The appeals under consideration arose from judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in December 2023 and January 2024. The appellants, who had challenged the Department of Medical Education’s decision, argued that the allocation of MBBS seats under the UR-GS quota was not being handled correctly. Specifically, they contended that reserved category candidates from government schools who were meritorious had been unfairly denied seats that should have been allocated to them before being released to the open category.

The controversy began with amendments to the Madhya Pradesh Education Admission Rules, 2018. On June 19, 2019, new sub-rules defining various categories and their reservation methods were introduced. Further amendments on May 10, 2023, established a 5% reservation for government school students. Despite these changes, issues arose during the allocation of seats for the 2023-24 academic session. Results of the NEET (UG) exam, conducted on May 7, 2023, were declared on June 13, 2023. Subsequently, an advisory on July 25, 2023, stated that the updated Admission Rules would apply to the counseling process. However, when several seats remained vacant after the second round of counseling, 77 out of 89 unreserved seats for government school students were transferred to the open category, sparking discontent among the appellants.

The appellants approached the High Court, arguing that the merit of reserved category candidates was being overlooked. On October 31, 2023, the High Court dismissed a similar petition, and on November 8, 2023, declined interim relief. The appellants' appeals were subsequently escalated to the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court, after hearing arguments from both sides, reserved judgment on August 12, 2024. An interim order was issued, directing the State to keep seven seats vacant for potential accommodation of the appellants should the Court rule in their favor.

The Supreme Court’s judgment emphasized the principle that meritorious candidates from reserved categories should not be denied seats in the open category if their merit warrants such placement. This principle, established in the case of Saurav Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and reiterated in Sadhana Singh Dangi v. Pinki Asati, was found to be violated by the State’s application of horizontal and vertical reservations. The Court observed that the State’s methodology of further subclassifying government school students into various categories and restricting meritorious reserved category candidates from UR-GS seats was incorrect. Consequently, the Court directed that the appellants be admitted in the next academic session (2024-25) against the UR-GS quota seats.

The Supreme Court’s decision rectifies the earlier misapplication of reservation policies and upholds the merit-based admission principle. The ruling underscores the importance of fair and just allocation of seats, ensuring that meritorious students from reserved categories are not disadvantaged by procedural errors. The State of Madhya Pradesh has been directed to comply with this judgment, and seven seats have been reserved to accommodate the appellants in the upcoming academic session.

The appeals have been allowed, and the previous judgments by the High Court have been set aside. The State is now required to admit the appellants in the MBBS course for the 2024-25 academic year against the seats reserved for the UR-GS category.