not defined. For the reasons set
out in para 5 of SCC, the Supreme Court in Dinesh Kumar (II)
case changed its formulation in the following way: “Instead of
making available for admission on all-India basis 50% of the
open seats after taking into account reservations validly made,
we would direct that not less than 25% of the total number of
seats without taking into account any reservations, shall be
made available for being filled on the basis of All India
Entrance Examination.” (SCC p. 733, para 5)]] was reduced to
25% of the total seats. The said percentage of reservation was
fixed keeping in view the situation as then existing. The situation
has now changed to a great extent. Twenty years have passed.
The country has during this time produced a large number of
postgraduate doctors. Our Constitution is organic in nature.
Being a living organ, it is ongoing and with the passage of time,
law must change. Horizons of constitutional law are expanding.
72. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case, we are of the opinion that the original scheme as framed
in Dr Pradeep Jain case [(1984) 3 SCC 654 : AIR 1984 SC
1420] should be reiterated in preference to Dr Dinesh Kumar
(II) case [(1986) 3 SCC 727] . Reservation by way of
institutional preference, therefore, should be confined to 50% of
the seats since it is in public interest.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:37:58 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31012
25
W.P. NO. 43534/2026
27. A Constitution Bench in this decision upheld the
constitutional validity of institutional preference, reasoning that State
Governments invest heavily in their medical colleges, but reaffirmed
that such preference must be strictly confined to the 50% limit to
balance State interests with national excellence.
28. More recently, the Supreme Court in Tanvi Behl v. Shrey
Goel, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 180, clarified the distinction between
residence-based reservation and institutional preference. The Court
held:
“32. The law laid down in Jagadish Saran and Pradeep Jain
has been followed by this Court in a number of decisions
including the Constitution Bench decision in Saurabh Chaudri.
We may also refer here judgments such as Magan Mehrotra v.
Union of India (UOI) (2003) 11 SCC 186, Nikhil Himthani v.
State of Uttarakhand (2013) 10 SCC 237, Vishal Goyal v. State
of Karnataka (2014) 11 SCC 456 and Neil Aurelio Nunes (OBC
Reservation) v. Union of India (2022) 4 SCC 1, which have all
followed Pradeep Jain. Thus, residence-based reservations are
not permissible in PG medical courses.
33. Having made the above determination that 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. Thus, out of 64 seats which were to
be filled by the State in its quota 32 could have been filled on
the basis of institutional preference, and these are valid. But the
other 32 seats earmarked as U.T. Chandigarh pool were
wrongly filled on the basis of residence, and we uphold the
findings of the High Court on this crucial aspect.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:37:58 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31012
26
W.P. NO. 43534/2026
29. In this recent judgment, the Supreme Court drew a firm line
between residence-based reservation and institutional preference,
ruling that while preferring students from a specific institution is valid
up to 50%, barring candidates purely on the basis of their domicile or
permanent residence is completely illegal in postgraduate courses.
30. Following these principles, a Division Bench of this Court in
Sawan Bohra v. State of M.P., 2025 SCC OnLine MP 8456 , struck
down the earlier rules of the State. This Court directed:
“29. Clearly, as the reservation in private colleges in one form
or other exceeds 50%, same cannot be countenanced. As
noticed hereinabove, 100% reservation is being given to in one
form or the other which as per the Supreme Court is not
permissible. Accordingly, said rule as amended on 3rd
September, 2025 is unconstitutional to the extent that it creates a
100% reservation of all the seats in Postgraduate course in
private colleges.
30. Further, similar rationale for justifying the classification
was also given by the State in Association of Private
Universities v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine MP
2644, wherein a Division Bench of this court relying upon Tanvi
Behl (Supra) negated the same. Even otherwise said rationale
cannot be sustained in view of the law laid down by the Supreme
Court in Tanvi Behl (Supra).
31. In view of the above, we hold that the amended provision
notified on 3rd September 2025 does not conform to the
directions issued by the Supreme Court in Tanvi Behl (supra)
inasmuch as it makes a reservation of 100% of the seats in one
form or the other. Accordingly, we hold that reservation in all
categories cannot exceed 50% of the total seats in Private
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:37:58 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31012
27
W.P. NO. 43534/2026
Medical Colleges (including 15% NRI quota and 30% in-service
candidateseats). We clarify that since there is no challenge to
the reservation of seats to the extent of 15% for NRI quota and
30% for in-service candidates, we are not commenting upon the
validity of the same.
32. In so far as the Government Colleges are concerned, the
contention of the State is that since 50% seats are contributed to
All India Quota and thus there is no infraction of the above
restriction. We clarify that as the challenge in this case was
restricted to private medical colleges, we have not commented
upon the same and this judgment is restricted to private medical
colleges.
33. The petition is accordingly allowed in the above terms. The
respondent state is directed to permit the petitioners as well as
other similarly situated candidates to register for the purposes
of counseling and participate in the same. There shall be no
reservation exceeding 50% of the total seats in postgraduate
courses in private medical colleges including all the categories
i.e. NRI, In-service and Institutional preference.”
31. Following the Supreme Court's mandate, a Division Bench of
this Court in this very State struck down a previous rule that created a
100% reservation, categorically directing that all forms of reservation
combined, including the Non-Resident Indian and in-service quotas,
must never exceed the 50% ceiling in private medical colleges.
32. We have carefully examined the main contention of the
petitioners that the new Rule 5( क ) continues the unconstitutional
practice of 100% reservation and completely locks them out of Round
1. The petitioners have strongly relied on the judgments cited above to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:37:58 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31012
28
W.P. NO. 43534/2026
argue that absolute exclusion is impermissible. However, upon a
careful reading of the impugned rule, this Court finds that the factual
foundation of the petitioners' argument is incorrect. Rule 5( क )
expressly divides the total number of postgraduate seats in private
medical colleges into two equal sets. Exactly 50% of the seats are
categorized as non-institutional seats. As stated in the reply and the
official FAQs, these 50% seats are completely open to all candidates
on a national level, based purely on merit, from the very first round of
counselling. The candidates, who completed their MBBS outside
Madhya Pradesh, are fully eligible to apply and fill choices for these
50% open seats during Round 1 itself. Therefore, the claim of the
petitioners that there is a complete lockout or a 100% monopoly in
Round 1 is contrary to the record.
33. The record further shows how the State has structured the
remaining 50% seats. The State has placed the 15% Non-Resident
Indian (NRI) quota seats and the 30% seats for in-service candidates
inside the 50% institutional component. The petitioners have argued
that superimposing an institutional lock over the Non-Resident Indian
quota defeats its statutory purpose. This Court finds that the structural
arrangement made by the State is in direct compliance with the
Division Bench judgment of this Court in the Sawan Bohra case . In
that case, this Court explicitly ordered that all categories of reservation,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:37:58 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31012
29
W.P. NO. 43534/2026
including the Non-Resident Indian quota, must be kept within the
overall ceiling of 50%. If the State were to keep the Non-Resident
Indian quota outside the institutional component, the total preferential
seats would exceed the 50% limit set by the Supreme Court. Because
the Non-Resident Indian quota forms a part of the institutional
preference block, a candidate wishing to secure a seat under this
specific quota in Round 1 must satisfy the institutional criteria,
meaning they must have completed their MBBS degree from a medical
college located within Madhya Pradesh.
34. The submission of the petitioners that their status as Non-
Resident Indian sponsored candidates gives them an independent right
to bypass the institutional criteria cannot be accepted. The admission
Rules do not create a separate, freestanding pool that is exempt from
the 50% limit on institutional preference. The State cannot be faulted
for confining all preferential allocations within the legally permissible
limit of 50%, as directed by this very Court. The reply filed by the
State successfully demonstrates that giving the petitioners an open
right to the Non-Resident Indian quota in Round 1 would breach the
judicial mandates.
35. This Court also finds no merit in the contention that the rule
violates the mandate of the Tanvi Behl case . The classification made
by the State under the amended rules is based entirely on the institution
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:37:58 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31012
30
W.P. NO. 43534/2026
where the candidate completed their undergraduate degree. It is not
based on the permanent residence or domicile of the candidate. The
Supreme Court has clearly held that while residence-based reservation
is bad in law, a preference based on the institution from which a
student graduated is a valid classification, provided it does not cross
the 50% bench-mark. A candidate from outside the State who
completed their MBBS in Madhya Pradesh gets the benefit of this
preference, while a resident of Madhya Pradesh who studied elsewhere
does not. This proves there is no unconstitutional domicile barrier in
operation.
36. The contention of the petitioners regarding the violation of
Article 19(1)(g) and Article 14 of the Constitution is also without
substance. The fundamental right to pursue higher education does not
guarantee any candidate an absolute right to a specific seat in a specific
round, bypassing valid admission rules. Executive rule-making is
tested on the touchstone of proportionality, and in the present case, the
State has perfectly balanced the competing interests. The petitioners
have a fair and equal opportunity to compete for the 50% non-
institutional seats in Round 1 on pure merit. Furthermore, they have
the right to be considered for any vacant Non-Resident Indian quota
seats in the subsequent rounds. This shows that the rule is neither
arbitrary nor disproportionate.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:37:58 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31012
31
W.P. NO. 43534/2026
37. For the reasons stated above, we find that Rule 5( क ) and
Entry No. 3 of Schedule-I of the Madhya Pradesh Medical Education
Admission Rules, 2018 do not suffer from any constitutional infirmity.
The State has acted properly, reasonably, and in strict accordance with
the binding precedents of the Supreme Court and the previous Division
Bench judgment of this Court. There is no material on record to show
any colorable device, discrimination, or violation of fundamental
rights. The respondents have successfully established in their reply that
the total institutional preference is strictly confined to 50% of the seats,
leaving a substantial 50% component completely open for candidates
who prosecuted their studies i.e. MBBS from outside the State of M.P
for the very first round under non-institutional quota.
38. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the contentions
raised by the petitioners and the challenge to the impugned rules and
the prayer for a writ of mandamus fails.
39. The writ petition is hereby dismissed .
(Subodh Abhyankar) (Jai Kumar Pillai)
Judge Judge
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:37:58 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:31012
32
W.P. NO. 43534/2026
hk/
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: HARIKUMAR
NAIR
Signing time: 11/2/2026
4:37:58 PM