© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
The Punjab and Haryana High Court on November 26 directed the Chandigarh Administration to revise its policy for filling Union Territory (UT) quota seats in post-graduate medical courses and to file fresh affidavits before the next hearing on January 21, 2026.
The Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor said the administration is free to rework its policy, but any framework must comply with the existing Supreme Court rulings.
The court reiterated that domicile or residence-based reservation in PG medical courses is not permissible. It noted that the UT Chandigarh Pool cannot be filled on the basis of where a candidate studied or where their parents reside, and pointed to the settled principle that residence-based reservation is impermissible in PG medical courses. Institutional preference, it said, is the only recognised exception and must operate within narrow, merit-based limits.
The petition has been filed by Dr Tanvi, also referred to in earlier Supreme Court rulings as Dr Tanvi Behl. She has challenged Clause B of the prospectus issued by Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh, which sets the criteria for the UT Chandigarh Pool for MD and MS admissions. The respondents include the Chandigarh Administration, the National Medical Commission and several medical institutions.
The order states that the administration shall be at liberty to revisit the policy for filling UT quota seats in PG medical courses in line with existing judgments and place its updated stand on record by the next date.
In a clear reaffirmation of the governing legal position, the court held that half of the 155 PG seats must be filled through the All-India quota, while the remaining half may be filled through institutional preference.
The bench said institutional preference must not erode merit and cannot exceed 50 per cent of the total open seats. The order records that 50 per cent of the seats have to be filled from the All-India quota and the balance may be filled through institutional preference, subject to the cap recognised in precedent. It adds that reservation by way of institutional preference should not exceed 50 per cent of the total open seats.
The petitioner argued that the UT Pool is being filled through criteria linked to schooling in Chandigarh or parental residence in the city, which she says amount to residence-based reservation barred by Supreme Court precedent.
The Bench examined a slew of Supreme Court judgments on domicile-based reservation and institutional preference in PG medical admissions, including Dr Pradeep Jain, Saurabh Chaudhari and Dr Tanvi Behl, to assess the validity of Chandigarh’s policy and the limits within which institutional preference can operate.
Dr Tanvi was represented by advocate Gautam Pathania. The Chandigarh Administration was represented by senior advocate Amit Jhanji, additional standing counsel Sumeet Jain, additional standing counsel Himanshu Arora, junior panel counsel Dhruv Chowfla, and advocates Kudrit Kaur Sara and Eliza Gupta. The National Medical Commission was represented by advocate Ravi Sharma.
