Allahabad High Court Delivers Major Blow: Nullifies 79% Local Reservation in UP Medical Colleges

The Allahabad High Court has delivered a significant verdict, striking down a controversial government order that mandated a staggering 79% reservation for district-domiciled candidates in four newly established government medical colleges across Uttar Pradesh. This pivotal decision, handed down by Justice Vivek Chaudhary, sends a clear message regarding the sanctity of regulatory approvals in medical education.

The contentious Government Order (GO) was issued by the U.P.

government's Department of Medical Education on March 7, 2024. It aimed to reserve a substantial portion of MBBS seats for students residing in the respective districts of Pilibhit, Auraiya, Kanpur Dehat, and Lakhimpur Kheri, where the new medical colleges are located. However, the High Court found a critical flaw: the GO was implemented without the essential prior approval from the National Medical Commission (NMC), the apex regulatory body for medical education in India.

The court meticulously reviewed the arguments presented by Dr.

Mridul Mishra and 12 other petitioners, who challenged the legality of the reservation. Their contention revolved around the National Medical Commission Act, 2019, and the Graduate Medical Education Regulation, 2023. These regulations unequivocally stipulate that any new medical colleges or any increase in MBBS seats must receive prior permission from the NMC.

The court observed that the challenged GO effectively created an 'institutional reservation' without adhering to these fundamental statutory requirements, thereby rendering it null and void.

Justice Chaudhary emphasized that the power to regulate medical education, including the establishment of new colleges and the allocation of seats, lies squarely with the NMC.

By introducing a significant reservation policy without the NMC's explicit consent, the state government had overstepped its authority. The court further highlighted the ambiguity within the government order, noting its failure to precisely define "domiciled," which could lead to arbitrary application and potential disputes.

This landmark judgment is set to have far-reaching implications for the upcoming academic year 2024-25 admissions in these medical colleges.

It reinforces the paramount authority of the National Medical Commission in ensuring uniformity and standards in medical education across the country. The decision underscores the principle that admissions to such vital institutions must adhere to established legal frameworks and regulatory guidelines, ultimately promoting transparency and meritocracy in the selection process.

The court's ruling serves as a stern reminder to state governments that while they may pursue policies to benefit local populations, such initiatives must align with national regulatory mandates and obtain the necessary clearances from expert bodies like the NMC.

This ensures that the quality and integrity of medical education remain uncompromised.