Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Federation Of Private Medical And … vs Chairman on 13 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:13726] (1 of 26) [CW-4247/2026]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4247/2026
Federation Of Private Medical And Dental College Of Rajasthan,
Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Puneet Makhija S/o Shri
Mohan Makhija, Aged About 38 Years R/o Pacific Hills, Pratap
Nagar Extension, Airport Road, Debari, Udaipur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Chairman, Neet Pg Medical And Dental Admission/
Counselling Board-2025 And Principal And Controller, Sms
Medical College And Attached Hospitals, Jaipur.
2. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Health
And Family Welfare, Dental Education Section, Nirman
Bhawan, P.o. And P.s. New Delhi.
3. National Board Of Examinations In Medical Sciences,
Through Its Director, Medical Enclave, Ansari Nagar Ring
Road, New Delhi-110029.
4. Directorate General Of Health Service, Medical
Counselling Committee, Nirwan Bhawan, Govt. Of India,
New Delhi.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Sr. Adv. With
Mr. Hemant Ballani
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG
Mr. Milap Chopra
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Judgment
Reportable
1. Date of Conclusion of arguments :: 23.02.2026
2. Date on which judgment was reserved :: 23.02.2026
3. Whether the full judgment or only the
operative part is pronounced :: Full
4. Date of pronouncement :: :: 13.04.2026
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 02:32:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 07:02:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13726] (2 of 26) [CW-4247/2026]
1. Present writ petition has been filed with the following
prayers:-
"(i) The minutes of meeting dated 18.02.2026
(Annex.14) considering the candidates of reserved
category of other State in the general category, while
denying them the benefits of reduced percentile of the
reserved category may kindly be declared illegal and the
same may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(ii) It may kindly be declared that the eligibility criteria
of percentile so declared by the respondent authorities
vide its notification dated 13.01.2026 would apply
uniformly to all counselling Board including the respondent
No.1.
(iii) The candidates of reserved category of other State
may kindly be declared eligible for participation in
counselling process for admission in NEET PG 2025-2026
in the reserved category of the State of Rajasthan, if they
are falling in reserved category of respective other State.
(iv) appropriate notification for conducting the Special
Stray vacancy round of counselling for filling the
remaining vacant seats seats MBBS Post Graduate Course
in the State of Rajasthan for academic year 2025-2026
while permitting the students of reserved category of
other state under the reserved category of the State of
Rajasthan with reduced percentile so declared vide
notification dated 13.01.2026.
(v) Any further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case may pass in favour of
petitioner foundation.”
2. Petitioner – Federation of Private Medical and Dental College
of Rajasthan has laid challenge to the minutes of meeting dated
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 02:32:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 07:02:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13726] (3 of 26) [CW-4247/2026]
18.02.2026 (Annexure-15), primarily on the ground that
SC/ST/OBC candidates belonging to other States (Non-Rajasthan
Domicile) are being treated as unreserved / General category
candidates and are also denied the benefit of reduced qualifying
percentile, as notified by the Central Government vide notice
dated 13.01.2026 (Annexure-8). It is interalia prayed that
appropriate directions be issued to Respondent-Authorities to
permit such candidates to participate in the stray vacancy round of
MBBS PG Course counselling against reserved category seats in
the State of Rajasthan.
3. Explaining the facts germane to the controversy involved in
present case, learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner Federation,
Mr. M.S. Singhvi, assisted by Mr. Hemant Ballani, submitted that
NEET PG (MD/MS/DNB) Examination 2025-2026 was conducted as
per the Information Bulletin and Counselling Scheme (Annexure-
3), which provides the process of conducting Online Counselling
for allotment of PG seats under the All India Quota (AIQ),
prescribing therein three rounds of counselling and one stray
vacancy round. Clause 3.1 of said Information Bulletin provides for
reservation policy of Central Government under the All India
Quota. It is further stated that a similar Instruction Booklet was
issued by the State of Rajasthan governing State quota seats, and
Clause 4 of said Instruction Booklet provides for Reservation
Policy.
3.1 It is submitted that after declaration of result of NEET PG
2025-2026 on 19.08.2025, category-wise cut-offs were released,
which are mentioned below:-
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 02:32:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 07:02:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13726] (4 of 26) [CW-4247/2026]NEET PG Qualifying Marks (Before lowering of percentile)
Category Minimum Cut-off Scores (out
Qualifying/Eligibility of 800)
Criteria)
General/EWS 50th percentile 276
Gemera;/PwBD 45th percentile 255
SC/ST/OBC (Including 40th percentile 235
PwBD of SC/ST/OBC)3.2 Counselling for AIQ seats were held on 23.10.2025,
05.12.2025 and 15.01.2026, whereas counselling for allotment of
seats under State Quota were held on 02.12.2025 and
09.12.2025.
3.3 It is further stated that even after the completion of said
rounds of counselling, large number of PG MBBS seats under All
India Quota as well as State Quota remained vacant, whereupon
the National Board of Examination (“NBE”), in consultation with
the Central Government, reduced the qualifying percentile for
admission vide order dated 13.01.2026 and provided category-
wise revised qualifying cut-offs, which are mentioned hereunder:-
Revised NEET PG Qualifying Marks (After lowering of percentile)
Category Minimum Cut-Off Scores (Out
Qualifying/Eligibility of 800)
Criteria
General/EWS 50th percentile 103
General PwBD 45th percentile 90
SC/ST/OBC (Including 40th percentile -40
PwBD of SC/ST/OBC)3.4 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although,
after aforesaid revision of qualifying marks, NEET PG Counselling
Board of State of Rajasthan granted permission for registration of
candidates not belonging to State of Rajasthan, but in revised
provisional list of eligible candidates, reserved category candidates
of other States were debarred from participating in 3 rd round of
counselling against the reserved State Quota seats, thereby
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 02:32:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 07:02:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13726] (5 of 26) [CW-4247/2026]denying benefits of reduced percentile to reserved category
candidates of other States.
3.5 It is submitted that Petitioner Federation submitted a
detailed representation raising its grievances and requested
Respondent No. 1 to extend benefits of reduced percentile for
reserved category in State of Rajasthan to reserved category
candidates belonging to other States. However, Respondents, vide
minutes of meeting dated 18.02.2026, decided that among the
candidates belonging to other States, only those having qualifying
marks up to 103 (i.e., the cut-off for the general category) would
be permitted to participate in the stray vacancy round. It was
further decided that candidates who have domicile of Rajasthan
but have completed their MBBS from other States will be allowed
to participate as per the qualifying scores released by NBE for
their respective categories.
3.6 Said decision is under challenge in present writ petition.
4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M.S. Singhvi
contended that denial of benefit of reduced percentile to reserved
category candidates of other States is arbitrary, unjustified and
defeats the very purpose of lowering the qualifying criteria.
Learned counsel submitted that the decision for reducing /
revising percentile was taken in view of the fact that large number
of PG seats were lying vacant. However, impugned decision dated
18.02.2026 militates against the very objective of reducing
qualifying marks. Learned counsel argued that valuable
postgraduate seats must not remain vacant, especially in view of
the repeated mandates of the Hon’ble Supreme Court holding that
allowing medical seats to go vacant is a national wastage. In this
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 02:32:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 07:02:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13726] (6 of 26) [CW-4247/2026]
regard, reliance has been placed upon judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court passed in the case of Index Medical College,
Hospital and Research Centre v. State of MP, (2023) 11 SCC
570.
4.1 It is further contended that impugned decision dated
18.02.2026 essentially amounts to reserving all the seats under
the reservation quota for the reserved category candidates having
a domicile of the State of Rajasthan. Put differently, it constitutes
100% domicile-based reservation, which is against the settled
position of law that domicile-based reservation is constitutionally
invalid. It is contended that said position has been re-iterated and
re-affirmed, most recently, in the judgment delivered by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Tanvi Behl v. Shrey
Goel & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 180. In this respect, learned
counsel has also placed reliance upon Jagadish Saran v. Union
of India, (1980) 2 SCC 768, Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of
India, (1984) 3 SCC 654, Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of
India, (2003) 11 SCC 146, Nikhil Himthani v. State of
Uttarakhand, (2013) 10 SCC 237, and Medical Council of
India v. State of Kerala, (2019) 13 SCC 185.
4.2 It is further submitted that as per Clause 4 of the Instruction
Booklet and Counselling Scheme (Annexure-4), upon exhaustion
of the list of reserved category candidates, the roster point
earmarked for that category shall be treated unreserved.
Therefore, reserved category candidates of other States ought to
be considered against the State Quota seats for unreserved /
General category candidates while granting them benefit of
revised percentile for reserved category.
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 02:32:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 07:02:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13726] (7 of 26) [CW-4247/2026]
4.3 Learned Senior Counsel also averred that in the earlier round
of counselling, admission was given to another student, namely
Dr. Divyanshu Chitravanshi, against a general seat while
considering his NEET Score according to the cut-off marks
prescribed for a reserved category candidate. It is urged that the
State authorities cannot be allowed to deny similar benefits to
reserved category candidates of other States in subsequent round
of counselling.
4.4 Learned Senior counsel argued that Respondent-Authorities
have changed the rules of the game midway and have taken a
decision contrary to the Instruction Booklet and the previously
followed institutional practice, which is not sustainable in the eyes
of law. It is stated that the Instruction Booklet nowhere provides
for a 100% domicile-based reservation and, therefore, the same
cannot be allowed to be introduced for the stray vacancy round,
that too, by way of a decision taken in a meeting held on
18.02.2026.
4.5 Learned Senior counsel has also placed reliance upon paras
10.4, 10.11, 10.12 & 10.13 of NEET-PG 2025 Information Bulletin,
and also on the pro-forma provided for caste certificates to be
submitted by reserved category candidates (provided in Annexure
1 and Annexure 2 of the Information Bulletin), and submitted that
even as per afore-mentioned clauses, the action of Respondents is
not justified.
4.6 Learned Counsel has relied upon judgement passed in the
case of Faculty Association of All India Institute of Medical
Sciences v. Union of India & Ors., (2013) 11 SCC 246 to
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 02:32:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 07:02:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13726] (8 of 26) [CW-4247/2026]
argue that there can be no reservation for speciality and super-
speciality courses.
5. E-converse, learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Vigyan
Shah and Government Counsel Mr. Milap Chopra, appearing on
behalf of the State of Rajasthan, vehemently opposed the
submissions made on behalf of Petitioner Federation and stated
that impugned decision of Respondent No. 1 – NEET PG Medical &
Dental Admission / Counselling Board, 2025 is in consonance with
the constitutional scheme, provisions of the Rajasthan Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, Special Backward
Classes & Economically Backward Classes (Reservation of Seats in
Educational Institutions in the State and of Appointments & Posts
in Services under the State) Act, 2008 (“Act of 2008”) and the
Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023 (“PGMER –
2023”), and thus, the same cannot be said to be arbitrary,
unjustified or unconstitutional.
5.1 It is stated that examination of NEET-PG 2025 was
conducted in relation to 50% seats reserved under the All India
Quota and 50% seats reserved under the State Quota. It is
submitted that admissions against the seats under State Quota is
governed by the Instruction Booklet (Annexure-4) issued by the
Government of Rajasthan. It is argued that no new decision has
been taken vide impugned minutes dated 18.02.2026 and the
same merely reiterates the position already contained in Clause 4
of said booklet, which clearly stipulates that “norms of reservation
followed in the State of Rajasthan will be applicable only to
bonafide candidates of State of Rajasthan and that the reserved
category candidates of other States shall be considered under
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 02:32:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 07:02:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13726] (9 of 26) [CW-4247/2026]
unreserved category”. Said policy has been followed consistently
and uniformly throughout the entire process of counselling /
admission. As the clause contained in the initial Instruction
Booklet was not challenged by Petitioner Federation at earlier
stage, it is estopped from challenging same stipulation contained
in decision dated 18.02.2026 at the stage of stray vacancy round.
5.2 Countering the submission regarding 100% domicile
reservation, learned counsel for the respondents stated that
decision to not permit reserved category candidates of other
States to participate against reserved category seats of State of
Rajasthan in stray vacancy round is in consonance with the
constitutional mandate. It is contended that there is no bar on the
participation of such candidates against General / unreserved
seats as per the revised percentile for General category, but they
cannot be permitted to participate against General / unreserved
seats while taking into account the revised percentile cut-off for
reserved category candidates.
5.3 Learned counsel for the Respondent stated that it is well
established position of law that the right to reservation is State-
specific and can constitutionally be extended only to candidates
belonging to those specific tribes, castes or classes as are notified
for that purpose in relation of each individual state. Reliance in
this regard has been placed upon judgments of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court delivered in the cases of Marri Chandra Shekhar
Rao v. Seth G.S. Medical College, (1990) 3 SCC 130, and Bir
Singh v. Delhi Jal Board, (2018) 10 SCC 312. Thus, learned
counsel submitted that the challenge given on behalf of Petitioner
Federation is against settled position of law.
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 02:32:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 07:02:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13726] (10 of 26) [CW-4247/2026]
5.4 Learned Counsel for respondent has further placed reliance
upon judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the
cases of Siddhant Mahajan v. State of Rajasthan, 2025 SCC
Online SC 2864, and Ombir Singh v. State of U.P., 1993
Supp (2) SCC 64 and argued that the practice of lowering
qualifying marks only for the purpose of filling of vacant seats has
been deprecated by the Hon’ble Apex Court and that there can be
no compromise with merit at the level of speciality courses.
5.5 Countering the submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner regarding grant of admission to Dr. Divyanshu
Chitravanshi, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that
said admission was given under the All India Quota on the
recommendation of the Central Counselling Board. Even assuming,
arguendo, that such recommendation was erroneous, Petitioner
cannot be permitted to claim negative equality.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
7. The challenge to the impugned decision dated 18.02.2026
gives rise to a twofold controversy for consideration by this Court.
First, whether the denial of reservation benefits to candidates
belonging to reserved categories from other States is arbitrary and
violative of the constitutional mandate. Second, whether the
impugned decision, in its operation and effect, results in an
impermissible 100% reservation based on domicile.
8. The concept of reservation is schematically embedded in the
various provisions of the Constitution of India. The Constitution
(Ninety Third Amendment) Act, 2005 inserted sub-clause (5) of
Article 15, which enables the State to make any special provision
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 02:32:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 07:02:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13726] (11 of 26) [CW-4247/2026]
for socially and educationally backward classes of citizen or the
Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) in relation to
their admission to educational institutions including private
educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State,
other than the minority educational institutions.
Article 366(24) defines “Scheduled Castes” as “such castes,
races or tribes or parts of or groups within such castes, races or
tribes as are deemed under Article 341 to be Scheduled Castes for
the purpose of this Constitution.”
Article 366(25) defines “Scheduled Tribes” with reference to
Article 342, and Article 366(26C) defines “Socially and
Educationally Backward Classes” with reference to Article 342A.
As the definitions of SCs, STs, and Socially and Educationally
Backward Classes are linked to Articles 341, 342, and 342(A) of
the Constitution of India respectively, the relevant portions of said
provisions are quoted below for ready reference: –
“Article – 341. Scheduled Castes
(1) The President may with respect to any State or
Union territory, and where it is a State after consultation
with the Governor thereof, by public notification, specify the
castes, races or tribes or parts of or group within castes,
races or tribes which shall for the purposes of this
Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Castes in relation
to that State or Union territory, as the case may be.”
“Article – 342. Scheduled Tribes
(1) The President may with respect to any State or
Union territory, and where it is a State after consultation
with the Governor thereof, by public notification, specify the
tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within
tribes or tribal communities which shall for the purposes of
this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 02:32:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 07:02:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13726] (12 of 26) [CW-4247/2026]relation to that State or Union territory, as the case
may be.”
“Article – 342A. Socially and educationally backward
classes.
The President may with respect to any State or Union
territory, and where it is a State, after consultation with
the Governor thereof, by public notification, specify the
socially and educationally backward classes which shall for
the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be socially
and educationally backward classes in relation to that
State or Union territory, as the case may be.”
A bare reading of said provisions, especially the underlined
phrases, makes it clear that the notification of Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes, and Socially and Educationally Backward
Classes, or parts or groups thereof, is State-specific.
8.1 It is in this background that the Presidential Order, namely
Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 was issued
determining the specific castes, races and tribes as Scheduled
Castes (SCs) in relation to each state. Part 15 of said order dated
11.08.1950 notified SCs in relation to and with respect to the
State of Rajasthan. Presidential Orders of similar nature were
issued notifying Scheduled Tribes (STs) and Other Backward
Classes (OBCs) in relation to the State of Rajasthan. It is thus
clear that under our constitutional scheme, SCs, STs, and OBCs
are determined and categorized state-wise.
8.2 In pursuance of the Directive Principles contained in Articles
38 and 46 of the Constitution of India, concerning upliftment of
SCs, STs, and other socially and educationally backward classes,
the Act of 2008 was enacted by the State of Rajasthan, which
came into force w.e.f. 25.08.2009. Section 3 of the Act provides
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 02:32:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 07:02:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13726] (13 of 26) [CW-4247/2026]
for reservation of seats in the educational institutions of the State
for SCs, STs, Backward Classes (BCs), Special Backward Classes
(SBCs) and OBCs. These categories have been defined under
Section 2 of the Act of 2008 in reference to their respective
definitions as provided under the Constitution of India, which is
state specific.
8.3 The reference to provisions of PGMER-2023 also acquires
relevance and significance in present context. Clause 4.8 of the
said Regulations provides for ‘Reservation of Seats in Medical
Colleges/ Institutions’ and clearly stipulates that the same shall be
according to the applicable laws prevailing in States / Union
Territories.
8.4 On a conjoint reading of the constitutional scheme discussed
above, the statutory scheme of the Act of 2008 as well as the
provisions of PGMER-2023, it becomes evident that castes, races
and tribes are classified as SCs, STs, BCs, SBCs or OBCs in
relation to each individual states. Such classification and
notification are based on the unique socio-economic and cultural
realities of that specific region, and the corresponding policy
decisions governing reservation are necessarily informed by these
State-specific considerations. It cannot be assumed, nor is it
capable of empirical determination, that backward classes across
different States share identical or even comparable social realities.
A necessary corollary of this position is that the benefits of
reservation are confined to categories notified in relation to a
particular State and cannot be extended to members who are
recognised as belonging to a reserved category in another State.
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 02:32:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 07:02:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13726] (14 of 26) [CW-4247/2026]
8.5 The issue concerning extension of benefits of reservation in
one State to a reserved category candidate of another state came
up for the consideration of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Marri Chandra (supra), wherein it was held as under:-
“13. It, however, appears to us that the expression ‘for the
purposes of this Constitution’ in Articles 341 as well as in
Article 342 do imply that the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes so specified would be entitled to enjoy all
the constitutional rights that are enjoyable by all the
citizens as such… The words “for the purposes of this
Constitution” must mean that a Scheduled Caste so
designated must have right under Articles 14, 19(1)(d),
19(1)(e) and 19(1)(f) inasmuch as these are applicable to
him in his area where he migrates or where he goes. The
expression “in relation to that State” would become
nugatory if in all States the special privileges or the rights
granted to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes are
carried forward. It will also be inconsistent with the whole
purpose of the scheme of reservation. In Andhra Pradesh, a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe may require
protection because a boy or a child who grows in that area
is inhibited or is at disadvantage. In Maharashtra that caste
or that tribe may not be so inhibited but other castes or
tribes might be. If a boy or a child goes to that atmosphere
of Maharashtra as a young boy or a child and goes in a
completely different atmosphere or Maharashtra where this
inhibition or this disadvantage is not there, then he cannot
be said to have that reservation which will denude the
children or the people of Maharashtra belonging to any
segment of that State who may still require that protection.
After all, it has to be borne in mind that the protection is
necessary for the disadvantaged castes or tribes of
Maharashtra as well as disadvantaged castes or tribes of
Andhra Pradesh. Thus, balancing must be done as between
those who need protection and those who need no
protection, i.e., who belong to advantaged castes or tribes
and who do not. Treating the determination under(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 02:32:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 07:02:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13726] (15 of 26) [CW-4247/2026]Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution to be valid
for all over the country would be in negation to the
very purpose and scheme and language of Articles
341 read with Article 15(4) of the Constitution.
14. …But having regard to the purpose, it appears to us
that harmonious construction enjoins that we should give to
each expres-sion–‘in relation to that state’ or “for the
purposes of this Constitution”–its full meaning and give
their full effect. This must be so construed that one must
not negate the other. The construction that reservation
made in respect of the Scheduled Caste or tribe of that
State is so deter- mined to be entitled to all the privileges
and rights under the Constitution in that State would be the
most correct way of reading, consistent with the language,
purpose and scheme of the Constitution. Otherwise, one
has to bear in mind that if reservations to those who are
treated as Scheduled Caste or Tribe in Andhra Pradesh are
also given to a boy or a girl who migrates and gets
deducted in the State of Maharashtra or other States where
that caste or tribe is not treated as Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe then either reservation will have the effect
of depriving the percentage to the member of that caste or
tribe in Maharashtra who would be entitled to protection or
it would denude the other non- Scheduled Castes or non-
Scheduled Tribes in Maharashtra to the proportion that they
are entitled to. This cannot be logical or correct result
designed by the Constitution.”
8.6 Reiterating the same position of law, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, in the case of Bir Singh (supra), has held as under:
“34. Unhesitatingly, therefore, it can be said that a person
belonging to a Scheduled Caste in one State cannot be
deemed to be a Scheduled Caste person in relation to any
other State to which he migrates for the purpose of
employment or education. The expressions “in relation to
that State or Union Territory” and “for the purpose of this
Constitution” used in Articles 341 and 342 of the
Constitution of India would mean that the benefits of(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 02:32:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 07:02:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13726] (16 of 26) [CW-4247/2026]reservation provided for by the Constitution would stand
confined to the geographical territories of a State/Union
Territory in respect of which the lists of
ScheduledCastes/Scheduled Tribes have been notified by
the Presidential Orders issued from time to time. A person
notified as a Scheduled Caste in State ‘A’ cannot claim the
same status in another State on the basis that he is
declared as a Scheduled Caste in State ‘A’.”
And, again, in para 38: –
“38. It is an unquestionable principle of interpretation that
interrelated statutory as well as constitutional provisions
have to be harmoniously construed and understood so as to
avoid making any provision nugatory and redundant. If the
list of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes in the Presidential
Orders under Article 341/342 is subject to alteration only by
laws made by Parliament, operation of the lists of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes beyond the classes
or categories enumerated under the Presidential Order for a
particular State/Union Territory by exercise of the enabling
power vested by Article 16(4) would have the obvious effect
of circumventing the specific constitutional provisions in
Articles 341/342. In this regard, it must also be noted that
the power under Article 16(4) is not only capable of being
exercised by a legislative provision/enactment but also by
an Executive Order issued under Article 166 of the
Constitution. It will, therefore, be in consonance with the
constitutional scheme to understand the enabling provision
under Article 16(4) to be available to provide reservation
only to the classes or categories of Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes enumerated in the Presidential
orders for a particular State/Union Territory within the
geographical area of that State and not beyond. If in the
opinion of a State it is necessary to extend the benefit of
reservation to a class/category of Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes beyond those specified in the Lists
for that particular State, constitutional discipline would
require the State to make its views in the matter prevail
with the central authority so as to enable an appropriate(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 02:32:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 07:02:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13726] (17 of 26) [CW-4247/2026]parliamentary exercise to be made by an amendment of the
Lists of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes for that
particular State. Unilateral action by States on the
touchstone of Article 16(4) of the Constitution could be a
possible trigger point of constitutional anarchy and
therefore must be held to be impermissible under the
Constitution.”
8.7 Following the law laid down in the case of Marri Chandra
(supra), so also in the case of Action Committee on Issue of
Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes in
the State of Maharashtra v. Union of India reported in
(1994) 5 SCC 244, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ranjana Kumari Vs. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2019)
15 SCC 664 has reiterated the same view in following terms:-
“4. Two Constitution Bench judgments of this Court
in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical
College and Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate
to Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes in the State of
Maharashtra v. Union of India have taken the view that
merely because in the migrant State the same caste is
recognized as Scheduled Caste, the migrant cannot be
recognized as Scheduled Caste of the migrant State. The
issuance of a caste certificate by the State of Uttarakhand,
as in the present case, cannot dilute the rigours of the
Constitution Bench Judgments in Marri Chandra Shekhar
Rao (supra) and Action Committee (supra).”
8.8 In view of the aforesaid settled position of law, it is clear that
the benefit of reservation is restricted to the State of origin and
cannot be extended into the State to which one has migrated.
9. At this stage, it is apposite to consider Clause 4 of the
Instruction Booklet issued by the State of Rajasthan, relevant
portion of which reads as under: –
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 02:32:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 07:02:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13726] (18 of 26) [CW-4247/2026]“The norms of reservation of the State Government of
Rajasthan will be applicable only for bonafide candidates of
the State of Rajasthan. SC/ST/OBC NCL/MBC NCL/EWS
candidates of states other than Rajasthan shall be
considered as unreserved category candidates. All
candidates of the reserved category for the State of
Rajasthan shall submit a valid caste/EWS certificate as per
the State Government rules.”
The said provision is in consonance with the constitutional
scheme, statutory mandate and the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court as discussed above and therefore, cannot be said
to be arbitrary or unconstitutional.
9.1 Said Clause 4 has been consistently applied throughout the
process of all counseling rounds. It is also undisputed that
Petitioner Federation has never resisted or raised any objection
regarding said Clause 4 of the Instruction Booklet nor challenged
the same. A close reading of decision contained in Minutes of
Meeting dated 18.02.2026 shows that it merely reiterates and
clarifies the existing prevailing provision. As submitted by learned
counsel for the respondents, said minutes of meeting were issued
as a clarification in response to the detailed representation
submitted by the Petitioner Federation and do not introduce any
new condition on subsequent stage.
9.2 In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that any new
decision has been taken, much less one contrary to the
constitutional scheme or the policy contained in the Instruction
Booklet. In this backdrop, the contentions raised by learned
counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have changed the
rules of the game mid-way and that the State Counselling Board
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 02:32:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 07:02:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13726] (19 of 26) [CW-4247/2026]has taken a new decision vide impugned minutes dated
18.02.2026 are found to be wholly misconceived.
10. This Court is also not persuaded to accept the contention
advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned
decision results in a regime of 100% domicile-based reservation.
In substance, the decision dated 18.02.2026 does not create an
absolute bar based on domicile; rather, it stipulates that the
benefit of revised qualifying marks prescribed for reserved
categories shall not be extended to candidates belonging to
reserved categories of other States. Effectively, the decision
operates to withhold reservation benefits from out-of-State
reserved category candidates and confines such benefits to
reserved category candidates of the State of Rajasthan. As
discussed hereinabove, such a classification is legally permissible
and does not offend the constitutional mandate. It is further
pertinent to note that candidates belonging to reserved categories
of other States are not rendered ineligible to participate in the
selection process. They continue to be entitled to compete for
unreserved seats, subject to their fulfilling the qualifying criteria
applicable to the General category, including the revised qualifying
marks prescribed for said category.
10.1 Insofar as the reliance placed by learned counsel for the
petitioner on the decisions in Dr. Tanvi Behl (supra), Jagadish
Saran v. Union of India (supra), Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union
of India (supra), Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India
(supra), Nikhil Himthani v. State of Uttarakhand (supra),
and Medical Council of India v. State of Kerala (supra) is
concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the same is
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 02:32:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 07:02:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13726] (20 of 26) [CW-4247/2026]
misplaced. The controversy in the present case does not relate to
the validity of a 100% domicile-based reservation, which formed
the core issue in the aforesaid judgments. Rather, the issue herein
pertains to the permissibility of restricting the benefits of
reservation to candidates belonging to the State of Rajasthan.
Such a measure, as discussed hereinabove, aligns with the
constitutional framework and does not amount to an
impermissible exclusion. Consequently, the principles laid down in
the aforementioned decisions, being rendered in the context of
wholesale domicile-based reservation or materially different
factual matrices, are clearly distinguishable and do not advance
the case of the petitioner.
11. So far as the contention of petitioner that, upon exhaustion
of the list of reserved category candidates, the seats are to be
treated as unreserved and that candidates of other States should
be considered against such seats with the benefit of relaxed
percentile applicable to reserved categories is concerned, the
same is wholly untenable and impermissible in law.
11.1 The relevant clause of Instruction Booklet reads as under :-
“Unfilled reserved seat(s) : During / after the round 3 of
counselling and on exhaustion of the list of reserved
category candidates, the roster point earmarked for that
category shall be treated unreserved and shall be filled
accordingly.”
A plain reading of the above clause makes it clear that once
seats are treated as unreserved, they are required to be filled in
accordance with the criteria applicable to the unreserved category.
Consequently, on exhaustion of list of reserved category
candidates, the seats are turned as unreserved/general seats then
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 02:32:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 07:02:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13726] (21 of 26) [CW-4247/2026]
candidates seeking admission against such seats must meet the
minimum qualifying percentile prescribed for Unreserved / General
category.
11.2 A plain reading of the communications dated 19.08.2025 and
13.01.2026 (Annexure-8), pertaining to the declaration of
qualifying and revised qualifying cut-off marks, unequivocally
indicates that the qualifying percentiles have been prescribed
distinctly for each category. The scheme, thus, envisages a
category-specific threshold, intrinsically linked to the nature of the
seat for which a candidate seeks consideration. It necessarily
follows that a candidate aspiring to compete for or secure
admission against a seat earmarked for a particular category must
satisfy the qualifying criteria prescribed for that very category.
Permitting a candidate to rely upon the minimum qualifying marks
applicable to a different category would not only dilute the
integrity of the selection process but also defeat the underlying
rationale of maintaining differential standards across categories.
In this backdrop, the contention of the petitioner that candidates
belonging to reserved categories of other States ought to be
considered against unreserved seats while simultaneously availing
the benefit of the relaxed percentile prescribed for reserved
categories is wholly misconceived. Such a proposition would
conflate distinct eligibility regimes and is clearly impermissible in
law, as it would result in an anomalous and legally unsustainable
advantage unsupported by the governing framework.
12. Insofar as the contention that postgraduate medical seats
ought not to be permitted to remain vacant is concerned, this
Court is in agreement with the broad proposition that such seats,
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 02:32:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 07:02:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13726] (22 of 26) [CW-4247/2026]
having regard to their national importance, should ideally be filled
to the fullest extent possible. However, this objective cannot be
pursued at the cost of, or in derogation of, the constitutional and
statutory framework governing admissions, nor can it be achieved
by compromising the minimum standards of merit that are
integral to the selection process. The balance between optimal
seat utilization and maintenance of academic standards must be
preserved.
It is also noteworthy that the reduction in qualifying percentile
by the Central Government has already addressed, to a significant
extent, the concern relating to unfilled postgraduate medical
seats. Be that as it may, candidates belonging to reserved
categories of other States cannot be permitted to claim admission
either against reserved category seats earmarked for the State of
Rajasthan, or against unreserved seats while seeking to avail the
benefit of the relaxed percentile prescribed for reserved
categories. Any such claim would be contrary to the governing
legal framework and would impermissibly dilute the standards
applicable to unreserved category admissions.
12.1 This Court finds merit in the submission advanced on behalf
of respondents that there can be no compromise on merit in
admission to PG medical courses. In the cases of Siddhant
Mahajan (supra) and Ombir Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held that candidates who do not meet the prescribed
qualifying criteria cannot be granted admission merely to ensure
that seats do not remain vacant.
13. Further, contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner,
while relying upon case of Faculty Association of All India
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 02:32:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 07:02:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13726] (23 of 26) [CW-4247/2026]
Institute of Medical Sciences (supra) that reservation is
impermissible in speciality and super-speciality courses, is, in the
considered opinion of this Court, wholly misconceived. In essence,
the decision in Faculty Association (supra) was rendered in the
context of recruitment and promotion to high-level faculty
positions in premier medical institutions, where considerations of
institutional excellence and maintenance of the highest standards
assume paramount importance. The ratio of the said judgment,
cannot be mechanically extended to the facts of the present case
relating to admissions in postgraduate medical educational
institutions.
13.1 Reservation in educational institutions is expressly
contemplated and permitted under Article 15(5) of the
Constitution of India, and is duly operationalized through the
relevant statutory regime, including the Act of 2008 and the Post
Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023. It is also of
significance that the applicable reservation policy was explicitly
delineated in Clause 4 of the Instruction Booklet and was
consistently adhered to throughout the counselling process.
Despite being fully aware of the same, the Petitioner Federation
did not choose to assail the said policy at any stage prior to or
during the process. In view of the aforesaid, the contention raised
is liable to be rejected not only on substantive legal grounds,
being inapplicable to the present factual and legal context but also
on the principle of estoppel, as the petitioner, having acquiesced
to the governing framework, cannot now be permitted to
challenge the same at this belated stage.
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 02:32:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 07:02:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13726] (24 of 26) [CW-4247/2026]
14. Insofar as contention advanced by the petitioner with respect
to the admission granted to one Dr. Divyanshu Chitravanshi
against a General category seat, purportedly on the basis of his
NEET score of reserved category, is concerned, this Court is of the
considered view that the said lone instance, by itself, cannot
constitute a valid ground to bypass or disregard the binding
constitutional and statutory framework governing admissions. This
Court also finds merit in the submission advanced on behalf of the
respondents that the said admission pertained to an All India
Quota seat, which operates in a distinct domain, and, therefore,
cannot be relied upon by the petitioner to claim parity. The
Petitioner Federation, in this regard, cannot invoke the principle of
“negative equality” to seek extension of a benefit which is
otherwise not legally sustainable.
14.1 It has further been brought to the notice of this Court that
an identical contention, premised on the admission of Dr.
Divyanshu Chitravanshi, was raised in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No. 19263/2025 (Dr. Sneh Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan
& Ors.), wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur has
expressly refused to accept such a plea. Be that as it may, it is a
well-settled principle of law that courts are not meant to
perpetuate or compound an illegality or irregularity. Even
assuming, arguendo, that any deviation has occurred in an
individual case, the same cannot be cited as a precedent to claim
similar treatment in contravention of the governing legal
framework.
15. This Court has failed to trace any significance and relevance
of Clauses 10.11 and 10.12 so also the format of certificate
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 02:32:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 07:02:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13726] (25 of 26) [CW-4247/2026]
prescribed as Annexure-1 and Annexure-2 under NEET PG 2025
Information Bulletin, as relied upon by petitioner. As a matter of
fact, present case relates to State Quota Seats for which
provisions are prescribed under Clause 10.13. More particularly
Clause 10.13.4 clearly stipulates that the admission against State
Quota Seats shall be given as per the different eligibility criteria
and reservation policies of concerned State. For ready reference
Clause 10.13.4 is quoted below :-
“10.13.4 Different states have different eligibility
criteria and reservation policies. State Government/
Counseling authorities are requested to create their
own application forms customized to their
requirements to determine the eligibility of the
candidates for opting for seats in the concerned state
based on their eligibility criteria, reservation policies,
benefit to in-service candidates, benefit to candidates
who have undergone rural / difficult area postings.”
16. As an upshot of the foregoing discussion, this Court has
arrived at the following conclusions: –
i. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao (supra) and Bir Singh (supra),
it is well settled that benefits of reservation granted in one State
cannot be extended to reserved category candidates belonging to
another State;
ii. Since reserved category candidates belonging to other States
are allowed to participate against unreserved seats, the impugned
decision does not, either in form or in substance, amounts to
100% domicile based reservation;
iii. It is neither permissible under the extant statutory
framework nor tenable in law to allow reserved category
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 02:32:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 07:02:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13726] (26 of 26) [CW-4247/2026]candidates belonging to other States to participate against
unreserved seats while claiming benefits of relaxed qualifying
standards prescribed for reserved category candidates;
iv. While postgraduate medical seats are regarded as being of
national importance, this consideration cannot override the
necessity of adhering to prescribed minimum standards of merit,
particularly in postgraduate courses.
17. In view of the conclusions recorded here-in-above, this Court
is of the considered opinion that impugned decision dated
18.02.2026 does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness, or
infirmity warranting interference of this Court.
18. Consequently, instant writ petition, being devoid of merit, is
hereby dismissed.
19. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J
38-/- praveen/neha
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 02:32:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 07:02:01 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link
