The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of an addendum to the NEET PG 2024 admission guidelines for the six-month Ultrasound Training Course under the PCPNDT Rules. The amendment introduced a dual reservation scheme — 50% institutional preference for students from Rajasthan-based medical colleges and 50% in-service reservation for doctors working with the Rajasthan government.
Petitioners argued that the addendum effectively blocked 100% of available seats for candidates outside these two categories. They claimed this indirectly mandated Rajasthan domicile or institutional qualification, thereby excluding similarly placed meritorious candidates from other states, in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court Urges Use of Technology in NDPS Investigations, Denies Bail to Repeat Offender Imran Ali
"The petitioners contended that such complete exclusion led to regional parochialism and went against national integration and merit-based medical education."
They relied on precedents like Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, Tanvi Behl v. Shrey Goel, and Simple Gupta case, arguing that such institutional and in-service reservations should not exceed the 50% constitutional ceiling and that domicile-based preferences are unconstitutional.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court Urges Consortium of NLUs to Avoid Excessive Fees for Question Objections in CLAT Exams
On the other hand, the State argued that the reservation was not domicile-based. Candidates eligible under both preferences were selected on an all-India basis through NEET or recruited through national public service exams. The policy's aim was to strengthen the public healthcare system by retaining trained professionals and ensuring service continuity in rural Rajasthan.
"The Court noted that both institutional and in-service categories are open to candidates nationwide and do not exclude meritorious students from outside Rajasthan."
Justice Sameer Jain, citing Supreme Court judgments in Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India and Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association v. Union of India, held that institutional and in-service preferences up to 50% are constitutionally valid. He emphasized the maxim:
"Salus populi suprema lex esto — the welfare of the people shall be the supreme law."
This principle, the court said, justifies the healthcare-driven reservation policy. The remaining seats, if any, would go first to Rajasthan domiciles and then to general category candidates.
Read Also:- Punjab & Haryana High Court: State Cannot Withhold Retiral Benefits Over FIR If Challan Was Filed Long Ago
"The Court concluded that the impugned eligibility criteria serve a legitimate public interest and are neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional."
As a result, all connected petitions challenging the addendum were dismissed, confirming the legality of the State’s admission criteria under NEET PG 2024.
Title: Anup Agrawal v State of Rajasthan & Anr, and other connected petitions
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
