Introduction:

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed the State Government to ensure that admissions of in-service candidates to postgraduate medical courses remain confined to the 30% seats earmarked for them under the existing seat-distribution framework. The interim direction was issued after fresh or non-in-service NEET PG candidates alleged that the State’s admission methodology was allowing in-service candidates to derive a double advantage through both a separate quota and additional incentive marks for their years of service.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Alpesh Kogje and Justice Vivek Jain took note of the petitioners’ contention that the manner in which the admission process was being conducted was adversely affecting fresh candidates who had secured higher scores in the NEET PG examination. The Bench observed that the methodology adopted by the State appeared to result in in-service candidates receiving the benefit of the 30% reservation as well as additional marks based on their professional experience, thereby placing fresh candidates at a disadvantage.

The dispute concerns admission to postgraduate medical degree courses, including MD and MS programmes, for the NEET PG-2026-27 admission cycle. The relevant framework includes the Madhya Pradesh Chikitsa Shiksha Pravesh Niyam, 2018, which regulates admission to medical courses in the State. Rule 14 of these Rules provides for incentive weightage to eligible in-service candidates based on the length of their service.

The policy of granting incentive marks to doctors serving in government healthcare institutions is intended to recognise their service and encourage medical professionals to work in areas where healthcare facilities may be limited. Such weightage can improve an in-service candidate’s effective merit position for admission to postgraduate courses. However, the present controversy concerns the relationship between this incentive mechanism and the separate 30% allocation of seats for in-service candidates.

According to the petitioners, the State’s method of applying incentive marks was effectively allowing in-service candidates to compete for postgraduate seats with an enhanced merit position while also benefiting from the seats reserved for their category. They argued that this arrangement went beyond the benefit contemplated under the admission framework and created an unequal situation for fresh candidates.

The petitioners illustrated their concern by referring to an in-service candidate who had secured an All India Rank of 13,865 in NEET PG but, after the addition of incentive marks, was placed at merit position 333. According to the petition, such an improvement could enable an in-service candidate to exercise preference for a desired postgraduate speciality ahead of fresh candidates who had obtained higher NEET PG scores.

The challenge was therefore not simply to the existence of incentive marks under Rule 14. Rather, it concerned the manner in which the State was applying the incentive mechanism alongside the 30% allocation for in-service candidates. The petitioners contended that the combined effect of these benefits was inconsistent with the governing admission rules and violated the constitutional guarantee of equality under Article 14.

Considering that the allotment process was already underway, the High Court considered it necessary to issue an interim direction to prevent the disputed methodology from affecting the ongoing admission process before the matter could be examined in detail. It directed the State to restrict the allotment of branches and subjects to in-service candidates to the seats falling within the 30% allocation under the applicable category-wise seat-distribution framework.

The Court also permitted the petitioners to serve the respondents through physical service and email and directed the parties to complete their pleadings. The matter was listed for further consideration on November 5, 2026, at 2:30 PM.

The order is significant because it addresses the need to maintain a clear distinction between a separate seat allocation for in-service candidates and the incentive weightage granted to them under the admission rules. It also highlights the importance of ensuring that the implementation of a beneficial admission policy does not unintentionally undermine the opportunities available to another category of eligible candidates.

Arguments of the Parties:

The petitioners, who are fresh or non-in-service candidates seeking admission to postgraduate medical courses, questioned the methodology adopted by the State in preparing and applying the merit list for the ongoing NEET PG admission process.

Their principal contention was that the addition of service-based incentive marks to the NEET PG scores of in-service candidates was substantially improving their relative merit positions. According to them, the resulting arrangement was creating an unequal playing field, particularly where candidates with lower original NEET PG scores were being placed ahead of fresh candidates who had performed better in the entrance examination.

The petitioners acknowledged the existence of Rule 14 of the Madhya Pradesh Chikitsa Shiksha Pravesh Niyam, 2018, under which in-service candidates are entitled to incentive weightage based on their length of service. Their grievance, however, was directed towards the manner in which this benefit was being applied in conjunction with the separate allocation of 30% of postgraduate seats for in-service candidates.

They contended that the 30% allocation already provided a distinct opportunity for in-service candidates to secure postgraduate seats. When additional incentive marks were also used to improve their merit positions, the combined effect was allegedly to provide them with an advantage beyond the intended scope of the admission framework.

The petitioners argued that the State’s methodology effectively resulted in a double benefit. In their submission, in-service candidates were not merely receiving the advantage of competing within the designated 30% allocation but were also gaining an enhanced position in the merit arrangement through the addition of service-related marks. This, they claimed, could allow them to obtain preferred branches or specialities at the expense of fresh candidates with higher NEET PG scores.

To demonstrate the practical impact of the methodology, the petitioners referred to the example of an in-service candidate who had secured an All India Rank of 13,865 but was placed at merit position 333 after the addition of incentive marks. They relied on this example to illustrate how service weightage could substantially alter the relative position of candidates in the admission process.

According to the petitioners, such an improvement was not merely a numerical adjustment. It could have a direct impact on the allotment of postgraduate specialities because candidates placed higher in the applicable merit list may have an opportunity to exercise their preferences before candidates ranked lower.

They further submitted that fresh candidates who had secured higher marks in NEET PG could consequently lose the opportunity to obtain their preferred specialities to in-service candidates whose positions had improved through incentive weightage. The petitioners maintained that this outcome was unfair, particularly if the State’s method effectively allowed the in-service category to benefit twice from the same admission framework.

The petitioners also challenged the methodology on statutory and constitutional grounds. They contended that the manner in which the State was conducting admissions was contrary to the 2018 Admission Rules and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. Their case was that the State, while implementing the admission policy, was required to act consistently with the prescribed rules and could not adopt a method that created an unreasonable disadvantage for fresh candidates.

On this basis, the petitioners sought judicial intervention during the ongoing allotment process. Their immediate concern was to ensure that the admission process did not proceed in a manner that would make their challenge ineffective by the time the Court finally considered the legality of the disputed methodology.

The State was represented by Additional Advocate Generals Janhavi Pandit and BD Singh. However, the available case summary does not set out the State’s detailed counter-arguments or its explanation of how Rule 14 and the 30% allocation were being applied. It would therefore be inappropriate to attribute to the State any specific legal justification or defence beyond what is recorded in the summary.

The central controversy before the Bench consequently concerned the petitioners’ allegation that the existing method of allotment was producing an unintended cumulative advantage for in-service candidates. The Court was required to consider whether an interim arrangement was necessary to preserve the position of fresh candidates while the parties completed their pleadings and the legal questions were examined.

Court’s Judgment:

The Madhya Pradesh High Court took note of the petitioners’ submissions and expressed concern over the apparent effect of the admission methodology adopted by the State. Since the allotment process was already underway, the Bench considered that the matter required urgent attention and that an interim direction was necessary to ensure that in-service candidates were allotted seats only within the 30% allocation under the applicable seat-distribution framework.

The Court’s concern over the alleged double benefit

The Division Bench specifically observed that the methodology adopted by the Director appeared to have the effect of providing in-service candidates with two advantages: the benefit of the 30% allocation and the addition of marks based on their experience.

The Court stated:

“It appears that the modus adopted by the respondent/Director for admitting the students to the course is having an effect by which the in-service candidates are getting dual benefit both in the quota of reservation of 30% and the addition of marks on the basis of their experience, which is causing great injustice to the fresh students who are having higher NEET PG score”.

This observation reflected the Bench’s concern that the interaction between the two benefits could materially affect the relative position of candidates during the allotment process.

The Court’s use of the expression “dual benefit” was particularly important because the petitioners’ challenge was based on the cumulative effect of the separate allocation and the service incentive. The issue was not merely whether incentive marks could be granted to in-service candidates. Rule 14 itself provides for such weightage. Instead, the concern was whether the manner in which the State was implementing the seat allocation and incentive mechanism was resulting in an advantage that adversely affected fresh candidates.

The Court’s observation was, however, made at an interim stage. It recorded the apparent effect of the methodology in light of the submissions before it, rather than delivering a final determination on the validity of Rule 14 or the State’s entire admission framework.

Direction restricting allotment to the 30% allocation

Taking into account the urgency of the matter and the ongoing allotment process, the Bench issued a direction requiring the respondents to ensure that allotment of branches and subjects to in-service candidates remained restricted to the seats falling within the 30% allocation.

The Court directed:

“Considering the urgency with which the matter is required to be taken up and the ongoing process of allotment of seats, the Court deems it fit to direct that the Respondents shall ensure the allotment of branches/ subject to inservice candidates restricting to the seats of 30% as per the Government and Autonomous Medical Colleges of Madhya Pradesh – Category wise Seat Distribution of PG Degree vacancies (MD/MS) NEET PG-2026-2”.

The direction was linked to the existing category-wise seat-distribution framework for postgraduate degree vacancies in Government and Autonomous Medical Colleges of Madhya Pradesh. Thus, the State was required to ensure that the allotment to in-service candidates did not extend beyond the seats identified for them under the 30% allocation.

The immediate purpose of the direction was to regulate the ongoing allotment process while the petition remained pending. The Bench did not, at this stage, finally determine the legality of the incentive marks or declare Rule 14 unconstitutional. Nor did it conclusively decide whether the addition of incentive marks necessarily amounted to an impermissible double benefit in every circumstance.

Instead, it intervened to ensure that the seat allotment remained within the specified allocation while the parties placed their respective positions before the Court.

Relationship between Rule 14 and Article 14

The dispute raises an important question concerning the relationship between statutory incentive provisions and the constitutional guarantee of equality.

Rule 14 of the Madhya Pradesh Chikitsa Shiksha Pravesh Niyam, 2018, provides for service-based incentive weightage to eligible in-service candidates. Such provisions generally recognise the professional contribution of doctors serving in public healthcare institutions and may be intended to encourage medical service in areas facing shortages of healthcare professionals.

However, the implementation of an incentive mechanism must remain consistent with the applicable admission rules. The existence of a policy benefit does not give the State unlimited discretion to apply it in a manner that departs from the governing framework.

Article 14 requires the State to act fairly and prohibits arbitrary or unreasonable treatment. In the context of admissions, this principle requires the authorities to follow the prescribed eligibility, merit and seat-allocation rules and to ensure that the classification between different categories of candidates has a lawful basis.

The petitioners invoked Article 14 on the ground that the combined effect of the 30% allocation and incentive marks was unfairly disadvantaging fresh candidates. Their argument was that candidates with higher NEET PG scores were being placed behind in-service candidates whose merit positions had improved through service weightage.

The High Court’s interim observations indicate that it considered this grievance sufficiently serious to warrant immediate protection during the ongoing allotment process. Nevertheless, the precise constitutional validity of the admission methodology remains a matter for further consideration after the pleadings are completed.

Importance of the ongoing allotment process

A significant factor influencing the Court’s decision was the timing of the petition. The allotment process for postgraduate medical seats was already underway. If the disputed methodology continued to operate without any interim clarification, the petitioners’ concerns could have affected the allocation of branches and subjects before the Court had an opportunity to examine the matter fully.

Medical postgraduate admissions involve a competitive process in which the relative position of candidates can determine the speciality and institution available to them. An allotment made during the pendency of litigation may have practical consequences for both the candidates who receive seats and those who claim to have been unfairly displaced.

The Court therefore considered it necessary to address the immediate situation rather than allow the process to continue without a direction concerning the 30% allocation.

Its approach was intended to preserve the relevant seat-distribution arrangement while ensuring that the petitioners’ challenge could be considered meaningfully. The direction did not finally resolve the dispute over incentive marks, but it established an interim requirement that the State must follow when allotting seats to in-service candidates.

Completion of pleadings and further hearing

Apart from issuing the interim direction, the Bench permitted the petitioners to serve the respondents through physical service as well as email. This was intended to facilitate prompt communication of the proceedings in view of the urgency arising from the ongoing allotment process.

The Court also directed the parties to complete their pleadings so that the issues raised in the petition could be considered on a fuller record. This would allow the State to place its explanation of the admission methodology and the operation of the 2018 Rules before the Court, while giving the petitioners an opportunity to respond.

The matter was listed for November 5, 2026, at 2:30 PM, for further consideration.

The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate Aditya Sanghi, along with Advocates Vinita Ahuja and Alka Singh. The State was represented by Additional Advocate Generals Janhavi Pandit and BD Singh.

The order is an interim intervention and should not be read as a final ruling invalidating service-based incentive marks or determining the ultimate rights of either category of candidates. The Court has, at this stage, addressed the immediate concern that in-service allotments should remain confined to the 30% seats identified under the applicable framework.

Ultimately, the case raises a broader question about how admission policies can balance the interests of doctors serving in the public healthcare system with the merit-based expectations of fresh candidates. While service incentives may serve a legitimate policy objective, their implementation must remain within the governing admission rules and constitutional boundaries. The High Court’s direction seeks to ensure that the ongoing allotment process respects the specified seat distribution while the legality of the disputed methodology is examined further.