Jodhpur, April 15 (Udaipur Kiran): The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that candidates from reserved categories of other states will not be eligible for reservation benefits in state quota counselling for NEET PG. A single bench of Justice Sangeet Purohit dismissed the petition filed by the Federation of Private Medical and Dental Colleges of Rajasthan.
In its detailed and reportable order, the court clarified that reservation granted in one state cannot be applied in another state.
The petition was filed by Puneet Makhija, a resident of Debari in Udaipur, representing the federation. It challenged the decision taken in a meeting held on February 18, which denied the benefit of reduced cutoff marks to reserved category candidates from other states in the stray vacancy round by treating them as unreserved.
The NEET PG 2025–26 result was declared on August 19, 2025. Even after multiple rounds of counselling under the All India quota and state quota between October 2025 and January 2026, a significant number of postgraduate seats remained vacant. Following this, the National Board of Examination reduced the cutoff on January 13, 2026.
Before revision, the cutoff was 276 marks for General and EWS candidates (50th percentile) and 235 marks for SC, ST and OBC candidates (40th percentile). After revision, it was reduced to 103 marks for General and EWS candidates and minus 40 marks for SC, ST and OBC candidates.
Senior advocate M.S. Singhvi, along with Hemant Balani, argued on behalf of the petitioner that denying the benefit to outside candidates even after lowering the cutoff effectively results in 100 percent domicile-based reservation. They cited previous judgments and argued that leaving medical seats vacant amounts to national waste.
The petitioner also contended that when reserved seats convert to unreserved, outside reserved candidates should be allowed the benefit of relaxed cutoff marks. Reference was made to a previous case to seek parity.
Opposing the plea, Additional Advocate General Vigyan Shah and government counsel Milap Choudhary stated that the February 18 decision was not a new order but a clarification of Clause 4 of the instruction booklet, which already specifies that reservation benefits are limited to domicile candidates of Rajasthan.
They argued that the federation had not challenged this clause during earlier counselling rounds and raising objections at the final stage was not justified. Citing Supreme Court judgments, they maintained that a person recognised as reserved in one state cannot claim the same status in another.
The court, after hearing both sides, examined Articles 341, 342 and 342A of the Constitution and observed that reservation is clearly state-specific. It also referred to relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Reservation Act, 2008 and the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2023.
Rejecting the petitioner’s argument of complete domicile-based reservation, the court clarified that outside candidates are not excluded entirely. They can still compete for unreserved seats by meeting the general cutoff of 103 marks.
The bench further held that once a seat is treated as unreserved, it must be filled strictly as per unreserved category criteria, and extending relaxed cutoff benefits in such cases would violate the legal framework.
Bhupendra Singh Chundawat is a seasoned technology journalist with over 22 years of experience in the media industry. He specializes in covering the global technology landscape, with a deep focus on manufacturing trends and the geopolitical impact on tech companies. Currently serving as the Editor at Udaipur Kiran, his insights are shaped by decades of hands-on reporting and editorial leadership in the fast-evolving world of technology.
