1 2026:CGHC:1640-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1 of 2026 1 - Bhavna Singh D/o Ajeet Singh Aged About 29 Years R/o Block No.4, Ashish Nagar, West, Risali, Bhilai, District - Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Medical Education, Old Nurses Hostel, Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 – Pt. Deendayal Upadhyay Smriti Sansthan Through Registrar, Pt. Deendayal Upadhyay Smriti Sansthan, G.E. Road, Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Shri Balaji Institute of Medical Sciences, Through Registrar, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Shri Anup Majumdar, Advocate. For State : Shri Shashank Thakur, Addl. Advocate General. For Respondent No.4 : Shri Ajay Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 12.01.2026 Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ. 1 The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the inaction of the respondent authorities by which the petitioner was not allowed to participate in the counselling procedure of the Post-Graduate Course, and prayed for the following reliefs:- INDRAJEET SAHU Digitally signed by INDRAJEET SAHU Date: 2026.01.22 14:34:16 +0530 2 “10.1. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for records pertaining to the case of the petitioner, in the interest of justice. 10.2. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents authorities to allow the petitioner to participate in the Counselling procedure for post graduation course, in the interest of justice. 10.3. That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to grant admission/confirmation in the Post Graduate Medical course, Masters of Surgery in ENT faculty, to the petitioner in the state quota as Scheduled Caste (Jatav) candidate, in the interest of justice. 10.4. That this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to schedule a counselling procedure for petitioner for admission/confirmation in the Post Graduate Medical course, Masters of Surgery in ENT faculty, regarding petitioner in the state quota as Scheduled Caste (Jatav) candidate, in the interest of justice. 10.5. That, any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deemed just and fit in facts and circumstances of the case. 10.6. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/writs, direction / directions in the nature of certiorari and declare the Rule 6 (1) of The Chhattisgarh Medical Post Graduate Admission Rule, 2025, ultra vires / unconstitutional being voilative of the Article 14, 15, 16 of the constitution of India, in the interest of justice.” 2 The subject matter of the case, in brief are that the petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste category and was granted admission in the MBBS Course under the State quota and she pursued her MBBS Course. After completion of her MBBS Course she appeared in the NEET Post Graduation examination for the year 2025, in which she qualified and is entitled to counselling and admission in Post Graduate 3 Course. She is entitled to counselling in the State quota based on her Social Status and Domicile certificate, as she was earlier considered for the State quota based on the said Social Status and Domicile certificate. Pursuant to that, the provisional seat in the M.S. (E.N.T.) course has been allotted to her at Shri Balaji Institute of Medical Sciences, Raipur. However, the petitioner was not allowed to participate in counselling on this ground alone that she is not entitled for State quota. 3 It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was born and brought up in the State of Chhattisgarh. Her father is an employee of Bhilai Steel Plant since 1988, which is a Public Sector Undertaking. She was born on 12.12.1996, and in the year 2016, a domicile certificate was issued to her. Earlier, at the time of admission in the MBBS course, when dispute arose about the State quota, she preferred a W.P.C. No.2229/2017, in which the petitioner’s Social Status and domicile certificates were considered and she was permitted to continue her studies under the State quota. It is also her case that the “Jatav” community, under which the petitioner belongs, is also declared as the Scheduled Caste category in entry No. 40, Part-23 of Schedule-III of the Presidential Notification issued in the year 1950. From the notification dated 17-06-2003 issued by the State Government, the petitioner is a domicile of Chhattisgarh State. 4 Presently, the Chhattisgarh Government has framed the Rules for admission in Post-Graduate Course in the name of “Chhattisgarh Medical Post Graduate Admission Rules, 2025 (in short, the Rules, 2025) and Rule 6 of Rules, 2025 provides reservation of 30% seats for 4 Scheduled Caste, 2% seats for Special Backwards Scheduled Tribes, 12% for Scheduled Tribes, and 14% seats for OBC (Non Creamy Layer) and the candidates should submit their Permanent Social status certificate of the Chhattisgarh State. Since the Rules ask for a permanent Social Status Certificate, the petitioner is depriving her admission in medical postgraduate Course despite securing higher position in the select list. 5 Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner belongs to the “Jatav” community and in the State of Chhattisgarh, the “Jatav” community is included in the entry No. 40, part 23 of the III Schedule of the Constitution (SC) 1950 notification. The petitioner has the domicile certificate issued by the same authorities, on the basis of which she is eligible for counselling in the post graduation course. The Rules of 2025, framed by the State Government, are arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He would also submits that during the graduation course, same objection was raised by the respondent authorities and the Hon’ble Court has permitted her to pursue her MBBS Course under the State quota, and now again the same issue has been raised. The father of the petitioner is an employee of Bhilai Steel Plant and came to the Chhattisgarh State in the year 1988 itself. The petitioner was born here in Chhattisgarh and all education is within the State of Chhattisgarh. There is no reason to deprive her of admission in the post graduation course. She fulfilled all the requisite criteria for counselling and admission in the M.S. (E.N.T.) course. In support of his submission, he would rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in 5 the case of Tanvi Behl Vs. Shrey Goel and Others, 2025 SCC Online SC 180. 6 Per contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner has claimed relief on the ground that she possessed a domicile certificate of the State of Chhattisgarh, and she has already completed the MBBS course under the State quota. The father of the petitioner was issued a Social Status certificate of “Jatav” caste from the Additional District Magistrate, Bulandshahar. Earlier, the petitioner was granted admission in the MBBS Course under the State quota reserved for the Scheduled Caste Category and when it was discovered to the State authorities that she did not possess a valid Social Status certificate, her admission in the MBBS Course was cancelled vide order dated 01-07-2017. In W.P.C. No.2229 of 2017, the interim order of stay was passed by the Coordinate bench of this Court and she continued her studies, and ultimately, vide order dated 16-07- 2018, her writ petition was allowed. The order passed by the Hon’ble Court in W.P.C. No.2229/2017 was under the peculiar circumstances that the petitioner had already admitted in MBBS Course. She cannot claim the benefit again. Now, the State Government has framed the Rules for regulating admission in the Post Graduation Medical Courses. In the Rules, it has been provided that to take benefit of the reservation, the candidate should submit Permanent Social Status Certificate issued by the competent authority of the State Government. The petitioner does not possess Permanent Social Status Certificate of the Scheduled Caste category of the State of Chhattisgarh. Despite 6 having knowledge about the facts that she does not possess the requisite qualification as required under Rule 6 of the Rules of 2025, she participated in the NEET PG-2025 examination for admission in Post Graduate medical Course. He would rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao Vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College and Others, 1990 (3) SCC 130. 7 We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and gone through the pleading of the parties and documents annexed thereto with utmost circumspection and considered their rival submissions. 8 It is not disputed by the parties that the father of the petitioner is an employee of Bhilai Steel Plant and came to Chhattisgarh in the year 1988. The petitioner was born here in Chhattisgarh and obtained a domicile certificate in the year 2016. At the time of her MBBS Course, the issue cropped up, and with the intervention of the Court, she pursued her MBBS Course. Again, the same issue has been raised that she does not belong to the domicile of Chhattisgarh and as such the benefit of State quota cannot be extended to her. 9 The conditions stated in the form of the domicile certificate are very wide and have no rationale to the object sought to be achieved. These even include a person who was either born or his/her parents are residing here for at least 15 years, or his/her parents are in State/Central government service or have any property in the State. He/she is also required to fulfill the condition that such a person should studied in Chhattisgarh at least for three years. From the pleadings, the petitioner fulfills the conditions that she born in the State of 7 Chhattisgarh, her father is in service at Bhilai Steel Plant since 1988, which is a Public Sector Undertaking concern and she completed her education in the State of Chhattisgarh. In her domicile certificate issued by the competent authority, these conditions have been considered by the authority. 10 In Tanvi Behl Vs. Shrey Goel (Supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the domicile/residence-based reservation in PG Medical Courses is not permissible. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 31 to 34 as under- “31. We are all domiciled in the territory of India. We are all residents of India. Our common bond as citizens and residents of one country gives us the right not only to choose our residence anywhere in India, but also gives us the right to carry on trade & business or a profession anywhere in India. It also gives us the right to seek admission in educational institutions across India. The beneit of ‘reservation’ in educational institutions including medical colleges to those who reside in a particular State can be given to a certain degree only in MBBS courses, for which we have assigned reasons in the preceding paragraphs. But considering the importance of specialists doctors’ in PG Medical Course, reservation at the higher level on the basis of ‘residence’ would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This has been explained with pronounced clarity both in Jagadish Saran and Pradeep Jain. If such a reservation is permitted then it would be an invasion on the fundamental rights of several students, who are being treated unequally simply for the reasons that they belong to a diferent State in the Union! This would be a violation of the equality clause in Article 14 of the Constitution and would amount to a denial of equality before the law. 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 and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (2003) 11 SCC 186, Nikhil Himthani vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others (2013) 10 SCC 237, Vishal Goyal and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others (2014) 11 SCC 456 and Neil Aurelio Nunes (OBC Reservation) and Others v. Union of India and Others (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- 8 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. 34. We make it clear though that our declaration of impermissibility of residence-based reservation in PG Medical courses will not affect such reservations already granted, and students are undergoing PG courses or have already passed out in the present case, from Government Medical College, Chandigarh. We do this simply because now there is an equity in favour of such students who must have already completed the course. Logically, therefore, the present appellants who were granted admission under the residence category and were undergoing their course, & also by virtue of the interim order of this Court dated 09.05.2019, will not be affected by our judgment.” 11 In view of the definition of “domicile” and the requirements for considering the domicile of Chhattisgarh mentioned in the domicile certificate, we are not inclined to give the benefit of the judgment of Marry Chandra (supra) to the State. 12 Further, the Coordinate bench of this court, in the case of the petitioner, while the issue was raised at the time of her admission in the MBBS course, in W.P.(C) No. 2229 of 2017 has passed the order on 16-07- 2018 and observed that:- “8. Without going into the controversy as such, the Petitioner's counsel relies on a Division Bench decision rendered in a similar circumstance decided in a batch of writ applications. The leading case being WPC No.434 of 2017, which is case of Deshmukh Araib Afridi Ahamed & Another v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others and analogous cases, decided on 28.08.2017, the Division Bench held as follows:- “6. The peculiar situation of the Petitioners is that, after securing admissions in the college, they had carried forward their education for BDS course for more than two academic years. Their studies continued to be protected through interlocutory orders issued by this Court. They are still continuing in the institutions. The 12 seats which may fall vacant, if they were to vacate, cannot be filled up with reference to the academic years in question. It is not as if the Petitioners were unqualified if they were to be treated as belonging to certain categories on All India basis. The situation in hand need not necessarily result in wrecking the prospects of the writ petitioners. Taking a cue from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjeev Kumar & another Vs. State of Bihar & others; AIR 2017 SC 1501, though that dealt with a case of reservation in public appointment, we 9 are inclined to take the view that this is an eminently fit case where the Petitioners could be permitted to continue with their education by treating them as lawfully admitted to the course of study, thereby permitting and facilitating their continued study and completion of the course without any objection in that regard, either by the University or the State Government. 7. In the result, these writ petitions are ordered directing that notwithstanding the impugned order, the Petitioners shall be permitted to continue with the course to which they were admitted, leading to their due examination and publication of results from time to time, by the University, in accordance with law. It is clarified that this order is issued solely for the purpose of enabling the Petitioners to complete the BDS Course which they are undergoing and earn such qualification.” 13 Considering the pleading of the parties and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tanvi Behl’s case, and by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court deem it appropriate and in the interest of justice to allow the petitioner to continue her Post Graduation studies under the State quota, as she has already granted the said benefit during her Graduation Course. The respondent authorities, as well as the college concerned, are directed to allow the petitioner to continue her Post-Graduation studies in the M.S. (E.N.T.) course without any hindrance. However, it is made clear that this relief is granted to the petitioner in exceptional circumstances, and it should not be treated as a precedent. 14 Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in the terms indicated hereinabove. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice inder