The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld Haryana’s policy reserving up to 40% of State quota seats in postgraduate medical courses for in-service doctors, ruling that prior two-year service in rural, remote or difficult areas is not a mandatory condition for admission through the in-service channel.
A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor dismissed the challenge to the State’s policy, holding that Haryana was within its legal authority to create a separate admission channel for doctors already serving the government.
Background Of The Case
The petition was filed by qualified MBBS doctors who challenged Haryana’s notifications governing admission to MD/MS and other postgraduate medical courses for the 2024-25 academic session.
Under the September 2, 2024 notification, up to 40% of State quota seats were earmarked for regular Haryana Government in-service doctors, including those working under HCMS and HCDS, subject to a valid No Objection Certificate.
The petitioners argued that only doctors who had already completed two years of service in rural, remote or difficult areas should be allowed to compete through this separate channel. They also questioned the State’s policy permitting other in-service doctors to obtain an NOC after completing two years of regular satisfactory service, even without rural-area service.
Court Examines Supreme Court Rulings
The High Court considered the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Medical Officers Association v. Union of India, which recognized the State’s authority to create a separate source of admission for in-service doctors.
The Supreme Court had held that such a separate entry channel could operate provided the minimum standards for postgraduate medical education were maintained. It also emphasized the importance of requiring doctors entering through such a channel to serve rural, tribal or hilly areas after obtaining their postgraduate qualification.
The High Court therefore found that Haryana’s power to frame a policy for postgraduate admission of in-service doctors could not be questioned merely because the State had created a separate category.
Court Observation
The Bench noted that Haryana’s policy did not completely ignore rural service. Instead, it created different benefits for doctors depending on their previous service.
Doctors who had completed two years in rural, remote or difficult areas could pursue postgraduate studies with full salary and other service benefits. Those who had not completed such service could still pursue postgraduate studies as in-service candidates, but without salary during the course, while retaining certain service benefits such as continuity and lien.
The Court observed,
“The distinction drawn between two sets of in-service doctors is based on intelligible differentia,” finding that the classification had a specific connection with the objective of improving medical facilities in rural and difficult areas.
The Bench also noted that candidates benefiting from the in-service policy were required to execute a bond undertaking to serve the State in rural, remote or difficult areas for five years after obtaining their postgraduate qualification. According to the Court, this requirement sufficiently served the policy’s objective.
Decision
The High Court rejected the argument that two years of prior rural or difficult-area service was an essential condition for admission through the in-service quota.
It held that the distinction between doctors who had already completed such service and those who had not was legally valid and did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution.
The Bench further held that Haryana’s September 2, 2024 notification was neither beyond the State’s legislative competence nor in conflict with Central legislation.
Finding no constitutional or legal defect and no manifest arbitrariness in the policy, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
Case Details:
Case Title: Gunjan Nehra and Others v. State of Haryana and Others
Case Number: CWP-28866-2024 (O&M)
Judge: Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Acting Chief Justice; Justice Rohit Kapoor
Decision Date: August 4, 2026
-300x169.webp)
