SC/ST/OBC reservation benefits cannot travel across state lines in NEET PG admissions: Rajasthan HC dismisses challenge

Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a challenge to a state policy that treats SC/ST/OBC candidates from other states as general category in Rajasthan’s NEET PG counselling. Justice Sanjeet Purohit upheld the policy on April 13, 2026, holding that reservation benefits are constitutionally confined to the state in which a candidate’s caste is officially notified.

NEET PG 2025-26 was conducted for two pools of seats: 50% under the All India Quota and 50% under the State Quota. Rajasthan’s State Quota counselling was governed by an Instruction Booklet issued by the state government. Clause 4 of that booklet was clear: SC/ST/OBC candidates from other states would be treated as general category candidates for Rajasthan’s state seats.

After several rounds of counselling, a large number of PG MBBS seats remained vacant. In January 2026, the National Board of Examinations drastically reduced the qualifying percentile. The reserved category cut-off was brought down to -40 out of 800. The NEET PG Counselling Board then issued minutes dated February 18, 2026, clarifying that out-of-state reserved category candidates would still be treated as general category. They could only compete for unreserved seats using the general category threshold of 103 marks.

The Federation of Private Medical and Dental Colleges of Rajasthan challenged these minutes. It argued the policy was unconstitutional and defeated the entire purpose of the percentile reduction.

Senior Advocate M.S. Singhvi argued that the February 2026 decision effectively created 100% domicile-based reservation — a practice the Supreme Court has struck down repeatedly. He submitted that allowing PG medical seats to go vacant is a national waste and the Supreme Court has consistently deprecated it. Counsel also argued that when reserved seats are exhausted and converted to unreserved seats, out-of-state reserved category candidates should be allowed to compete using the relaxed reserved-category percentile. The Federation also pointed to the case of Dr. Divyanshu Chitravanshi, who was admitted on a general seat using a reserved-category NEET score, and argued parity should be extended to out-of-state candidates.

The state submitted that Clause 4 of the Instruction Booklet had always been clear. The February 18 minutes merely restated existing policy — they introduced nothing new. Additional Advocate General Vigyan Shah argued that the policy was fully consistent with settled law: a person classified as SC in one state cannot claim that status in another. The state also rejected the comparison with Dr. Divyanshu Chitravanshi. That admission was under the All India Quota, which operates in a separate domain. Even if that admission was erroneous, courts do not perpetuate errors — the principle of “negative equality” does not allow a wrong decision to become a precedent.

The court’s analysis began with the constitutional design of reservation. Articles 341, 342, and 342A of the Constitution define Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes specifically in relation to individual states or union territories. The Presidential Order of 1950, which notified Scheduled Castes across the country, did so state by state. The court held that this framework makes reservation inherently and unavoidably state-specific — a caste notified as SC in Rajasthan carries that status only within Rajasthan.

Justice Purohit relied on two binding Supreme Court judgments. In Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Seth G.S. Medical College (1990), the Supreme Court held that SC status cannot travel across state lines — extending it to another state would deprive the backward classes of the receiving state of their own proportionate share. In Bir Singh v. Delhi Jal Board (2018), the Court reiterated: “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.” This meant what the petitioner was seeking had already been ruled out by the Supreme Court.

On the 100% domicile reservation argument, the court said the petitioner had misread the policy. Out-of-state SC/ST/OBC candidates were not barred from participating — they could still compete for unreserved seats under general category criteria. The cases the petitioner relied on — such as Dr. Tanvi Behl v. Shrey Goel (2025) — were about wholesale exclusion of outsiders. Rajasthan’s policy did not exclude anyone from competing; it only confined reservation benefits to locally notified categories. Those judgments did not apply.

The court also rejected the argument about converted unreserved seats. The petitioner wanted out-of-state candidates to compete for seats that had turned unreserved — while using the relaxed reserved-category percentile of -40. The court held this was “wholly misconceived.” Once a seat is unreserved, the general category qualifying threshold applies. “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,” the court held. A candidate cannot use the reserved category score to compete for an unreserved seat.

On filling vacant seats, the court agreed that PG medical seats are of national importance and should ideally be fully utilised. But it held that this goal cannot override the constitutional and statutory framework. The percentile reduction by the Central Government had already addressed the vacancy problem to a significant extent. What the petitioner was asking for — an additional relaxation by blurring category boundaries — was a step the court was unwilling to take.

The Faculty Association of AIIMS judgment, which the petitioner cited to argue that reservation in specialty courses is itself impermissible, was dismissed as inapplicable. That ruling dealt with faculty recruitment at premier medical institutions — not with student admissions. Article 15(5) of the Constitution expressly permits reservation in educational institutions, and the governing regulations implement it. The petitioner was also estopped from raising this argument, having acquiesced to Clause 4 of the Instruction Booklet throughout the counselling process without challenging it.

The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no illegality, arbitrariness, or infirmity in the minutes of meeting dated February 18, 2026. The state policy of treating out-of-state SC/ST/OBC candidates as general category for Rajasthan’s NEET PG state quota seats was upheld as consistent with the Constitution, the Rajasthan Act of 2008, and the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023.