Pradeep Kumar Sapra And Anr vs Union Of India And Anr on 21 March, 2023
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.