Finality over Residence-Based Reservations in PG Medical Seats: A Commentary on Avijit Chander & Ors. v. Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors., 2025 PHHC 75822

1. Introduction

For more than a decade, admission to Post-Graduate (PG) medical courses in the Government Medical College & Hospital, Sector-32, Chandigarh (GMCH-32) has oscillated between two conflicting ideas: local preference and national merit. In 2025 the Punjab & Haryana High Court was again asked to intervene when five candidates challenged a Public Notice dated 03.06.2025 that re-allocated vacant “Union Territory (U.T.) Pool” seats to the All-India Quota (AIQ) after the Supreme Court had already struck down residence-based reservations in Dr. TANVI BEHL v. SHREY GOEL (2025). The petitioners sought a writ of Certiorari under Article 226 to restore the U.T. seats to the “Institutional Preference” (IP) pool within the State quota. Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu, speaking for a Division Bench, dismissed the petition and—importantly—re-affirmed two intertwined principles:

• Residence-based reservation in PG medical courses is constitutionally impermissible; and
• When the Supreme Court and a coordinate Bench have settled the controversy, the High Court will not reopen it on identical facts.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• The Court dismissed the writ petition at the threshold, holding that the controversy had already been conclusively decided by the Supreme Court in Shrey Goel (29.01.2025) and by a coordinate Bench of the same High Court in Shubhamdeep Singh Kang v. U.T. Chandigarh (27.05.2025).
• It emphasized that residence-based reservations are impermissible. Therefore, the 32 seats earlier earmarked as “U.T. Pool” must be treated as part of AIQ once they fall vacant.
• Petitioner-candidates 3, 4 and 5 lacked locus standi because they had neither completed MBBS nor qualified NEET-PG 2024.
• The petitioners were told that any grievance about non-compliance should be addressed by initiating appropriate contempt or execution proceedings, not by filing a fresh writ petition.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The Court anchored its reasoning in a well-travelled judicial journey on medical admissions:

1. Jagadish Saran v. Union of India (1980) & Pradeep Jain v. Union of India (1984) – The first decisions to recognise that residence-based reservations at the PG level are constitutionally suspect, allowing only limited “institutional preference.”
2. Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India (2003) – A Constitution Bench sustained the limited institutional preference but reiterated the bar on broad domicile reservations in postgraduate studies.
3. Magan Mehrotra (2003), Nikhil Himthani (2013), Vishal Goyal (2014), and Neil Aurelio Nunes (2022) – Series of cases reinforcing the dictum that PG education should favour ‘excellence through merit’ over ‘relative egalitarianism through residence’.
4. Dr. TANVI BEHL v. SHREY GOEL & Ors., Civil Appeal 9289/2019 (29.01.2025) – The pivot precedent. The Supreme Court held unequivocally that the 32 “U.T. Pool” seats in GMCH-32 were illegally reserved on the basis of residence and must henceforth be filled purely by merit.
5. Shubhamdeep Singh Kang v. U.T. Chandigarh, CWP-9749-2025 (27.05.2025) – A Division Bench of the same High Court directed the Administration to implement Shrey Goel in letter and spirit for PG-2024 admissions.

By collating these precedents, the present Bench concluded that the legal landscape left no space for re-litigation. The res judicata-like effect of the Supreme Court and coordinate Bench decisions compelled dismissal.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Lack of Cause of Action for Some Petitioners
   Candidates 3-5 neither completed MBBS nor qualified NEET-PG; they were, therefore, “strangers” to the impugned notice. On locus standi grounds alone their claim failed.
2. Binding Precedent and Judicial Discipline
   Article 141 of the Constitution makes Supreme Court law binding on all courts. After Shrey Goel, no High Court could hold to the contrary. Further, a Division Bench is bound by an earlier Division Bench unless the matter is referred to a larger bench. Consequently, the Court invoked the doctrine of judicial hierarchy and stare decisis to refuse fresh scrutiny.
3. Merits Already Exhausted
   Because the constitutional question (legality of residence-based reservation) had been definitively answered, the only live issue was administrative compliance. That falls outside the scope of a new writ and should be addressed via contempt or execution proceedings.

3.3 Anticipated Impact

• Administrative Compliance Nationwide: Medical colleges in other Union Territories and smaller States that rely on domicile-based PG reservations will have to revisit their seat-matrix. Chandigarh is now a model for adherence to AIQ norms.
• Litigation Streamlined: The ruling acts as a caution against repetitive writ petitions attempting to re-agitate matters already concluded, thereby unclogging the High Court docket.
• Policy Realignment: Admission brochures/prospectuses must discard the “U.T./State Pool” concept if it is residence-based and can only retain institutional preference up to a “reasonable number” (often set at 50% of State quota seats).

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• All India Quota (AIQ): 50% of PG seats in government medical colleges must be filled purely on national merit determined by NEET-PG.
• State Quota: The remaining 50% can be filled by the State/UT, but without domicile reservation at the PG level; only limited institutional preference is allowed.
• Institutional Preference (IP): A candidate who studied MBBS in the same institution may be given a preference—usually up to one-half of the State quota.
• Residence-based Reservation: Reserving seats for “locals”; struck down for PG courses as it undermines merit and mobility.
• Writ of Certiorari (Art. 226): A High Court command to quash an illegal order of a public authority.
• Res judicata: A dispute once judicially decided cannot be agitated again between the same parties on the same cause.
• Coordinate Bench: Another bench of the same strength within the same court; its decisions are binding unless overruled by a larger bench or the Supreme Court.

5. Conclusion

The judgment in Avijit Chander does not craft an entirely new doctrine; rather, it cements the finality of earlier Supreme Court and High Court pronouncements that residence-based reservations in PG medical admissions are unconstitutional. Its principal contribution lies in signaling that:

1. Administrative authorities must swiftly realign their counseling processes with the Supreme Court’s directives;
2. Litigants cannot use successive writ petitions to mount collateral attacks on settled issues; and
3. The High Court will deploy judicial discipline to enforce, not revisit, higher-court pronouncements.

As India strives for uniform standards in medical education, this ruling strengthens the architecture of merit-based admissions, ensures nationwide mobility for PG aspirants, and fortifies the doctrine of finality in judicial decision-making.