In an interim order issued on Wednesday (December 18), the Jabalpur Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court temporarily halted the filling of NRI quota seats in the NEET-PG 2024 counselling process until a final verdict is delivered.
The division bench, comprising Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Anuradha Shukla, observed:
“Considering the matter has been heard and reserved today, and a final decision may take some time, it is in the interest of justice to prevent the creation of third-party rights. Therefore, until the final order is issued, the seats under the NRI quota shall remain unfilled during the ongoing PG course counselling and be kept in abeyance.”
Background of the Case
The interim order arose from a petition filed by a doctor who had successfully passed the MBBS exam and qualified for the All India NEET PG 2024. The petitioner argued that when the counselling process for postgraduate seats commenced, the respondents failed to follow due process as outlined in Rule 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Chikitsa Shiksha Pravesh Rules 2018.
The petitioner claimed that the seat matrix for private medical colleges, published on November 22, was not subjected to an objection-raising period. Instead, the process for choice filling and locking seats was started the very next day, November 23, continuing through November 25. The petitioner alleged that this bypassing of established procedures was arbitrary and illegal.
Key Allegations
- Manipulation of NRI Quota Seats
The petitioner accused the respondents of manipulating the 15% NRI quota by applying it selectively to only 8 branches instead of the full 22 branches available. This selective application allegedly resulted in a disproportionate increase in the number of seats allocated to NRI students in these branches while reducing the seats available for students from other categories, including SC, ST, OBC, EWS, and unreserved categories. - Violation of Reservation Policies
The petition claimed gross violations of the reservation policy. By selectively applying the NRI quota rule, the respondents allegedly reduced the number of seats that should have been allocated to meritorious students across various categories. - Differentiation Between Clinical and Non-Clinical Branches
The petitioner argued that the arbitrary allocation of seats to only 8 clinical branches while ignoring the rest led to an overall shortage of seats for other categories.
Arguments and Interim Relief
During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel highlighted the urgency of restraining the respondents from proceeding with NRI seat allocations to avoid further discrepancies. Conversely, the respondents’ counsel opposed the claims, defending their actions as compliant with existing regulations.
The court deemed it necessary to issue an interim order to safeguard justice and prevent the creation of third-party rights.
Conclusion
The High Court’s interim stay on filling NRI quota seats ensures that the counselling process does not create irreversible outcomes while the matter is under judicial review. The final verdict will provide clarity on whether the respondents adhered to the rules and reservation policies or engaged in arbitrary practices as alleged.