Reservation benefits are state-specific and cannot be extended to reserved category candidates migrating from other states.

The Petitioner, a federation of private colleges, challenged the minutes of a meeting dated 18.02.2026 issued by the Rajasthan NEET PG Admission Board

Following the NEET PG 2025-2026 exams, the Central Government lowered the qualifying percentile to fill vacant seats; for instance, the General category cut-off dropped to 103 and the SC/ST/OBC cut-off dropped to -40

The Respondent authorities decided that reserved category candidates from other states (non-domiciles of Rajasthan) would be treated as General category candidates and must meet the General cut-off (103) rather than the relaxed reserved cut-off (-40) to participate in the stray vacancy round

The Petitioner argued this constituted illegal 100% domicile-based reservation and resulted in national wastage of medical seats

1. Whether the denial of reservation benefits (specifically the reduced qualifying percentile) to candidates belonging to reserved categories from other states is arbitrary or violative of the constitutional mandate

2. Whether the impugned decision results in an impermissible 100% reservation based on domicile

3. Whether reserved category candidates of other states should be permitted to participate against unreserved seats while availing the benefit of the relaxed percentile prescribed for reserved categories

The court primarily relied on the state-specific nature of reservation under Articles 341, 342, and 342A of the Constitution of India, which specify that Scheduled Castes and Tribes are deemed so "in relation to that State"

It applied the precedent from Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Seth G.S. Medical College, which held that a person notified as a reserved category member in one state cannot claim that status in another state upon migration.

This was supported by Bir Singh v. Delhi Jal Board [p. 15] and Ranjana Kumari v. State of Uttarakhand [p. 17]. Furthermore, the court referred to the Rajasthan Act of 2008 and the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023 (Clause 4.8), which mandate that reservation follow state-specific laws

The court reasoned that since the Presidential Orders for SC/ST/OBC status are geographically confined to specific states, the benefits of reservation—including relaxed eligibility criteria—cannot be carried across state borders

The court found that Clause 4 of the State’s Instruction Booklet, which restricted reservation benefits to "bonafide candidates of Rajasthan," was consistent with this constitutional scheme

Regarding the "100% domicile" argument, the court observed that out-of-state reserved candidates were not barred from admission; they were simply required to compete in the General category using General category qualifying marks

The court rejected the Petitioner's claim that relaxed standards should apply to out-of-state candidates competing for unreserved seats, stating that once a seat is treated as "unreserved" due to the exhaustion of the local reserved list, any candidate seeking it must meet the General category threshold to maintain the integrity of the selection process

The court noted that while filling seats is important, it cannot override minimum merit standards or the statutory framework

(i) reservation benefits are restricted to the state of origin and cannot be extended to migrants; (ii) the policy does not amount to 100% domicile reservation as out-of-state candidates may still compete in the General category; and (iii) it is legally impermissible for candidates to claim a "reserved" relaxed percentile for "unreserved" seats.

The court found no illegality or arbitrariness in the Respondent's actions