Rajasthan HC Upholds Admission Criteria For Ultrasound Course Under NEET PG 2024 Reserving Seats For Those From State Colleges, Govt Officials

The Rajasthan High Court upheld the constitutional validity of a State amendment to an April 22 instruction booklet issued on NEET-PG 2024, concerning the six-month Ultrasound Training Course under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Rules (the Rules) that introduced a new eligibility criteria for admission.

The Addendum brought in by the amendment stipulates a "dual reservation scheme", namely– A 50% institutional preference for candidates from Rajasthan-based medical colleges and 50% in-service preference for Medical Officers/Teachers employed by the Government of Rajasthan.

As per the  additional addendum, only in the event that seats remain vacant after the conclusion of the second round of counselling and an adequate number of candidates are not available from these two categories, only then will candidates possessing a Rajasthan domicile certificate be considered. Thereafter, residuary candidates from outside the State will be eligible for allotment of the remaining vacant seats.

The petitioners claimed that due to the addendum the respondents have effectively locked 100% of the available seats in favour of candidates falling within either of the two categories–institutional preference (50%) and inservice government medical officers (50%).

While upholding the constitutional validity of the addendum brought in by the amendment, Justice Sameer Jain opined that the maxim “salus populi suprema lex esto” (the welfare of the people shall be the supreme law) guided the State in formulating healthcare-related educational policy. The twin criteria of institutional preference and in-service preference served the larger public interest and were grounded in rational and non-arbitrary classification.

The court held:

"It is relevant to note that both these categories— namely 'institutional' and 'in-service candidates' are not confined to residents or domiciles of Rajasthan. Candidates admitted to Rajasthan Medical Colleges are selected through an all-India competitive examination (NEET), and similarly, in-service candidates are appointed through open public recruitment. The policy further clarifies that if seats remain unfilled, the same would first be made available to candidates holding Rajasthan domicile certificates, and thereafter, to the residuary open category candidates. This ensures that meritorious candidates from across India are not excluded from consideration, thereby fulfilling the principle jus naturale—natural justice"

The Court was hearing a bunch of petitions filed challenging the legality and validity of the addendum based on which the petitioner's candidature was not considered.

It was argued by the petitioners that the stipulation effectively created a mandatory requirement of Rajasthan State domicile or institutional qualification from Rajasthan based medical colleges, rendering similarly placed meritorious candidates ineligible for participation in the admission process. This was argued as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution.

It was further submitted that the imposed institutional and domicile-based preference amounted to 100% exclusion of open category candidates that led to regional parochialism and frustrated the objective of national integration and merit-based selection in higher medical education.

On the contrary, it was argued on behalf of the State that the petitioners had incorrectly equated institutional preference and in-service reservation with domicile-based reservation whereas no domicile requirement was imposed by either of the two reservations.

It was submitted that candidate admitted in Rajasthan Medical colleges or appointed in Rajasthan Government medical services were selected on an All-India basis through NEET and UPSC/State PSC respectively. Hence, the pool of eligible candidates under the two preference based categories was not confined to Rajasthan domiciles and was open to all candidates nationwide.

It was also argued on behalf of the State that the policy adopted was in furtherance of legitimate objectives of public policy, including encouragement of local health, infrastructure development, retention of medical talent within the State, and ensuring continuity of services in rural and under-served areas.

After hearing the contentions, the Court agreed with the arguments put forth on behalf of the State and referred to certain Supreme Court precedents.

Reference was made to the case of Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India in which the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of institutional preference to the extent of 50%. Further, the case of Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association v. Union of India was being referred to in which the Apex Court upheld the in-service reservation in light of Articles 21 and 47 of the Constitution recognizing State's positive obligation to promote public health infrastructure.

The Court further held that, “the maxim “salus populi suprema lex esto”— the welfare of the people shall be the supreme law, guides the State in formulating healthcare-related educational policy. The twin criteria of institutional preference and in-service reservation serve the larger public interest and are grounded in rational and non-arbitrary classification.”

In this light, it was held that the eligibility conditions and reservation policy notified via the addendum did not suffer from any constitutional infirmity, and were in accordance with Article 14 and 16.

Accordingly, the petitioners were dismissed.

Title: Anup Agrawal v State of Rajasthan & Anr, and other connected petitions

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 199

Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. Tanveer Ahamad with Mr. Anurag Mathur, Mr. Mohd. Kasim Khan, Mr. R.D. Meena

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG with Mr. Yash Joshi, Mr. Shubhendra Singh with Ms. Tanvisha Pant

Click Here To Read/Download Order