Parents lock horns with GMCH over ‘75% all-India quota’ in PG seats

A controversy has erupted over postgraduate (PG) admissions at the Government Medical College and Hospital (GMCH-32) with the parents of MBBS graduates accusing the institution of violating the National Medical Commission (NMC) norms and Supreme Court (SC) directives by allocating an “unprecedented” 75% of PG seats under the All-India Quota (AIQ).

Under the existing national framework, PG seats across India are to be equally split — 50% to the AIQ and the rest to the State or Institutional Pool (IP). In Chandigarh, the 50% state share was further subdivided into 25% for domicile candidates and 25% for GMCH’s own institutional students.

However, the situation changed drastically after the SC ruling on January 29, which invalidated domicile-based quotas. Following this, the Chandigarh Administration decided to allocate the now-abolished 18 domicile seats along with the existing 18 IP seats entirely to the institutional pool — effectively maintaining the original 50-50 division between AQI and IP. This decision was backed by a legal opinion and even mentioned in an affidavit submitted to the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

When some state-quota students challenged this decision in the court, the High Court dismissed their plea and upheld the Administration’s stance, clearly instructing that the remaining seats must be filled through the IP pool in accordance with the SC judgment and the affidavit filed.

However, in a surprising U-turn, the UT Administration sought another legal opinion, and despite no change in legal advice, it began the counselling process by dividing the 36 state quota seats equally — 18 through the IP pool and 18 through the AIQ. This move effectively increased AIQ seats from the mandated 50% to an inflated 75%, sparking an outrage.

The parents alleged that the move defied both the SC’s earlier directions and the NMC norms, which clearly cap the AIQ allocation at 50%. They claim this new seat matrix unfairly reduces opportunities for institutional candidates and raises serious questions of transparency, equity and compliance.

Despite GMCH’s justification — based on legal counsel and internal decisions — the parents argue the institution’s actions have undermined the spirit of the law. With a third round of counselling now underway, the dispute continues to generate anxiety and confusion among PG aspirants across the region. Many allege that the GMCH intentionally delayed the process creating confusion, just to find some loophole within the legal system to adjust state-quota students. By further fragmenting IP quota and increasing seats in AIQ, it also hindered the transparent process of counselling.

Just after the SC ruling in January 29, the UT Administration went on to seek clarification from the court, which was dismissed on March 24 with Rs 10,000 fine and an order to commence third counselling as soon as possible. The SC called it “misconceived” and reiterated that its ruling was unambiguous. The court stated, “It was absolutely clear that residence-based reservations were not permissible for postgraduate seats in medical colleges and that only institutional preference, to a limited extent, is allowed.”

Despite consulting the Supreme Court and the High Court, the Administration as well as the GMCH, in clear violation of the order, converted the UT pool seats (state quota) into AIQ. It is as per the notice issued on institute’s website on June 3.