Gauhati High Court stays Kohima Bench order on MBBS quota seat dispute involving army officer’s daughter in Nagaland.
Share
DIMAPUR — The Gauhati High Court has stayed a Kohima Bench ruling that required the Nagaland government to offer a medical seat under the MBBS central pool quota to Vatsala Panghal, daughter of an army colonel posted in Kohima.
A division bench of Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury ordered that the Kohima Bench’s August 14 judgement will “remain in abeyance” for now, with one MBBS seat to be held back and filled only after the appeal is concluded.
Background
For 2025–26, Nagaland had 152 MBBS seats, including 42 seats allocated by the Centre from the central pool for states lacking adequate medical facilities. Panghal, daughter of the Commanding Officer of 1 Nagaland Battalion NCC, scored 455 in NEET, higher than the second-ranked candidate in the state merit list. However, her name was omitted from the list of provisionally selected candidates.
She filed two writ petitions in the Kohima Bench—one challenging the omission and another questioning the Higher and Technical Education (HTE) department’s 2021 notification requiring certain candidates to have “appeared/passed Class-X/XII or equivalent from any school within Nagaland, and his/her parents should have been residing and posted at Nagaland for at least three years or more.”
The petitioner argued that the 2021 notification was contrary to Union Health Ministry guidelines, which require equal treatment of wards of central/state government employees and local residents, with selection based solely on merit. Counsel for the Union of India supported her eligibility, noting that under the July 28, 2025, Office Memorandum, she fell within the category of wards of central government employees posted in Nagaland.
The single judge, Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita, had ruled that the 2021 notification “totally excludes” wards of central government employees posted in Nagaland, except All India Service officers, and was therefore contrary to the July 2025 guidelines and Article 14. He directed the Directorate of Technical Education to allot the vacant central pool seat to Panghal.
State’s appeal
In both the Kohima Bench and the Principal Bench, Nagaland government, which appealed against the single judge’s August 14 directive, argued that Panghal was not entitled to a Nagaland quota seat solely on the basis of her father’s one-year posting in the state. Referring to the 42 MBBS seats allocated to Nagaland for 2025–26, it submitted: “It would be difficult to allot one seat to the respondent … merely on the basis of her father having been posted in Nagaland for one year.”
The state also maintained that it had the power to frame eligibility criteria for recommending candidates and contended that guidelines from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare were “directory in nature.” As a preliminary objection, it pointed out that there were an “equal number of MBBS seats (42)” earmarked separately for wards of military officers.
Student bodies’ objections
Meanwhile, the case has triggered strong reactions in Nagaland, with the Naga Students’ Federation (NSF) objecting to the candidature, saying it was duty-bound to “safeguard the rights, privileges, and opportunities meant for the indigenous people of Nagaland.” It argued that the candidate was not indigenous, did not belong to any recognised scheduled tribe of Nagaland, and therefore could not claim the state quota.
The NSF also staged a sit-in protest on August 19 at Kohima, warning that allowing such candidature “would set a dangerous precedent, depriving deserving indigenous Naga students of their rightful opportunities.”
Read more: Naga Students’ Federation protest candidature of non-Naga for MBBS seat under state quota
The Nagaland Medical Students’ Association (NMSA) also raised objections, stating that the candidate was a permanent resident of Haryana and “neither a bonafide resident nor an indigenous inhabitant of Nagaland.” It stated that using a temporary posting to claim a Nagaland quota seat was “untenable and in direct violation of the very spirit of reservation policy.”
Both organisations have demanded disqualification of the candidature and stricter verification of indigenous inhabitant and scheduled tribe certificates for all applicants under the state quota.
With the High Court’s stay in place, one MBBS seat will remain vacant until the appeal is decided. The court has given time for the respondent to contest the state’s appeal, with the next hearing scheduled for September 8.