Chandigarh SC MD/MS Merit Must Follow 2026 Prospectus, Not Unstated Pre-1966 Residence Rule: P&H HC

The petitioners, who claimed to be Chandigarh residents belonging to Scheduled Castes (SC) and to hold SC certificates issued by the competent Chandigarh authority, challenged the prospectus for MD/MS admissions for Session 2026.

The prospectus reserved 15% of seats for “Bonafide” SC candidates and required applicants to hold a Bonafide SC certificate from UT Chandigarh.

The respondents relied on Article 341 and government instructions to argue that SC reservation benefits are territorially limited and cannot be carried to a migrated State or Union Territory.

The petitioners contended that the instructions could not add an eligibility requirement absent from the prospectus.

Article 226 of the Constitution provides the High Court’s writ jurisdiction; Article 341 concerns the specification of Scheduled Castes.

The court applied the principle that an admission prospectus binds both applicants and the admitting authority, and that admission must be governed by its stated criteria.

It relied on Amardeep Singh Sahota v. State of Punjab, 1993 (2) PLR 212; Raj Singh v. Maharishi Dayanand University, 1994 (4) RSJ 289; Rahul Prabhakar v. Punjab Technical University, Jalandhar, 1997 (3) SCT 526; Indu Gupta v. Director of Sports, Punjab, Chandigarh, 1999 (4) SCT 113; Adarsh Dinkar Sontakke (minor) v. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Law Finder Doc ID #2961508; and Japuji Kaur Bains v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, Law Finder Doc ID #2982538.

The governing rule is that an admitting authority cannot introduce an additional eligibility condition not contained in the applicable prospectus.

The prospectus required SC applicants to claim SC eligibility when applying for NEET (PG)-2026 and to obtain a Bonafide SC certificate from UT Chandigarh in the prescribed format.

The court noted that neither the relevant prospectus clauses nor the certificate format required applicants to establish that their fathers or forefathers resided in Chandigarh on or before 1 November 1966.

Because the respondents’ proposed reliance on government instructions dated 22 February 2018 would add a condition not stated in the prospectus, the court held that those instructions could not be read into it.

The prospectus therefore governed the assessment, without the court deciding any applicant’s individual eligibility.

The petitioners’ candidature was to be considered alongside that of other SC applicants, with eligibility assessed under the prescribed conditions and inter se merit determined accordingly.

The writ petition and pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.