Discrimination Against Native MP Students in NEET PG Counselling: High Court Issues Notice to State Government

Jabalpur: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has issued notices to the State Government and the Director of Medical Education over allegations of discrimination against native students in the allocation of NEET PG medical seats. The division bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf sought a detailed response after hearing a petition filed challenging the revised counselling rules.

The petition, filed by Dr. Vivek Jain of Balaghat and Dr. Daksh Goyal of Ratlam, alleges that the current NEET PG counselling policy grants 100% reservation in the first two rounds to students who have completed their MBBS from medical colleges within Madhya Pradesh, effectively excluding native MP residents who pursued their MBBS studies in other states.

Petition Highlights Skewed Seat Distribution

According to the petitioners, Madhya Pradesh has a total of 1,468 PG medical seats across 15 medical colleges, of which:

• 50% are reserved under the All India Quota,
• The remaining seats fall under the state quota, further divided among OBC, SC, ST, and EWS categories.

After these reservations, only 518 seats remain for the general category, making fair access crucial for native students.

The petitioners argue that the revised rules violate Supreme Court and High Court judgments that mandate priority admission for native residents, irrespective of where they completed their MBBS.

Controversial Counselling Rules Under Question

The amended rules state that:

• Only students who completed MBBS from Madhya Pradesh can participate in the first and second counselling rounds.
• Candidates participating in these rounds cannot take part in the mop-up round.

This system, the petition claims, automatically grants full reservation to MP-educated students, excluding genuine native residents who studied elsewhere due to limited seats or other reasons.

Contradiction in State’s Claims and Rules

The petition points out a contradiction:
While the state government claims to prioritize native residents, the counselling rules have removed the term “native resident”, replacing it with a preference for students who studied in MP colleges—thus allegedly discriminating against actual domicile students.

Advocate Aditya Sanghi represented the petitioners. The court has directed the respondents to file their replies.