Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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.

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) [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.

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.

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;