MP HC Upholds Round 1 NRI PG Seat Bar For Out-of-State MBBS Graduates, As Half Of Private-College Seats Remain Open On Merit

The petitioners, residents of Madhya Pradesh who completed their MBBS degrees in Maharashtra and Gujarat, respectively, qualified NEET-PG 2026 and registered for the State postgraduate counselling. They alleged that the online portal prevented them from filling choices in Round 1 for NRI quota seats because they had completed MBBS outside Madhya Pradesh.

They challenged Rule 5(क) of the Madhya Pradesh Medical Education Admission Rules, 2018, inserted on 30 September 2026, and Entry No. 3 of Schedule I, as amended on 3 September 2025, seeking their invalidation and access to Round 1 choice filling.

The State maintained that out-of-State graduates could compete in Round 1 for the 50% non-institutional seats, while NRI seats formed part of the 50% institutional component.

Article 14 prohibits arbitrary or excessive reservation and requires a reasonable classification.

The Court relied on Jagadish Saran v. Union of India, (1980) 2 SCC 768, and Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 654, for the principles that postgraduate medical admissions should not be subject to wholesale exclusion of candidates from other States, while institutional preference may be permissible within prescribed limits; it treated 50% as the applicable ceiling for institutional preference.

It also relied on Saurabh Chaudhri v. Union of India, (2003) 11 SCC 146, which reaffirmed the permissibility of institutional preference subject to that ceiling, and Tanvi Behl v. Shrey Goel, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 180, which distinguished impermissible residence-based reservation from permissible institution-based preference.

Applying Sawan Bohra v. State of M.P., W.P. No. 38169/2025, decided 19 November 2025, the Court noted that the combined preferential categories in private medical colleges, including NRI and in-service seats, must not exceed 50%.

The Court accepted the State’s account that Rule 5(क) divides private-college postgraduate seats equally between non-institutional and institutional components, with the former open to all candidates on national merit in Round 1.

It held that NRI and in-service seats are included within, rather than added to, the institutional component; therefore, allowing the petitioners to compete for NRI seats in Round 1 would, in the Court’s view, take the preferential allocation beyond the 50% ceiling identified in Sawan Bohra.

The classification turned on the institution where the candidate completed MBBS, not the candidate’s domicile, and was therefore treated as institution-based rather than residence-based.

The Court also considered the petitioners’ opportunity to compete for non-institutional seats in Round 1 and for vacant NRI seats in later rounds sufficient to reject their Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) objections.

It found no basis for mandamus directing access to that choice-filling process and dismissed the writ petition.