The Rajasthan High Court upheld that reservation benefits in NEET-PG admissions are state-specific and cannot be claimed by candidates from other states. The Court dismissed the plea challenging the counselling board’s decision, reaffirming that non-domicile candidates can only compete under the general category.
In an important decision clarifying the rules of reservation in medical education, the Rajasthan High Court has held that candidates from other states cannot claim the benefit of reserved category seats in Rajasthan for postgraduate medical admissions.
The ruling was delivered by Justice Sanjeet Purohit while dismissing a petition filed by the Federation of Private Medical and Dental Colleges of Rajasthan. The petition had challenged a resolution dated February 18, 2026, issued by the NEET-PG counselling board.
The petitioner had requested the court to allow non-domicile candidates belonging to SC, ST, and OBC categories to avail reservation benefits in Rajasthan. This included the advantage of reduced qualifying percentiles and participation in counselling for reserved seats.
However, the High Court firmly rejected this plea. The Court observed that the system of reservation in India is designed in a way that each state identifies its own backward classes based on local social and economic conditions. In this context, the Court clearly stated that
“the constitutional scheme clearly envisages identification of reserved categories on a state-wise basis, rooted in local socio-economic conditions.”
The Court further explained that extending reservation benefits to candidates from other states would go against this constitutional framework. It emphasized that such an extension would disturb the balance intended by the Constitution and state-specific policies.
Also Read: Supreme Court Seeks Reply on Plea Against Two-Shift Format for NEET-PG 2025
The petitioner had argued that lowering NEET-PG qualifying percentiles was intended to fill vacant postgraduate medical seats, and this objective was being defeated by excluding out-of-state reserved category candidates. It was also argued that the decision effectively created a 100% domicile-based reservation and changed the rules during the counselling process.
On the other hand, the State defended its policy by stating that reservation benefits are meant only for candidates recognized under Rajasthan’s notified categories. It clarified that non-domicile candidates are not completely excluded—they can still participate in the counselling process, but only under the unreserved (general) category.
The Court agreed with the State’s position and rejected the argument that the policy amounted to complete domicile reservation. It clarified that the policy does not bar outside candidates but only limits reservation benefits to eligible Rajasthan candidates.
Importantly, the Court also ruled that candidates cannot claim admission to unreserved seats by using relaxed qualifying criteria meant for reserved categories. This ensures that merit standards are not diluted.
Also Read: NEET-PG 2024 || Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Reconduct Counselling
The judgment also highlighted that while filling vacant postgraduate seats is important, it cannot come at the cost of violating legal rules or compromising merit in specialized medical education.
In conclusion, the Court upheld the decision of the NEET-PG counselling board and found no illegality or discrimination in the policy. The writ petition, along with all pending applications, was dismissed.
This ruling reinforces the principle that reservation policies in India are state-specific and cannot be universally applied across state boundaries, especially in highly competitive fields like postgraduate medical education.
Click Here to Read More On NEET-PG
