Punjab & Haryana HC Upholds Haryana's 40% In-Service PG Medical Quota Without Prior Rural Service Condition

The Division Bench held that Haryana's policy permitting in-service doctors to access 40% PG medical seats without prior rural posting is constitutionally valid, provided they execute a five-year rural service bond after completing the course.

A Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, comprising Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor, on 4 August 2026 dismissed a writ petition filed by MBBS-qualified medical professionals who had challenged Haryana's 2024 notification reserving 40% of State quota seats in postgraduate medical courses for in-service doctors belonging to the Haryana Civil Medical Services and related bodies. The petitioners had argued that the benefit of the in-service quota must be restricted to doctors who had already rendered two years of service in rural, remote, or difficult areas. The bench rejected that contention, holding that the State's policy — which requires in-service doctors to execute a bond for five years' rural service after obtaining the postgraduate degree — adequately serves the constitutional object and is not open to challenge under Article 226.

The Dispute Before the High Court

The petitioners are registered medical professionals pursuing admission to M.D./M.S. and other postgraduate courses in government, government-aided, and private medical institutions in Haryana for the Academic Session 2024-25. They took aim at two specific notifications issued by the State.

The first was Clause 2(2) of the notification dated 2 September 2024, which reserves up to 40% of State quota PG seats as in-service category seats for regular Haryana Government in-service candidates — including doctors serving in HCMS, ESIC-run hospitals and dispensaries, and autonomous bodies of the State Government. Under this clause, any such doctor holding a valid No Objection Certificate from the competent authority is eligible for counselling, regardless of whether they had ever worked in a rural or difficult area.

The second target was Clause 1 of a separate notification dated 25 July 2024, which states that any in-service HCMS/HCDS doctor who has completed two years of regular satisfactory service and cleared probation is eligible for an NOC to pursue postgraduate courses — without pay during the study period.

The petitioners' core prayer was a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to restrict the 40% in-service quota strictly to doctors who had already rendered two years of service in rural, remote, or difficult areas of Haryana. They sought quashing of both clauses to that extent.

Although admissions for the Academic Session 2024-25 had already concluded by the time the matter was heard, the bench decided to adjudicate the issues on merits because similar policies have been framed in subsequent years and the questions raised are recurring in nature.

The Legal Controversy Over In-Service Quotas

The bench traced the legal history of the in-service doctor admission channel at some length, because the source and scope of that power has been contested before the Supreme Court more than once.

Parliament has enacted the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 under Entry 66, List I of the Constitution, which deals with co-ordination and determination of standards in higher education. Regulation 9(4) of the Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 permits reservation of seats as per applicable State laws but also allows weightage in NEET marks — up to 10% per year, capped at 30% — for service in remote, difficult, or rural areas. Regulation 9(8) separately reserves 50% of seats in postgraduate diploma courses for medical officers who have served at least three years in such areas.

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in State of UP v. Dinesh Singh Chauhan, (2016) 9 SCC 749, had held that States lacked jurisdiction to create a separate channel of admission for in-service doctors, treating the Regulation 9(4) reservation reference as akin to constitutional reservations.

That view was overruled by a Constitution Bench in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association v. Union of India, (2021) 6 SCC 568. The Constitution Bench held that the Medical Council of India has no power under Entry 66, List I to regulate reservations or a separate source of entry for in-service candidates, which falls within the legislative competence of the States under Entry 25, List III. The bench in the present matter extracted the Constitution Bench's conclusions at length, including the finding that Regulation 9, to the extent it interferes with State reservations for in-service candidates, is ultra vires and violative of Articles 14 and 21.

The Constitution Bench in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association also observed in paragraph 97 that State instruments providing for a separate in-service channel “should make a minimum service in rural or remote or difficult areas for a specified period mandatory” before a candidate could seek admission through that channel. It was on this paragraph that the petitioners primarily anchored their case.

How the Bench Reasoned

Acting Chief Justice Mishra, writing for the bench, began by affirming that, following the Constitution Bench decision, the State's power to provide a separate admission channel for in-service doctors is no longer open to doubt. The State draws this power from Entry 25, List III, read with Article 162, which makes executive power co-extensive with legislative power. The bench cited Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P., (1982) 1 SCC 39, and State of Punjab v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd., (2004) 11 SCC 26, for that proposition.

The bench then examined the structure of the State's 2024 policy in detail. It noted that the State has, in fact, created two distinct sub-categories within the in-service quota:

Doctors who have completed three years of regular satisfactory service, with at least two of those years spent in rural or remote and difficult areas, are entitled to pursue M.D./M.S. courses with full pay. Their study period counts as service for all purposes, and stipends received during the course are deposited into the State treasury.

In-service doctors who have not fulfilled the rural service threshold are permitted to take the in-service quota seats but without salary during their study period, though their lien on service is protected and service continuity for increments, seniority, and pension is maintained.

For both sub-categories, the notification requires execution of a bond committing the doctor to serve in rural, remote, or difficult areas for five years after completing the postgraduate course.

The bench held that this distinction rests on an intelligible differentia. Doctors who have already borne the burden of rural posting receive the additional benefit of salary continuity; those who have not are still permitted in the channel but with reduced financial support. The object — improving medical facilities in rural and difficult areas of Haryana — is served by the compulsory post-qualification bond. The bench found that this classification does not violate Article 14.

On the petitioners' central reliance on paragraph 97 of Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association, the bench made a pointed distinction. It observed that the Constitution Bench's observation in that paragraph was made in the context of examining the Regulations that were before it; no specific State policy was under challenge there. In contrast, the present petition directly challenges the Haryana Government's Notification dated 2 September 2024. Since that policy is independently valid — it rests on intelligible differentia and has a definite object — the observation in paragraph 97 does not compel the reading the petitioners urge.

The bench also relied on the line of precedent, affirmed in the concurring opinion of Justice Aniruddha Bose in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association, that the in-service admission channel is a separate source of entry, not a constitutional reservation in the compensatory discrimination sense. This line runs through State of M.P. v. Gopal D. Tirthani, (2003) 7 SCC 83, AIIMS Students' Union v. AIIMS, (2002) 1 SCC 428, and several other decisions, and consistently holds that classifying in-service doctors as a distinct class is valid provided the classification has a rational nexus with the object sought. The bench found that nexus present here.

Haryana had notified 46 blocks across various districts as remote or difficult areas by a notification dated 17 January 2018, for the purpose of providing benefits and incentives. The policy framework for issuing NOCs to HCMS candidates for the Academic Session 2024-25 was set out in communications beginning with a public notice from the Director General, Medical Education and Research Department, Haryana, and a further communication dated 24 May 2024.

The bench declined to accept the Calcutta High Court judgment in Tania Mukherjee & Others v. State of West Bengal and Others, WPA No. 1582 of 2022, on which the petitioners had also relied, as a basis for reading a mandatory prior rural service condition into Haryana's notification, given its finding that the State's own policy is constitutionally sustainable on its own terms.

Outcome

The bench held that the Notification dated 2 September 2024 is within the legislative competence of the State under Entry 25, List III, does not encroach upon the field occupied by Central legislation, and does not violate Article 254 of the Constitution. It further held that the notification does not contravene any provision of the Constitution or any applicable statute, and is not manifestly arbitrary so as to warrant interference under Article 226.

The writ petition was dismissed. All pending miscellaneous applications in the matter were also disposed of.